On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > (SNIP) B) he apparently wants to compete in > > biathlons and other kinds of races, many of which are sanctioned by > > organizations that have banned him. There is some hope that if he comes > > clean he will be able to get off the banned list earlier (though I think > I > > read it won't be any time real soon no matter what he does). > > I've heard this tossed about, and I don't buy this one at all. > Armstrong has, over the last few years, organized spur-of-the-moment > cycling events in cities all over the world on Twitter. Disgraced or > not, sanctioned or not, if he wanted to create "The Lance Armstrong > Triathlon," he could and people would show up to compete, regardless > of lifetime bans by ridiculous committees. (SNIP) > The reports are that it is important to Armstrong to compete in internationally sanctioned and recognized races, presumably to show that he can be a world class athlete even without banned substances, or maybe to satisfy some inner drive for elite level competition. He is not going to be able to create that kind of competition on his own. > > > I disagree a little with your premise - I think the evidence that he was > > doping is very strong - strong enough to stand up in court, and does not > > rely only on the testimony of co-conspirators. I think his lawyers got > some > > indication that they would be able to get a better deal from various > > prosecuting authorities, and maybe even a walk, if he comes clean and > then > > names names. > > I've seen no evidence other than the words of former teammates and > others within the world of cycling. If they had a positive test to > point to, they'd be pointing to it. Hell, the positive test would have > its own talk show. There is a sample from the late 90s that was frozen and later re-analyzed and found to have (I think) EPO - there had been no test for EPO when the sample was first taken. Also, the data that is part of what they call the "biological passport" has been interpreted as clearly showing evidence of doping. That evidence, in conjunction with testimony from co-conspirators and various employees, makes a very strong case. Interestingly, last night Armstrong made a big deal of insisting that while he did cheat in all 7 of his Tour victories, he was completely clean in his two comeback Tours. It was not clear why it was so important to him to make this point, but I have read today some speculation that it has to do with the statute of limitations on various possible charges in the US. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
