Armstrong charged and banned
- Thread starter yello
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I see Hamilton as nothing more than a snitch on the make. A Judas awaiting his 30 pieces of silver which is EXACTLY what discredits him as a witness. I'm keeping my powder dry about the other one but it seems a lot of people are pre-justifying the cost of buying (into) Hamilton's book. Of course I'm going to read it but anyone with two functioning brain cells knows the score with Pharmstrong so all Hamilton's book will do is stoke the flames and give ammunition to both sides in the pro and anti-Lance brigades. How juicy!
Interesting that he describes himself as a former Olympic Gold Medalist despite having surrendered his medal last year and being stripped of it this year by the IOC. Does that make Armstrong a former seven times winner of the TdeF?
Worth reading his Wikipedia entry to see how much of a doper he was and all of the evidence is post leaving USPS. If Armstrong taught him how to dope without getting caught he certainly didn't learn anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Hamilton#Olympic_gold_and_doping_confession
#32 on the Amazon Top 100 Books list before its even been published. Who said he wasn't going to make millions out of it?
mickle
innit
- Location
- 53.933606, -1.076131
FFS.
Most likely he met up with the co-author, a surprise surprise Sunday Times journalist, who had spent 2005 with the Tour writing his eulogy of Armstrong while not spotting anything untoward, and about Hamilton, Ulrich etc. There is an interesting comment in an Amazon review of one of the two virtually identical books he published on Armstrong:
"We see how Armstrong has to contend with more than just winning the Tour de France; he has to contend with the multitude enemies, seemingly lead by journalist David Walsh, that are just out to get him: those that want to `prove' that he took performance enhancing drugs and in doing so make there own fortunes."
Maybe or maybe like David Walsh's publishers they did the calculations. But from the reviews so far it seems he's accused everyone in cycling of that era and made himself a victim of them.
Whatever is in there though was clearly not credible enough for the Grand Jury to proceed with a prosecution of anyone.
The co-author knows what sells to publishers. It appears he spent 18 months interviewing Hamilton before writing it and had planned to launch it on Armstrong's birthday (nice!) but then the story broke and they brought it forward.
Are you saying Armstrong was a victim too? After all he could have had no expectation of seven wins (which is what made all the money for him) when he was setting out for his first and second win.
He is. If he wants to confess his own sins in public, that's his prerogative but to confess someone ELSE'S sins, that's the mark of a Judas. Not meaning to be all biblical or anything but some things just bring contempt and grassing your fellow conspirator up is one of them.
thom
____
- Location
- The Borough
You're doing cycling a disservice cycling by refusing to accept that the reality is that the Armstrong case is key to unveiling the abuse of the system.
I'm sorry, I don't agree with your analysis on various factual points. Let's leave it at that.
[QUOTE 2017770, member: 45"]If I've got this right, we're now down-playing the faults of one drug user by up-playing those of another.[/quote]
Which is what happens when the fixation is with the personality and not the actual evidence.
If you argue that Hamilton's evidence against Armstrong is tainted by motive and dismiss it then do you accept the evidence against the others as well?
If this happens then the Armstrong / Hamilton feud is only going to divert attention from the other riders (allegedly) taking part in systematic abuse of drugs in cycling.
What should be happening is that the allegations in the book should be treated as that and investigated.
Which is what happens when the fixation is with the personality and not the actual evidence.
If you argue that Hamilton's evidence against Armstrong is tainted by motive and dismiss it then do you accept the evidence against the others as well?
If this happens then the Armstrong / Hamilton feud is only going to divert attention from the other riders (allegedly) taking part in systematic abuse of drugs in cycling.
What should be happening is that the allegations in the book should be treated as that and investigated.
I am not denying that Armstrong is the way in, it is simply that I am concerned that much of the real story is going to be hidden in the noise.
In the meanwhile, can I refer you back to an earlier post where my position on Armstrong being the key?
(My emphasis)
Hardly refusing to accept that Armstrong is the key!
The difference is that I want to look at the wider picture.
They already have. His story has been given under sworn testimony to a Grand Jury. They found insufficient evidence in it to do anything. It would be interesting to see what he said under oath because either he was prepared to say a lot lot less under oath or the Grnad Jury found him not to be a credible witness.
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
And you think these guys all operate in a little bubble, with no-one else involved? And why should he effectively lie again, by covering up for Armstrong & co?
- Status
