Emma O Reilly

[thom]

Not yet - but that is why it is a question, and why Armstrong is passing out titbits to assess the depth of the water

Hopefully there will be no compromise, but in the future there may be diffrent circumstances

It only remains a question for as long as anyone takes any notice of him.

I dunno - it just doesn't seem to me to be a real risk, particularly as there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest something underhand might occur now. More so something of a conspiracy mentality and if I might say so, a rather tedious speculative one.

Cookson is not stupid and is not going to risk tarnishing his presidency.

 

[Crackle]

Cookson will also be well aware of what he's said about Armstrong before he became president. If he isn't I am.

 

[ufkacbln]

It only remains a question for as long as anyone takes any notice of him.

.. or he keeps pushing himself forward and generating that attention.

He is a shrewd and astute political animal and exploiting his own agenda

 

[ufkacbln]

I dunno - it just doesn't seem to me to be a real risk, particularly as there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest something underhand might occur now. More so something of a conspiracy mentality and if I might say so, a rather tedious speculative one.

Cookson is not stupid and is not going to risk tarnishing his presidency.

I am NOT suggesting underhand - but there is a record of negotiated amnesties

 

[Crackle]

I am NOT suggesting underhand - but there is a record of negotiated amnesties

Only USADA have the authority to change the terms of his ban, it's not up to the UCI or Wada except through a CAS appeal.

 

[thom]

I but there is a record of negotiated amnesties

and there was me, never knew how to suck an egg...

 

[Kevin Alexander]

Just ordered this for birthday

View attachment 32755 I have nearly finished reading this book. It's really pretty difficult to think that LA is anything other than a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

 

[ufkacbln]

and there was me, never knew how to suck an egg...

So pleased to have helped then!

 

[ufkacbln]

Only USADA have the authority to change the terms of his ban, it's not up to the UCI or Wada except through a CAS appeal.

... and the USADA is on record of being in favour of amnesty

In September 2012 the UCI suggested an amnesty programme for those giving evidence and Travis Tygart of the USADA is on record as saying:

"The USADA would support such a program"
“We’re glad they are open to the idea which, under the right structure, is the solution to truly cleaning up the sport,”

 

[Crackle]

... and the USADA is on record of being in favour of amnesty

In September 2012 the UCI suggested an amnesty programme for those giving evidence and Travis Tygart of the USADA is on record as saying:

We know this and his more up to date pronouncements as well.

What has Armstrong got left that we don't know, riddle me that?

 

[rich p]

... and the USADA is on record of being in favour of amnesty

In September 2012 the UCI suggested an amnesty programme for those giving evidence and Travis Tygart of the USADA is on record as saying:

My memory isn't what it was, but was this before or after the USADA Reasoned Decision was released?

 

[oldroadman]

Mr Tygart and USADA are getting a record of contradicting themselves. Fisrt there might be amnesty, then for some people, then maybe Armstrong, then not for Armstrong. Very baffling, unless of course at some point they are thinking they migt take an action which can then be referred back to "we said on so and so date that we may do this". Of course, others might then say "and on another day you said you would not". Wonderful thing, politics and backside covering.

 

[hopless500]

He is till playing games, and as Oldroadman says he is still trying to get let of.

He may eventually name names or give evidence, but it will be on his terms, and to his advantage

That is why he is still offering little bits of information (nothing new) as bait.

Very very manipulative man who cares only for himself.

 

[ufkacbln]

My memory isn't what it was, but was this before or after the USADA Reasoned Decision was released?

IIRC the Reasoned Decision was in October - so before.

However one is a generic statement covering generalised abuse of PED, the other a specific statement about one individual - so the two are not mutually exclusive

It becomes even more complicated when the UCI started talking about amnesties again in January of this year.... does the previous avowed support still stand - or not?



As Oldroadman says - the goalposts keep changing

 

[clockman]

I have just got into cycling but obviously know of Lance Armstrong and the rumours but I think (in my opinion) he is being sincere and the way he is now conducting himself is admirable, a lot of people would come out and try and deflect the blame and start to bring in all the names but he is only naming people who told the truth and he done wrong by.

I still think he is an inspiration but only for his dedication to training. I watched a video the other day and he was out training and he was told to stop x amount of miles up the road due to snow and he was so stubborn that he wasnt wanting to stop.

But he was high on illegal drugs to do the training!

he's a bullying thug who only cares about himself. he didn't give a toss about Emma when he attacked her, repeatedly, in the press. he cared not that he may ruin her life when he launched his attack. he is only sorry he was caught.

i do wish journos would just leave him, he thrives on the oxygen of (self) publicity. let him suffocate.

I feel we should just ignore him. Difficult I know. Personally, I will avoid company's that supported him to the end. Trek and Nike in particular. Maybe they felt they had to show support till the end, despite mounting evidence.

Has anybody read the David Walsh article from cycle sport, which kicked off the lance doping roller coaster, ten or so years ago?