Lance Armstrong interview airings & discussions.

[StuAff]

The limitation period differs between civil and criminal actions so I wasn't suggesting Armstorng is legally untouchable, but seems to be safe from perjury charges for his 2005 deposition

Agreed, you weren't suggesting he was completely in the clear. But he still could, at least according to some, face perjury charges for that deposition (assuming the feds went down that route)....

 

[StuAff]

I would say he knows almost exactly what the financial cost will be, and was prepared and capable of paying it. From the outside the only risk he could not factor was the FBI and perjury, but knowing his personality he probably had that base covered. All the other costs are his stake money on a gamble on getting a reduced ban, even with the sublimal message of being happy if he was able to run the Chicago marathon at 51 (ten year ban).

It remains to be seen, but I can't help thinking that would be wishful thinking on his part. Very wishful.

 

[yello]

Opinions seem to differ as to whether LA is completely immune or not from perjury charges.

You're right. I'm not keeping up to date with it all these days but I have been surprised that some articles seem to assume he is likely to face perjury charges, which was not my understanding. You'd have thought something like that was cut and dried but seemingly not.

I'd assumed that amongst the numerous reasons that Armstrong didn't speak to USADA was that those conversations would have been under oath and as such reset the SOL clock. A sporting ban would have been nothing in comparison to potential federal punishments (million $ fines, jail time).

Personally, I reckon any perjury will be let slide. I reckon he faces a more likely action from the whistleblower case and/or fraud/misuse of federal funds.

 

[StuAff]

Personally, I reckon any perjury will be let slide. I reckon he faces a more likely action from the whistleblower case and/or fraud/misuse of federal funds.

I agree. I'm sure most plaintiffs, current and potential, are more interested in compensation than incarceration. Unless they can get both, of course.

 

[raindog]

You're right.

ayup yello - get back to "spanners" quick

 

[Noodley]

[QUOTE 2266397, member: 45"]My only comments...

• I watched the confession bit at the start and was surprised at how angry he made me feel. I couldn't stick it for much longer after that
• He deserves a punch in the face for his answer to the "why now?" question

[/quote]


Would you not like to choose which chat show host you think would have been better?

 

[yello]

ayup yello - get back to "spanners" quick

[OT] - 'ow do raindog. Praps I ought, my rear dérailleur is in need of adjustment! [/OT]

 

[kedab]

[QUOTE 2266438, member: 45"]I don't think he'd have done it with anyone he couldn't control. So that's Brit interviewers out.[/quote]

i reckon Parky would've stopped selling insurance for a bit if they'd asked him

 

[Noodley]

i reckon Parky would've stopped selling insurance for a bit if they'd asked him

He coulda taken a free Parker pen with him to stab Lance in the leg with.

 

[yello]

He coulda taken a free Parker pen with him to stab Lance in the leg with.

Just as well he wasn't interviewed by someone called Dickinson then

 

[Kies]

This is becoming ridiculous in deciding which chat show host people would prefer.
Russell Harty, Parky, Mrs Merton?
Armstrong should be talking to WADA, USADA or even the UCI before he does the late night sofas.

I agree, but that isn't what was happening.

 

[Radchenister]

A little light relief:

 

[Silver Fox]

Really? - I felt that was was he was trying to present, he was trying to come across as a caring father and family man. It seemed calculated as did his emotional reaction when talking about this.
This is the same family man who walked out on his wife when a sniff of Sheryl Crow came along.. If he cared about family, he should name the people who assisted him.. Knud Jensen, Tom Simpson and others who died from doping were someone's son, brother, friend and family.
Lance needs to remember this a not only needs to ensure that no rider dies unnecessarily in the future but he needs to set the correct example to his children.
Sadly In terms of the Interview I felt his children were no different to EPO used in the tours in as much as they were nothing more than a means to get the result Lance desired

I'm not defending him, far from it, I think the bloke is a turd of the highest order. The point I'm making is post Oprah, his actions will speaker louder than words.

 

[edindave]

The interviews gave me a bit of a deja vu - I instantly thought about Fred Goodwin, post the 2008 bank bailout. It's as if it's not that he regrets what he did, it's the fact that the masterplan went wrong that's the issue for him.

 

[ufkacbln]

This is becoming ridiculous in deciding which chat show host people would prefer.
Russell Harty, Parky, Mrs Merton?
Armstrong should be talking to WADA, USADA or even the UCI before he does the late night sofas.

But as Loco has pointed out and I have mentioned on other threads.

This is a sales pitch and a teaser. WADA is out there offering a reduced ban and that is what Armstrong is playing for.

Take the "alleged" UCI bribe. It will take a lomg time to prove whether it was or wasn't but if Armstrong states it was a bribe - case closed

Unacceptable to some, and we will see varying levels of outrage, but the question is how far the WADA are willing to bargain to get this information?