Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Though, I'm believing it now that the confession closes a chapter, A few things still linger in my heart about this whole thing.

A. They still can't prove, how he did it, how he was not caught for so many years, and barely proved that he did it, which in itself is not concrete.

B. It appears he is being forced to make all these statements, to do what? So he can be allowed to come back to sports again, his life's passion. If I'm a sportsmen, of that degree, I might would be vulnerable to blackmail if they took my one passion away.

C. After I read his Wiki page, it appears, to be case of sour grapes for some of his competitors, who pursued these charges against him over and over again. I mean, ok, we know now they were right, but what before that? They were no forensic experts, all the accusations were based on doubt and jealousy back then.

D. There is something terribly wrong with how this case has been pursued legally, a lot of things don't sum up. Like until 2009, UCI had him clear in a row with a doping official, at least officially, meaning, if any doubts, they were not being actively pursued by UCI. The biggest bolts in this story were by 2 of his former subordinates, who were both "Fired" before turning hostile. And it was actually Times Newspaper, that followed it up with a reprint of a 2004 book in 2012 (8 years later), the same time when another newspaper 'interestingly' sued a sportsman, i.e Armstrong.




A. We know pretty well how he did it - all he needed to do was stay within the limits and there is considerable evidence that the UCI and testing labs were suggesting to him how to do that. When the UCI picked a max hematocrit number of 50%, it was an invitation to the athletes to dope up to that limit. When he came back to competition in 2009 & 2010, the USADA report clearly states that his blood passport profile shows almost certain non-legal manipulation.

B. He isn't being forced to do anything. He had the opportunity to challenge USADA's report in arbitration; he declined and again denied he had ever doped. Going on TV to speak with a talk-show host after you have retired is not a coerced move, especially to say that you have been lying for 15 years. Yes, he may want to return to some kind of competition (triathlons) and needs his life sentenced to be reduced to the minimum 8 years to do this. But oh look, he says the last time he ever doped was 2005 (not when he raced in 2009 or 2010, how about that?), which would mean he could return to sport in 2013.

C. George Hincapie never tested positive either, had an even longer career than Armstrong and was a long-time friend of Armstrong. He admitted to doping for years and testified against Lance. There's a rather simple truth here and it isn't driven by doubt and jealousy.

D. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. But I imagine it is similar to arguments made before about scored rivals and journalists seeking vengeance. I've followed pro cycling for many years now; the truth is much more boring. The sport was rife with drugs, Armstrong would do anything to win and I don't think to this day he thinks he did anything truly wrong.

I watched the movie "Shattered Glass" two nights ago. It had this great scene:

Caitlin Avey: What the hell did you do to Steve? He called me from his car, hysterical. I asked him what was wrong, he said, "ask Chuck?" Chuck Lane: I fired him, okay? Not suspended, fired. Because this wasn't an isolated incident Caitlin. He cooked a dozen of them, maybe more. And we're going to have to go through them, you and I. We're going to have to go through all of them, now. Caitlin Avey: No, the only one was Hack Heaven. He told me that himself. Chuck Lane: If he were a stranger to you, if he was a guy you were doing a piece about, pretend that guy told you he'd only did it once. Would you take his word for it? Of course not! You'd dig and you'd bury him! And you'd feel offended if anyone told you not to.

-----


I will check the movie out, well, I only said what I said, on a "what if" basis.

A. Indeed they have a idea of how he did it, but not exactly how, 7 years without getting caught is not something, you can only pull off with the little bit of sophistication you described.

B. He is being forced partially, from what I read, he has been given a lifetime ban from all competitive sports, unless he confesses it under oath and names accomplice.

C. Indeed its valid, what you said about Goerge Hincapie, but it is as same as saying, "You are a criminal if your neighbor is a criminal"

D. What I meant is that, that it was not UCI that were actively pursuing the case of Armstrong at least until 2009, but, it was reopened in 2012, after Times published a extract of a book written in 2004, which contained statements of Lance's ex-masseuse, who made these allegation without concrete proof herself, and was fired EARLIER for reasons unknown. The second big statement was by another Ex-employee, his personal trainer.

Check the Lance's wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong

-----




Applications are open for YC Summer 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: