Lance Armstrong calls it quits in fight against doping charges

[lifetime fan]

The "buts" have already started.

 

3 and a half minutes in.

[Josef Svejk]

"Yes, I cheated, but... but... but...".

 

That's going to be it, isn't it?

 

Quick mention of cancer, too.

[lifetime fan]

My drug of choice of was EPO, but not a lot.

[lifetime fan]

You could justify the testosterone due to the cancer.

 

Nice one Oprah, you stupid fucking slag.

[lifetime fan]

I've not doped since 05.

[Josef Svejk]

The "Yes/No" segment in the first minute or two was worthwhile. After that, Armstrong has been equivocating, justifying, and even denying...

[lifetime fan]

The "Yes/No" segment in the first minute or two was worthwhile. After that, Armstrong has been equivocating, justifying, and even denying...

 

 

Should have ended the interview there.

[lifetime fan]

I'm not the most believable guy in the world right now, I understand that. But no...

[Josef Svejk]

As someone said on the Independent blog, he's going to claim that he's been clean for seven years or more, rode two tours in that time, has now come clean, and deserves another chance or a measure of understanding...

[lifetime fan]

I was a bully.

[lifetime fan]

As someone said on the Independent blog, he's going to claim that he's been clean for seven years or more, rode two tours in that time, has now come clean, and deserves another chance or a measure of understanding...

 

 

Yep.

[lifetime fan]

Is he really going to try and fucking blame this on his cancer???

[Josef Svejk]

Ok, I get it: he's claiming that "I was a victim of this beautiful, but impossible, story".

[lifetime fan]

Get the quote in about Mom being a fighter? Check.

[lifetime fan]

Everyone was doped, we all had the same drugs, I was just the best...

[Josef Svejk]

I don't think he's capable of being completely honest about all of this. Obviously, he has reason not to want to be: principally, in support of the (easily refutable) "everyone was doing it" argument. But he doesn't strike me as someone who could be completely honest even if there were no reason not to be.

[Josef Svejk]

"Some speculation around that Armstrong's claim he stopped doping in 2005 is remarkably convenient: the statute of limitations is seven years..." (Independent blog)

[lifetime fan]

"Some speculation around that Armstrong's claim he stopped doping in 2005 is remarkably convenient: the statute of limitations is seven years..." (Independent blog)

 

 

Funny timing of this interview? No chance.

[lifetime fan]

I don't think he's capable of being completely honest about all of this. Obviously, he has reason not to want to be: principally, in support of the (easily refutable) "everyone was doing it" argument. But he doesn't strike me as someone who could be completely honest even if there were no reason not to be.

 

 

He just doesn't want to be honest in my opinion.

[Josef Svejk]

He just doesn't want to be honest in my opinion.

 

As I say, he has good reason not to want to be. But it's quite conceivable that he believes he was the very best of a drug-using generation: a great survivor and winner on a level playing field. Winfrey is letting him get away with such claims, she doesn't really have the knowledge to challenge him on them...

[lifetime fan]

No chance he's going to take anyone down like the UCI or Ferari.

[lifetime fan]

As I say, he has good reason not to want to be. But it's quite conceivable that he believes he was the very best of a drug-using generation: a great survivor and winner on a level playing field. Winfrey is letting him get away with such claims, she doesn't really have the knowledge to challenge him on them...

 

 

Without legal reasons to still lie I reckon he still would be.

 

 

You see him squirm when Walsh was named?

[lifetime fan]

It didn't feel wrong.

I didn't feel bad.

I didn't feel I was cheating.

[Josef Svejk]

Walsh and co. are still the bad guys. Ferrari is "a good man"...

[lifetime fan]

Bingo!

 

He's now said it was a level playing field.