Home
Reportedly told friends he would publicly acknowledge his cheating… but there are likely to be strings attached

Lance Armstrong could publically admit his secret doping and cheating that led him to seven Tour titles, in a bid to stage a comeback into sport.

A public confession could see him returning to competition - Armstrong had latterly been competing in triathlons following his second retirement from competitive cycing - in less than four years, as opposed to the lifetime ban he now faces.

According to the New York Times, Armstrong has met Travis Tygart, chief executive of the United States Anti-Doping Authority (USADA), to discuss a confession

And a friend added that he had also sought to meet David Howman, the director general of the World Anti-Doping Agency,although the paper said that Tygart declined to comment and Mr Howman was unavailable for comment. Both claims were denied by Armstrong's lawyer, Tim Herman.

An admission might mean that Armstrong was able to begin competing again, while he is still being pursued for damages. The Sunday Times has sued him for the return of money paid for him to settle a libel claim. In 2006, the newspaper paid Armstrong £300,000 in an out-of-court settlement relating to its publication in 2004 of allegations that he doped - it could cost him £1 million.

The financial impact of the Sunday Times action however amounts to little more than small change when set against the money he is already being asked to repay by the Texan insurance company SCA promotions - a figure put at $12m dollars; and the amount the he will have to pay the United States Postal Service should a federal whistleblower case brought by Floyd Landis be successful. The Landis suit alleges that Tailwind Sports, the team management company, of which Armstrong was part owner, defrauded the US Government over the terms of its sponsorship agreement because undertakings were given that the team was not engaged in any form of doping. The US Postal Service paid $30 million to be title sponsor of Armstrong's team from 1999 to 2004 when he 'won' five of his Tour titles. As yet Armstrong's personal and team sponsors have not publicly at least asked for their money back.

That would change should Armstrong confess particularly were he to face a perjury charge over evidence he gave  under oath that he did not take performance enhancing drugs when he sued SCA over money it withheld from paying out in relation to insured win bonuses.

However what worries Armstrong and his lawyers most, according to the New York Times' sources is the prospect of perjury charges should he confess. A conviction would entail jail time and if a confession hadn't already triggered a tidal wave of litigation from former sponsors a perjury case certainly would. That would spell financial ruin for the Texan who has lost $50 million in sponsorship deals since his fall from grace and although his fortune is considerable it still at best only adds up to roughly the same as the amounts he could be sued for… at a conservative estimate.

No surprise then that Armstrong is reported to be be seeking assurances from the Justice Department that he would be immune from prosecution those assurances might be difficult to give if the US Government joins Landis as a plaintiff in the USPS funding case.

Judged dispassionately the New York Times story could be seen as an attempt by Armstrong and his associates to test the waters regarding a possible confession or partial confession while still keeping things at arms length from the man himself. The need to keep all this discussion at the level of unnamed associates while accompanied by denials from his lawyer is the simple fact that once  Armstrong or his legal team enter in to discussions about a confession they are admitting his guilt to the charges made against him by USADA and so many of his former teammates.

After an unpromising start, having to be bribed by her parents to learn to ride without stabilisers, Sarah became rather keener on cycling in her university years, and was eventually persuaded to upgrade to proper road cycling by the prospect of a shiny red Italian bike, which she promptly destroyed by trapping a pair of knickers in the rear derailleur. Sarah writes about about cycling every weekend on road.cc.

37 comments

Avatar
crazy-legs [941 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Wow, there's some real vitriol on this thread!

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde [1820 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
Carl wrote:

I read another good comment on the subject and thought it was worth sharing

http://read.bi/VBMtgq

By Henry Blodget (who knows a bit about downfall and redemption himself)

Interesting article and I think it does much to show how Armstrong's moral compass is off route. I have to say though that this does look like Armstrong has realised that he will be facing financial ruin and this is probably the best way to protect what he has. The mention of triathlon competition is only a smoke screen for the main issue, which is: how can Lance Armstrong limit his liability to legal and criminal prosecution.

Armstrong is no saint, and as Blodget says, only if he addresses some of the wrongs will he start to deserve redemption. As for his stand point, I think it is very week at the moment. Basically the Feds and USADA have pretty much all the information they needed, and so why do they need Armstrong's additional testimony/confession.

This latest statement appears to be no more than a PR stunt to test the water and probably put pressure on Travis Tygart. Just like Armstrong's fabled 500 drugs tests, who knows if anything that he has said is true.

Avatar
step-hent [726 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

There is, of course, one possible good thing to come of an Armstrong confession - IF the UCI were complicit in his doping over the years, and Armstrong is able to provide evidence (and I don't just mean testimony given now, I mean actual contemporaneous evidence) then we might get more credible and ethical leadership at the UCI. Pat and Hein might well be bricking it at the sound of this.

From Armstrong's side, there has to be more to it. He's not doing it to race triathlon as an age-grouper, so it must be for either (a) a money making enterprise (race organiser?) or (b) political aspirations. Could get interesting.

Avatar
Simmo72 [672 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

I'm no Armstrong lover but why has Riis,Ulrich, Pantani and Contador and co been allowed to keep their wins? I mean Armstrong didn't test positive during an event he won so what is different. Witness reports but no actual released scientific evidence. What am I missing? Yes Armstrong is the icon of his era but it we are going to wipe records then lets do it consistantly, which means anything from 1996 to 2006 is removed as all Winners have been touched by juicing at some point in their career.

Do you think Armstrong will come clean via a press release or will he do it on tv hugging Stiller and Williams and all the other celebs that kissed his ****.

Avatar
Leviathan [2863 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
Simmo72 wrote:

Armstrong didn't test positive during an event he won so what is different. Witness reports but no actual released scientific evidence.

Yes, strange that the UCI aren't frantically trying to dig up an old fail that was overlooked.

Avatar
The Rumpo Kid [589 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
Simmo72 wrote:

I'm no Armstrong lover but why has Riis,Ulrich, Pantani and Contador and co been allowed to keep their wins? I mean Armstrong didn't test positive during an event he won so what is different. Witness reports but no actual released scientific evidence. What am I missing? Yes Armstrong is the icon of his era but it we are going to wipe records then lets do it consistantly, which means anything from 1996 to 2006 is removed as all Winners have been touched by juicing at some point in their career.

Armstrong's case is peculiar in that he refused to answer the charges against him and this in itself led to the life ban. If you read USADA's "Reasoned Decision" you will see there is more against him than "witness reports".
Incidentally, Pantani never tested positive either. He did have a suspiciously high haematocrit level (i.e. high enough to get him disqualified), but that in itself is not biologically impossible (as Phil Liggett will tell you). Besides which, stripping a dead man of his palmares seems a bit like digging up Oliver Cromwell to be beheaded.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde [1820 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
step-hent wrote:

There is, of course, one possible good thing to come of an Armstrong confession - IF the UCI were complicit in his doping over the years, and Armstrong is able to provide evidence (and I don't just mean testimony given now, I mean actual contemporaneous evidence) then we might get more credible and ethical leadership at the UCI. Pat and Hein might well be bricking it at the sound of this.

From Armstrong's side, there has to be more to it. He's not doing it to race triathlon as an age-grouper, so it must be for either (a) a money making enterprise (race organiser?) or (b) political aspirations. Could get interesting.

Too right, the ability to squirm out of any legal and criminal charges must be at the forefront of his mind. Anything to limit his liability. This is not about a Armstrong doing any soul searching on his part. He has no remorse. He's already made that clear.

The Triathlon thing is just a smoke screen for what is his real vested interest, how to reduce the damage.

Interesting thoughts about the damage UCI may be hit with as colateral from any 'coming clean'. Armstrong owes cycling nothing now (from his perspective), and so why not let the bonfire of the vanities begin!

Pages