Lance Armstrong Admits Everything

[Joe Canadian]

After vehemently denying everything for over a decade, it only 54 seconds for Armstrong to come clean, just wondering if he's being completely honest this time. ...

 

[HarryWeezer]

Here's my take in an editorial I wrote:

 

Redemption is a powerful concept in Christianity, offering absolution from past sins and salvation, "justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:24.)

 

Some, through their faith, will view Lance Armstrong as on the path to redemption by admitting he cheated to gain fame and riches, then lied about it for years. One pundit wrote, "Only one way out of this mess, Lance Armstrong. America can love a fallen hero, but only if he admits the fall and apologizes for lying about it. Do those two things, Lance Armstrong, and we’ll love you again."

 

No, we should not.

 

Forgiveness may come to those sincere in seeking it, who offer lifelong sacrifice in the cause of absolution. But that is not Lance Armstrong, who has demonstrated he will say anything to keep fame and riches, whose objective is to persuade the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) to lift a lifetime ban and allow him to compete once again.

 

The head of USADA is Travis Tygart, interviewed for "60 Minutes Sports" by Scott Pelley:

 

PELLEY: Some of the words that you used in outlining your case (against Armstrong) were "drug possession," "trafficking," "cover-up," "conspiracy." You described Lance Armstrong as, quote, "the enforcer" end quote. Why’d you use those words? What led you to describe it in that way? It, it reads like a mafia conspiracy.

 

TYGART: Scott, we heard the evidence. We heard the stories from the athletes. And it supported, without question, every allegation that we put in that letter that, obviously, now has been shown to be true.

 

PELLEY: And so when Lance Armstrong essentially threw in the towel after all this, you were surprised? Not surprised?

 

TYGART: Not surprised. Again, we were disappointed he didn’t come in and be part of the solution. It’s one of the lowest days of this investigation, quite honestly. But we knew, when he rejected that opportunity for redemption and to be part of the solution at that time, that this was his only option, to avoid all this evidence from ever coming through in open court.

 

PELLEY: If you had an opportunity to have that meeting with Lance Armstrong, you could say one thing to him, what would it be?

 

TYGART: It’s never too late to tell the truth and make it right.

 

Yes, it is.

 

Armstrong’s confession comes after months of meetings with his attorneys to decide a course of action after USADA stripped him of his Tour de France titles. Even then, Armstrong lied, calling the ban a witch hunt and a vendetta. To shut him up, USADA released thousands of pages of documents including affidavits from a dozen former teammates who verified the doping.

 

Even the confession was a subject of discussion according to the Wall Street Journal, with options ranging from doing so in a newspaper interview, to a documentary, to a book. In a meeting with USADA, "Tygart told Armstrong he had already had his chance to come clean and at best, if he gave full co-operation, the ban would be eight years. He told Armstrong he stood accused of offenses that stretched beyond doping to a cover-up marked by nearly 15 years of denials, threats and actions against anyone who told the truth about doping on the team. He told Armstrong all he (Armstrong) wanted to do was find a way to compete again. Armstrong said he would compete in unsanctioned races, hurled a profanity, and walked out."

 

This man used performanceenhancing drugs throughout his career, cheating to make millions off endorsements. His confession is the desperate act of someone who trashed his own teammates and attacked anyone telling the truth, who treated his fans as fools, who lied to children who idolized him, who continues to try to game the system.

 

The ban should never be lifted.

[baldie]

Not only that Harry what about all the people he sued who now turn out to be telling the truth........The courts should freeze all his assetes and divide them between these people who he has called in public liars...Now that would be real justice...

[Guybrush]

Not sure what to think. Competitively, he isn't the only one who doped. I'm willing to bet if an investigation was done on the top 25 of the most recent Tour De France, you might find that most if not all were also doping.

 

I won't question his motives or his integrity because I don't know him personally. I don't think it's fair to pass judgement on someone with such little information. I do know the good things that have come from his contributions to the cancer movement. Being stripped of your accomplishments as a professional athlete is a pretty demeaning way of leaving a legacy.

 

 

[Sonovabich]

Cheats should never profit..but unfortunately they do

[baldie]

Not sure what to think. Competitively, he isn't the only one who doped. I'm willing to bet if an investigation was done on the top 25 of the most recent Tour De France, you might find that most if not all were also doping.

 

I won't question his motives or his integrity because I don't know him personally. I don't think it's fair to pass judgement on someone with such little information. I do know the good things that have come from his contributions to the cancer movement. Being stripped of your accomplishments as a professional athlete is a pretty demeaning way of leaving a legacy.

This man lied cheated bullied and downright ripped off all his supporters and sponsors he was and is a fraud he has made 10's of millions from cheating if a company did this or a government then heads would roll and Jail term's would be handed out to all concerned.

Not only that what about all the true people who trained hard and were cheated out of success and fortune because of him and other cheats like him..

He has done damage to a sport again that will take years to recover from

[little_old_man]

I think all public figures, regardless if it's an athlete, a politician or simply somebody who stands to make money from doing something they claim is true, should be willing to submit to random polygraph tests. I wonder how it would go over if we did surprise lie detector tests on members of congress and the president as well as professional athletes?

 

People want their role models to tell the truth about what they've done and accomplished. If they can't pass a lie detector test, fire them.

Edited January 18, 2013 by little_old_man

[HarryWeezer]

Not only that Harry what about all the people he sued who now turn out to be telling the truth........The courts should freeze all his assetes and divide them between these people who he has called in public liars...Now that would be real justice...

 

In effect, that's what will happen. Those he libeled and otherwise attacked have civil causes of action and they will be pursued. Otherwise, the courts can't just seize property without due process. As well LOM, the constitution protects against illegal search, which is what a mandated lie detector test would be for persons not accused of any crime. Of course (not to veer into politics here) the constitution is violated repeatedly by government, for instance, every time a law enforcement agency seizes a vehicle, home, cash or other property on arrests for drug use or sales. This is a violation of the constitutional protection from seizure of private property without due process. A DUI traffic roadblock looking for drunk drivers violates the constitution in that it is an illegal search without cause. Some years ago, a college roommate of my daughter took her car while she was sleeping and was stopped and found to be driving revoked. They seized her car. It wasn't his car and he in effect stold it. Nonetheless, it cost me $600 for my attorney to get it back. But I got that back the following year by lying on my income tax.

[Guybrush]

A DUI traffic roadblock looking for drunk drivers violates the constitution in that it is an illegal search without cause. Some years ago, a college roommate of my daughter took her car while she was sleeping and was stopped and found to be driving revoked. They seized her car. It wasn't his car and he in effect stold it. Nonetheless, it cost me $600 for my attorney to get it back. But I got that back the following year by lying on my income tax.

 

Not to question what happened to you or get offtopic, but you might be thinking of a simple traffic checkpoint. There are distinct differences between a DUI checkpoint and a simple license checkpoint. DUI checkpoints must be marked (with appropriate signage a specific number of yards from the checkpoint on either sides of the roadway). For simple checkpoints, you need only have a systematic method of choosing which vehicles are stopped (every other car or every 3rd car or every car).

 

Searches of vehicles can only be done when there is probable cause to believe drugs are in the car (or other illegal items, not necessarily just drugs). Probable cause can be reached based on the driver's behavior (as well as odors and other evidence on the person). A K9 giving a positive alert for drugs also gives probable cause. Most of the time, the driver GIVES CONSENT to search the vehicle, which negates the need for probable cause. Searching a vehicle when you have probable cause (and/or consent) is not violating constitional law.

 

Oftentimes, vehicle seizures pursuant to a drug arrest or while driving revoked (or any violation resulting in an arrest) depend on state laws and statutes. But searching the car following seizure of the vehicle is for the protection of both the owner and the agency. Doing an inventory to record what is contained in the vehicle prevents someone from claiming the officers stole something from the car.

 

Not sure what any of this has to do with getting your car stolen. Sounds to me like they could have determined beforehand that the car was obviously stolen when they realized the driver was in fact not the owner of the car. Instead of seizing the vehicle, your daughter should have been notified that the vehicle had been stolen. Sounds like a pretty big mistake on their part.

Edited January 18, 2013 by flashadvocate