Tell-All Book Detailing Armstrong, Doping to Be Released

There are 15 comments on the Aug 28, 2012, KOLO-TV Reno story titled Tell-All Book Detailing Armstrong, Doping to Be Released. In it, KOLO-TV Reno reports that:

Tyler Hamilton's tell-all book about Lance Armstrong and doping in cycling will be released two weeks earlier than originally planned.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KOLO-TV Reno.

GeeMan

Blackwood, UK

#1 Aug 29, 2012
Another book written about someone else that he wanted to be but wasn't good enough to be, pathetic. Also makes you wonder why he is a witness against Lance and the rest of the Team when his action provide him with income from changed Tour results, this book and the deal cut with USADA to ignore his own infringements for his testimony. Credible is not what most would call it and the Federal Judge comments about the whole case are correct that it has no substance or credibility. Did Lance take banned substances? Very likely in my opinion but so did everyone else and he still won! Why are the other cyclists who will inherit titles such as Ulricht saying they don't want the titles as they were beaten in the race in the same way Schleck has refused to accept his Tour win after Contadir was banned its because THEY know who won.

If the record books are rewritten then 2005 Tour win goes to Cadel Evans who finished 8th and only if he can prove it!

Draw a line under this and move on or we shall see year on year the 15/20 year review of results on statements and not results. That's why an 8 year statute of limitations was applied by WADA but now being ignored as the actions of USADA are about as credible as the drug tests taken by athletes and subsequently the Titles won by Atheletes. That's why it must have a line dawn under it, leave the record as it is with a caveat in History about the concerns because it simply cannot be proven either way.
Neal

United States

#2 Aug 31, 2012
GeeMan wrote:
Another book written about someone else that he wanted to be but wasn't good enough to be, pathetic. Also makes you wonder why he is a witness against Lance and the rest of the Team when his action provide him with income from changed Tour results, this book and the deal cut with USADA to ignore his own infringements for his testimony. Credible is not what most would call it and the Federal Judge comments about the whole case are correct that it has no substance or credibility. Did Lance take banned substances? Very likely in my opinion but so did everyone else and he still won! Why are the other cyclists who will inherit titles such as Ulricht saying they don't want the titles as they were beaten in the race in the same way Schleck has refused to accept his Tour win after Contadir was banned its because THEY know who won.
If the record books are rewritten then 2005 Tour win goes to Cadel Evans who finished 8th and only if he can prove it!
Draw a line under this and move on or we shall see year on year the 15/20 year review of results on statements and not results. That's why an 8 year statute of limitations was applied by WADA but now being ignored as the actions of USADA are about as credible as the drug tests taken by athletes and subsequently the Titles won by Atheletes. That's why it must have a line dawn under it, leave the record as it is with a caveat in History about the concerns because it simply cannot be proven either way.
Why can't it be proven either way. If you have 10 eye witnesses why isn't that proof? Person "A" kills "B". "A" wears gloves. No physical proof that it was A that killed B except for 10 eye witnesses. That's a lot of proof. Enough proof to convict someone of murder in a court of law. It seems to me the level of proof you expect is higher than what our court system even asks for. Can't convict "A" of murder unless finger prints on the gun. That's preposterous! 10 eye witnesses mean absolutely nothing to you?
GeeMan

Blackwood, UK

#3 Aug 31, 2012
The points you make are all very good Neal however why do you think the US Federal Government dropped all charges against Armstrong when they were told the case would fall apart in a Law Court.

Before you add more conjecture the evidence being used by USADA is EXACTLY the same as USADA are using. The difference between both organisations is one MUST have Legal Accountability and abide by the Constitution and the other does not and can throw mud and see what happens, regardless if that Mud is correct or not.

Add to this the Federal Court Judge who stated in his findings recently that the Court was not there as PR machine for Armstrong and his Team and stated there was serious concerns about the constitutional methods used by USADA, questioned that USADA motives were to catch a drug cheat or some other alternative as the there was in fact no tangible evidence or case in a Law Court for Armstrong to answer to.

I appreciate what you are saying and why, however if in the case you note above it were found that obtaining witness statements you went outside the Law the case would be thrown out on a Technicality regardless if the accused was innocent or guilty.

So whilst you make a very good and valid point there are issues and these issues were the reasons this will never reach a Law Court by the US Government or USADA.

The hearing offered to Armstrong also had restriction placed on his legal team that are now starting to emerge and these were contributing reasons, I believe, he did not participate as it was loaded against him and he did not need to.
One Nut

Australia

#4 Aug 31, 2012
The continuing saga about pharmstrong reminds me of an old tail about a man named Robin Hood. See this man was seen by many as a hero to the common people for thieving from the rich and giving to the poor. However a many good deed made by this noble chap.....HE IS STILL A COMMON THIEF!!!!!!
USADA can and will only bring a case against an athlete WHEN THEY HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO DO SO YOU MORONS!!!!
Analyse as much as you like but the result will always be the same. "I know who won those 7 tours" yes Lance we all know you won 7 tours but more people are understanding how you did it! In the words of another great fictitious Texan JR Ewing, "money gives you power but real power is something you take" and you still haven't stopped taking and my guess is you never will.
GeeMan

Blackwood, UK

#5 Aug 31, 2012
One Nut if the evidence is not only correct but secure also why did the US Governent DROP the case fter being told it would be washed out in a Law Court. It was ONLY THEN it was handed to USADA.

Evidence is only Evidence when it is secure.

Read the press around all the witnesses and see what they have gained from it by speaking.

You may feel everyone else is a Moron who questions this whole case but what do YOU actually know?

Use facts not name calling.

When you dont have a 'smokin gun' or in this case a smokin syringe you need other evidence such as testimony and that needs to be secure and both the US Attorny Office and a Federal Judge have said there is not sufficient and secure evidence to prosecute and they would lose in a Court of Law.

These are not opinions but FACTS.

What FACTS do you have One Nut?

If you read my other posts you will see Im not saying he is clean I am saying the ramifications this has is huge across all sport and for the US constitution that USADA methods have been seriously questioned.

Rename USADA to anything else you want and lets say they indict YOU based on statements from people you worked with and were offered incentives to testify against you and add to that you were only allowed to a limited ability to question these witnesses how would you feel?

The issues are far and wide and along way from being finished with.

Dont be fooled by Armstrong Fans but also dont be fooled by USADA when they refuse to publish their evidence publicly and it has 2 Federal question marks over it.

Guilt is either proven by admission or beyond reasonable doubt and none of that has taken place.
You can call someone a cheat if you wish but whilst you do it outwith someones ability to raise a liable case gainst you it has no credance.

You are correct about Power but who has this just now and how sall it be wielded, we shall see.
One Nut

Australia

#6 Aug 31, 2012
GeeMan, I love your comeback and I agree on principal on all points however even Al Capone could never be tried for murder even though on the scale of probability he was involved at all levels. Sounds like you have been following this sage as long as I have so since you and I have never witnessed Lance jab syringes in his arse/ arm let's use the scale of probability.
*The Feds dropped the case for lack of evidence?
So it took 2 years to come to that conclusion, if all of the roads of accusation were leading nowhere I'm sure that conclusion would or could have been sooner. Also why announce this decision at 5pm on Friday afternoon of Superbowl?
This is a well know political tactic to make an announcement without making an announcement. Once again if there was no evidence why was this announced to the press by a politician with no connection to the case and one would think have no knowledge to a federal case. And if you read carefully the investigators of the case were unaware that this was happening.
Now let's use that scale of probability shall we, let's say there WAS mounting evidence against Lance and his band if merry men, keep in mind this is a criminal case, and it was looking more than likely that the evidence was conclusive, could you imagine the devastation if Lance went to jail for 5 to 10yrs.
Please don't loose the sight of the fact of how well Lance is connected to Capital Hill, with his adviser being in the same position for Bill Clinton when he was president.( you remember, "I never has sexual relations with that woman and "I have smoked marijuana but didn't inhale" fame)
It is also well documented that when Bush was in charge he was actively trying to entice Lance into politics which Lance still has aspirations for.
Do you see a pattern?
So the probability of the government shutting down the criminal investigation to save Lances arse from jail...is too high to ignore, all of this is fact except from the conclusion.
So the way I read it the probability of USADA being privy to this evidence is more than likely and have made their decision based on this. And IF USADA is a fraud and if USADA does not have juristiction over this case and if USADA has no authority over the UCI why all of a sudden a change of opinion of their existence??
One more point of fact, Lances legal team tried to have the authority of USADA overturned in court and not just any court, a Texan court with a Texan judge. Their their defence was so poor that the judge criticised it as nothing more than a "press release" and threw the application out TWICE!!!!
Do you remember the US Pro team Rock Racing? During their drug taking investigation the name Lance Armstrong kept on coming up....and this investigation had nothing to do with him! This is where I'm lead to believe was the beginning of the end for Lance Edward Gunderson Armstrong.
However GeeMan there is one thing we can both agree on, this sideshow is far from over and like some Hollywood movies the ending may not be pleasant!!
ps the term Moron is reserved for those who hang on the motion of
defence that Lance has NEVER tested positive (which he has) and has passed however many drug test and was "just the best athlete" so why would anyone say he cheated?
Larry Nuosce

Cocoa Beach, FL

#7 Aug 31, 2012
I have been following this story closely, and it has raised more questions about the USADA than it answers about Lance Armstrong. The dialog has been long on conclusions, and very short on facts. The actions of the USADA are hard to defend if you belive the charges they sent in a letter to Lance (which was leaked to the www). How can you only charge one rider, when you claim you have evidence of a team drug culture on every team Lance was on (Postal, Discovery, Radio Shack, Astansa). Do you realize how many riders that is over the years in question .....and yet they have not indicated a single athelete, other than Lance. In addition reports of deals with 10 willing to testify, create a real problem for all clean athletes.
GeeMan

Blackwood, UK

#9 Aug 31, 2012
One Nut your comment about clean athletes having nothing to fear is not correct.

Alain Baxter won bronze ski medal for GB but was stripped of it despite IOC and CAS all agreeing he had taken it unitentionally due to a Vicks Sinus made in US having a slightly different mixture than in UK.

He lost his medal despite everyone agreeing he did not cheat and was an honest athlete however the IOC and dopping rules had no tollerence levels to cater for 'innocent cases'.

The same problem affected Contador.

We could all say he should know what he puts in his body but there has to be limits especially as the item was not placed on the athletes risk register and the difference only came to light through this case.

The penalties for dopping must be hard but there also must be some flexibility. Drink Driving is not O% for a reason and the testing regime also needs a bit more common sense.

A point to note in all of this that may have been highlighted or not is Lance Armstrong bought UCI the most up to date and modern drugs testing machine to help them!
One Nut

Australia

#10 Sep 1, 2012
GeeMan, I can only shake my head in disbelief. If Lance bought the UCI the most up-to-date drug testing machine them he bought them a dud!!!!
The reason I guess it was never "highlighted" because this excuse was used to defend a $100k donation that was uncovered during the Feds investigation long after the money was handed over.
I have heard of athletes donating money to charities, lesser sporting clubs & organisations and to many other deserving entities but to a world wide peak governing authority?????NEVER.
Keep in mind GeeMan this was discovered long after the fact and we all know Lance loves publicity. Oh he'll let's give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he just forgot.
You really need to reread the last paragraph of my last post and get your hands on the book "Blood Sports" machines are only as good as the science they assist. The UCI had been presented with an option to detect what they couldn't 12yrs ago but they chose not to proceed.
I'm my world, any option is far greater than nothing!!!
GeeMan

Blackwood, UK

#11 Sep 2, 2012
In another 12 years different detection ability will be available so where do you stop?
Do we keep a store of every blood sample taken and test when we feel like it or someone calls wolf?
What happens if we get better TV diagnosis and replay and find fouls whn none called and injustice when fouls were called incorrectly, it has to stop and allowing organisations to go back to whenever when isnt helping sport.
EVERY sport has doping issues of some kind and who is to say the re-tested samples have been stored properly and in 12 years we find out that previos storing methiods caused retesting issues!!! the cycle of problems goes on and on.
The rules at the time must be absolute and move on regardless of who is involved.
Sport will not be a winners list but a temporary custodian of whatever place they have come.
8 years was set as part of the rules and that is now being rewritten through choice and desire.
If you start to go down this road you must be illing to retest everyone you award prizes retrospectively to and seek assurances from their team mates they didnt cheat.
Totally unworkable.
As far as the purchase noted above it is in the record books, look it up.
One Nut

Australia

#12 Sep 3, 2012
GeeMan, what ever it takes to rid the slightest thought of trying to cheat otherwise introduce a clause of drug use in sport to monors as an acceptable practice. I'm sure if DNA can be used to solve a murder case any where any time, why not in sport. Just a couple of clarifying points regarding the use of witness testimony and the 8 yr statute of limitations as quoted by Michael Ashendon responding to the radio interview with Phil Liggetts. Just so you know, this guy is no crazed respondent but is heavily involved as a scientist or should I say, a higher authority of drug detection, policy and procedure so to state clearly he works full-time as an antidoping researcher that specialises in the field of blood doping, so has spent lot of his time trying to find a test that can detect when athletes use blood transfusion.
This is his take on the above two points.

" Look carefully at Article 2.2. It describes how the ‘Use of a Prohibited Substance’ can be established by any reliable means, including witness statements. Witness statements such as those evidently given by around ten of Armstrong’s team mates and team members.

"Finally, you asked what happened to the statute of limitations of eight years. Well, if you have a look at USADA’s charge letter they explained that one too. First, USADA had substantial evidence of doping within the past eight years. Second, evidence from outside eight years can be used to corroborate more recent evidence. And if you continue reading that paragraph, you’ll also satisfy yourself that results outside the limitation can be disqualified where there was false statements or fraudulent concealment. Cue “conspiracy”, Phil.

Just to round this off, this is fact, all written for all to see if you are a registered racing cyclist as part of the conditions to be allowed to race and the most ironic part to all of this is..... THE UCI HAVE SIGNED OFF ON THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

So nobody has shifted anything or changed any rules to suit.

The devil is always in the detail.
Ps: don't take any of this personal GeeMan!
GeeMan

Blackwood, UK

#13 Sep 3, 2012
One Nut the venture outside the 8 years of limitations is USADA proposal and not an accepted preactice within WADC or by WADA. If WADA sanction +8 years they would need to re-write their rules as it offers no relaxation for this just now.
The choice of tatics by USADA are not compliant but taken from political spinning which will not serve them well when the jurisdiction argument starts with UCI who shall use it against them!

In addition to this can you explain why the penalty imposed (as stated by Travis Tygart) would have been limited to 8 years IF Armstrong had decided to defend his case against them and lost but as he didnt it is now +8 years. Judge, Jury and Sentencing Judge which is not correct and cannot be applied justifiably. If its +8 then thats what it is and if its 8 thats what it is. As noted above USADA have no approval for +8 years.

I suspect USADA have decided that to secure what they want which is official approval and acceptance and record books re-written they need to go way over board to bring everyone back to the minimum they are entitled to, Politic Spinning as I said.

On Michael Ashendon he was a key developer and member of the governing body for testing of banned substances however he resigned when the authority board changed and he was asked to sign an 8 year gagging order as part of his appointment as well as a requirement for him to seek approval of comments before making them. As he put it they wanted to control the process and also control the message issued which he could not agree with so he resigned.
THIS unfortunately is part of the whole issue we have in clarity of testing when the Governing Board wishes to sanction their own people which everyone should see as odd and with some mistrust!
This also very much reflects USADA views which appear to reflect the overall view of we do what we want and impose what we see fit.
The double edged sword with this set up is apply against whom you wish whatever you want and ban them OR ignore tests by athletes that someone may wish to protect and both options cannot be tollerated or accepted.

Michael has placed a lot of mistruct on the ethics for testing if not in the process but the Management and Politics it has at its disposal.

Another point Michael advised was the test results and Blood Passport results were used in conjunction with each other to read test results that were negative for abnormal movement in Atletes in and out of competition results.
He also clearly stated he has not seen Armstrongs results other than some posted in 2009 and could not make any defined comment other than a general observation.

Michael appears to be a reasonable guy who is quick to highlight what is needed from the Athletes and the Testing Organisations and not slow to condemn either but he has not made any difinative comment on this case to press, the USADA, Armstrong Camp or anyone else.
I suspect he would be someone both Camps would not wish to engage as his Honesty could not be controlled and both sides would suffer with his testimony and as well know we dont invite anyone to testify who will undermine your case!

On UCI signing off conditions these are as agreed under WADC rules and USADA are not compliant thus far and UCI have already clearly stated the issues of jurisdiction and will review USADA evidence once submitted as required under the current rules and offer teir comments on this.
USADA comments they are witholding evidence to date in fear that witnesses shall be intimidated adds to the previous comments that UCI covered up positive tests dont inspire UCI to be helpful regardless what the evidence is, Turkeys dont vote for Christmas.

As far as taking anything personal I am sure you will have read my other posts and I am not a defender of Armstrong is clean BUT I am am a defender of making Sport compliant, but not at any cost.

I made a post about how to achieve this maybe you would be willing to contribute your own thoughts?
GeeMan

Blackwood, UK

#14 Sep 3, 2012
One Nut USADA work under WADC Rules and WADA condition at 8 years maximum and it is their wish that +8 years is recognised to help their case. They are Political Spinning and based on a push it beyond the current limits and hopefully make everyone agree to the minumum and get the approval and endorsemnt wished for, reardless of how the evidence is collected, Misdirection basically.

UCI have stated the WADC rules that USADA must issue all evidence for consideration and advised yesterday they still await this and to date the Record Books have NOT been changed by UCI and WADA are not asking hey too either, so far!

8 years is the rules and USADA have no authority to change it and also do not have the authority to state IF Armstrong had complied and atended a hearing it would have been 8 years but as he didnt it can be +8 years. Another example of making the rules up as you go for impact.

Michel Ashendo, you refer to, resigned from the Testing Board when it changed its Authority status as he was unwilling to agreed to terms of his employment sanctioning him for 8 years from commenting on the findings as well as seeking approval of any comments he wished to make before he made them.
I am sure you are aware of this an his disapproval of their wish to control the testing and the message issued which should not be allowed to happen.
He is an authority but wont be called as both camps wont be able to control his input which is the way it should be but wont materialise.

People cannot complain and say UCI controlled results and then accept the current regime do exactly the same!

UCI will not approve the report from USADA who have claimed they covered up positive tests and are unwilling to release their evidence to UCI in fear that witnesses shall be intmidated if they do. Basically stating the UCI cannot be trusted with their Report and stating they MUST approve it without seeing it which is Contitutionally incorrect under current rules as defined by UCI in recent press releases. USADA MUST issue their Report and ALL evidence to UCI under current rules and USADA are only making more noise ahead of the formal issue of evidence which I am sure you are aware they MUST also issue to Armstrongs Team so again USADA making noise for the sake of it. They have also stated they dont wish to issue the Report as other cases are pending however they are not joint cases so they have to issue the Report, more noise and misdirection for the sake of it.

It doesnt take a genius to works out that Turkeys dont vote for Christmas and neithr shall UCI in this matter.

Dont worry about taking anything personally I am a person who looks at the big picture and seek the best result in Sport and when somthing looks wrong, smells wrong and appears wrong as well having comments offically and not officially it is wrong it generally is wrong.

It may however have a lot of merit to be used as a basis for future protocol in these cases but I believe you shall see at th end of it Travis Tygart retiring from USADA nd if he doesnt he will be replaced.
WHY? because Armstrong will lobby those who can do this and in return he shall have to enter Politics where minor issues such a those he is accused of just now dont really matter because its not the message that matters in Politics its the impact of the person making it.

How do I know this? Ronald Regan was voted in twice which I suggest makes the point well enough.
Sherman

Fall River Mills, CA

#15 Sep 3, 2012
Hey GeeMan-

This book wasn't just written By Hamilton, it was co-authored by Daniel Coyle, who also co-authored Lance Armstron's book entitled "Lance Armstrong's War."

After hearing Hamilton's stories, Coyle checked, double checked, and triple checked with teammates, friends, and anyone else who would know, to verify Hamilton's claims before accepting them as truth. According to the Coyle, he did this over 60 times.

If any of it is false, you can bet George Hincapie, or any other of the dozen who testified against Lance would speak up about it. In an interesting turn, of those who testified, 8 or so of them have proven the doping tests were easily fooled, by actually never testing positive for PED's, just like people like to say about Lance. Armstrong actually has about 8 positive tests now on record, though.

The truth is finally coming out. Thank you, Tyler Hamilton, for manning-up and making a positive difference in pro sports.
GeeMan

Blackwood, UK

#16 Sep 4, 2012
Sherman lets face it the book was written to make money otherwise why do it? That means money for everyone involved and a book is not written then published it goes through proof readers who seek changes in the style, content and context because they are the publishers who fit the big original bill.

The book shall not be wholly truthfull as that doesnt sell so there shall be those who will have different opinions to the 'facts' being portrayed.

I funnily enough have a deep mistrust of those who have lied in the past to present the truth now and I work on the assumption most others do the same.

If you lie at work they dont just say thats OK the you lie again well thats OK too and then the 3rd presentation arrives is it 3rd time lucky or is it more lies.
Would you put your money into a business venture with someone who lied to you twice before but says its all good now? NO neither would I.

There shall be truth in the book however would it have even seen the light of day if it had been written about any other rider than Armstrong NO and we all know that.

As I said in my 1st post he wanted to be Armstrong but couldnt be so he has decided to get his slice through accusations and this book.
Do you think he approached Armstrong with the option to NOT write it and receive payment, I believe he most likely did. WHY? because he wants easy money and recognition.

If he cant be him try and destroy him.

This, as I said before, will not end well for Cycling or Sport in General and should have been lefy alone with a caveat in the records or you destroy the faith in EVERY Atlete who has ever won anything in their life.

Your assumption he has any positive tests on record are not supported by the record itself, is it? If it is were exactly is it?

I dont say he never took PED's I do say that you dont manufacture a smokin gun to suit yourself and go about by bending and breaking the rules to do this whilst accsing other professional organisations of malpractice as you by hiding positicve tests.

The physical evidence must be produced or are you happy with testimony from PED users who were banned some more than once who stated they never cheated but now its OK to say the truth?

To ME its pathetic and full of self preservation by those who testified for one reason or another.

So Sherman the point is NOT did he take PED's but what motives people have to say now that he did but also why cant they provide the evidence to prove it?

Lets face the cold facts that it is more than likely that everyone was on PED's and he was both the best at Cycling and hiding PED's, assuming thats the case which I personally believe it was. So why would Armstrong be given the bans the USADA have imposed but NOTHING to the witnesses who stated they are as equally guilty?

They got DEALS and we all know it or they get the same and that is outwith the WADc rules and protocol applied by WADA.

If anyone can say he is being treated fairly please explain the above and why its OK to apply this when you should, in law, not differentiate and they should be riders 1, 2, 3 etc.

If these are the rules apply them fairly, acurately and reasonably and not as we are seeing.

Those who love Armstrong and say there is no smoke without fire are as deluded as the haters who ignore the facts in front of them and the conseqences this has on all Sports.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Tour de France Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Cycling: Lance Armstrong 'still lying' says USA... (Jan '13) Mar '15 cheeze 28
News Not Even Lance Deserves This (Dec '13) Oct '14 stefanbed53 41
News Shadows on the Road, by Michael Barry (Apr '14) Apr '14 Donna OBrien 1
News Opinion: Should we just stop asking about doping? (Jul '13) Apr '14 Carly Jane 2 31
News Lance Armstrong tweets that he's returned Olymp... (Sep '13) Apr '14 Carly Jane 2 2
News Tygart waits for Armstrong to be part of the so... (May '13) Aug '13 My Opinion_El Pas... 3
News Tour convenes former riders for 100th edition (Jul '13) Jul '13 My Opinion_El Pas... 6
More from around the web