For those of us that don't have a TV, can you post a rough summary of approx. what was said?

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

I'm shocked, doesn't he always?

As a side note, your feelings towards Lance probably makes you lose clients, have you thought of that?

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

I wasn't convinced through his appearance on CNN.

It seemed too canned...too many "perfect" answers...too contrived.

Even when he wasn't asked direct questions about the accusations he always went back to "I'm the most tested athlete around...I've never tested positive..blah blah blah..."

He seems too worked up to be innocent. You'd think he'd be satisfied with the simple words "I've never done PED's" and be done with it but doesn't.

The evidence is too overwhelming for us to believe he's totally clean.

"As a side note, your feelings towards Lance probably makes you lose clients, have you thought of that?"

I would be surprised if he lost any clients over this, I don't read all of Tom's posts, but I can say that I have no idea where he stands on this topic. Nor will most of his customers (clients?). If anything, honesty is quite refreshing.

I think I agree with the doctor that Bob Costas quoted, who basically said that Lance had done a lot of great things on and off the bike AND it was definitely pretty slimey how it was leaked AND there are obviously some violations of WADA protocol BUT the test brings some real doubt into his mind. The fact is no one (aside from Lance) will ever know for sure. My biggest question now is ... if he did EPO in 1999, what was he on after they developed effective tests for EPO?

---

-------------
"Knowledge is good" - Emil Faber

Why are his views on Armstrong criteria by which a customer chooses to use him as a retailer? He sells bikes. If he's good at what he does (selling bikes) why in the world would someone not use him regardless of his views on Armstrong, the war in Iraq or his political affiliation ? It's silly.

I thought he looked honest. He seemed passionate about the whole thing.

Some people may think that he was coached, but one has to remember that the guy had to deal with this kind of accusation for a long time, so he certainly had time to recite his position even in his sleep. I still want to believe him mostly for selfish reasons though. Over the past few years, I got so addicted to cycling that it would be devastating to find out that I was wrong about the guy.



Cheers

Gary and Brian,

I agree with you guys. Silly but possible.

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

You can read it here:

http://edition.cnn.com/.../0508/25/lkl.01.html

---

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain.

I would guess nobody changed their minds. If you want to believe him I'm sure you still do.

I would like to believe him and I hope he didn't take anything. But very little surprises me any more with athletes or public figures for that matter. Nobody is who they appear to be.

Like others, it seemed too canned for me. That plus the quotes in the AP about not trusting the lab and that he is being setup. Using the excuse of not "trusting the lab" when the WADA chief says its one of the top 3 EPO labs in the world is kind of a lame excuse if you ask me.

---

_______________________________

Good athletes train when they want to, great athletes train when they don't......

I changed my mind and decided he looked too much like Raffy Palmero in his denial. However, I still want to know how a newpaper has the right to obtain and test specimen for doping. That's a pretty scary precident they're setting. How can it be legal for a tabloid to obtain any athlete's samples and test them on their own? It doesn't seem right.

BTW, one interesting comment during the interview: do you guys remember when Bob Costas was paraphrasing a physician friend who said that he was not quite ready to bet his children’s life on Lance’s innocence (or something like that)?



Well, for a second I hoped that Lance would answer something like: “but I am ready to bet my kids’ on the case”.

I few seconds later I realized that it would have been childish/foolish to make a statement like that, but that at least would have confirmed his position just a bit more.



Cheers

Good point. It's already been said that EPO can't be added to the sample after the sample collected. If its there it's always been there...The drug lab is legit and experts have already stated that fact. Armstrong is looking like a fool in saying that the lab isn't legit.

Who really cares? In the greater scope of my life him telling the truth or not means nothing to me.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

In some ways I actually felt bad for him. Because no testing protocol was followed and there are none of his A samples left to test he has no way of proving himself innocent. I do a lot of drug testing for collegiate athletes and if this same situation had ever happened at a college you can bet that the athlete would file and easily win a multimillion dollar claim against that institution.

""none of his A samples left to test he has no way of proving himself innocent.""

Or them proving him guilty. One B sample positive does not assure guilt. It takes both the A and B sample. Checks and balances.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I did not see the show, but being a professional interrogator for many years......per your comments.....its the innocent that generally get worked up and upset....the calm ones are trying to hide something. The very firm and upset to a degree are probably being truthful. A calm...thoughtout answer, trying to cover all the bases in his lie, may very well be guilty. Other things do factor into this scenario, too.

---

.
.
Paul

Too canned though. Too contrived. The evidence is stacked so high right now against him in a sport riddled with drug abuse. I'm sorry...it just doesn't make sense to not have doubts that he's clean.

I think Lance made a good case that there is simply no credible evidence of doping.

And he's right.

He is clean until proven dirty, and at the moment, all the credible evidence indicates that he is clean.

You think because he had an answer for everything he's guilty? That's called being prepared, which is what smart people do before they go on TV in front of millions of people who are trying to hang you. Plus, you ever seen Lance give an interview before?? He ALWAYS has an answer for every question. The guy is fairly bright.

I was surprised that no one brought up Tyler in the mix... I guess the American Media only knows about one cyclist. That would not have helped his case.

The other thing that was not brought up is Beke's overturned results on EPO... that would have strengthened Armstrong’s case...

I just don't buy Armstrong's story anymore. Sure he's prepared. Why wouldn't he? If he's on PED's he'd know everything about them in order to beat the tests. It's almost as if he's too prepared.

I watched the first half, before they began taking calls. I do believe he was being honest. Maybe I believe this because I am a fan - and that may be politically incorrect with some around here. But I also still believe that people (at least in this country, I don't know how it works in France) are innocent until proven guilty, and no one has ever proven Lance guilty. That requires due process, and as Lance pointed out (as has Slowman), that due process has never happened.

Lance has maintained a single message since he began winning Tours: "I have not doped." I think going on Larry King was the absolute right thing to do. I thought the interview went very well. As athletes go, I think he's a publicist's dream.