Lance Armstrong about to go down on 60minutes.

Lorenzo the Magnificent wrote:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/05/20/george.hincapie.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a3

Yep

But...but...he's writing a book and just wants publicity! Er, he failed a test and has no credibility! Dammit I'm running out of excuses!

This is a leak of grand jury testimony. Hincapie did not voluntarily squeal (and has yet to talk to any media). He just wasn't willing to risk a perjury rap.

No doubt this was leaked from prosecution side to prevent Hamilton from taking more of a beating from the Lance defenders and the media in general

If I were Hamilton and doing this to promote a book I'd wait until the book was actually published.

Surprised that nobody has mentioned the l'equipe reporter who matched up the 'anonymous' numbering on stored samples from 1999 that were tested when an EPO test became available with the results of those tests.

I assume that Lance will be called before a grand jury at some point and I imagine that he'll either admit doping or end up in jail.

Incidentally, it's possible to doubt almost anything if you put your mind to it.

PresMustache wrote:

conspiracy theories hold no water. where is the EVIDENCE? nobody in all these years has any f-ing EVIDENCE?? all it is is a FEW people he worked with saying he doped. and THEY all doped, AND/OR had something to gain from saying it.

AND the riders accusing him have all lied in regards to doping and their knowledge of it - meaning? - zero credibility.

and again, even if Lance "probably" doped, nobody seems to have ANY EVIDENCE of it. Gone on for far too long for people within the sport to just keep saying he doped. Don't even know how this is news. Nobody has ANYTHING??

Let's see. Hincapie now says Lance doped. Where is the damn evidence? I won't believe it until I can put my hand in the wounds which the syringes made.

Busted. Nobody's surprised (well, nobody with an IQ above 80) so can we now move on?

MarD wrote:

I assume that Lance will be called before a grand jury at some point and I imagine that he'll either admit doping or end up in jail.

Not necessarily. I'd presume the others were given immunity which meant they had to testify and couldn't take the fifth (which is what happened to Bonds).

Lance is, I believe, the target of this prosecution. Probably wouldn't be granted immunity and therefore if called could take fifth and decline to testify.

That's it then really. Nowhere for Lance and his sycophants to turn.

Does anyone still think Lance is innocent? Or is all-American hero George Hincapie a liar too?

In which case he'd probably be convicted based on eyewitness testimonies and end up in jail like Marion Jones. His best shot at staying out of jail is a plea bargain.

Hincapie saying Lance doped is more credible in my mind than anything so far, by far. though this is just a report that 60min is reporting that there's a report of it at this point. still doesn't slam the case closed.

i really could care less if lance is busted, BTW. whether he did or didn't matters very little to me(i don't doubt that he EVER used PEDs fwiw). i'm just making an argument. people will believe whatever they want to. if he's ever found guilty of doing it i will be shocked.

It does matter a bit, the way you seem so defensive over the whole thing.

All American hero Big George Hincapie has said that Armstrong (can I call him Pharmstrong yet?) doped. How much more evidence do you want? All American, superhero legend who nobody dislikes Big George Hincapie would have no reason to implicate himself or Lance surely?

I don't following cycling beyond the Giro/Tour/Vuelta but has anyone ever tested positive while riding under Bruyneel?

PresMustache wrote:

Hincapie saying Lance doped is more credible in my mind than anything so far, by far. though this is just a report that 60min is reporting that there's a report of it at this point. still doesn't slam the case closed.

i really could care less if lance is busted, BTW. whether he did or didn't matters very little to me(i don't doubt that he EVER used PEDs fwiw). i'm just making an argument. people will believe whatever they want to. if he's ever found guilty of doing it i will be shocked.

You did seem defensive when people were accusing him.

Now, Lance fans excuse is going to be "So what he doped, everyone was doing it, and he still beat them!"

It's pathetic. I like Lance, but I hate his annoying fans.

trollism wrote:

It does matter a bit, the way you seem so defensive over the whole thing.

All American hero Big George Hincapie has said that Armstrong (can I call him Pharmstrong yet?) doped. How much more evidence do you want? All American, superhero legend who nobody dislikes Big George Hincapie would have no reason to implicate himself or Lance surely?

i'm defensive because all we've had up to today with Hincapie revelation is a bunch of fallen from grace busted dopers pointing fingers, which isn't enough for me to say, "oh yeah, 100% for sure he doped". that leaves reasonable doubt, in my mind. so i can make an argument that says, "hey, MAYBE he didn't dope". it doesn't matter to me at all if he did or didn't. i will admit that the Hincapie testimony, if true, holds a ton of water for me. there, you happy now??

i think it's a stretch to refer to me as a "fan" of lance's also...i'm really not a "fan". i don't hate him either.

PresMustache wrote:

i think it's a stretch to refer to me as a "fan" of lance's also...i'm really not a "fan". i don't hate him either.

My bad, I was only referring to your post with my first line.

About Lance fans is just a general statement about Lance fans and wasn't directed towards you.

When I hear/read an argument like this about Lance or even cycling in general, my first reaction is that this person has very little perspective because it's obvious they don't follow the sport. I can't imagine anyone who follows cycling, who follows the races in Europe, the riders and teams, reads bike mags and all that could possibly believe there are clean riders in the peloton. And I don't mean just during the reign of Team Postal, this is the nature of the sport going back 30-40yrs at least. It is as part of cycling as the uniforms and shaved legs. I hear these logic games and burden of proof standards and I just think, why are you defending something that you don't even care about? That you don't even follow? People are f'n strange sometimes.

PresMustache wrote:

i'm defensive because all we've had up to today with Hincapie revelation is a bunch of fallen from grace busted dopers pointing fingers, which isn't enough for me to say, "oh yeah, 100% for sure he doped". that leaves reasonable doubt, in my mind. so i can make an argument that says, "hey, MAYBE he didn't dope". it doesn't matter to me at all if he did or didn't. i will admit that the Hincapie testimony, if true, holds a ton of water for me. there, you happy now??

But all those people who said Lance doped were right.

It was only the Lance PR jugganaut that discredited the like of Andreu (and his wife), Landis and Hamilton. I admit that they were quite easy to discredit, but not really though.

The whole, they were only doing it for the money, etc,etc, thing was a Lance (and his fanboys) way of trying to weedle his way out of it.

I'm happy you admit that you were wrong and I was right. That's all I ever want. Can't wait for the moment I can do it with the Ethiopians and the Jamaicans now (plus a few Kenyans). The moment will be sweet, and don't say it won't happen. People never believed that this would happen.

Lorenzo the Magnificent wrote:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/05/20/george.hincapie.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a3

Yep

"As for the substance of anything in the "60 Minutes" story, I cannot comment on anything relating to the ongoing investigation."

-George Hincapie's twitter

CBS shouldn't have been able to get information on Hincapie's testimony, but I'm glad they did.

gasser wrote:

When I hear/read an argument like this about Lance or even cycling in general, my first reaction is that this person has very little perspective because it's obvious they don't follow the sport. I can't imagine anyone who follows cycling, who follows the races in Europe, the riders and teams, reads bike mags and all that could possibly believe there are clean riders in the peloton. And I don't mean just during the reign of Team Postal, this is the nature of the sport going back 30-40yrs at least. It is as part of cycling as the uniforms and shaved legs. I hear these logic games and burden of proof standards and I just think, why are you defending something that you don't even care about? That you don't even follow? People are f'n strange sometimes.

PresMustache wrote:

you never discuss things that don't really matter to you for the sake of discussion?