Thursday, July 15, 2010

Inconsistencies in the Armstrong Myth

As an author of everything from blog posts to training advice columns to product reviews, race reports and rider diaries, for me there is no greater compliment than when another writer cites my work as the definitive treatment of some particular topic - and declines to attempt to add his own spin to the issue. I'd like to extend that recognition to Joe Lindsey of Bicycling, who in his latest "Boulder Report" blog post writes everything there was to write about the glaring and scary inconsistencies in the explanations Team Armstrong struggled to deliver in an attempt to find legal cover and protection from charges that @lancearmstrong participated in contract fraud (PS. Thanks again for the follow, Lance!).

I've read the entire transcript from Lance's SCA deposition, so when I heard the man claim not to have had any ownership interest in Tailwind Sports, I choked on my Cheerios. Thankfully, there was Joe Lindsey to write the response that I wish I could have.

If you haven't read it already, I highly recommend it. Excerpts follow:

"...So if Armstrong really was granted Tailwind stock in December of 2007, just as the company’s most profitable era was at a close and its days as a corporate entity altogether were numbered, then on an investment level that’s about like taking a long stake in BP on April 21. That would be an uncharacteristic lapse for Armstrong, who once bragged of his own financial savvy that he gave Stapleton investment advice..." and

"...Armstrong has sometimes been accused of using his work with his cancer foundation as a shield against criticism. That is a charge I’ve never made. But I’ve also never heard him invoke that substantive and important legacy in such a bold fashion as he did today. And he seems to be willfully unaware that this is a federal criminal investigation; his interest in participating is immaterial.

Armstrong’s work on behalf of fighting cancer isn’t the issue here. The issue is whether or not Floyd Landis is telling the truth and, if he is, whether Lance Armstrong knowingly used Postal Service money to dope to win the Tour de France and enrich himself, thus defrauding the federal government.

I don’t know what’s up with Lance Armstrong these days, on the bike or off. But I wonder if he doesn’t wake up some days and wish he’d just stayed retired."

An enormous volume of information is growing ever-larger by the day. Maybe it's time to review the Lance Armstrong Doping History

I'm sure you've all already seen Lance's attorney's attempt to explain away the inconsistencies. Does it seem to anyone else like a replay of the set-up for the backdated Cortisone TUE? I couldn't have said it better than the reader who left this comment regarding the discovery of the murky and unclear ownership structure:

"It keeps their options open. If no inquiries ever happen, then Armstrong (of course) was an owner soon after he won the 1st Tour. If anyone ever questions anything, then (of course) Armstrong can produce paperwork that shows he ownership position was "undefinable". I'm sure the legal team is working overtime right now."


PS. H/T to Business Insider for their suggestion of a new question to pose to Lance Armstrong, and other suspected dopers:

"Given the details in Landis' latest account, the question that should be put to Armstrong is 'Have you ever had blood removed and stored and then transfused back into your body during the Tour de France?'"


  1. Has anyone to your knowledge asked that question of Lance - a direct ?? about blood doping?

  2. Papp Persecutes Popular Armstrong15 July, 2010 14:17

    Lance is being persecuted by jealous losers like Joe Papp who aspire to be what Armstrong always was - a true American Hero and Champion!

  3. Isn't Joe Papp a known doper? Just saying. I'm sorry am I being degfamatory? By the way it is not defamation if the facts are already known and public record.


Pappillon welcomes your comments and encourages your participation. However, in commenting, you agree that you will not:1) Post material that infringes on the rights of any third party, including intellectual property, privacy or publicity rights. 2) Post material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, threatening, harassing, abusive, slanderous, hateful, or embarrassing to any other person or entity as determined by Pappillon in its sole discretion. 3) Impersonate another person.