Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a España, Tour Down Under and more
Lance Armstrong's camp changed tack Sunday, saying a report over a longtime former teammate's purported grand-jury testimony was the result of a TV network's "unpardonable zeal to smear" the seven-time Tour de France winner.
CBS reported Friday that George Hincapie had joined other members of Armstrong's inner circle in claiming he had used performance-enhancing drugs.
An Armstrong attorney then released a statement saying that, because it was confidential testimony, it was impossible to know what had been said.
But on Sunday, with another 24 hours to consider the report, Armstrong spokesman and lawyer Mark Fabiani released a statement to vehemently counter it.
"CBS has also attacked the reputation of George Hincapie," the statement said. "We are confident that the statements attributed to Hincapie are inaccurate and that the reports of his testimony are unreliable."
New revelations from Armstrong's former teammates on "60 Minutes," combined with recent requests by federal authorities for evidence in France, have fed a sense of growing trouble for the world's most famous cyclist.
Another of Armstrong's former teammates, Tyler Hamilton, told "60 Minutes" he saw Armstrong use EPO during his first Tour victory in 1999.
The "60 Minutes" piece, portions of which were aired on the "CBS Evening News" on Thursday and Friday, also used unidentified sources to report that Hincapie, a close friend and Armstrong teammate during all seven of his Tour de France triumphs, has testified to a grand jury that he and Armstrong supplied each other with endurance-boosting EPO and discussed having used testosterone, another banned substance, to prepare for races.
When those details were reported Friday, Hincapie released a statement saying he did not talk to "60 Minutes."
"As for the substance of anything in the '60 Minutes' story, I cannot comment on anything relating to the ongoing investigation," he said.
The Armstrong spokesman reitered Hincapie's claim on Sunday and further chastised the report.
"The only others with access to Hincapie's testimony -- government investigators and prosecutors -- have likewise assured us that they are not the source of the information attributed by CBS to Hincapie," the statement said. "CBS's reporting on this subject has been replete with broken promises, false assurances, and selective reliance on witnesses upon whom no reputable journalist would rely. This latest alleged revelation is no more reliable than CBS's earlier claims.
Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.
the media has long been adept at obtaining 'confidential' information. it sounds like they have gotten hold of what Hincapie said. i can't see them fabricating it, when they would be eventually held to account for that.
CBS Live Feed
edit: try this instead http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... ontentBody
Last edited by JV911 on Mon May 23, 2011 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
although, what credibility does hamilton have?
he's a cheat and has lied under oath before. who is to say he's telling the truth now?
the very fact that he's discussing "secret testimony" doesn't bode well
do you think he made it all up?
inflammatory statement or idea
Because he would be jailed for making statements that were different to those made before a grand jury - i.e. implying he lied to the grand jury.
I don't think there is anything that says he cannot repeat what he's told a grand jury.
he's testified to a grand jury. why would he make stuff up about lance and risk a jail term for perjury, not to mention prosecution for his own involvement? it's obvious that he's seen the writing on the wall and decided to come clean - like hincapie, floyd and others.
No denial there. Maybe he's enjoyed his years at Columbia and BMC, raced clean and seen it possible. Regrets ??
All speculation on my part of course.
it's only more possible now because you can't take EPO to the 60% haemocrit level anymore, thus leveling the playing field. it wasn't possible during the 90s and most of the 00s.
Umm no, Hincapie has declined to comment at this stage. We dont know what his testimony was.
Lance's legal team have said, "In its unpardonable zeal to smear Lance Armstrong, CBS has also attacked the reputation of George Hincapie...we are confident that the statements attributed to Hincapie are inaccurate and that the reports of his testimony are unreliable.. George Hincapie and his counsel have publicly said that they did not reveal any aspects of his testimony."
at least parts of it would be bullsh!t
at this stage i'm more inclined to believe someone who has been tested > 500 times and never tested poisitive than someone who has been busted twice for being a drug cheat and is a know liar.
like what happened to Osama, we'll never know the whole truth
do you really believe that "tested > 500 times" line? we all know that riders can and have beaten the tests, yet were found to be doping by other means. the tests mean very little, unless you're caught.
These guys are not lying to a federal inquiry...even Lance will tell the truth behind closed doors,he knows as well as the others do that it is the truth or jail.
maybe i'm living in a land of make believe, with elves and fairies and little frogs with funny green hats, but i belive in "innocent until proven guilty".
currently the evidence (which is good enough for UCI, WADA etc etc) sugests Lance is clean
i'm not having a go at you, you are entitled to withhold your judgment, but this is bigger than i suspect you realise. there is circumstantial evidence that the UCI collaborated with Lance in avoiding detection.
would you count this as evidence?
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
inflammatory statement or idea
Thanks for that roller. I was sure I'd read a similar article or interview in Bicycling Australia but couldn't find the copy. I'd been meaning to Google it and post up the link but now you've done it . The guy has cred
Simple answer is no from my perspective. Very informative for sure, but evidence of guilt no. Why? Simple reason it is has not been properly tested in a court of law ... if the statements are properly tested in a court of law and found to be credible then yes I would consider them evidence of worth and of course the court decision would reflect this one would hope.
Trail by media is not credible.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/betsy-a ... -armstrong
Intimidation and isolation seem to be common themes with Armstrong. I could never feel sorry for the guy.
yeah he's got serious cred, how anyone can read that article properly and then still not be convinced i find baffling.
blind faith is a powerful thing i guess.
inflammatory statement or idea
under the right circumstances i.e. what andrew has outlined
i have no idea who this guy is and havent had a chance to read the whole thing so i'll have to get back to you but one point that popped out was:
"The laboratory absolutely had no way of knowing athlete identity from the sample they're given. They have a number on them, but that's never linked to an athlete's name...investigative journalist, Damien Ressiot from l'Equipe..."
esp where l'equipe in involved!
I really enjoyed watching the Lance Armstrong era and prefer to believe in his innocence. I have defended him on here in the past.
That article is very hard to discount, too hard for me anyway
In one of the comments at the end it said "once he started the lie he was stuck in it."
Interesting watching the 60minutes show....even more interesting if it is true that the UCI made LA's postive in the Tour de Suisse "go away".If they really have got the sworn statement from the lab's director that the UCI told him to take it no further...then that is the final nail in the coffin...for the UCI as well.
i think that's the real story here. if lance rolls over - and you've got to think it's a possibility - i bet his testimony will make for very interesting reading. i can also see the UCI falling.
I find it interesting to watch the arguments that are put forward by Lance and others. They all boil down to "why would you trust a doper?" The thing is, pretty much the only people who are going to be able to offer personal, eyewitness testimony about Lance doping are going to be other dopers.
It doesn't mean that what they say is true, but I discount any argument that relies to that sort of line. It is pretty much a requirement that anyone offering credible testimony against Lance be a doper - which of course makes them non-credible.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users