AC360 Monday 8p

There are growing questions about the ferry crew's actions. The latest on the South Korean ferry disaster live on AC360.
January 18th, 2013
01:45 AM ET

Fmr. assistant: 'I don't trust Armstrong'

Lance Armstrong's former assistant, Mike Anderson, didn't want to watch the cyclist's confession to Oprah because he doesn't believe Armstrong.

Post by:
Filed under: Lance Armstrong
soundoff (3 Responses)
  1. BobW

    There is no mention that the man was still a great athlete. How many of you could dope and win a bike race?

    January 20, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
  2. Robert F. Salvin

    The problem is that the assistant will never be cross examined. I have an opposing point of view about this controversy. I do not think there is reliable evidence that Lance Armstrong doped. No one comments about the fact that Lance did not have the opportunity for due process. He was locked into an arbitration agreement with the USADA. He was not able to have a trial, and he decided that arbitration would not be fair, which it would not have been, so he did not participate in an arbitration hearing. There was never a positive blood test for doping. The entirety of USADA's evidence, as far as I can tell from the news coverage, would seem to consist of the testimony of all of the cyclists against whom Lance competed, saying that Lance was doping, and none of these other cyclists liked him. As they'er interviewed on TV about Lance's alleged doping they all state how much of jerk Lance was supposed to have been. Lance's confession, coming after he's been stripped of his wins, forbidden from further competition in sports generally, and made into an athletic pariah, is a forced confession with no more veracity that his biased accusers. To me, the question of whether Lance doped is still not decided, and will remain undecided until Lance can have his day in court for the jury trial he deserves. USADA opposed Lance's effort to have a jury trial. If USADA's evidence was so strong, there was no reason for USADA to have opposed a trial. Until the evidence is tested in a legitimate adversarial setting I'm not convinced;

    January 19, 2013 at 11:42 am |
  3. John

    Someone needs to follow up with Opra's "un-answered" questions" What was the process? How did you get past the testing? Who was involved in the prossess? Was there a group covering up the doping?

    January 18, 2013 at 4:22 pm |