January 18th, 2013
01:40 AM ET

Toobin: Lance Armstrong is in big trouble

Anderson Cooper asks Betsy Andreu, Daniel Coyle, Bill Strickland and Jeff Toobin if Lance Armstrong's interview with Oprah was a mistake.

Post by:
Filed under: Lance Armstrong
soundoff (6 Responses)
  1. Tom Bakken

    Mr. Salvin, do you seriously believe that every single one of Lance's teammates so hated him that they agreed to a wall of lies to do him in? I surely don't. Also consider Lance's guilty demeanor. And if his confession is coerced, that doesn't mean he wasn't guilty.

    January 22, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
  2. Robert F. Salvin

    Mr. Armstrong gave a coerced confession. 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 11:40 am |
    • Thomas Petersen

      Uhh, he kinda, you know, ADMITTED to the entire world he used non-permitted enhancement drugs. And you're not convinced? Are you going to started a Lance Armstrong conspiracy too?

      January 22, 2013 at 11:19 am |
    • Linda Smith

      Robert, your post is, unfortunately, is an opinion developed through, in your own words, media coverage of the USADA investigation into Lance Armstrong's sports doping. The media has failed you terribly, in my opinion. I have read the entire report and am convinced of Armstrong's guilt. The nail in the coffin, so to speak, was the testimony of George Hincapie, a team mate of Lance's throughout his career. Hincapie is, by far, an incredibly respected cyclist and sportsman, and when he testified that he had both used PEDs as well as witnessed Lance using PEDs, there is really nothing more to question. Lance did this. I'm sorry, but as someone who has cheered Lance throughout the years, following cycling with enthusiasm, and read extensively about this issue (material both for and against Lance), I completely believe that he doped.

      January 22, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • Dan

      If you talk to anyone who was involved in top-level cycling during those years (retired coaches, etc.) they will tell you to a tee that every single rider was doing something against the rules. Lance did it and so did everyone else. The only reason the Feds closed their investigation was because to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT you need credible witnesses and an admitted rule-breaker is not a credible witness (as everyone was a rule-breaker, that leaves no credible witnesses). The doping was coordinated at the team level on all teams – the cyclists themselves had the stuff brought to them rather than go out and get it on their own. The question of whether or not he was ever clean never really was a question to anyone who understood how the sport works – the people angry that he lied are people who don't follow the sport closely enough to realize that. If there's one thing he said during that interview that is absolutely true it's that what he did didn't meet the dictionary definition of cheat – "to gain an advantage" – as if everyone is doing it there is no advantage gained.

      January 22, 2013 at 9:23 pm |
    • Lucinda Hasterlik

      I agree with you I do not think there's enough convincing evidence for me Lance's confession didn't sound like a confession and there was too much left unsaid

      January 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm |