• He's probably telling the truth, but without material proof he's just slinging the shit around, which cycling doesn't need.
    The gargoyle-faced fucker screamed denials for two years solid, claiming all kinds of conspiracies against him. The he goes and prank calls LeMond, taking piss out of him being molested as a kid.
    Now he decides to fess up, and drag names down with him.
    Very poor show, in my book.

    And there's the rub no 'material proof'. I'm glad he's admitted it and I presume he's sorry and regrets it unlike some other dopers we could mention and who may have lost 12 minutes in the Giro yesterday for example.

    For me one of the worrying things is the allegation of UCI collusion:

    "he [Armstrong] had been told by Mr Ferrari, who had access to the new test, that he should not use EPO anymore but he did not believe Mr Farrari and continued to use it. He later, while winning the Tour de Swiss, the month before the Tour de France, tested positive for EPO at which point he and Mr Bruyneel flew to the UCI headquarters and made a financial agreement with Mr. Vrubrugen to keep the positive test hidden. "

    Maybe I've missed this aspect of it (I have to admit I went off pro cycling and related politics when Armstrong kept winning) but was this why a lot of people were trying to hinder WADA or was it the other way round?

About