Road Bike Racing - Did Armstrong give a press conference?

We're getting some news 'grabs' down here featuring the denials from Lance Armstrong.

Did he give a huge press conference, or was is just a "door step" interview?

ooops, was this it?

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/6276.0.html

1. Walsh has admitted that the book does not contain facts, but is innuendo and heresay. In other words, BS.
2. As it says here, legal proceedings have been filed. What is interesting is the inference that those quoted in the book may be pursued as well. I certaintly hope they were paid well.
3. If the man was not totally motivated, if I was Mayo, or Hamilton, or Ullrich, I'd be very dismayed. Because you don't want to shoot this guy...you'll just make him very mad.
He is now well motivated.
Oops.....

Roadwarrior,
I agree 100%.
As Bobke says "you do not want a pissed-off lance armstrong"
and boy howdy he is gonna be p-o'd when the tour rolls around. . .

Marty

Those Irish chicks will get you every time! :o

Roadwarrior,
I agree 100%.
As Bobke says "you do not want a pissed-off lance armstrong"
and boy howdy he is gonna be p-o'd when the tour rolls around. . .

Marty

i know i ride a lot faster when i'm pissed. usually it's at a car driver who cut me off.:mad: i couldn't imagine how fast i would ride if i knew someone was trying to ruin my professional life.

1. Walsh has admitted that the book does not contain facts, but is innuendo and heresay. In other words, BS.


Where did you read that? From what I read, all he said was there was no complete factual proof of Armstrong doping. He just provided FACTS that may suggest that he has been doping.


Those Irish chicks will get you every time! :o

"insane irish"

From Walsh's interview with Sam Abt, "It's all circumstantial evidence. We don't actually prove anything. We just set out the facts and let the reader decide who is telling the truth."

Of course the definition of "facts" is like Slick Willie's definition of "is". He alledges to be making an accusation, then says he cannot prove anything.

See you in court. Bring your checkbook.

If Walsh's statement to Abt is an accurate reflection of the truth, then a lawsuit by LA would have very little chance of succeeding.

Since no one has read the book yet, we don't know if Walsh's statement is true, but if he draws no conclusions about LA using drugs and just recounts the experiences of individuals, then LA would have to prove that those experiences didn't happen, which would come down to a my word against yours scenario, and neither side would have more credibility in an objective court of law.

If LA can prove that people are lying about what they say in the book, then he may have a case, but if he has no witnesses to testify to that effect, he will not win. :)

UCI President Hein Verbruggen:
"Most of all, these people are trying to make money. I've seen the results of Armstrong's medical controls. I'm told that his file is impeccable and I know he is not using banned substances. I believe in the results and I trust Lance."

Believe what you want.

Go Lance...kick @ss...