Armstrong's answers leave plenty of questions

  • Article by: LIZ CLARKE , Washington Post
  • Updated: January 19, 2013 - 5:40 PM

Was the cyclist truly contrite or carefully scripted? His equivocal responses had many feeling both were true.

  • 5
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 5 of 5
jaybarJan. 19, 13 6:19 PM

The only thing it shows me is the cycling as a professional sport is over. Becoming a joke is the end.

1
3
notsidJan. 19, 13 6:48 PM

Armstrong is a con man, pure and simple, and conned Oprah as well in an effort to generate some shympathy for himself.

4
0
localguyJan. 19, 13 7:54 PM

"The only thing it shows me is the cycling as a professional sport is over" Then so is baseball (Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens), football (Lyle Alzado, David Boston), basketball (Chris Anderson), track and field (Marion Jones, Ben Johnson) and hockey (Bryan Berard). Performance enhancing drugs are abused in every major sport. These are just a few of many examples. This is a huge problem, but it's not a cycling problem. Its a pro sports problem.

4
0
basia2186Jan. 19, 13 9:42 PM

Who cares?

0
1
curtnilesJan. 19, 1310:02 PM

As much as the public debate surrounding this being a "cycling, fringe" issue I disagree. Spend the money to prosecute him based on any laws he has broken. If so let him serve his time. When he comes out then let these organizations decide whether serving time for any legal crimes of fraud , misuse of public funds, potential broken drug laws (if there were indeed any of the aforementioned laws broken) are enough to allow them to trust he will be clean. At that time the general public can make their personal decisions on whether the good that he did provide through the Armstrong/Livestrong Foundation merit their support or any future endeavors be it business, charity or other types (see Martha Stewart as an example). Don't let these individuals that break laws get away with them (even these baseball players that used steroids and HGH which federally are illegal w/o prescription - and I love baseball). All it does is set an example for others (likely kids or misguided/desperate adults) that they will be allowed to take their chance without recourse. Yes there will be arguments that these are "victim less" crimes but are they really? Breaking laws and resulting punishment is part of setting an example for others that may consider them based on actual cases and even more highly visible public figures in the public eye. We may have been "too forgiving" of past public cases where we are seeing more and more similar cases arise (CEO's defrauding stockholders, etc.) I feel terrible for his kids but does it set a good example for them? If money = power, breaking laws to gain advantage over others that do not (I am not talking "doping") = poor public precedent. If we decide as a nation that we don't want the federal laws that he (and others i.e. doctors providing drugs illegally) may or may not have broken then change the laws and let it go in my humble opinion

1
0
  • 1 - 5 of 5

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT