Lance Armstrong Criticizes David Walsh On His Latest Propaganda Piece
Former Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong issued a harshly worded statement Wednesday on the eve of the publication of a new book reviving claims that the American cyclist was a doper.
Armstrong criticized “From Lance to Landis,” the latest book by Irish writer David Walsh regarding Armstrong and doping accusations from the Tour de France, an English follow-up to his “LA Confidential,” published in French in 2004.
“Predictably, on the eve of the Tour de France, I will be the subject of a repeated, baseless attack in yet another unobjective book,” Armstrong said in a statement released Wednesday.
“Trying to jump on the bandwagon of current publicity surrounding cycling, Walsh now issues a recycled version of two earlier French books that were likewise founded upon a demonstrably false string of sensational, untrue and fabricated allegations.
“This latest attack will be no different than the first two - a sensationalized attempt to cash in on my name and sully my reputation.
“Like most fair-minded people, I am sick and tired of those who try to profit off the tactics of smear and guilt by innuendo or association.”
Armstrong has faced numerous doping allegations against him, including a modern test performed upon an older urine sample that had been unavailable at the time of Armstrong’s first Tour victory in 1999. He retired after winning his seventh Tour in 2005. Armstrong has always insisted that each of those victories had been achieved without the aid of performance-enhancing drugs.
“I raced clean. I won clean,” Armstrong said. “I am the most tested athlete in the history of sports. I have defended myself and my reputation and won every court case to prove I was clean.
“Yet another Walsh book with baseless, sensational and rejected allegations will not overcome the truth.”
Armstrong said that Walsh is motivated by a personal dislike for him and has paid sources for information and repeated inaccurate information for several years. Walsh did concede that he had paid former U.S. Postal soigneur Emma O’Reilly after having interviewed her in preparation for his first book.
“The allegations and sources in the latest book remain just as baseless, unreliable and manufactured as they were in the first two books,” Armstrong said.
“Continuing a pattern of distortion and fabrication started in the other books, the new book takes recycled allegations from the first books and cherry-picked allegations and testimony from the losing side of a court case I won and attempts to portray them as facts.”
Armstrong reached a $7.5 million settlement with a promotions firm over payment of a bonus for his sixth consecutive Tour triumph, He has often cited that payout in attacking critics.
“I responded in court to these allegations, most of which are made by a handful of grudge holders, axe grinders, and a so-called ‘expert’ whose graduate degree turned out to be by way of correspondence courses - and I proved them false,” Armstrong said. “I was vindicated yet again.”
The firm, SCA of Texas, had sold an insurance policy to Tailwind Sports - partly owned by Armstrong - guaranteeing payment of a $5 million bonus if the American were to win his sixth Tour de France in 2004.
Following publication of Walsh’s first book that same year, the promotions firm argued that it didn’t have to make the payout, since the victory was “apparently” the result of doping.
Armstrong sued and SCA settled once members of an arbitration panel ruled that the suit had merit, because the original contract contained no caveat that would have barred payment even if doping allegations were proven. The panel did not rule on the veracity of the doping claims themselves.
Categories: Book, News
Tags:
Dear Lance Armstrong,
I have only recently read your statement regarding the Walsh book and what you have defined as “another unobjective book… Trying to jump on the bandwagon of current publicity surrounding cycling, Walsh now issues a recycled version of two earlier French books that were likewise founded upon a demonstrably false string of sensational, untrue and fabricated allegations”.
Personally, I have to say that you are right when you say “I am sick and tired of those who try to profit off the tactics of smear and guilt by innuendo or association”. I am sick as well when I meet people who try to manufacture the reality and accuse “you” of something that you did not do. Sometimes they use a sort of minestrone in which every single part or member owns his/her role: first, they associate themselves towards something that they see dangerous for their own interests; second, they construct their “truth” by simply thinking and promoting that today’s reality is what the others tell about you and the rest does not count; third, they go “outside” their living rooms and use defamation and innuendo to defend their own interests. They even attack the people who think different by them. The acquire trust and especially the can send the message that if “you” think different by us, you will be “attacked” or isolated. By this behaviour they can send other people not to act, otherwise they could “suffer” the same consequences of those who do not think as them. In addition, they use the other people like they would be cards.
I do not like doping practices, because I want to see the sport free from drugs and illegal substances. I would not like to see in the reality people who instigate the others to think that “If he does it, I can do It as well, because today’s society it’s like this”. In a nutshell, the impunity. It seems to me that this is not a strong behaviour, it is a weak behaviour. Today’s reality is composed by several truths and not by an absolute one. In fact, It’s for four years I have learnt to be realistic, by simply recognising that today’s reality can be composed by the cynics, the sceptics, people who do not believe in miracles and by those who manufacture the reality to defend their interests.
Every time you, Lance, are accused of doping practices I ask myself “What the heck is that?”. This is a fine irony of course. I honestly believe in you, dear MELLOW JOHNNY and I am not afraid to publicly say that Walsh book is a demonstration of slimy journalism.
Many years ago I received a card from you and the Lance Armstrong Foundation in which there was a precious advice f yours: “I must encourage you to always keep the faith. The faith in your doctors, the faith in the medicine, the faith in your family and most importantly the faith in yourself. This, my friend, is absolutely the best thing you can do for yourself. Your strength gives so many others hope and inspiration, including myself”. So, I would like to “inspire” you by giving you two very important and precious advices taught to me by my father before his death:
a) go ahead, go on, continue to commit your life, your words, your action to words the loneliness. To me it’s a lifetime commitment. Every time you have to face, directly or indirectly, the “tornados” of cynicism and scepticism, those behaviour who want to manufacture the reality, find a genuine and correct solution. It happens sometimes to receive false accuses of smear and guilt by innuendo and/or association. The best answer to “respond” to them is to find the interior force to go on, being surrounded by genuine and correct people. This is the real force of the person and not the law of the group by which “you” can use the others against something or somebody as they would be cards. These others cards when they realise that they have been used for cynical purposes if they are not respectful people could be aloof with the person who “suffered” the actions of false accuses of smear and guilt by innuendo and/or association. This is the target of every person who made a mistake and has decided not to recognise it or to collaborate only to demonstrate to the others the opposite of what himself made;
b) I would be sick and tired of those who try to profit off - even socially - the tactics of smear and guilt by innuendo and/or association. Unfortunately, in the life you cannot meet all sincere, honest and loyal people. It happens to meet “someone” disonest, who continues not to admit his mistake/s, or he does it partially, but at the same time he tries to portrait himself as an individual who completely admitted his mistake/s. Try to be optimistic and please do not forget that outside your house the life can be with no rules, cynical, with cynics and sceptics, with people who manufacture the reality to defend their personal interests by using others as they would be cards and by feeling to them the interest to continue not to act, because they have to achieve the goal for which they study, they behave, they act et cetera.
LIVESTRONG Lance, LIVESTRONG.
Yours faithfully,
Michele “Mic” Capaccioli.
BIKE RIDERS UNITE
WHY WOLD A CANCER SURVIVOR TAKE SOME OF THESE DRUGS? SOME OF THEM DRUGS CAN CAUSE CANCER
pretty easy to challenge any argument that Lance Armstrong raced his tour victories clean. if he’s willing to publicly admit that none of his competitors were dirty, then fine, 7 victories could be explained. if not, how does he or anyone else explain the victories. in fact, we know based on admissions that some of the top competitors in the sport during his victories were dirty. hence, to beat these riders, Lance himself had to be dirty. cycling is a dirty sport. until something is done to change this, it will remain such. end of story.