Although Lance Armstrong doesn't follow cycling, he comes out for Floyd Landis

When last asked about the Floyd Landis decision Lance Armstrong spouted indifference.  Seems the oft-time champion of the Tour de France, and indefatigable cancer fund-raiser rethought his position.  According to the Canadian Press, Armstrong blasted the Tour for shoddy lab work that convicted his one-time friend and teammate Landis.

"I didn't follow Floyd's case that much, but I will tell you, if that's a jury trial in the United States of America, with eight or 10 or 12 of our fellow citizens, you get off every time. Not that you get off, but you're vindicated," Armstrong told The Associated Press on Tuesday while promoting a new line of Nike apparel that supports his Livestrong campaign to fight cancer.

Armstrong, who has endured doping accusations throughout his career, has criticized the French lab where Landis' tests were conducted.

Just wondering if Armstrong didn't follow the case closely, why he believes that a jury of 8-10-12 Americans would vindicate Landis?

And without following the Landis case closely Armstrong continued:

"When you are giving someone the death penalty, which they essentially did, you cannot tolerate shoddy work, which they clearly did," Armstrong said. "I don't understand that type of rationale. I don't understand the verdict.

"It's tough for Floyd; it's tough for cycling. But at the same time, it's also really tough and unfortunate for the fans of all athletes. You never know when you're in that position, when an athlete's in that position, and you want to make sure that everything's done right."

Armstrong conceded that cycling is going through a "tough period."

"But I think all of sport is going through a tough time," he said. "You can look at cycling and say, 'Oh, they're all cheaters.' But you know what? You can look at the New England Patriots and say they're cheaters, too. You can look at the McLaren Formula One team and say they're cheaters."

As we said, Armstrong is claiming ignorance, but blasting the heck out of the Tour de France's anti-doping procedures.  Furthermore he distracts attention from cycling by discussing the Patriot's cheating.

Why does the media let a superstar by with such inexplicably weak comments.  "I didn't follow that closely but...."  Are athletes the only class of people given to making pronouncements based on almost no facts?

Comments

[George J. Mitchell, Disney]

Lance is a Nike sneaker salesman. $300 LIVE WRONG sneakers made for 6 bucks via child labor.

The media makes monye lying for and with cow blood and steroid abuser lance Pharmstrong. Lance lies to Cancer patients every day to sell mutual funds for American Century or Trek wreck bikes.

Lance is a fruad as are his sponsors.

Lance doped so much he got Cancer---just like John Matuszak did.

[mike]

The press lets him get away with contradictions because they are blood-thirsty morons, and will fight tooth and nail for any snippet of a Lance comment that is press-worthy.

The side that readers don't see happens every time Lance tries to raise awareness and funds for cancer research, and all the media hits him with are cycling and doping questions. Wouldn't you offer up an answer just to shut them up, if only for a brief moment?

Of course Lance follows cycling, of course he knows what is going on with the Landis case, what is painfully obvious to those of us who bother to analyse the situation is that Lance SIMPLY DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT CYCLING ANYMORE.

Why can't people just let him do some good out there in the world? Livestrong has actually changed a lot of lives for the better... mine and my family's included. That means more to us than whether or not he or Foyd or Jan or anyone doped during their career. If there's anything right in the world, and if Lance has anything to say about it, his own humanitarian work and political fundraising for cancer research and prevention will be the legacy he leaves behind, not the work he did on the bike.

You want to see how a REAL greedy, self-serving, selfish low-life does it? Look at Greg LeMond... all this time he could have been using his fame to help abused children, yet he only makes his own past abuse public when it serves his personal and political motivations: ie, getting Floyd out of the peloton. Thanks Greg, what have you done since for your cause, besides sign autographs and sell more bikes???

[PJ]

Here, here Mike! Well said! {personal and professional insults and cheap shots removed by the editor} And, oh, by the way, Lance Armsrong is not an "erstwhile" cancer fundraiser, he continues to be a committed and effective fundraiser and advocate for increased cancer awareness, research and patient support. Perhaps, also, you meant he "wanders down the cheating path..blah, blah," not "wonders" down. Hmmm. Oh, but to answer your question, I'd say, NO, athletes are apparently not the only class of people given to making pronouncements based on almost no facts....

[GRG]

PJ:

We corrected the misuse of the word 'erstwhile'.

Now, we do not appreciate the personal attacks about something you know nothing. Apparently if one of your ideals is criticized you attack the source.

If you are referring to 'facts' surround Armstrong's use of PED, we would be happy to elaborate on them.

That of course was not the issue here. The issue was Armstrong's self professed half interest in the Landis affair, followed by a critical attack on the process.

BTW, don't come in to someone's blog and blast them personally because you are not happy with their thoughts, that disagree with your opinions. There is a way to argue fairly, and your crap is not fair. Your personally insulting remarks will be removed.