Originally Posted by Default_User:
“Nice for Armstrong to offer to testify with 100% honesty. That's as good as telling us he's not to be trusted in anything that's gone before. I don't know how the authorities could credibly use his evidence to punish other riders or 'doctors'. Should they take him up on the offer or dismiss it as a face-saving publicity exercise?”
“Nice for Armstrong to offer to testify with 100% honesty. That's as good as telling us he's not to be trusted in anything that's gone before. I don't know how the authorities could credibly use his evidence to punish other riders or 'doctors'. Should they take him up on the offer or dismiss it as a face-saving publicity exercise?”
If he wants to turn over a new leaf he can start by being unconditionally open and honest. If the truth is a negotiable, a bargaining tool, dependent on satisfying his self-interest, then they are dealing with the same old street-fighter of seven illicit Tours.
He is a convicted liar and cheat. He sued The Sunday Times in the British High Court for telling the truth. How can his testimony to a small foreign non-statutory committee be regarded as reliable? Would perjury in that forum have any consequences? If he equivocated on key questions could anyone force him to answer?
I doubt he would shaft the likes of Bruyneel and Ferrari so what is the point? Anyway, USADA revealed the enough of the truth to satisfy and close the matter.for any reasonable person.




