Home » Uncategorized » Lying Lance to be sued

Lying Lance to be sued

26 January 2013

“SAN FRANCISCO — An aide to former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he was so taken by Lance Armstrong’s first memoir of battling back from cancer to win the Tour de France multiple times that he immediately read it “cover to cover” and recommended it to several friends.

Now he wants his money back — and then some.

Rob Stutzman and several others who bought Armstrong’s “It’s Not About The Bike” and “Every Second Counts” have filed a lawsuit in Sacramento federal court. It alleges Armstrong duped them into believing the books were inspirational true accounts of the cyclist’s accomplishments done without performance-enhancing drugs.

The lawsuit accuses Armstrong and the books’ publishers of committing fraud, false advertising and other wrongdoing for publishing the cyclist’s vehement denials that he wasn’t a cheat.”

Link to the rest here:


Thanks to Skip Montana for the tip.






29 Comments to “Lying Lance to be sued”

  1. “The lawsuit accuses Armstrong and the books’ publishers of committing fraud, false advertising and other wrongdoing…”

    Does this spell the end of the New York Times?

  2. “Does this spell the end of the New York Times?”


    Er…you’re being ironic?

    To Lance.

    I’ve been mystified at the wailing and gnashing of teeth there has been about this.

    Cycling has been awash with drugs for ages, and has only recently started to come clean…(if it is.)

    I don’t know if any of you have ever cycled across France, but it ain’t Holland. It has some of the biggest gert hills anyone ever built roads on.

    Just put a speedometer on yer road bike and ride under your own power at 28mph. You will find that NO cyclists will keep up with you and you will be passing cars..

    Now stick a few French hills in that lot and KEEP THAT PACE UP FOR THREE WEEKS.

    Only drug fiends can do that.

    Speeds in the Tour have dropped markedly since ole Lance left.



    • It isn’t the racing fans who are angry and feel betrayed. Frankly, if that were his only claim to fame, most of us non-sports people would never have heard of him. It’s the folks who found him an inspiration when they were battling cancer that are likely the ones feeling betrayed. The ones who proudly wore that yellow bracelet. The ones who, in their darkest, most personal battle, at their weakest and most vulnerable, looked to Lance and believed that not only had he won races but he’d won against cancer, too, and gone back to be a champion again. They saw his battle as theirs, his vicotry as theirs. He put himself out there through these books as a beacon of hope, an inspiration. People dug deeper in themselves to find the courage because hey, Lance did, and went on to come back better than ever. Right or wrong, people wanted to be like Lance–strong, tough, winners, survivors. And all the time he had a weapon in his arsenal that none of them had.

      And I think it may also be a very American thing–we want our heroes to live up to that word–to be “heroic”. Not just winners, but fair and honest and good people. Lance, it turned out, was just better at cheatng than any of the other cyclists.

  3. Wow. I feel for Lance. He’s being quite brave and rather heroic – admitting to something everyone does, at the risk of public scorn and the loss of his status. It’s a very good deed – it may lead to reform, and also, give young people are more realistic view of the sport.

    To bug him to return money – money that couldn’t have been more than 15 bucks?

    People are harsh sometimes.

    Let it go. Glass houses, folks.

    • You need to read up on him, Mira. He was a real bastard who threatened and abused people who found out he was drugging and spoke to him about it. He didn’t just lie, he intimidated people who questioned whether or not he used drugs. He’s a real POS. He’s not a hero at all.

      • Hmmm. Okay, sounds like you know more than I do. It’s possible I was misinformed. I’ll admit I’ve only followed this recently.

        • Here’s a quote for you:

          The catalogue of bad behavior got worse. He admitted that there was an “expectation” that his younger teammates would also use dangerous performance-enhancing drugs, if they wanted to make the A team. He acknowledged calling a team employee, Emma O’Reilly, a drunk and a whore. (Oprah did not approve.) He admitted calling Betsy Andreu, wife of a former teammate and close friend, a “crazy b****”—but then insisted, “I never called her fat,” as if that made it okay. (It didn’t, and Oprah really did not approve of the fat talk. )

          He laid out a catalogue of sociopathic behavior—and then failed to apologize for much if any of it. There was no apology to Betsy or her husband, Frankie, whose lives and careers he made much more difficult. There was no apology to Greg Lemond, a colleague and superior sportsman who he persecuted for years. There was no apology to his former teammates, or to the many people he’d sued or threatened to sue. “You’re suing people, and you know that they’re telling the truth,” Oprah huffed. “What is that?”

          “I think all of this is a process for me,” he said, in the course of not really answering her. “One of the steps of that process is to speak to those people directly, and just say to them that I am sorry, and I was wrong. You were right.”


          • “He admitted calling Betsy Andreu, wife of a former teammate and close friend, a “crazy b****”—but then insisted, “I never called her fat,” as if that made it okay.”

            Well, that depends. IS she a crazy b****? Truth is never inappropriate, after all.

          • If all he did was abuse drugs to become a success, Armstrong would be just a garden-variety dirtbag.

            The fact he held himself up as a role model makes it worse.

            The fact he sued & ruined people’s lives who spoke the truth about him puts him in an Olympic-class level of sleezeball dirtbags. (That is, if one can say there is an “Olympic-class” variety of those.)

            As for the lawsuit over “fraud, false advertising and other wrongdoing”, I doubt it will go anywhere. Although if handled carefully, Armstrong may go bankrupt fighting it — which may accomplish its intended goals. (The publisher’s lawyers may succeed in extracting themselves from this suit in some form.)

  4. This is more than just a nightmare for lance. They’re accusing him of selling books under false pretenses. Will someone try to start a class action suit against John Locke for buying reviews?
    The producers of The Never Ending Story must be quaking in their boots.

    • John Locke did not sell millions of books because of a few dozen purchased reviews.

      • A few dozen reviews, no. The three hundred reviews, coupled with the fact that each one came with a verified purchase, could get the ball rolling if coordinated with a good media campaign. He got the sales along with the reviews, so he got a bump in the popularity algos.

        None of this would have made a difference if he wasn’t writing good books in the first place.

        He’s a very smart bussinessman. He’s not going to spend a single cent on reviews unless he has a projected return sorted out. I just don’t buy that he would go for a dozen or so reviews simply for giggles. He would get the three hundred if he thought it would generate buzz and get the ball rolling.

  5. “all the time he had a weapon in his arsenal that none of them had.”


    I would bet that very few of Lance’s competitors were entirely clean.

    Lance WAS fantastic. He was and remains an inspiration to all those who fight dread diseases.

    Nothing can take that away from him.

    I’ve ridden some of them things he calls mountains and he FLEW up them, keeping up 115 cadence. Like most top winning road cyclists, he’s a time trial specialist. There he was a metronome, almost impossible to beat. Unlike most other lead riders, who just about get carried into the mountains, he was fantastic tearing up those hills, scaring the bejasus out of his opponents who _knew_ he’d be coming after them like having Schumacher in his prime on yer tail.

    Everyone is groaning about the drugs HE took, when the sport he was in, everyone and his dog were taking them. Lance was smarter and better organized about everything. His riding, his team, his efforts and his drug taking.

    The man was a towering athlete and a real champion. Stuffing the frogs at home, at their own game is no game for soft hearts.

    This latest brouhaha completely misses what Lance Armstrong actually did. He beat cancer, then went and beat the French up at home, winning the worlds toughest sporting event 7 times.

    The drugs helped, sure, but they weren’t the entire story. He was, at his best, a thrilling monster:)


    • Nicely said, Brendan.

      I don’t mean to be divisive. I know people looked up to him and now they feel let down. But I think what he is doing now – openly confessing – shows great integrity of character. I know that sounds weird, but alot of people cheat when they are under great pressure. Very few of them own up to it on National Television, in order to spark reform.

    • The other thing is, if everyone else was taking stuff (even stuff that was not illegal at the time) Lance still beat them. There had to be a basic skill and physiology advantage even before performance enhancers were added. And his foundation has done a lot of good for a number of people. He’s very much a tragic hero in the sense of having a fatal flaw (drugs and other performance enhancers in this case).

      And to sue over the price of a book? Good grief.

      • The other thing is, if everyone else was taking stuff (even stuff that was not illegal at the time) Lance still beat them.

        I wonder if some of his detractors are peeved about that. They cheated and they STILL lost!

        Normally I’d say it’s not a fair contest if someone is cheating, but if they’re all cheating, isn’t it then an “all things being equal” situation?

        Don’t get me wrong, what Kat Sheridan said above is pretty much how I feel. In a contest of skill I want to respect your skill at the act itself, not your skill at cheating. I hope this confession is a genuine attempt at redemption.

    • Brendan, surviving cancer doesn’t instantly make you an inspiration to anyone. Cancer afflicts anyone and everyone, not just good and decent people. Murderers, thieves and rapists regularly recover from cancer then go on to commit crimes. Should these people be classed as an inspiration just because they have recovered from a terrible disease? Should we forgive their crimes because they happened to have survived cancer? In this case, a liar and a cheat once suffered a terrible disease. Big deal. How many people have recovered from cancer and have led good, honest lives. Maybe they haven’t been on TV, made millions, but they are the true inspirations, not a compulsive liar and cheat

      Lance Armstrong not only cheated, but he bullied others into cheating, gamed a system and made a fortune from it. What he did was no different to what Bernie Madoff did. Armstrong would take blood in his suitcase to give himself transfusions after events. This is a cunning and manipulative man. There were clean athletes who had their chances scuppered by Armstong.

      Also, because every man and his dog were doing it, it is still no excuse. If we all led our lives by that mantra, the rule of law would break down and there would be anarchy.
      If the sport was full of cheats, he should have brought attention to it, fought against it. Instead he joined in and beat the cheats simply by cheating better, making a fortune in the process. Worst of all, as others have pointed out, he sued people that dared accuse him of what he now admits to doing and ruined their lives. A despicable man.

  6. He cheated.

    What more do you need to know?

    OK – he lied, falsely bore witness – i.e., falsely accused others, took money under false pretences, …

    Saying oh well, they all do drugs is totally negative – i.e., multiple wrongs do not make a right. Is there proof? In the Olympics as well?

    Is that a role model to hold out to young cyclists?

    [OK, that is full of cliches – but sometimes they are the best for communicating quickly].

  7. I’m no sports wizard (only support my kids’ teams and the miserable Chicago Bears), but isn’t one of the banned drugs he took called epoeitin? They give that drug to cancer patients with anemia. Who’s to say it wasn’t part of his cancer therapy?

    Eh? Just wondering.

  8. I’ll weigh in on the Lance thing.

    Yes, Brendan, I was being ironical.

    As for the doping…if Lance used performance enhancing substances to fight his cancer, then everyone battling cancer needs to start doping immediately.

    Lance Armstrong won race after race against competitors who were doped to the gills. Inset your own judgment here.

    Illegal why? Because some little tin god said so?

    Let’s ban all performance enhancing stuff. No more Gatorade. No more exercise. No more vitamins. No more healthy nutrition.


    • ^^^^ This.

      All this is just false moralizing and much ado over nothing. At least the doping part is. His mistreatment of other people is a different matter, but that’s not what everyone’s in an uproar over, is it?

      • Brendan and all other Lance apologists:

        You’re wrong.

        Cycling, like every other sport, is a high-stakes game with rules. It’s an artificial human construct, albeit one with tremendous power to affect us. Games resemble the unavoidable challenges of life, with one critical difference. Unlike cancer, a game is optional.

        Game designer Jane McGonigal’s definition is the simplest and best. Every game has three elements: a goal, voluntary obstacles, and rules. Without rules to define the voluntary obstacles, there is no game. Participants agree to abide by the rules. No rules, no game. Simple as that. The myriad corrupting influences that surround professional sports diminish the game—we all know that—but they don’t destroy it. Not as long as the rules have power to constrain behavior, to create an environment of fairness. The concept of fairness is critical to sports. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

        Somewhere in the world there is a cyclist—no doubt more than one—who ruled out doping categorically from the start. A person with talent and perseverance equal to Lance’s, but whose character and integrity left Lance gasping in the dust. Lance built and executed a conspiracy to drive all such principled individuals from the sport. He buried those people. We’ll never know their names. Most sickening of all, he did it cloaked in stolen robes of purity.

        It’s beneath you to defend a liar and a cheat in this fashion.

  9. First: Never make a rule that you can’t enforce. If he doped as much as they claim he did, and he still found a way to beat the test hundreds of times, then who isn’t going to be tempted to dope? A rule without a way to enforce it is nothing but an invitation. The drugs he was using were easily available to everyone he was up against. So I have to place some of the blame on the governing body.

    Two: Item one does not excuse his behavior after he chose to dope. The win-at-all-cost mind-set that he attributed his behavior to may have been true, but he’s a grown man and should be responsible for his decisions and actions. This is like the “I was drunk at the time” excuse. Alcohol doesn’t change who you are, it reveals who you are.

    “Everybody else was doing it” is a childs excuse. He got caught, and since he was at the top for so long his fall will be spectacular. Many people will watch it with glee and in the end everyone will have accomplished nothing.

    Nobody involved will come out better when this is all over. Except maybe the tabloid press.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.