Saru denies Kings request
27 Jan 2013
Saru has turned down the Southern King’s request to include five foreigners in their Super Rugby squad.
At the beginning of January, the Kings named a 40-man squad including five foreigners. Kings officials were, at that point, adamant that Saru would bend the rules and allow South Africa’s newest franchise to field all five players.
But according to Rapport, Saru has officially turned down the Kings’ request, and they will only be allowed to play two foreigners in the coming Super Rugby competition.
The foreign recruits are Tomas Leonardi and Nicolas Vergallo (both Argentina), Daniel Adongo (Kenya), Virgile Lacombe (France) and Hadleigh Parkes (New Zealand). It is believed Adongo is considering taking out South African citizenship.
Kings president Cheeky Watson said that the Eastern Cape franchise had not been officially informed about Saru’s decision.
‘If this is the case, we will accept and abide by the decision of SA Rugby. We know that the region has never been fed with a silver spoon, and have no reason to expect any different going into our debut Super Rugby season,’ Watson said.
‘The path for this region to get a Super Rugby franchise has been fraught with challenges, and yet, despite all the odds, we have overcome them and Super Rugby is a reality, with our first game against Western Force less than a month away.
‘We accept that this opportunity comes from a loaded deck of cards, but the bigger the challenge, the bigger the task, the bigger the team and the overall success.
‘We will not be releasing any of our foreign players, however, as there are still ample opportunities within our structures for them to contribute.’
303 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 » Show All
27 Jan 2013, 21:49 pm
I love it when people resort to childish name calling in response.
27 Jan 2013, 21:56 pm
@Slappes-149:
come on Slappes, you dont really mean that.
the cheetahs play an exciting and entertaining brand of rugby and whats more they comprehensively annihilated the Kings in the CC promo/releg playoffs last season.
you are just fighting Luiperds silly words with some silly words of your own.
27 Jan 2013, 22:07 pm
@Bakkies, I know but he/she is very entertaining. Love the lions fans – all 5600 that attended the game yesterday, unlike these useless cyberfans. Their team need bums on seats instead theyre here talking incoherent drivel.
27 Jan 2013, 22:15 pm
@Slappes-153:
sweet man, enjoy it
just dont get uptight, like some of these Kiwis
27 Jan 2013, 22:31 pm
@David-139: David, EP formed part of the Coastal Sharks, and were unhappy. They sold their rights back to the Sharks and started mopping around and ended up playing 1st Division and Vodacom cup, begging for hand outs from SARU.
As for the Sharks having a academy in the EC, come on you know you are talking through cheekies @ss, the academies are sponsored by SARU the EC partner.
Answer 1 question, in 130 years of rugby history how many times has EP won the Currie Cup?
27 Jan 2013, 22:44 pm
@SodaJoe-145:
27 Jan 2013, 22:44 pm
@Liewe Luiperd-118: ” 118. “No, EP and Border no longer
have anything to do with Sharks super
rugby. They were bought out completely.
And formed the Spears”
arguing with you is futile because your weak arguments are based on hearsay & propaganda. How much did the KZNRU pay Border & EP for their stakes in the Coastal Sharks?
Did SARU approve that sale?
please bring facts & not “braai talk”
oh & as for “sitting on the fence”, again you are being adamant about lies, most here know i have supported EP through & through & it has fokkol to do with “pro-black” anything.
27 Jan 2013, 22:56 pm
@Wanderer-155: ” They
sold their rights back to the Sharks and
started mopping around and ended up
playing 1st Division and Vodacom cup,
begging for hand outs from SARU.”
excuse me but you are mistaken, go do your research & bring us the facts about this sale.
27 Jan 2013, 22:56 pm
@transie, lol! Braaitalkers hahahahaha
27 Jan 2013, 22:57 pm
@Transformation-157: Liewe Luiperd said you also have a secret crush on the Crusaders, is that true?
27 Jan 2013, 22:58 pm
Sigh. Transie……… nobody is disputing that you support the Kings…………………. but if you open your ears and eyes you will see that I am talking about SUPER RUGBY…… when you supposedly did not support any SA team (although you had a soft spot for the Crusaders)…….. you always were able to mock any team of your choosing because you had no colours to fall back on………… well guess what NOW that you do have a team in Super rugby I will be speaking with you during the season hahahahahaha! You have some of your own medicine coming your way boy!
27 Jan 2013, 23:01 pm
Sharks have profiteered big time at EP’s expense. If it weren’t for EP and FS Sharks rugby wouldn’t exist. That why the Sharkishits and some other disgruntled colonialists are at the front of the queue waiting and baying for Kings to fail. Because if they succeed it will immediately and automatically impact on Sharks success who have been luring EP and FS players with their mercenary money since Sharkishits stepped out of 1st division sport Pienaar rugby.
Nearly all Sharks top flight players are either from EP or FS and a couple from GP and WP too.
27 Jan 2013, 23:03 pm
skopskiet is the mother of bullshit talkers
does he even believe what he spews?………………….
27 Jan 2013, 23:05 pm
how long until skopskiet tells people to leave the country back to Victoria’s skirts?
:stuckrecord:
27 Jan 2013, 23:06 pm
This coloniser from Israel by the name of Joel (skopskiet) has an issue with colonialism of the past………………….
:irony:
27 Jan 2013, 23:07 pm
@Transformation-157:
Call me stupid, naive or optimistic, but somehow I think the Kings will be good for a few wins.
Some teams will be “resting or rotating” their teams against them and if they take them too lightly anything can happen.
Who would have thought the Black Caps would win the one day series after the test results?
Complacency can be a bit.ch
27 Jan 2013, 23:09 pm
Sharks think money rules meantime they can’t develop too many top flight players through their school systems without buying them from EP or FS now they started buying them out the cradle from WP and even Pta. No wonder Sharkishits want EP rugby to fail so bad because if it succeeds a big portion of Sharkishits mercenary activities will be curtailed.
27 Jan 2013, 23:12 pm
and they never landed on the moon, JFK was assassinated by the CIA, 9/11 was a USA plot so they could invade for oil, Elvis is alive and living with Michael Jackson, and skop is a 6’7 giant.
27 Jan 2013, 23:17 pm
Stupid whiteys like this liewer luiperd prick is in for a rude awakening he’s still trying to hang on for dear life to his witbaas false sense of security little do these outdated colonialists like him realize those days are long time gone he better wake up and realize the witbaas fallacy is a myth and Kings might just kick his lily white vat to teach schmucks like him the overdue lesson
27 Jan 2013, 23:21 pm
Hahaha! Didn’t take very long for skopskiet to hurl the “C” word….. “colonialism”
Hahaha!
:stuckrecord:
:warpedmind:
:insanedelusions:
Long live the Empire!
27 Jan 2013, 23:22 pm
I will support the Kings over the Stormers.
:anyteamovertheStormers:
27 Jan 2013, 23:24 pm
so will the Stormers score any tries this year? discuss.
27 Jan 2013, 23:28 pm
@BrumbiesBoy-160: why don’t you ask him to qualify his claim?
27 Jan 2013, 23:30 pm
@Liewe Luiperd-161: i’m glad to know my commentary managed to leave you sounding as sour as you do
bring it on!
27 Jan 2013, 23:31 pm
You stupid white schmuck can’t even see what a stupid white schmuck you are stupid white schmucks like you are obsolete you should try come to terms with how stupid and obsolete you stupid white schmuck actually are. Arsetralia is waiting with open borders to welcome more of these stupid white displaced schmucks like you into their fold
27 Jan 2013, 23:33 pm
@nortierd-166: thanks for your positive words chap…my team will have to step up majorly…this is their chance…
27 Jan 2013, 23:36 pm
hahahaha skop is going haywire, the racist pr*ck, loved it!
Transie – you deserve it, you have it coming! Good luck!
27 Jan 2013, 23:38 pm
@Transformation-174: Don’t worry, it only takes a couple of months of consecutive defeat before it stops bothering you. Eventually you’re happy if they score the occasional try or don’t drop the ball at least half the time. Trust me, I’m a Blues fan, I speak from experience
27 Jan 2013, 23:41 pm
Supporting the Crusaders Is far more legitimate than supporting the Brumbies
At least supporting the Crusaders in a south Africa context carries some social correlation of conscientious objection to abhorrent social practices in sport. Supporting the Brumbies just shows what a pathetic delusional displaced thick white colonialist you are
27 Jan 2013, 23:41 pm
@Transformation-176:
no worries
Decisions were made and the rugger is thankfully close to kick off, so to still bleat about the how or why is a waste of time.
I hope the EC supporters pack out the Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium, that will paint the right picture from the first game.
Good luck to your team and enjoy the top flight rugby, it’s been a long time.
27 Jan 2013, 23:43 pm
@gonzo-178: cheers gonzo. i gather from the likes of Pops &NZinChina…the way they carry on here you’d swear their team is contesting playoffs
27 Jan 2013, 23:48 pm
@skop: legitimacy? the claim is outright rubbish…the saders play a brand of rugby i enjoy watching & have often contracted players i like eg israel dagg who impressed me in his rookie season for the landers.
27 Jan 2013, 23:58 pm
@Transformation-181:
Once the Blues are out of the running…the fans live vicariously through the success of whatever Nz team is making a charge for glory…this comes about because of our open mindedness. I will be jumping for joy when the Kings take any of the other Sa franchises down, even a win against any Nz team other than the Blues will make my day….Heres hoping for a successful debut season for the Kings and the sorry demise of Lions Rugby to be resurrected with a promo/relegation win over the Bulls….
27 Jan 2013, 23:58 pm
I don’t advocate supporting the Crusaders in fact of the NZ teams I enjoy the Chiefs brand of rugby more but if anyone who supports the Brumbies as a statement of objection agaInst political interference in S A sport then the dumb white politically duped colonialist idiot should pack his bags for Canberra at the first light of dawn.
28 Jan 2013, 00:35 am
@skopdiekan-184:
I enjoy the Chiefs brand of late. Having played in Waikato, they are staunch rugby people and believe in the hard work ethic and team culture.
With regards to supporting a foreign side to make a type of political statement well I’m trying to think of why do I support the Kings. Its because they deserve the support of Nzers. The Nzrfu by cow-towing to the demands of Sa Rugby during the Apartheid era in an effort to play the Bok gave no thought whatsoever to Black Rugby and how their actions by touring without Maori players would reinforce the ideology of white supremacy in Rugby. Its time we New Zealanders did something for Rugby in areas like EC by offering the little support we can through blogs like this.
28 Jan 2013, 01:02 am
@Te Rangatira-185: what a load of bollocks! “Support through a blog like this”? Man, you are talking shi.t that went down 40 to 50 years ago. Time to move on. Look at what is there today. The Kings are a fiasco. Cheeky Twatson is a doos. The team is a diabolical shambles. You know, people in SA would have been right behind them if they were just brought to the table in a fair and competitive manner, but the minute they were given a political free pass is the minute they lost the majority of SAcan rugby support. I will watch them this season with pity, like you look at an old dog on its last legs, because this sorry mob do not “deserve” to be in Super rugby at all. They don’t even have a Currie Cup team, FFS.
28 Jan 2013, 01:04 am
As a kiwi you love them because they are a walking 5 pointer every season! And for that you feel a little sorry for them. 100 point scorelines coming right up. Admit it. You only dream of more walking 5 pointers in the Republic.
28 Jan 2013, 01:37 am
@Liewe Luiperd-186:
What are you on about? Why do you think Saru have given a spot in Super Rugby to the Kings? I thought it was transformation in Sa rugby to rectify shitt that happened in the past.
You are obviously upset about the process that allowed the Kings in the comp, I can understand that because it was handled in an amateurish fashion, but I still believe they should be given their shot.
“I am talking shitt that went down 40-50 years ago” It still happened didn’t it. Lets be like you and forget about the past yet come up with nothing constructive for the present or future.
“As a kiwi you love them because they are a walking 5 pointer every season!”
No…incorrect….I want the Kings to succeed….At this stage in their development, if they show improvement throughout the season then we should be happy.
28 Jan 2013, 03:06 am
@Transformation-181: not last season but the season before our team WAS contesting play offs, they lost to the eventual champions that year in the Reds..
selective memory Trans?
28 Jan 2013, 03:30 am
I have just listened to the CBS 60 mins. interview conducted by Scott Pellety with USADA representative, Travis Tygart. It is explosive yet extremely chilling and totally sickening. And yet Armstrong has not accepted the challenge to testify under oath to USADA. He seeks to testify to the global cycling body, UCI, the org. he donated in excess of $100,000(a similar sum was rejected by USADA years ago)
In this report, if you follow its magnitude and complexity Tygart clearly is one of the threatened heroes but the global cycling body,UCI is one of the many cheating rogues(and there are very many).
If this, and more, is what happens to clean, good and healthy amateur sport after money is pumped in then ALL such sport is not worth worth a second of my time{but I will wait for whatever testimony is given under oath by the mafia(‘omerta’ is mentioned) machine of Armstrong and his ‘backers}
There are 5 separate and continuous pages to post and I will ascribe each post to a separate page. So expect 5 more pages(posts) after this introductory one.
Lance Armstrong admitted to doping for the first time in an interview with Oprah Winfrey last week. But Travis Tygart, the director of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, says Armstrong lied to Winfrey and withheld the truth on key issues. Scott Pelley reports.
28 Jan 2013, 03:36 am
@Liewe Luiperd-187:
Well SA seem to always produce walking 5 pointer teams….. consistency is important here.
I say give the Kings a chance. Let them have a crack at least.
28 Jan 2013, 03:41 am
PAGE 1(of 5). – remember it is an interview between Pelley and Travis Tygart’
The following script is from “The Fall of Lance Armstrong” which aired on Jan. 27, 2013 at &.00EST. Scott Pelley is the correspondent. Michael Radutzky, Michael Rey and Oriana Zill de Granados, producers.
60 Minutes Overtime
Did 60 Minutes help create the myth of Lance? :
We have learned that U.S. anti-doping authorities have given Lance Armstrong a deadline of February 6th to agree to confess all under oath. If he declines, we are told that his lifetime ban in sports will be irreversible. Armstrong admitted to doping, for the first time, in an interview with Oprah Winfrey last week. But the director of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, Travis Tygart, told us that Armstrong did not tell the truth in that interview and left out the most important facts that investigators want to nail down.
Tygart is the official who pursued the Armstrong investigation when others had given up. The evidence amassed by his anti-doping agency forced Armstrong to surrender his titles, lose his sponsors and quit his charity. Armstrong says he wants to return to sport. Travis Tygart holds the keys to that decision. So we asked him this week about Armstrong’s talk show confession.
Scott Pelley: You know, at one point in the interview he said that he was curious about the definition of the word cheater. And he looked it up in the dictionary and didn’t think it necessarily applied to him.
Travis Tygart: It’s amazing. I mean Scott you could go to almost any kindergarten in this country or frankly around the world and find kids playing tag or four square and ask ‘em what cheating is. And every one of ‘em will tell you it’s BREAKING THE RULES OF THE GAME. No real athlete has to look up the definition of cheating.
Scott Pelley: Armstrong described doping as so routine, it was, quote, “Like the air in our tires and the water in our bottles.” What did you think of that?
Travis Tygart: It’s just simply not true. And I think it’s a pretty cowardly self-interested justification or rationalization for his decision to defraud millions of people.
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, known as USADA, polices U.S. Olympic sport. Last October, it issued a report that’s called a “reasoned decision.” It was a thousand pages of evidence that found that Armstrong had run quote “the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport had ever seen.” That was one of USADA’S conclusions that Armstrong denied in his interview last week.
Scott Pelley: He suggested that cycling in those years was a level playing field because everyone did it. He wasn’t doing anything special.
Travis Tygart: It’s just simply not true. The access they had to inside information to how the tests work, what tests went in place at what time, special access to the laboratory, he was on an entirely different playing field than all the other athletes even if you assume all the other athletes had access to some doping products.
Scott Pelley: Armstrong admitted in the interview to doping throughout his seven Tour de France victories. He tried to make a comeback in 2009. He admitted the first seven, but those last two races in ’09 and 2010 he said he did not dope, he was racing clean.
Travis Tygart: Just contrary to the evidence. The evidence is clear. His blood tests in 2009, 2010, expert reports based on the variation of his blood values from those tests, one to a million chance that it was due to something other than doping.
Scott Pelley: You have to wonder why if he admits to doping in the first seven Tour de France races, why he would proclaim his innocence in 2009 and 2010.
Travis Tygart: I think it stops the criminal conspiracy and protects him and the others that helped him pull off this scheme from potential criminal prosecution if that was in fact true.
Scott Pelley: How does that help him in that way?
Travis Tygart: There’s a five-year statute on a fraud criminal charge. So the five years today would have been expired. However, if the last point of his doping as we alleged and proved in our reasoned decision was in 2010, then the statute has not yet expired and he potentially could be charged with a criminal violation for conspiracy to defraud.
The famous US Postal Team was fueled by dope. There was an illegal blood booster called EPO, there was testosterone, and a banned technique called blood doping in which riders store fresh blood and transfuse it into their bodies during a race. Records were broken, victories spoke for themselves and, for a decade, no one spoke of anything else.
Travis Tygart: The first break that finally cracked the code of silence or the “omerta” that existed in the sport was when several witnesses in the spring of 2010 came forward and they told us their stories.(CBS 60 mins. played a key role in that too).
28 Jan 2013, 03:46 am
PAGE 2(of 5) {On this pageTyler Hamilton is also interviewed}:
Scott Pelley: You used the word “omerta.” That’s a Mafia term.
Travis Tygart: It is a Mafia term. And I think there were parts of this scheme that were run like a Mafia.
In 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation. Armstrong’s teammates were forced to testify — subpoenaed by a grand jury. One of them was Tyler Hamilton.
Scott Pelley: One of the things that is so amazing about all of this is how long it was kept quiet, how many people knew and didn’t say.
Tyler Hamilton: Yeah, people were afraid of Lance Armstrong. People were afraid.
Scott Pelley: But what’s to be afraid of?
Tyler Hamilton: It’s the machine, you know, the Lance machine. That he’s got a lot of connections. If you go against Lance Armstrong, your days in cycling are done.
The testimony of Hamilton and others before the grand jury in Los Angeles was secret — until Hamilton told his story in an interview on “60 Minutes.”
Tyler Hamilton: There was EPO, there was testosterone. So, I– and I did see a transfusion, a blood transfusion.
Three weeks after that story in 2011, Hamilton was in Aspen, Colo., working his way through a crowded bar.
Tyler Hamilton: Turned to my right, and it was Lance Armstrong.
Scott Pelley: So he stops you cold.
Tyler Hamilton: Stops me cold.
Scott Pelley: And says what?
Tyler Hamilton: Well, first he asked how much “60 Minutes” had paid me to do that interview.
Scott Pelley: Answer, nothing.
Tyler Hamilton: Obviously, nothing, yeah. The biggest thing he said is, you know, “We’re gonna make your life a living, f-in’ hell, both in the courtroom and out.”
Scott Pelley: He was, at that moment, the target of a federal investigation. And you were a witness in that federal investigation.
Tyler Hamilton: Yeah. Yeah.
Scott Pelley: Intimidating a witness is a federal crime. Did you feel intimidated?
Tyler Hamilton: I did, I did, I did.
The grand jury heard from at least a dozen Postal riders. There was testimony that a team bus had been pulled over in France while the riders inside were hooked up to banned blood transfusions. Some testified that riders used makeup to cover needle marks. The secret grand jury proceeding went on for two years, but in 2012 the U.S. attorney dropped the case without explanation.
Tyler Hamilton: I was really angry. I knew, you know, I’m not a rocket scientist, but I knew justice wasn’t being served here.
Scott Pelley: You’d gone to the grand jury. You’d told the truth. And the government dropped the case. You’re out there twisting in the wind by yourself.
Tyler Hamilton: Yeah, yeah. And I knew a lot of other people had testified and it was all going to be sealed. And everybody was just going to go along like it had never happened.
28 Jan 2013, 03:50 am
PAGE 3(of 5) {some of the Oprah interview comes in from time to time}
USADA had been monitoring the investigation and Tygart thought that the evidence gathered by the U.S. attorney was overwhelming.
Scott Pelley: Why do you think he dropped the case?
Travis Tygart: I don’t know, Scott. It’s a good question and one that if you find the answer, let me know.
Armstrong congratulated the government for closing the investigation and kept repeating what he told CBS Sports in 2005.
Lance Armstrong: Explain to me how we’ve passed so many tests if we’re so dirty. And they don’t want to answer that question. And that’s not fair.
But Tygart did want to answer that question and he began an investigation. He convinced riders to testify to USADA. He looked at Armstrong’s tests from his first Tour de France victory in 1999 and found EPO. Then, a Swiss lab director, Marcial Saugy, said that after he got a suspicious test result on Armstrong in 2001, he was directed to meet Armstrong and his coach Johan Bruyneel. Saugy said the meeting was set up by the International Cycling Union, which oversees the sport.
Travis Tygart: He was instructed by UCI to meet with Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel and explain the EPO testing process, which he told us was unprecedented. And I asked him, “Did you give Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel the keys to defeat the EPO test?” And he nodded his head yes.
Tygart believes Armstrong had influence over the UCI.
Scott Pelley: Lance Armstrong made a generous donation to the International Cycling Union of $100,000. Do you think that was meant to influence them?
Travis Tygart: I don’t know. Obviously, totally inappropriate.
Scott Pelley: Why inappropriate? Lance Armstrong’s trying to support anti-doping in sport. That’s what he would tell you.
Travis Tygart: It an inherent conflict of interest.
During that interview last week, Armstrong was asked about that 2001 Swiss test.
[Lance Armstrong: That story isn't true. There was no positive test. There was no paying off of the lab. There was no secret meeting with the lab director.
Oprah Winfrey: The UCI didn't make that go away.
Lance Armstrong: Nope. ]
Travis Tygart: He exonerated essentially the UCI. And our information is — and the evidence is — different than that.
Scott Pelley: What was it about what Armstrong said in the interview about UCI that you thought was wrong?
Travis Tygart: I think their involvement was a lot deeper in him pulling off this heist than he was willing to admit to.
Tygart told us Armstrong tried to make a similar donation to USADA.
Tygart made that revelation during our first interview earlier this month which was for “60 Minutes Sports,” our program on the Showtime network. Armstrong was asked about that in the interview last week.
[Oprah Winfrey: Were you trying to pay off USADA?
Lance Armstrong: No, that is not true.
Oprah Winfrey: That's not true?
Lance Armstrong: That is not true.]
28 Jan 2013, 03:53 am
PAGE 4(of 5)
Travis Tygart: That’s just not true. I received a phone call from one of his closest associates and they offered us the money.
Scott Pelley: You took this phone call yourself?
Travis Tygart: Yes.
Scott Pelley: And Armstrong’s representative said what to you precisely?
Travis Tygart: “Lance wants to make a financial donation to USADA.”
Scott Pelley: Who was this representative?
Tygart: It’s one of his closest representatives. I’ve told the federal government in its investigation on the civil fraud side, so I don’t think it would be appropriate now to name the name ’cause it’s still one of his closest representatives.
Scott Pelley: There was no mistaking the purpose of that call?
Travis Tygart: Absolutely not.
Influence and intimidation were key, according to Tygart, to getting riders onboard and keeping them in line.
Scott Pelley: The impression that Armstrong makes in the interview was that he was doping, yes, but he was just one of the guys.
Travis Tygart: He was the boss. The evidence is clear he was one of the ringleaders of this conspiracy that pulled off this grand heist that defrauded using tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, defrauded millions of sports fans and his fellow competitors.
Scott Pelley: There was a rider on the team named Christian Vande Velde. What happened to him?
Travis Tygart: Lance called Christian to his apartment and Lance verbally accosted Christian for not fully being on the doping program to maximize Christian’s performance ’cause his performance was not very good at that point.
Scott Pelley: And Christian Vande Velde’s understanding was after that meeting that if he didn’t dope, what would happen?
Travis Tygart: Lance made it crystal clear as did the doctor who was sitting there that you better fully get on the program or you’re gonna be off the team.
Another US Postal Service rider named Frankie Andreu testified that after he refused to dope, he was fired and Armstrong destroyed his career.
Travis Tygart: It was tough. All these witnesses were scared of the repercussions of them simply telling the truth.
Scott Pelley: What could Lance Armstrong do to them?
Travis Tygart: Incinerate them.
Former teammate Levi Leipheimer felt the heat. Leipheimer said in his sworn affidavit that he came to a cycling dinner after his testimony. Leipheimer says Armstrong was there and sent Leipheimer’s wife a text. It read, “run, don’t walk.”
Scott Pelley: What did she take it to mean?
Travis Tygart: It’s a veiled threat. Knowing her husband had just testified, truthfully, in front of the grand jury and had told citizens of this country about this great fraud. It was a message, “You better run.”
Scott Pelley: Your investigation showed that there were personal threats made against riders who had decided to come clean. I wonder if there were any threats against you.
Travis Tygart: There were, Scott.
Scott Pelley: These threats came from where?
Travis Tygart: Emails, letters.
Scott Pelley: Anonymous?
Travis Tygart: Yeah.
Scott Pelley: Can you remember any of the lines from the emails or the letters?
Travis Tygart: The worst was probably putting a bullet in my head.
Scott Pelley: Did you take that seriously?
Travis Tygart: Absolutely. Turned it over to the FBI to investigate it, which they’re doing.
28 Jan 2013, 04:00 am
Is Lance Armstrong still lying?
PAGE 5(of 5)
Tygart’s agency was also threatened. The CEO of the Livestrong Foundation — Armstrong’s cancer charity — lobbied against USADA before Congress. Members of Congress and 23 California state representatives called for an investigation of the agency’s practices and its taxpayer funding.
Scott Pelley: And yet, you chose to go ahead. You were gambling the fate of USADA itself on this one case.
Travis Tygart: If we’re unwilling to take this case and help this sport move forward, than we’re here for naught. We should shut down. And if they want to shut us down for doing our job on behalf of clean athletes, and the integrity of competition, then shut us down.
Last year, when Tygart made his evidence public, Armstrong had the option of a hearing and confronting the witnesses. But he chose not to fight and he was handed that lifetime ban. In last week’s interview Armstrong said the ban was unfair considering that riders who testified against him were banned for only six months.
Travis Tygart: If you traffic, if you distribute, if you possess, if you use the number of substances that he used over the period of time that he used, then you cover it up and you refuse to come in and be part of the solution, the rules mandate a lifetime ban. But the lowest his ban could go under the rules would be to an eight-year suspension.
Scott Pelley: What does Lance Armstrong have to do for there to be a possibility that USADA’s lifetime ban would be lifted?
Travis Tygart: He would have to come in just like all 11 of his teammates did and testify truthfully about all of those who were involved with him pulling off this grant heist.
Armstrong is facing a lawsuit that alleges that he defrauded the federal government when he lied about cheating to get the Postal Service sponsorship. The suit was filed by former teammate Floyd Landis and in the next few weeks the federal government is expected to decide whether to join Landis in the suit. The potential penalty for Armstrong and his business partners is $90 million.
Scott Pelley: The Department of Justice has not made a decision about whether to join that lawsuit against Lance Armstrong. What do you think they should do?
Travis Tygart: I think they have to join the suit. I mean, we were surprised the criminal case didn’t go forward based on the evidence that we had seen and generated through our investigation. So we’ll be, you know, once again shocked if they don’t join the suit. I think a jury should have an opportunity to decide whether the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars that were defrauded by this team and Lance Armstrong and his associates, whether or not the government should be paid back for that.
As we reported, Tygart has given Armstrong a deadline of February 6th to agree to tell all under oath. Armstrong’s lawyers have now replied to that saying Armstrong cannot appear by that date and, rather than USADA, Armstrong is more likely to tell his story to the International Cycling Union — the same organization that Tygart believes was complicit in hiding Armstrong’s doping.
Scott Pelley: If Lance Armstrong had prevailed in this case and you had failed, what would the effect on sport have been?
Travis Tygart: It would have been huge. Because athletes would have known that some are too big to fail.
Scott Pelley: And the message that sends is what?
Travis Tygart: Cheat your way to the top. And if you get too big and too popular and too powerful, if you do it that well, you’ll never be held accountable.
28 Jan 2013, 04:11 am
Read and weep all you ‘apartheid’ influenced thugs, for only you with that Hitlerite culture can even begin to deem to vaguely overlook his gross indiscretions and, worse still, his insults to any human’s ‘intelligence’ and ethics.
Fortunately, Armstrong never got too bio and too popular and too powerful as he was too much of an oaf and will now be held accountable even if he has to be tempted with the carrots of seemingly further sporting participation.
{{ Victory is certain and revenge for honest ,clean sporting endeavour is sweet.}}
Torment yourselves further with these:
Web Extras
Is Lance Armstrong still lying?
Did 60 Minutes help create the myth of Lance?
Getting on Lance Armstrong’s bad side
Travis Tygart comes face to face with Lance Armstrong
28 Jan 2013, 05:33 am
Psssssoff et, if we want to read about Armstrong we would do so elsewhere so fukoff with the copy and paste…..jeeeez
28 Jan 2013, 06:11 am
@Transformation-173: I asked you a simple question.
Yes or no?
And until I hear otherwise I” take that as a “Yes”.
28 Jan 2013, 06:15 am
@BrumbiesBoy-199: = I’ll
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.