Whose tour kicked off at Rustenburg on 30 May 2009?

Does Lance Armstrong think that he'll be able to get away with blood doping at the 2009 and 2010 Tour de France?

• According to USADA, Armstrong was doped in 2009 and 2010. "USADA collected nine blood samples from Armstrong between February 13, 2009, and April 30, 2012. The WADA database, ADAMS, contains results from another 29 Armstrong blood samples collected by UCI between October 16, 2008 and January 18, 2011. At USADA’s request, these blood test results were examined by Professor Christopher J Gore, Head of Physiology at the Australian Institute of Sport. Prof Gore observed that a cluster of five Armstrong samples during the 2009 Tour de France and his two samples during the 2010 Tour de France contained an unusually low percentage of reticulocytes. Reticulocytes are immature red blood cells created naturally by the body. When an athlete adds additional red blood cells to his circulation by transfusing his own stored blood, the body’s production of reticulocytes is suppressed. This is reflected by a decrease in the athlete’s reticulocyte percentage. When Prof Gore compared the suppressed reticulocyte percentage in Armstrong’s 2009 and 2010 Tour de France samples to the reticulocyte percentage in his other samples, Prof. Gore concluded that the approximate likelihood of Armstrong’s seven suppressed reticulocyte values during the 2009 and 2010 Tours de France occurring naturally was less than one in a million." Why did Armstrong deny this during his interview with Oprah? Does he believe that none of his co-riders from 2009 and 2010 are going to testify against him? Will they put Armstrong to jail for perjury?

• Answer:

  I think some important context to the Lance/Oprah interview is the legal wrangling that it would inevitably kick up. Cases between LA and; Sponsors (most importantly, US Gov funded sponsors like USPS - perjury against whom creates significant legal penalties) Organizations that paid 'prize' money who feel they have a claim on those funds Anti-Doping organizations that can retro-actively strip him of titles and influence his participation in future sports (triathlons, etc.) - I think by now he's lost most of his titles and it's more about the future.. Considering the above, I think his answers (as they have always been) were very 'qualified' (i.e. I want to imply 'this' but I have to say it 'that' way to protect myself legally). Bottom line, he reached a point where he absolutely had to admit something (at a very minimum, so he could have some sort of open conversation with his family). But his admission was carefully delivered in a way to optimize the balance between "admitting what I did wrong" versus "what I want to do next."