As a bloke who likes to think he's reasonably realistic with his approach to life, I tend to work on the principle that if I don't expect too much, then I'll rarely be disappointed. And that was certainly the case with the "confession" that disgraced cycling hero (and consummate actor) Lance Armstrong attempted to make with Oprah Winfrey.

Whether or not you're a cycling fan, you will have undoubtedly seen the news clips, read the headlines and you've likely made some sort of judgment. There can be no doubt that Lance Armstrong was guilty of selective memory and generated far more questions than he produced answers.

From the moment the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) produced the "Reasoned Decision" which outlined his doping practices and led to the loss of seven Tour de France titles and a life ban, my view has always been that if Lance Armstrong was going to confess, there should be no half measures. He must tell the whole truth.

Sadly, this was not a full confession but a series of convenient half-truths which played to the process of confession when it suited him and continued the denial when it didn't.

As a result, there were many inconsistencies that concern me and frankly, they have convinced me that the accusations that the International Cycling Union (UCI) were in on the act all along, are more than justified.

During the interview, Armstrong claimed that he made a significant personal donation to the UCI because the UCI "asked him to" and that he did so because he was rich and had retired. The fact is, Armstrong retired in 2005 but the donation was committed in 2002, while he was still competing. Let's call it for what it is – a bald-faced lie.

How are we supposed to believe the rest of what he said? Therein lies Lance's problem.


When you've begun a lie, you have to tell more lies to cover the first ones. Ultimately you will get found out and it's all beginning to unravel. It's suspicious that the donation was made after two tests that produced positive outcomes. Or perhaps it's just me...

As far as the UCI's part in all this is concerned, well they must think we're all completely daft. They couldn't wait to tell the world that they thought Armstrong had cleared them of any suspicion with his comments. But his careful answers didn't clear them at all. In fact, they cast even more doubt over their own activities and motives to the extent that the UCI now has serious questions to answer themselves.

I'd even go as far as to say they are now clearly complicit in at least some part of the story. They are seriously suggesting that now the story has changed whereby the UCI asked him for the money and that's cleared them? More lies lies, more damned lies.

Further UCI conspiracy is proven by Armstrong's admission of an incident during the 1999 Tour de France. And before anyone says, how do you know it's not one of his half-truths, you need to bear in mind this incident was originally revealed by Lance's former soigneur, Emma O'Reilly.

In the Oprah interview, Lance accepted that the woman he'd previously called a "liar" and a "whore" to further defend his claims of innocence, was actually telling the truth. The story Lance finally acknowledged was that when he became aware that a cortisone test at the Tour de France in 1999 had returned positive, his team produced a prescription for the apparent treatment of saddle sores which was intentionally back-dated to cover the date of the test.

Emma O'Reilly blew the whistle on Armstrong more than a decade ago but few people believed his former soigneur, who he called a "liar" and a "whore"

The UCI is clearly implicated in this because Armstrong had originally confirmed on race forms he was not on any prescription drugs. The system also calls for the cyclist to declare any medication he is on at the time he pisses in the bottle, not after he's found positive. But the UCI still accepted the back-dated prescription in violation of their own regulations and then failed to reveal – and later denied – the positive test had ever taken place.

Ask yourself why did the UCI not investigate this at the time? Simple; the UCI were willing to do anything to retain super-hero status for their prized asset at the time - Lance Armstrong. They knew what was going on and swept it under the carpet. We have yet to have any explanation for this from the UCI and the pressure continues to mount.

Armstrong's acknowledgement that a long, long list of people needed an apology, was as superficial as it was disrespectful. In the words of Dan Schmalz of NYVelocity, "Lance doesn't give a hobo's dump for the people he is apologising to, he's just saying what we want to hear."

Let's bear in mind that he was prepared to sue and/or intimidate anyone who alleged malpractice even though he knew his accusers - some of whom lost their jobs (or worse) as a consequence - were telling the truth. He listed people as if they were on a guest list for a gala opening.

No details on the gravity of his disgusting onslaughts.

No mention of the fact that Greg LeMond lost his multi-million dollar business because he stood up to Armstrong and then stood helpless as nobody listened and Armstrong's commercial machine ensured his cycling business was crucified. I still maintain that Trek needs to be held accountable for what they did to Greg. Not a peep out of Trek President John Burke about any of this. Now if there was a person to whom the epithet "scumbag" belongs (thanks Pat), I'd say it's John.


No mention that Journalist David Walsh was verbally abused and taunted by Armstrong about the death of his 12 year-old son in a cycling accident. How can anyone ever trust a man a man who claimed that David Walsh's issues were inspired by nothing more than a fatherly vendetta against cycling?

Oprah, if you really want emotion, speak to LeMond, Walsh and all the others whose lives have been decimated by one sociopath.

Both Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis said that Armstrong told them in 2001 he'd tested positive for EPO but that; "it would be taken care of". Do we believe Hamilton and Landis, who stuck to their stories in the face of extreme intimidation from Armstrong's camp, or the disgraced "hero" who's been telling lies and bullying people for years?


So what now? Well, Armstrong's confirmation of his willingness to take part in a truth and reconciliation process is interesting because it puts the UCI under further pressure to ensure they comply with demands from the Independent Commission that is charged with conducting a full review of the whole affair and the UCI's own practices.

The Commission recently agreed with demands from Change Cycling Now (CCN), World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and USADA to widen the process to ensure transparency within the investigation but the UCI has refused to sanction them.

Here's the entity being investigated preventing the investigator from having the tools they need to do their job. It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

Armstrong's willingness to cooperate, a series of half-truths in this interview and many remaining inconsistencies between his version of events and those of former team mates and colleagues, (bugger it, let's call them lies) means the UCI cannot interfere any longer.

After this, Armstrong and the UCI have even more questions to answer.

Jaimie Fuller is the chairman of Skins and the founder of pressure group Change Cycling Now, whose members include Greg LeMond, Paul Kimmage and David Walsh. To follow him on Twitter click here.