Attorney: Armstrong won't interview under oath with USADA

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - Lance Armstrong will not do a tell-all interview under oath with the agency that exposed his performance-enhancing drug use and took his seven Tour de France titles.
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency had told Armstrong he would have to reveal all knows about doping in cycling - a process officials expected would take several days - if he wanted to reduce his lifetime ban from sports.
Wednesday was the latest deadline for Armstrong to decide on USADA's offer. After negotiating with the agency for two months, he refused.
Armstrong attorney Tim Herman said the cyclist "will not participate in USADA's efforts to selectively conduct American prosecutions that only demonize selected individuals while failing to address the 95 percent of the sport over which USADA has no jurisdiction."
USADA chief executive Travis Tygart said the agency had expected Armstrong would agree to talk and would be "moving on" without him.
"Over the last few weeks he has led us to believe that he wanted to come in and assist USADA, but was worried of potential criminal and civil liability if he did so," Tygart said. "Today we learned from the media that Mr. Armstrong is choosing not to come in and be truthful and that he will not take the opportunity to work toward righting his wrongs in sport."
Herman has said Armstrong is willing to participate in an international effort to clean up cycling, an effort that has broken down in spats between the International Cycling Union, the sport's governing body, and the World Anti-Doping Agency.
"He will be the first man through the door, and once inside will answer every question, at an international tribunal formed to comprehensively address pro cycling, an almost exclusively European sport," Herman said.
For more than a decade, Armstrong denied using performance-enhancing drugs. But last year, USADA released a report that detailed extensive doping on his Tour de France-winning teams and stripped him of those victories. Armstrong then admitted last month in an interview with Oprah Winfrey that he doped to win those races.
Tygart has accused Armstrong of lying in portions of that interview, most notably Armstrong's claim that he raced clean when he came out of retirement in 2009-2010. USADA's report says blood evidence shows Armstrong cheated during his comeback.
USADA also wants to question Armstrong under oath about whether cycling officials helped him cover up positive drug tests during his career, charges he continues to deny.
Beyond his problems with USADA, Armstrong still faces several legal challenges.
Armstrong was the subject of a two-year federal grand jury investigation that was dropped a year ago without an indictment, but the Department of Justice is still considering whether to join a federal whistle-blower lawsuit filed by former Armstrong teammate Floyd Landis.
Armstrong also has been sued by a Dallas-based SCA Promotions to recover more than $12 million in bonuses. And he has been sued by The Sunday Times in London to recover a libel judgment that the cyclist won against the paper.
Armstrong's latest decision means he won't risk the legal exposure a sworn interview with USADA might create for those cases or new ones yet to come. The possibility of reducing his ban likely carried little incentive for the 41-year-old Armstrong, who had moved his athletic career into running and competing in triathlons.
Under international anti-doping rules, Armstrong's lifetime ban could only be reduced to eight years, by which time Armstrong will be nearly 50 years old.
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency had told Armstrong he would have to reveal all knows about doping in cycling - a process officials expected would take several days - if he wanted to reduce his lifetime ban from sports.
Wednesday was the latest deadline for Armstrong to decide on USADA's offer. After negotiating with the agency for two months, he refused.
Armstrong attorney Tim Herman said the cyclist "will not participate in USADA's efforts to selectively conduct American prosecutions that only demonize selected individuals while failing to address the 95 percent of the sport over which USADA has no jurisdiction."
USADA chief executive Travis Tygart said the agency had expected Armstrong would agree to talk and would be "moving on" without him.
"Over the last few weeks he has led us to believe that he wanted to come in and assist USADA, but was worried of potential criminal and civil liability if he did so," Tygart said. "Today we learned from the media that Mr. Armstrong is choosing not to come in and be truthful and that he will not take the opportunity to work toward righting his wrongs in sport."
Herman has said Armstrong is willing to participate in an international effort to clean up cycling, an effort that has broken down in spats between the International Cycling Union, the sport's governing body, and the World Anti-Doping Agency.
"He will be the first man through the door, and once inside will answer every question, at an international tribunal formed to comprehensively address pro cycling, an almost exclusively European sport," Herman said.
For more than a decade, Armstrong denied using performance-enhancing drugs. But last year, USADA released a report that detailed extensive doping on his Tour de France-winning teams and stripped him of those victories. Armstrong then admitted last month in an interview with Oprah Winfrey that he doped to win those races.
Tygart has accused Armstrong of lying in portions of that interview, most notably Armstrong's claim that he raced clean when he came out of retirement in 2009-2010. USADA's report says blood evidence shows Armstrong cheated during his comeback.
USADA also wants to question Armstrong under oath about whether cycling officials helped him cover up positive drug tests during his career, charges he continues to deny.
Beyond his problems with USADA, Armstrong still faces several legal challenges.
Armstrong was the subject of a two-year federal grand jury investigation that was dropped a year ago without an indictment, but the Department of Justice is still considering whether to join a federal whistle-blower lawsuit filed by former Armstrong teammate Floyd Landis.
Armstrong also has been sued by a Dallas-based SCA Promotions to recover more than $12 million in bonuses. And he has been sued by The Sunday Times in London to recover a libel judgment that the cyclist won against the paper.
Armstrong's latest decision means he won't risk the legal exposure a sworn interview with USADA might create for those cases or new ones yet to come. The possibility of reducing his ban likely carried little incentive for the 41-year-old Armstrong, who had moved his athletic career into running and competing in triathlons.
Under international anti-doping rules, Armstrong's lifetime ban could only be reduced to eight years, by which time Armstrong will be nearly 50 years old.
Screw the French . Long live Lance
A born liar.. He said he did this for his children, right... Lance Armstrong only cares about one person and one person only... I know his type, and you don't want this type as a friend !
He defrauded every race, the public, his fans, his family, still his Oprah moment left more questions than answers, contrition evades his persona, so let the trials begin in stripping the wealth amassed by his fraud, roll on, bikes were way fun before him and always will be!
He should just ride off into the sunset and never come back
USADA also wants to question Armstrong under oath...
Armstrong attorney Tim Herman said the cyclist "will not participate in USADA's efforts
to selectively conduct American prosecutions...
USADA is NOT a government agency with powers to prosecute.
What legal ramification can there be if one lied under an oath sworn to a private entity?
Could someone in the know elaborate on this?
What's the difference? He's a liar and why any would think he'd tell the truth now is beyond me.
That's a mistake. He should work with them and join them (ala Frank Abagnale) and make big bucks helping them develop new ways of detecting doping.
This comment has been deleted
@Dr. Rawdog no... he still has one
@Dr. Rawdog Tough nut to crack?
@Dr. Rawdog Latte spray on monitor with that comment!  Thanks for the smile!  =)
@Sundowner @Dr. Rawdog Don't they make some sort of absorbent pad for frequent and uncontrollable latta sprays
@Pvpbw @Dr. Rawdog You're asking me?  I'm busy hunting and gathering for the next apocalypse.  http://www.katu.com/news/entertainment/Paging-Dr-Evil-liquid-hot-magma-pours-from-Mt-Etna-192107461.html.  Having a heck of a time finding Twinkies.
Contrite? not, Oprah interview, self serving, only thing he is sorry for is being caught.
What difference would the "oath" make? Armstrong has been lying his whole professional life. He probably wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the head. Here is the irony of Armstrong's "confession:" Armstrong was attempting to get the lifetime ban lifted so he could participate in professional cycling again and, while Oprah would do it on his terms, the USADA won't. The beauty of all this is the lying cheat is now being sued for his ill gotten gains. Go away Lance, just go away.Â
@I812Â Â
"under oath" would make him liable for lying and Lance...as you point out....is pathologically unable to tell the truth. Also, Lance would not be able to control the questions and that would provide even more evidence for the various law suits that he faces. Â
Lance's "confession" wasn't a confession it was a rationalization; "I only doped because everybody else was doping" so; therefore, it was only reasonable that I doped because that was the nature of the game. And, I agree with you that the only reason that Lance offered his false confession was in pursuit of some personal gain. Â
If Lance was anything other than a Narcissistic pathological liar and public Sociopath then he would have gone away in 2005 and lived a life of luxury on his stolen money. At that point he had won. But, he couldn't stand not being in the spot light and craved the public celebrity.
@Icarus Absolutely!