Lance Armstrong, according to insiders, continued to lie in his Oprah Winfrey interview on Thursday and Friday. He denied that he attempted to donate $250,000 [£155,000] to the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), despite its chiefs reporting otherwise.

“No,” Armstrong told Winfrey, “that is not true.”

The question came on night two of the two part interview, Armstrong’s first since USADA proved him a drug cheat and stripped him of his seven Tour de France wins.

Armstrong admitted to doping and said that he has to apologise to many people. He refused to name names and provide details, and Winfrey failed to press him.

“I don’t want to accuse anybody else,” Armstrong said. “I don’t want to talk about anybody else. I made my decisions. They are my mistakes, and I am sitting here today to acknowledge that and to say I’m sorry for that. The culture was what it was.”

Winfrey did quiz him about a reported attempt to donate $250,000 to USADA in 2004. Agency CEO, Travis Tygart revealed it in a 60 Minutes TV interview on January 9.

“It was a significant financial donation. One of his representatives made an offer to us,” Tygart said. “I was stunned. It was clear conflict of interest for USADA. We had no hesitation in rejecting that offer.”

“That’s not true?” asked Winfrey.

“That is not true,” Armstrong replied. “In the 1,000-page Reasoned Decision that they had issued, there was a lot of stuff in there, everything was in there, why wasn’t that in there? Pretty big story. Oprah, it’s not true.”

She pressed him, asking him if a representative made the offer.

“Nobody, I had no knowledge of that but I asked around. Nobody, not true. … That’s a lot of money. I would know. … That’s not true.”

Terry Madden served as agency CEO from 2000 to 2007, recalled the event and confirmed Armstrong’s lie.

“This is another personal attack on Travis Tygart and the United States Anti-Doping Agency,” Madden told ESPN. “Travis received a telephone call from one of Lance’s closest representatives, who offered to make a contribution to USADA.”

He explained that Tygart reported the call to him “within 30 seconds” and that he told Tygart to call back to reject the offer as it would be improper to accept it. He declined to name the caller due to federal whistleblower lawsuit filed by Floyd Landis, which names Armstrong’s friends and business partners.

The lawsuit lists Tailwind Sports, Montgomery Sports, Capital Sports & Entertainment, Thomas Weisel, Johan Bruyneel, Bill Stapleton and Bart Knaggs as defendants.

Armstrong donated $125,000 to cycling’s governing body, the UCI in 2002. The two parties say it was to help the cash-strapped body, but allegations have been made that it was to cover-up a doping positive.

USADA reported its findings in the Reasoned Decision released on October 10. In a section titled Armstrong’s Suspicious Test for EPO at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland, the Decision read, “Armstrong told both Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis that he had tested positive for EPO at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland and stated or implied that he had been able to make the EPO test result go away.”

“That story isn’t true,” Armstrong told Winfrey. “There was no positive test. No paying off of the lab. The UCI did not make that go away. I’m no fan of the UCI.”

Besides the USADA donation attempt, Armstrong appears to be telling other lies or covering up.

He would not talk about the 1996 hospital incident where Betsy and Frankie Andreu say that he admitted EPO use. He refused to clarify his dealings with known doping doctor, Michele Ferrari and said, “[he’s] a good man.” And, despite blood values and biological passport experts who say otherwise, he explained he was clean when he returned to racing in 2009.

Armstrong said that he views his story “as one big lie,” parts of which he intends to keep telling.

Related links
The Lance Armstrong confession: Part two
Lance Armstrong opens up to Oprah: Part one
Oprah Winfrey mesmerised and riveted by Armstrong interview
US government set to join Armstrong whistleblower case
Lance Armstrong confesses to doping

  • Malcolm Smith

    My overwhelming feeling after the the full Oprah interview was that while the doping confession was clear and unambiguous it was not something we didn’t know about, rather the real impression was of a sociopath who has lost whatever moral compass he ever had. It was the bullying, control and downright cruelty that is most shocking about this guy. He is now a broken man and I really fear for his mental state as he tries to comprehend the extent of what he has done. Deep down though I am not convinced he really believes he has done much wrong. After all his doping was not on the scale of the East Germans and wasn’t everyone at it! I’m afraid the apologies such as they were were totally self serving and only designed to give him a glimmer of a chance of having the ban reduced. In the end the only thing I think he is sorry for is getting caught and having to confess all to his kids.

  • pam

    Let the one who has never done anything wrong in their life throw the next stone! i would like to see the statistics of all 7 races and know for sure who doped and who did not. I think that the top 10 did. if this is the case then Lance still had to ride against them, he still had to ride faster than any other person doping? if you compare apples with apples then where do you all think that he would have come in the race?? this does not excuse him or make it right but for goodness sake there are those who doped and those who did not. the question is what times do the non dopers achieve over the same distances that lance won. I really think that when we see this information we can all make the right decision. Does a cyclist need to dope in order to win? Also do they need to dope to ride the long distances that these tours expect of them in the time that they have to? Are there then other circumstances and fingers that need to be pointed in the quest to MAKE MONEY as this is really what it is all about!?

  • Ken Evans

    Armstrong appeared like a robot from the “Terminator” movies, no emotions, no feelings, just calculations. He looked more like a machine, than a human being. A monster created by Dr Ferrari, rather than Dr Frankenstein.

  • Ginny Key

    I would suspend the Tour de France for a couple of years just to show who runs it. I know it won’t happen because all of this boils down to MONEY, which is why you will never stop riders from cheating if they think they will get away with it.

  • Ian Webb

    More and more questions arise, like – If his medical records at the 2009 Tour indicated likely blood doping, why wasn’t Armstrong disqualified? Whose decision was that? In the interviews, why didn’t he once mention his business associates – Stapleton, Weisl, Bruyneel, Carmichael, Knaggs etc? How come the main manufacturer of EPO, Amgen, has close connections with Thomas Weisl, of Armstrong’s management team – and which sponsors the Amgen Tour of California? The maker of EPO sponsoring America’s biggest bike race? Why would Amgen, a pharmaceutical company, want to sponsor a sports event? Are these people so contemptuous of the sport that they can even do this?

  • Ian

    LA gets banned for life.
    Vino wins (and keeps) olympic gold. Virenque king of the Mountains. Eddy Merckx is the greatest cyclist who ever lived, not a fraud who tested positive for a stimulant while leading the 1969 Giro d’Italia and had his 1973 Giro di Lombardia win stripped for the same. Joop Zoetemelk is the hardman who started and finished 16 Tours—a record—and won one. He’s not a reprobate who was caught doping at the 1979 Tour, received a paltry penalty of a 10-minute time addition, and maintained his second-place podium spot. Jacques Anquetil is the five-time Tour winner who in 1961 took the yellow jersey on Stage 1 and wore it all the way to Paris, not a boastful cheater who said, during a French television interview, “Leave me in peace—everybody takes dope.” And Fausto Coppi is il campionissimo, the champion of champions, not an admitted doper who said on Italian television that he only took drugs when necessary—”which is nearly always.”
    Not a fan of LA but same rules for everyone ?

  • JJ

    I think if you consider all the actions by LA including his famous twitter message with the 7 frames on the wall this guy really needs some serious therapy before creating anymore damage.

  • JD

    You get the feeling that the Armstrong controversy will continue to affect the sport until McQuaid and Verbruggen depart.

  • Martyn Bateman

    I feel decieved and let down by Armstrong even though I have never met the man. I found it exceptional and inspiring to see his riding in the TDF and now I know he was cheating and lying during all of that time. When he wrote the book ‘It’s not about the Bike’ we know now what he meant – it’s actually about being a cheat!
    The UCI and other sporting bodies need to set and maintain an example that drugs in sport are not now and will never be acceptable. Given the length and depth of his deception, a reasonable punishment and as an example to others, Armstrong should be banned from cycling for life with a recomendation that he be banned from all forms of sport for the same period. If the UCI cannot bring themselves to do that (and there is little evidence given their history that they would) then the entire UCI committee should be dismissed and the sport replace them with people that want the excellent sport of cycling to be drug and cheat free. A lengthy period of zero tolerance to drugs is required.

  • Harper

    In the good old Wilde West. He fits the gallows!

  • Armando McGillacuddy

    The UCI should not have accepted the payment either, what a pathetic excuse for a governing body they are. Verbruggen and McQuaid are crooks, the latter needs to be sacked (and possibly charged with corruption) ASAP!

  • Howard Topham

    Oncxe a cheat always a cheat, once as liar always a liar. Confession does not exonerate!!!!!!