'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

hoff1

will this be streamed for free?

Super Freak

Who's on dopera?

Weirdview

No

Wouldn't be surprised if Oprah.com crashes when the interview is on.

There's going to be an awful lot of people trying to watch..

Leroy42

I kinda get Cavendish, Wiggo et al being fed up with all the questions, but what do they expect? This is the biggest story in cycling at the moment; it's the biggest story in world sport.

Do they really expect that people won't ask them their opinions? And so what if they have already answered it, probably a different journalist and they all need their own story. Cycling, like all sports, need the media to continue to drive sponsors, so it's a bit like a big Hollywood start complaining about media intrusion and then launching a media run to drum up business for their new movie.

I really don't understand why they are not all like Nicole Cooke. Whatever about the lower guys like Nico who needs to keep his job, what is the issue for Wiggo? I don't think it is any form of acceptance but I always go back to the whole Contador saga and how little Schleck had to say on the matter. If I got 2nd on the tour and the guy in front had a possible dope charge I would do everything I could to get the truth out.

They seem to just accept that this happens, which may well be the case but then don't expect people to accept your claims that you are clean. At the end of the day, while LA is the centre of this, it really isn't just about him. The whole sport in under the spotlight and Wiggo has to accept that being a champion throughout a time when it is clear doping was rife brings with it a certain level of scepticism.

hardCopy

No

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Depressing remarks by Wiggo and Armistead today. I understand that they might get frustrated by the constant focus on doping but they have to understand how it looks to everybody not within the pro peleton.

To just explain my outlook on it - I'm a geologist and I work a lot of the time abroad. I constantly get asked by people about fracking, offshore oil reserves, environmental concerns, corruption etc. despite the fact that I don't actually work in any of these areas. Do I get annoyed and tell people to go and get a life? Do I say "that was all in the past and it couldn't happen now"? Do I say, that was other companies and people, not me? No, I answer the same questions over and over again, because I realise that I work in an industry where there has been less than optimal behaviour by others in the past.

Wiggins and Armistead should have the grace and intelligence to do the same. Instead they are merely repeating the exact same quotes that were trotted out in 1999 when the sport was declared to be finally clean following a major doping scandal. For Wiggins to suggest that Kimmage's fight against doping in cycling stems from bitterness is at best arrogance, and at worst another in the long line of cyclists who believe Kimmage guilty of spitting in the soup. I would imagine that once SKY's PR team get hold of him in the next few days there'll be another semi-apologetic column or interview where he explains his stringent anti-doping stance and how he and Sky and British cycling are at the vanguard of a new era for the sport and how it's just because he and Sky are so clean that he flips his top at any questions about Armstrong or Sean Yates or Geert Leinders.

That pretty much sums up my attitude to Wiggins.

We're years away from the point where people can assume pro cycling is clean, surely they're not stupid or naive enough to think that people have already moved on from the doping story.

He'd want to get used to awkward questions because as long as he keeps winning people will keep asking, especially if he keeps talking complete nonsense about admiring Lance one day and forgetting they raced together the next.

fixie fox

hardCopy wrote: »

That pretty much sums up my attitude to Wiggins.

We're years away from the point where people can assume pro cycling is clean, surely they're not stupid or naive enough to think that people have already moved on from the doping story.

He'd want to get used to awkward questions because as long as he keeps winning people will keep asking, especially if he keeps talking complete nonsense about admiring Lance one day and forgetting they raced together the next.

Ya, Wiggins isn't doing himself any favours by attacking Kimmage in the way he has done. It sounds patronizing and condescending - in fact it sounds remarkably like Armstrong's approach.

mitosis

No

RobFowl wrote: »

TBH am tending to side with Wiggins on this one. The relentless negativity from Kimmage and Walsh particularly is soul destroying...

(Not as bad as the doping though.....)

The Who:

Meet the new Boss. Same as the old Boss.

Captain Havoc

fixie fox wrote: »

Ya, Wiggins isn't doing himself any favours by attacking Kimmage in the way he has done. It sounds patronizing and condescending - in fact it sounds remarkably like Armstrong's approach.

If someone said publicly that they were unsure I was riding clean, I wouldn't be inviting them over for dinner.

RobFowl

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

I really don't understand why they are not all like Nicole Cooke. Whatever about the lower guys like Nico who needs to keep his job, what is the issue for Wiggo? I don't think it is any form of acceptance but I always go back to the whole Contador saga and how little Schleck had to say on the matter. If I got 2nd on the tour and the guy in front had a possible dope charge I would do everything I could to get the truth out.

They seem to just accept that this happens, which may well be the case but then don't expect people to accept your claims that you are clean. At the end of the day, while LA is the centre of this, it really isn't just about him. The whole sport in under the spotlight and Wiggo has to accept that being a champion throughout a time when it is clear doping was rife brings with it a certain level of scepticism.

Just had a barney with Richard Moore on twitter for criticising Lizzie Armistead. She said she doesn't know why Nicole Cooke spoke out and "it's all in the past" and "cycling is clean now" anyway.
He can't seem to get why people have an issue with this........
(Armistead btw Said that she was getting "abuse" for making those comments, though tbh can't see any abusive comments just very few supporting her stance..)

Beasty

No

Captain Havoc wrote: »

If someone said publicly that they were unsure I was riding clean, I wouldn't be inviting them over for dinner.

Well I have no evidence one way or other. But it's OK, I don't eat horseburgers anyway

Junior

fixie fox wrote: »

Ya, Wiggins isn't doing himself any favours by attacking Kimmage in the way he has done. It sounds patronizing and condescending - in fact it sounds remarkably like Armstrong's approach.

Didn't Armstrong give Wiggins advice on how to handle the press some time ago ?

Bluefoam

No

Junior wrote: »

Didn't Armstrong give Wiggins advice on how to handle the press some time ago ?

I wonder what other advice he could have taken from Armstrong...?

torturedsoul

No

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323783704578246001221628488.html

very interesting article in today wall street journal.

Dermot Illogical

No

Bluefoam wrote: »

I wonder what other advice he could have taken from Armstrong...?

Leave room on the wall for more?

Diarmuid

No

torturedsoul wrote: »

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323783704578246001221628488.html

very interesting article in today wall street journal.

This saga is like the gift that keeps on giving!

It's ok though:

Ochowicz wrote:

"There was no hanky-panky,

Oryx

No

From that wall street article:

In a 2008 interview with the Journal, Weisel said of doping in the sport of cycling: "Handle the problem below the surface and keep the image of the sport clean. In the U.S. sports—baseball, basketball, football—most fans couldn't care less."

The pity is, he is right about the fans.

Chips Lovell

No

Interestingly, Verbruggen has previously denied it:

In a 2008 interview with the Journal, Verbruggen said he had never been involved in a business relationship with Ochowicz and Weisel. Reached by phone Wednesday, Verbruggen declined to comment. "It's getting ridiculous," he said when asked about the account.

hardCopy

No

Captain Havoc wrote: »

If someone said publicly that they were unsure I was riding clean, I wouldn't be inviting them over for dinner.

If I won the Tour De France I'd expect to be asked about it daily.

You can't complain about nothing being done about dope when you're down the pecking order and then expect people to believe that it's all fixed now because you won and you're clean.

As a former cynic, Bradley should have the intelligence to recognise that.

Leroy42

@ Captain Havoc - If someone came out and accused you of doping with no evidence then you would be right to be offended. If however, you had worked your way through the ranks during a noted time of doping and now were top dog in a sport which has shown little evidence of its desire to clean up, then I don't think you can really complain.

However, the circumstantial evidence is that pro cycling has been riddled with drugs for years, nearly all the top guys have, at the very least, had serious question marks against them. Yet the guys there now seem to think that nobody should ask any questions.

Didn't LA use the same tactic back in 99 and 2000. This is not meant to cast any aspertions on any rider, but it just seems that many of them are too quite about this. As I menioned, what he public really need to see is the riders making a stance. Before the TDU they should hold a go slow, demanding action from the UCI and team principles and sponsors.

The time for simply standing aside is well past, the sport is in serious trouble with regards to credibility, and getting shirty at journalists isn't going t help. Will the next year or two be a bit a groundhog day for these guys, sure, but they need to stand up if they want this sport to continue.

Chips Lovell

No

There's a difference between being asked about doping and being accused of it.

seamus

The IOC have just announced that LA has been officially stripped of his 2000 Olympic bronze. Extraordinary timing...

I think it would be unfair to suggest that LA is the only person playing media games here.

RobFowl

No

Personally I think Kimmage is out of order the way he's accusing Wiggins of doping. It's based of weak circumstantial "evidence" (if you could even at a push call it evidence). He seems to say that if he Wiggins is interviewed (by Kimmage of course) then he may be able to clear things up...
Looking back I think Wiggins was right to block Kimmage from getting unfettered access to the Sky team at the tour. If I were looking to win an event like that I wouldn't want any unnecessary stress about the place. I would value a degree of privacy and down time. I'd also figure that some people will never be happy until they tell the story they want to tell no matter what the facts are..
Dave Brailsford zero tolerance policy is a bit bizarre but does that mean every team who use anyone who's been associated with doping in the past is automatically full of dopers??
It's insulting to compare Wiggins with Lance. With Lance there was the information about Ferrari, about cortisone TUE's, about discarded IV sets, about whistleblowers (ex team mates, ex soigneurs, ex staff etc).
With Wiggins there was a Doctor who may have been involved in doping at Rabobank prior to 2006 and thats pretty much it....
Kimmage has earned a lot of respect for his work exposing Armstrong but by God he's pushing it with his pursuit of Wiggins.

Raam

No

RobFowl wrote: »

Personally I think Kimmage is out of order the way he's accusing Wiggins of doping.

Has he actually accused him of doping?

MPFG

No

I agree that when you are at the highest point of the sport and current Tour de France winner you can expect to be repeatedly asked about doping and Armstrong, etc And have to find a way to answer questions and present a message of the need for continued improvement and vigilence in eliminating drugs from the sport

This is different however from having to endure countless insinuations of doping in your team which are unfounded. Just becasue you don't want to sit down with Paul Kimmage it doesn't mean you have anything to hide...Maybe you just don't like the bloke and his aggressiev approach...He is not the only journalist in town and he does himself no favours with his approach....
All Bradley is showing is his dislike for Paul Kimmage.....
But it seems from some comments here that equates with having something to hide....

RobFowl

No

Raam wrote: »

Has he actually accused him of doping?

Can you explain these comments in any other way??

"Paul Kimmage has spoken of his doubts regarding Bradley Wiggins and Team Sky's dominance at the Tour de France. “I don't know anyone who could say that this was a fully convincing Tour win,” he told German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. The Irish journalist said that he saw many similarities with Lance Armstrong, who has recently been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles."

alcyst

From tmz.com

"Lance vs. Oprah Time to Start Peddling ... Booze"


http://www.tmz.com/2013/01/17/lance-armstrong-oprah-interview-drinking-boozing-bar-texas/

& yes it is a gossip website

Halloween Jack

RobFowl wrote: »

Personally I think Kimmage is out of order the way he's accusing Wiggins of doping. It's based of weak circumstantial "evidence" (if you could even at a push call it evidence). He seems to say that if he Wiggins is interviewed (by Kimmage of course) then he may be able to clear things up...
Looking back I think Wiggins was right to block Kimmage from getting unfettered access to the Sky team at the tour. If I were looking to win an event like that I wouldn't want any unnecessary stress about the place. I would value a degree of privacy and down time. I'd also figure that some people will never be happy until they tell the story they want to tell no matter what the facts are..
Dave Brailsford zero tolerance policy is a bit bizarre but does that mean every team who use anyone who's been associated with doping in the past is automatically full of dopers??
It's insulting to compare Wiggins with Lance. With Lance there was the information about Ferrari, about cortisone TUE's, about discarded IV sets, about whistleblowers (ex team mates, ex soigneurs, ex staff etc).
With Wiggins there was a Doctor who may have been involved in doping at Rabobank prior to 2006 and thats pretty much it....
Kimmage has earned a lot of respect for his work exposing Armstrong but by God he's pushing it with his pursuit of Wiggins.

He didn't accuse him if doping though did he?

He said he now couldn't be sure. I just don't get Wiggins and sky's stance on stuff. Why bang on about zero tolerance and then hire a load of questionable guys, then sack them when you get found out? Claiming zero tolerance should mean 100% transparency.

As for Wiggins, im sure Kimmage is a bit dumbfounded by Bradley, previously outspoken on dope, but now very cagey on the whole subject.

I really dont know if either sky or wiggins have anything untoward to answer for, but i can understand Kimmage's position, i think he feels a little disappointed......

Raam

No

RobFowl wrote: »

Can you explain these comments in any other way??

"Paul Kimmage has spoken of his doubts regarding Bradley Wiggins and Team Sky's dominance at the Tour de France. “I don't know anyone who could say that this was a fully convincing Tour win,” he told German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. The Irish journalist said that he saw many similarities with Lance Armstrong, who has recently been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles."

He is certainly questioning things. However, he cannot simply state "such and such is a doper" until it has been proven, so he has to skirt around it.

Halloween Jack

RobFowl wrote: »

Can you explain these comments in any other way??

"Paul Kimmage has spoken of his doubts regarding Bradley Wiggins and Team Sky's dominance at the Tour de France. “I don't know anyone who could say that this was a fully convincing Tour win,” he told German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. The Irish journalist said that he saw many similarities with Lance Armstrong, who has recently been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles."

If that could be interpreted as an accusation, in any way, it would have seen a court room by this stage.......

Chips Lovell

No

Wiggins can't even sue him for libel because, whatever the verdict, he'll lose the PR war by becoming "the guy who sued Paul Kimmage".

I like Kimmage and I think he's done a lot of courageous things. But I don't think he's infallible and I believe he's being unfair here.