'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

lg123

Anyone have a link where I can watch it from the start online? Missed the first half.

kerash

No

USADA Statement

“Tonight, Lance Armstrong finally acknowledged that his cycling career was built on a powerful combination of doping and deceit.

His admission that he doped throughout his career is a small step in the right direction. But if he is sincere in his desire to correct his past mistakes, he will testify under oath about the full extent of his doping activities.”

letape

No

Arawn wrote: »

I'm laying down on that one. So yes she was being truthful

No he said that he would not accept it, but also doesn't want to disagree with her

MrCreosote

leftism wrote: »

There is no way he was clean in 2009. I could half believe it if he said he was clean in 2010. Like maybe he was riding his last tour just for the memories. But in 2009 he came back to try and win the Tour.

He was in to win it in 2010 as well. Good prologue but had a bad day on the cobblestones and crashes after put him out of contention.

Crazy to keep denying that he wasn't doping those years too. It would have been better to come totally clean.

Leroy42

So the UCI is in the clear then? Looks like Dick Pound should have kept his month shut. Nothing to see here, move on.

Beasty

No

Completely cold and calculated in my opinion. He came across no differently last night than in those clips they played of him lying in the past. He seemed to approach it on the basis of assessing what was the minimum he could get away with, presumably with the intention of protecting as much of his "brand" and personal wealth as possible.

He knew damn well that no-one would believe it if he tried to claim any of the TdF victories were clean. That was his "price" - basically admit to doping up to 2005 and hope the whole issue (from his personal perspective) will fade away. Yes it will cost him a lot financially to settle with the Sunday Times, repay his victory payouts etc, but there may then still be something left for him to build on.

I suspect he's no way near as wealthy as some people make out - these things are often vastly overstated and it may be that a lot of his "alleged" $200m fortune has already been spent protecting his position to date. I think he's probably seeing his resources dwindle and is trying to retain enough to allow him to live comfortably, with a view to launching a new career at some stage when the dust has settled

What I would like to see now is those people who have clearly been vindicated come out and challenge anything he said that they know to be wrong. That will confirm one way or other whether anything you hear from this guy has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Also there's no way he could have doped in 2009 and 2010 without an army of support - again let's hear from some of the guys around him at the time as to whether they believe he was clean post 2005.

MrCreosote

Paul Kimmage on Morning Ireland in a few mins...

ednwireland

Beasty wrote: »

Completely cold and calculated in my opinion. He came across no differently last night than in those clips they played of him lying in the past. He seemed to approach it on the basis of assessing what was the minimum he could get away with, presumably with the intention of protecting as much of his "brand" and personal wealth as possible.

+1 just saw some clips but as someone said they were 'heavily lawyered' answers and looks like answers were all prepared

just a major damage limitation excercise for brand armstrong

morana

No

must be denying doping in 09/10 because of statute of limitations or something. His blood profiles from the giro and tour are indicative of doping.

martingriff

No

Did people really need to stay up all hours to see what he would say the world and his dog knew. They answers were allready know and he was never going to give full answers. That is for when he gets inside a court room or a UCI or USADA room. There are a lot op people who we may not know about very nervous right now. Lance is jst a piece of it. He is no worse than any other cheat.

I hope that Kimmage and Walsh don't become arogant ould p$%^ks themselves now and try to milk this far 2 much

07Lapierre

No

“Lance Armstrong has confirmed there was no collusion or conspiracy between the UCI and Lance Armstrong"

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13734/Pat-McQuaid-Lance-Armstrong-has-confirmed-there-was-no-collusion-or-conspiracy.aspx#ixzz2IJfNxZ5S

mcgratheoin

No

leftism wrote: »

There is no way he was clean in 2009.

Correct...

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/40819756884/armstrongs-2009-comeback-blood

couerdelion

Yes, but he's still great

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Correct...

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/40819756884/armstrongs-2009-comeback-blood

I've put that through google translate but it doesn't recognise it as a language either

dixiefly

07Lapierre wrote: »

“Lance Armstrong has confirmed there was no collusion or conspiracy between the UCI and Lance Armstrong"

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13734/Pat-McQuaid-Lance-Armstrong-has-confirmed-there-was-no-collusion-or-conspiracy.aspx#ixzz2IJfNxZ5S

And does anyone believe abything that comes out of Lance's mouth anymore? He has so systematically lied that I would struggle to believe any sworn statements fro the guy.

If he was genuinely remorseful then he should have done the interview with Kimmage and Walsh. They would have taken him up in the instances where Opra failed to nail him.

lennymc

No

one suggestion for why he only admitted doping up to 2005 was that any reduction in his lifetime ban to 8 years by wada would be applied from 2005 rather than 2009, meaning he could go back to competition next year instead of 2017. seems plausible.

are people really that shocked that a proven liar, cheat and bully didn't tell the whole truth?

07Lapierre

No

dixiefly wrote: »

And does anyone believe abything that comes out of Lance's mouth anymore? He has so systematically lied that I would struggle to believe any sworn statements fro the guy.

If he was genuinely remorseful then he should have done the interview with Kimmage and Walsh. They would have taken him up in the instances where Opra failed to nail him.

+1 ageed. It seems that Pat McQuiad believes Lance...he was very quick to come out with this statement absolving UCI of any wrongdoing.

mcgratheoin

No

couerdelion wrote: »

I've put that through google translate but it doesn't recognise it as a language either

Yeah, that guy basically writes in text speak - hopefully the science of sport guys may address it more coherently at some stage...



**edit** they mentioned on facebook that they'd try to get him to write a guest post for the website.

Beasty

No

Betsy on CNN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTrkBRwT5Uc

Beasty

No

ednwireland wrote: »

+1 just saw some clips but as someone said they were 'heavily lawyered' answers and looks like answers were all prepared

just a major damage limitation excercise for brand armstrong

From the Telegraph:

In preparation for his match-up with Winfrey he had reportedly hired Mark Fabiani, the former White House special counsel who advised President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky affair

Mcofferon

No

UCI Statement http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails2011.asp?id=ODk4OQ&MenuId=MTYzMDQ&LangId=1&BackLink=%2Ftemplates%2FUCI%2FUCI8%2Flayout%2Easp%3FMenuId%3DMTYzMDQ%26LangId%3D1

“Finally, we note that Lance Armstrong expressed a wish to participate in a truth and reconciliation process, which we would welcome.”

Glad to see everyone is still singing off the old hymn sheets. Just a little confused over this new 'truth and reconciliation' number - will Floyd and Tyler be allowed to play too or can we still call them "scumbags"??

JonathanAnon

David Walsh will be on with Pat Kenny this morning.. Just announced on the Rádio.

passremarkable

No

JonathanAnon wrote: »

David Walsh will be on with Pat Kenny this morning.. Just announced on the Rádio.

What time ?

Waitsian

No

MrCreosote wrote: »

Paul Kimmage on Morning Ireland in a few mins...

Did anyone listen in? What did he say?

Bacchus

passremarkable wrote: »

What time ?

Don't know when to expect David Walsh but Pat Kenny is at 10am.

JM Skipton

passremarkable wrote: »

What time ?

Ray Darcy got in there first Walsh not fully happy with the answers Armstrong gave

JonathanAnon

passremarkable wrote: »

What time ?

The first half hour 10am-10.30am is usually when the interesting stuff happens on Pat's show..

corny

No

Great fun watching him admit to something he clearly didn't want to but thats all it was, a bit of fun. He's not going to help with the advancement of the truth. He wasn't going to admit to anything that could damage him further thats for sure.

The bit i found hilarious was his explanation for the donation to the UCI. I'm paraphrasing here but "I'd just ridden my last race, was all but finished with cycling but basically they just asked me for a few bob!" Really thats all it took? Had nothing to do with the investigation into the failed EPO tests? Laughable.

Also, what struck me most was that he was only truly contrite when telling us how he regretted something that affected him. Betsy, O' Reilly, fans etc "yeah i'm sorry and whatever".

And finally if i have to listen to anymore 'cycling has moved on' rubbish on Sky i think i'll scream.

ThisRegard

No

How many times did he say he's only going to speak about his own motivations and actions, but yet he had no problems assuming what Landis's motivations were for coming out ?

youcancallmeal

No

mod9maple wrote: »

Did anyone listen in? What did he say?

He said it was a mostly good interview by Oprah but he was disappointed she didn't push him or ask about certain things. He also mentioned Bradley Wiggins saying something like "Am I really irrelevant now Brad!?"

superlav

No

passremarkable wrote: »

What time ?

Pat Kenny just starting interview with Walsh