'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

ashleey

No

Colonialboy wrote: »

I thought two of the best interviews regarding where we are in this whole circus were on Newstalk yesterday afternoon.

Daniel Coyle who wrote 'The Secre Race' - Tyler Hamiltons account of doping and cover ups.... he made some great points. How it took many hours (200+) and months to get Tyler to admit to everything. That we cant expect Lance to sit there and for it all to come out at once. Its too big a story, plus the fact this happened years ago so facts figures dates all need to be checked. He spoke of how he witnessd Lance launch into a vicious tirade against Walsh when he presented drafts of an earlier book he wrote about Lance... think he spoke of how there was an vicious animal inside Lance and that that person hasnt gone away, and he saw bits of him being kept in check during the Oprah show.

David Walsh spoke with great grace and dignity , I felt really sorry for him when speaking of his sons loss. Learnt alot about humanity listening to him. Himself and kimage are on the same side but have different styles.

Didnt watch Part 2 until last night, I though Lance was credible on the emotion part , if you have kids I could empathise with the reaction I saw. I really think oprah did a great job, remember this was an interview not an investigation, if she went all out attack attack attack it would have been farce and he would have had his defenses up but she wormed inside him and we saw the character that he is. Its up to UCI,WADA etc to get him to spill the beans on the specifics.

Its a great complex story, remember America can be a pretty brutal place, Id see parts of LA as a product of that society as much as a flawed individual. I thought it interesting how he said it snowballed, I never considered that, you know you win a TDF, and start fighting against the dope allegations, all riders do that fight against the first allegations and then everything grows gets 'momentum' and he had more allegations to fight but he had bigger weaponry to fight against them.

If you want an idea of Lance in his bully persona then watch how he goes at Paul Kimmage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI

Beasty

No

Walsh was on BBC radio this morning expressing some sympathy for Armstrong on the basis that he believes he has a personality disorder that drives him to do certain things. He mentioned that he thought that Lance approached the interview knowing he had to confess and show remorse, but when it came down to it he was unable to hide his underlying personality.

I do think we will reach a stage where it is no longer beneficial to continue attacking Armstrong, but don't believe we are anywhere near there yet. When he's named names, repaid those he's defrauded, provided full co-operation to all the relevant authorities, then I think he may get some breaks. In the meantime though it's important to keep the pressure up.

opinion guy

ashleey wrote: »

If you want an idea of Lance in his bully persona then watch how he goes at Paul Kimmage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI

Jaysus the expressions on the lads beside Lance are hysterical. They are like "Holy f**k, holy f**k is this really happeneing. Don't react. Show no emotion. Stare at the wall, stare at the wall. Blink....no don't blink.....blink.....ARGGHGHGHGHGHGGHHGHGG"

ashleey

No

You've got to admire Paul Kimmage when the rest of the lackies applauded Lance when he said 'and back to the Tour of California' for not losing his temper.

On Today FM just now he hinted at future revelations that can damage the leadership of the UCI. I have watched Oprah and you just really want Lance to reveal all of the truth. Only then will he gain respect. In America though I fear it will exist as a 'small town boy done good, falls from grace, picks up the pieces, loves his family despite his inherited flaws and lives with his millions( the real measure of success, to them)' story.

Carlosthejakal

Not sure if it has been posted before but its a good move

funnights74

No

Beasty wrote: »

Walsh was on BBC radio this morning expressing some sympathy for Armstrong on the basis that he believes he has a personality disorder that drives him to do certain things. He mentioned that he thought that Lance approached the interview knowing he had to confess and show remorse, but when it came down to it he was unable to hide his underlying personality.

I do think we will reach a stage where it is no longer beneficial to continue attacking Armstrong, but don't believe we are anywhere near there yet. When he's named names, repaid those he's defrauded, provided full co-operation to all the relevant authorities, then I think he may get some breaks. In the meantime though it's important to keep the pressure up.

Walsh's article in the Sunday times today is terrific, now that Armstrong has gone public and confessed Walsh comments on the interview and where he See's things going from here. Also Hugh McIlvanney's comment piece on the back page of the sports section doesn't pull any punches.
I found after watching both interviews ( and believing almost nothing that Armstrong said) that if anything there are more questions than ever.

MPFG

No

opinion guy wrote: »

Jaysus the expressions on the lads beside Lance are hysterical. They are like "Holy f**k, holy f**k is this really happeneing. Don't react. Show no emotion. Stare at the wall, stare at the wall. Blink....no don't blink.....blink.....ARGGHGHGHGHGHGGHHGHGG"

That press conference is unreal as all the front row (except Lance) look like people in a cult with their dominant leader able to have total control over them.....Were they so far gone that they thought lies were the truth and the truth was lies.....
Armstrong also stating that to attack him was to attack the fight againt cancer ...dreadful

Fr D Maugire

No

Colonialboy wrote: »

I thought two of the best interviews regarding where we are in this whole circus were on Newstalk yesterday afternoon.

Snipped

Didnt watch Part 2 until last night, I though Lance was credible on the emotion part , if you have kids I could empathise with the reaction I saw. I really think oprah did a great job, remember this was an interview not an investigation, if she went all out attack attack attack it would have been farce and he would have had his defenses up but she wormed inside him and we saw the character that he is. Its up to UCI,WADA etc to get him to spill the beans on the specifics.

Its a great complex story, remember America can be a pretty brutal place, Id see parts of LA as a product of that society as much as a flawed individual. I thought it interesting how he said it snowballed, I never considered that, you know you win a TDF, and start fighting against the dope allegations, all riders do that fight against the first allegations and then everything grows gets 'momentum' and he had more allegations to fight but he had bigger weaponry to fight against them.

That is exactly why Armstrong went on Oprah rather than actually talk with the people who matter. It's still all about controlling the message and getting people on his side. Nothing has changed except Armstrong has been exposed. I feel sad for anyone who actually believes his performances on Oprah were genuine.

Did Armstrong reveal anything new on Oprah? No

Did he seem contrite or truly sorry? No

Was he still lying? Yes

Why should the governing bodies work on Armstrong's terms in getting information. That is just another example of Armstrong thinking he is above the law. He had his chance with the USADA, he refused and was consequently banned which he unbelievably complained about on Oprah. If you don't want to give up the information, then stay banned.

Its also not a complex story and to say it just snowballed is just ingenious.

Lets study a bit of history here first.

In his first 4 Tours, Armstrong failed to finish 3 times and finished 36th the other time. He was not a Tour contender.

He was sat on the sidelines when the biggest doping scandal in the history of cycling happened in 98. 'Festina'

Armstrong received a massive amount of publicity and goodwill on his return to cycling in 98 owing to his recovery from cancer. He already had the cancer charity.

He also knew what it took to win the Tour in regards doping.

Are you telling me that a guy who was never a Tour contender just happened to aim to win the first Tour post-Festina and thought he wouldn't get asked questions about doping, especially when he had never shown any potential as a contender beforehand???

That a guy who had survived cancer and had earned kudos for just even returning to the sport didn't envisage a situation where him winning a Tour would be a big deal.

It didn't just snowball, Armstrong was a total control freak so to claim he found himself in a situation beyond his control and that it just snowballed is amusing.

It is more likely that they had planned a strategy whereby they figured if they used the cancer card as a defense mechanism against the inevitable doping questions, they could ride out the storm and win people over to their side and once the public were on their side, they were on easy street.

I think if anything the whole interview with Oprah reinforces the fact that Armstrong is still the same, trying to control the message, trying to get the public on his side. He will never change.

Many other's have likened his traits to that of a socio-path and the guy clearly has some sort of God complex even though he is ironically an atheist.

Ole Rodrigo

No

ashleey wrote: »

If you want an idea of Lance in his bully persona then watch how he goes at Paul Kimmage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI

Some of those people in room laughing at the end must have known, just shows how much courage it takes to speak out. Or cowardice to say nothing.

George Hincapie looks a bit like Glenn Quagmire :pac:

Colonialboy

Yes, but he's still great

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

... blah blah blah blah

It seems to be all or nothing with you ... I think you need to reread my post again , just cos I said one part felt genuine to me doesnt mean I said he was always genuine, just cos I said there was a snowball effect doesnt mean I said everythign was the result of the snowball momentum... etc etc

Your response seems to have invented some points that I never made .
Your response has attributed a position to me on these points that I wouldnt hold so now not only would I have to debate these with you but Id first have togo thru painful back and forth posting to dissociate myself from statements and views that I never had in the first place but that youve ascribed to me .. no thanks

so dont invent things Ive suppossedly said just so it gives you something to argue with me about.

read what I wrote .. not what your bias is wanting you to believe I wrote.

Fez101

I'm not going to excuse what Armstong did, but doping had been going on long before Armstrong ever turned a pedal, "la bomba" anyone? His major rivals of the era Pantani, Zulle, Ulrich et al were also "supplementing," doesn't make it right, but it was common place back then. Also the notion it was only the drugs that made him win is wrong, he was supremely talented and driven but a cheat nevertheless and a despicable bully. Simply vilifying Armstrong lets too many people of the hook, I doubt there was a clean win in any Grand tour from 1990 until Satre won the tour. Cycling needs to out all team bosses and medical staff who contributed, give them life time bans and move on, simply expunging Armstrong from the records is not enough. Also those who think EPO doping only occurred in cycling might want to look at when the majority of the fastest long distance running times were set and how far mo Farrah is off those times with all the modern training techniques and nutritional diets.

billyhead

Screw your Lance Armstrongs of this world. These 2 guys are a real inspiration

http://www.sikids.com/blogs/2012/10/24/conner-and-cayden-win-sports-illustrated-kids-sportskid-of-the-year

Fr D Maugire

No

Colonialboy wrote: »

It seems to be all or nothing with you ... I think you need to reread my post again , just cos I said one part felt genuine to me doesnt mean I said he was always genuine, just cos I said there was a snowball effect doesnt mean I said everythign was the result of the snowball momentum... etc etc

Your response seems to have invented some points that I never made .
Your response has attributed a position to me on these points that I wouldnt hold so now not only would I have to debate these with you but Id first have togo thru painful back and forth posting to dissociate myself from statements and views that I never had in the first place but that youve ascribed to me .. no thanks

so dont invent things Ive suppossedly said just so it gives you something to argue with me about.

read what I wrote .. not what your bias is wanting you to believe I wrote.

You guys really don't like having your posts analysed or questioned, do you.

Also I think its funny that you think people shouldn't take your points and expand on them for the benefit of others and which is clearly appreciated by other posters.

T-K-O

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

You guys really don't like having your posts analysed or questioned, do you.

Also I think its funny that you think people shouldn't take your points and expand on them for the benefit of others and which is clearly appreciated by other posters.

This is like our debate when you decided to make stuff up to suit your hate agenda towards Armstrong. This poster like myself is looking at the situation from all angles or as you put it expanding on the entire lance Armstrong debacle.

For example, telling your kids that you are a cheat and have cheated your entire sporting life would not be pleasant for any person on the planet.

Examples like that you ignore and accuse people of defending Armstrong. Yawn

Fr D Maugire

No

Fez101 wrote: »

I'm not going to excuse what Armstong did, but doping had been going on long before Armstrong ever turned a pedal, "la bomba" anyone? His major rivals of the era Pantani, Zulle, Ulrich et al were also "supplementing," doesn't make it right, but it was common place back then. Also the notion it was only the drugs that made him win is wrong, he was supremely talented and driven but a cheat nevertheless and a despicable bully. Simply vilifying Armstrong lets too many people of the hook, I doubt there was a clean win in any Grand tour from 1990 until Satre won the tour. Cycling needs to out all team bosses and medical staff who contributed, give them life time bans and move on, simply expunging Armstrong from the records is not enough. Also those who think EPO doping only occurred in cycling might want to look at when the majority of the fastest long distance running times were set and how far mo Farrah is off those times with all the modern training techniques and nutritional diets.

I'm sorry, were Pantani, Zulle, Ullrich somehow let of for their cheating. Poor Pantani ended up dead, Zulle spent a few nights in prison, was 'thoroughly searched' and served a ban. Ullrich was forced to retire early and was vilified in Germany. Just like Armstrong, none of them ever officially tested positive.

As for other Tour winners, Riis admitted but because of statue of limitations, no real action was taken, Landis tested positive, Rasmussen who should have won the 07 Tour but was ejected for lying and Contador of course has tested positive.

Only Indurain wasn't convicted of anything(he did test positive for salbutamol which was banned in France but nowhere else and depending in what form) To be fair it is more than likely Indurain was on EPO but there is literally no evidence other than the salbutamol and he has never being accused by any former riders of anything. He also falls outside the SOL.

Fr D Maugire

No

T-K-O wrote: »

This is like our debate when you decided to make stuff up to suit your hate agenda towards Armstrong. This poster like myself is looking at the situation from all angles or as you put it expanding on the entire lance Armstrong debacle.

For example, telling your kids that you are a cheat and have cheated your entire sporting life would not be pleasant for any person on the planet.

Examples like that you ignore and accuse people of defending Armstrong. Yawn

If you can find one single thing I have made up about the Armstrong case, go ahead and point it out, anywhere.

What I don't get is people trying to claim Armstrong was just another doper who is somehow being singled out whilst everyone else gets off. Now that is making stuff up.

My bad for disliking a fraud, bully and all-round nasty piece of work. I should have nothing but admiration for such a guy.

letape

No

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

I'm sorry, were Pantani, Zulle, Ullrich somehow let of for their cheating. Poor Pantani ended up dead, Zulle spent a few nights in prison, was 'thoroughly searched' and served a ban. Ullrich was forced to retire early and was vilified in Germany. Just like Armstrong, none of them ever officially tested positive.

Yes but they kept their palmares and prize money. Ulrich at 39 is now also free to take part in organised events.

C3PO

Beasty wrote: »

Walsh was on BBC radio this morning expressing some sympathy for Armstrong on the basis that he believes he has a personality disorder that drives him to do certain things. He mentioned that he thought that Lance approached the interview knowing he had to confess and show remorse, but when it came down to it he was unable to hide his underlying personality.

I agree completely with Walsh's assessment of Armstrong! In fact he seems to display many of the traits that would be associated with a Sociopath!

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Fr D Maugire

No

letape wrote: »

Yes but they kept their palmares and prize money. Ulrich at 39 is now also free to take part in organised events.

They cannot strip Pantani as there has never been any official sanction unless they want to do it post-humously. Ullrich had to pay a fine and I think his Tour win was outside SOL. Zulle got of the easiest but there was slightly different rules back then. Things have definitely changed in terms of stripping titles in the last few years. Contador has had titles stripped, Landis was stripped, Rasmussen never even got a title. Heras had titles stripped, Valverde had titles stripped.

Armstrong I don't think has to return any winnings, just possibly the money he got through suing people, any other money he loses will be due to defrauding SCA and the US Government.

Armstrong claimed he lost $75 million even though he is retired, I bet that is more than the current Top 100 guys in pro cycling will make in their careers....combined:eek:

If Armstrong had actually talked with the USADA like he should have, there is every chance he would have kept some or most of his titles and received a shorter suspension. Instead he tried to play hard-ball with them and they screwed him up good. Nobody to blame except Armstrong himself.

People also miss the irony that if Armstrong had testified to the USADA, this would have been less of a circus. By choosing to go on Oprah, Lance himself turned it into an even bigger circus.

letape

No

Fr D Maugire - I was commenting on the cyclists you had listed - Pantani, Ullrich and Zulle.

In my view all of these records should be wiped clean. The Gewiss team with Argentin, Berzin etc. And all the other winners of the era - Jalabert, Rominger, Chiappucci..... None of these guys deserve their place in the records of the sport.

Fr D Maugire

No

letape wrote: »

Fr D Maugire - I was commenting on the cyclists you had listed - Pantani, Ullrich and Zulle.

In my view all of these records should be wiped clean. The Gewiss team with Argentin, Berzin etc. And all the other winners of the era - Jalabert, Rominger, Chiappucci..... None of these guys deserve their place in the records of the sport.

Yes, saw that and changed my post.

To be fair, they would probably just need to wipe out all the results from the entire 90s. But how can you ban Jalabert for example who has no evidence or allegations against him even if it is almost sure he doped.

The laws and punishment for doping have got stronger since I first started following the sport 25 years ago. A positive test once got you a 10 min deduction in the Tour during the 80s and maybe a 3 month ban:eek:

I think 4 years bans for first offences should be mandatory. However athletes should be held to the standards of their time or else it gets very messy.

I just want to add that the way doping rules and punishment are applied in cycling is a joke, just look at mess that was Operation Puerto that is still ongoing. Too many governing bodies and authorities with responsibility for anti-doping. Should be one centralised organisation like WADA and their national affiliates like USADA.

However that applies to all of cycling not just Armstrong. If people want to argue that cycling as a sport is treated unfairly compared to other sports, then fine but to claim Armstrong has been singled out is hogwash.

unichall

Very good remix of the interview in 60secs

Armstrong denies everything and pics a fight with Oprah

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2013/01/20/lance-armstrong-lies-to-oprah-winfrey/

petethedrummer

No

The real loser in all this is me. What reason do I have to post on boards now?

Fr D Maugire

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

The real loser in all this is me. What reason do I have to post on boards now?

The way SKY and Wiggins are behaving, you might not have long to wait.

Wiggins seems to specialise in taunting Kimmage which is not a good career move.

Beasty

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

The real loser in all this is me. What reason do I have to post on boards now?

Pie plates;)

Captain Havoc

leftism

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

Basso does make his in race power files available to the public though. Which is nice. Well, he used to I dunno if he still does.

Edit: He still does: http://www.mapeisport.it/ivanbasso/Download.asp

Edit2: And blood test results and VO2 Max test results. His Vo2 Max ranges from 73 to 83.

Interesting numbers there... For an elite athlete like Basso to be jumping +/- 5 mL.kg-1.min-1 over the course of their career is slightly unusual. In a 10 year career, my VO2max fluctuated by about +/- 2mL.kg-1.min-1 (68 to 72). Working in the lab now, i've been repeatedly tested the same guys for 4 years and i've never seen a 10mL jump in VO2max, especially when you are already a fully developed elite athlete. A significant loss of fat mass might shift the relative VO2max score, but we know thats not the case with Basso.

wonderfullife

No

The biggest thing i took from the exchanges was when he said he wished he came clean earlier when USADA came to him earlier last year.....

...but most people would have that regret in the sense they could have protected their family better from the fall-out or not put everyone through so much heartache; his regret is not cutting a deal and taking a 6 month ban like the rest of them.

The only regret he expressed that came across sincere was regretting being caught. You could literally feel through both interviews his mind ticking over thinking can't believe all these d1cks spoke up against me and i have to sit here and do this to try compete again.

I genuinely believe if his lawyers said his best strategy was to deny it for life, he'd be denying it for life.

They clearly told him: "look, confess '95-'05, no perjury charges, 09/10 deny, say sorry, try look sorry, name no names, we'll take a hit of $30 million ish, then sort out that outlay with a book and film. it'll be cool"

He can't take any potshots at the UCI, quite frankly they probably have enough dirt on Lance as he has on them and all he is trying to do is avoid jail and minimise pay-outs. He doesn't give a rats-ass about the sport now he's not in it to win it.

He's truly a sick individual.

petethedrummer

No

leftism wrote: »

Interesting numbers there... For an elite athlete like Basso to be jumping +/- 5 mL.kg-1.min-1 over the course of their career is slightly unusual. In a 10 year career, my VO2max fluctuated by about +/- 2mL.kg-1.min-1 (68 to 72). Working in the lab now, i've been repeatedly tested the same guys for 4 years and i've never seen a 10mL jump in VO2max, especially when you are already a fully developed elite athlete. A significant loss of fat mass might shift the relative VO2max score, but we know thats not the case with Basso.

You'd know better than me if those numbers are dodgy or not but they are there for viewing. Sure sign up yourself and have a look. It's interesting to see a professional's data, even if I only vaguely understand it.

wonderfullife

No

Incidentally, i do understand Wiggo, Hoy & Cav's reactions on a human level.

Wiggo best year of his life - TdF, Olympics, Sports Personality of Year - faced with question after question on Lance, the fall-out where people will suspect everyone etc. If he's clean, which we have to assume, then that's a massive buzz-kill. Even take a pub quiz, i've often been at quizzes and some team gets 24 out of 25 right and immediately think "i-phone". Which is what others would think if our team won.....i suppose it shouldn't matter but it does lessen the sense of achievement if people have suspicions.

On a wider sporting level, i can't understand it so well. The more people say it's in the past, different generation etc means the suspicion grows. Addressing the issues publically and professionally, being courteous, polite and (again) professional is the only way the sport moves forward. Cav telling a journo to fcuk off might be how he feels but he's a professional sportsman. I keep thinking back to the amount of times Roger Federer was asked over the years by British media "will andy murray win a grand slam?". In his head he may well have thought the same as Cav ("jesus H christ for the 9 millionth time, yes probably), instead he remained professional, answered with a smile.

That's what cycling needs right now. Professionals to be professional.