'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Cienciano

No

couerdelion wrote: »

He does the things that most cyclists seem to be doing - not offering any real opinion - and gets criticism, so he gives his views and then gets more criticism for not telling it how it was in the first place. He really can't win can he.

He could if he just criticised the guy that's been cheating him from the start and not change his stance on it. Like any normal person would do!

mcgratheoin

No

MPFG wrote: »

Wiggins on Armstrong

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/536591/bradley-wiggins-no-sympathy-for-lance-armstrong.html

While I would never say "I told you so"....

mcgratheoin wrote: »

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.

Why isn't there an emoticon for smug...

petethedrummer

No

mcgratheoin wrote: »

While I would never say "I told you so"....



Why isn't there an emoticon for smug...

This do?

petethedrummer

No

MPFG wrote: »

Wiggins & Froomeon the Beeb

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21190542

Finally Wiggins grows a pair. Still not as big as Gustav Larsson's pair.

ozzy jr

No

As recently as October he was denying ever racing against Armstrong,

http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/news/15264/8158809/Team-Sky-s-Tour-de-France-and-Olympic-gold-winner-Bradley-Wiggins-unimpressed-with-Lance-Armstrong

In the BBC interview he remembers quite a lot of detail about the 09 tour, ever who interviewed him in Paris!

Strange.

Beasty

No

ozzy jr wrote: »

As recently as October he was denying ever racing against Armstrong,

So what? When under the pressure of doing an interview like that things can easily slip your mind (it happens to me all the time, and I'm not under the spotlight like Wiggins is). He was clearly thinking back to the "pre-comeback" TdF winning days.

Posters keep mentioning this point but I really cannot see what they are trying to read into it. It's clearly there for anyone to see that Wiggins did race against him on the comeback, and he had nothing to gain by making such a statement.

Max_Charger

No

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Well if you were still calling him fantastic in 2009 you were a bit deluded I am afraid.

I didn't say anything about 2009. When Lance first won the tour in 99, I was 11. Bit strong to call an eleven year old deluded.

furiousox

No

Emma O'Reilly is on the late late show tonight.

The Crunch

Beasty wrote: »

So what? When under the pressure of doing an interview like that things can easily slip your mind (it happens to me all the time, and I'm not under the spotlight like Wiggins is). He was clearly thinking back to the "pre-comeback" TdF winning days.

Posters keep mentioning this point but I really cannot see what they are you trying to read into it. It's clearly there for anyone to see that Wiggins did race against him on the comeback, and he had nothing to gain by making such a statement.

If he wasn't lying then it was clearly a slip of the mind but that just seems incredible to me. I mean, whatever about all the races where Wiggins wasn't a factor how could he have forgotten missing out on the podium to Armstrong in '09?

I've always admired how Wiggins goes about his business but that statement, on camera, is very puzzling.

Beasty

No

The Crunch wrote: »

If he wasn't lying then it was clearly a slip of the mind but that just seems incredible to me. I mean, whatever about all the races where Wiggins wasn't a factor how could he have forgotten missing out on the podium to Armstrong in '09?

I've always admired how Wiggins goes about his business but that statement, on camera, is very puzzling.

As I said - so what? Can you perhaps give me a clue as to what he may have gained by saying this?

Lumen

The Crunch wrote: »

If he wasn't lying then it was clearly a slip of the mind but that just seems incredible to me. I mean, whatever about all the races where Wiggins wasn't a factor how could he have forgotten missing out on the podium to Armstrong in '09?

I've always admired how Wiggins goes about his business but that statement, on camera, is very puzzling.

It doesn't make sense as a deliberate lie. People lie about things which are secret, not basic facts in common knowledge.

It is possibly explainable if Wiggo thought that Lance had doped before but come back clean, if he's saying "I never rode with Dirty Lance".

Otherwise I have no explanation, other than the fact that Wiggo is a bit simple.

The Crunch

Beasty wrote: »

As I said - so what? Can you perhaps give me a clue as to what he may have gained by saying this?

I have no clue. I find it very puzzling...

Beasty

No

The Crunch wrote: »

I have no clue. I find it very puzzling...

Exactly - you have no idea. Most of us probably make statements that are factually incorrect because we've overlooked something blindingly obvious. There's nothing to this and hence I really don't see why people keep rolling it out.

Lumen

Beasty wrote: »

Exactly - you have no idea. Most of us probably make statements that are factually incorrect because we've overlooked something blindingly obvious. There's nothing to this and hence I really don't see why people keep rolling it out.

Ah, come on now. People roll it out because it's a bizarre, unexplainable statement from the current TdF champion, multiple gold medallist, Olympic ceremony opener, and Knight of the Realm.

You're being a bit defensive about this. Is it because you is British? :pac:

Weirdview

No

Was a thread ever more inappropriately named?
When it comes to Lance "enough" is never going to be enough.

ednwireland

only another 5993 posts and we can close it

Raam

No

ednwireland wrote: »

only another 5993 posts and we can close it

Please spare us and close it now. Thanks.

ozzy jr

No

Beasty wrote: »

So what? When under the pressure of doing an interview like that things can easily slip your mind (it happens to me all the time, and I'm not under the spotlight like Wiggins is). He was clearly thinking back to the "pre-comeback" TdF winning days.

That's not a slip of the mind

Interviewer: You used to race against Lance Armstrong......

Bradley: (Interupting him) Well thats a myth, I never actually raced against Lance Armstrong, in my whole reign really. I raced once against him in the Criterium International in 2004, never at the Tour de France, so that was the only time really.

He's not clearly thinking back to his pre comeback.

Say something incorrect and it eventually becomes fact. Look at the amount of people that have repeated the "Lance never tested positive" line as if it's fact.

I'm not suggesting Bradley Wiggins is doping or trying to cover anything, that interview just seems bizzare.

Fr D Maugire

No

Max_Charger wrote: »

I didn't say anything about 2009. When Lance first won the tour in 99, I was 11. Bit strong to call an eleven year old deluded.

Hardly when I clearly said if you still believed in Lance in 2009 you were deluded.

You didn't give a time frame of when you stopped believing in Lance.

I think almost everyone, myself included believed in Lance at some point.

funnights74

No

furiousox wrote: »

Emma O'Reilly is on the late late show tonight.

And according to twitter so is david walsh, if you can tolerate the rest of the lls this portion might be decent.

hinault

funnights74 wrote: »

And according to twitter so is david walsh, if you can tolerate the rest of the lls this portion might be decent.

I could listen all day to Walsh talking about this case.:pac:

MPFG

No

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Hardly when I clearly said if you still believed in Lance in 2009 you were deluded.

You didn't give a time frame of when you stopped believing in Lance.

I think almost everyone, myself included believed in Lance at some point.

I never believed in Lance Armstrong.....I gave up watching pro cyclig because I couldn't bring myself to look at him....Always thought there was something very wrong with him....as I did with Tony Blair....must have a sixth sense for liars...

Flandria

No

Raam wrote: »

Please spare us and close it now. Thanks.

^^^
If this post gets 25+ thanks Beasty might resign as Wiggo's conscience memory and do the decent thing and actually close it...:)

Captain Havoc

MPFG wrote: »

I never believed in Lance Armstrong.....I gave up watching pro cyclig because I couldn't bring myself to look at him....Always thought there was something very wrong with him....as I did with Tony Blair....must have a sixth sense for liars...

Sensing politicians are liars is common sense not a sixth sense.

petethedrummer

No

Beasty wrote: »

As I said - so what? Can you perhaps give me a clue as to what he may have gained by saying this?

Disassociation and diversion to steer an interview away from a difficult topic. The interviewer didn't correct him, so it worked.

I don't think it's part of any grand plan to deny reality, just some mental gymnastics to get away from something he clearly didn't want to talk about.

ROK ON

No

Raam wrote: »

Please spare us and close it now. Thanks.

Won't someone please consider the ramifications that closing this thread will have on Petes life work.

Sorry Pete.

petethedrummer

No

ROK ON wrote: »

Won't someone please consider the ramifications that closing this thread will have on Petes life work.

Sorry Pete.

No likey, No openey.

lennymc

No

MPFG wrote: »

I never believed in Lance Armstrong.....

he does exist.

MPFG

No

lennymc wrote: »

he does exist.

You say that now but I have my doubts

Captain Havoc ..can't you leave a girl with her dilusions

RobFowl

No

Never believed in lance but never thought he doped to the level that he did.

Fwiw I do believe sky are clean and that Bradley wiggins is and always has been clean. If you are interviewed often enough you will contradict yourself or make errors, that's only human.

Kimmage and Walsh have done sterling work but I fear they can only see negatives now (for obvious reasons).

Also the leadership and structure of the uci must change after much deliberation that's the only conclusion I can come to especially after seeing the issues the independent commission are having getting access to documents.

And no matter what I'll be cycling til I die :-)