Lance chickens out.....

Beasty

Threads merged

SwissToni

rodneyTrotter. wrote: »

Eh no , Gilroy made a complete balls of the motor questioning and he came across as a fool unfortunately (which he is not )

Armstrong is a bully/lier , and is uninterviewable (yes that is a word😀) I don't understand people attacking the interviewer and not Armstrong,
Maybe the motor question didn't come across well but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they were experimenting with this technology near the end of his career, again Armstrong's reaction is part of the game to make the interviewer look the fool.

Arequipa

I think Armstrong was a convincing and even intimidating character when we were all buying into the myth...
But now the illusion has shattered, we can see his true colours...he is undoubtedly incredibly focuses, determined & mentally tough..

But he lacks emotional depth, emotional intelligence and intelligence...
I think when we all bought into the myth and the legend, we built him up to be a much greater person than he actually is...

He does what he thinks he should do... But I don't think he feels sorry at all.. Sorry that he got caught & sorry that he could potentially lose everything he earned...

Macy0161

Haven't listened to the whole interview, but did catch the motorised doping question. Really didn't see an issue with the questioning - Gilroy set the context with the inventor having the technology then. Armstrongs reaction to it makes me suspect tbh! Did you use it, and would've used it were fair questions. It's been suggested by some pro's that they consider it worse than doping, yet Armstrong thinks its a stupid question?

D9Male

Gilroy has always had a problem with asking long questions.

Typical Gilroy:
Do you find the daily life of a cyclist hard? Because it strikes me that a person with your personality would prefer blah blah blah.

Rather than just asking a simple question. No one really wants to hear the interviewer.

micar

What I wanted to know was..

Was the technology for motorised doping available when he was winning the Tdf?

He mentioned an Hungarian inventor. When did he invent it?

I think that why Armstrong reacted in the way he did.

Weepsie

Gilroy is a bit like Dave Fanning in that he tries to answer a question before it he's finished asking it.

Nothing new came from it and never would. Now someone like Stephen Colbert who could probably give someone like Lance a noose to hang themselves would be great.

Ger Gilroy is alright, but other than the motor doping there was nothing new there.

What's this big news coming down the line?

JohnDozer

What I found most interesting (and I don't know much apart from what I read in Seven Deadly Sins) was that right at the end of the interview Lance seemed to be saying that he still considers he rightfully won 7 Tour de France races. Did I understand him correctly? I can't understand how someone admitting to everything he is can still think that. It seems in complete contrast to accepting he lived a very big lie...

doccy

i thought it was a really interesting interview, not that there was anything groundbreaking revealed. As a character study it was very interesting to hear Armstrong speak, the guy comes across a sociopath.

Thought the whole motorised doping was a fishing exercise. Interviewer was at least a little tipped off , thought the reference for credible sources was code for someone who was in the room at the Lemond meeting.

kumate_champ07

I wanted Ger to press harder, ask him if the motor was available at the time would he have used it, where does a cheat draw the line?
even ask whats the strangest substance/drug/method he tried that didnt work, Im sure he experimented with a lot of things. Lance says he answers everything unless its to do with his court case and that he's never had a question he didnt answer, I highly doubt that

Eamonnator

I decided to listen to the podcast of the Armstrong interview just now.
I listened to about 40 seconds of it, and realised that I couldn't be arsed about anything he has to say.
After all this time, I'm finally over it.
D.G.

nialljf

newstalk acting like they're breaking some big story. nothing new here.

maximum12

nialljf wrote: »

newstalk acting like they're breaking some big story. nothing new here.

Yeah lance has nothing new to say at this point.

I don't think he was expecting Gilroy to be as well researched as he was, although Gilroy did a mediocre job of capitalising on his knowledge.

The part where he was going on "are you nuts" was an example of lances psychopathic behaviour. Psychopaths will try and make the other person look like the crazy, irrational person while they remain calm.

When he said "are you a rookie" he was targeting any insecurity Gilroy might have as a journalist.

highbury1913

There might be a story on motors coming in the future. I don't know but I got the impression that Gilroy was trying to nail this issue to Lance than any actually knowledge of Lance using a motor. Like when he said if he was the inventor he would have gone to him first. I don't think this was around in '99. Who knows about Armstrong's return as the use of motors falls into his return to the sport in '09.

I think when Armstrong denied it, Gilroy should have just moved on.

Plus, if this is the case why didn't Landis and Hamilton say anything about it in the reasoned decision. I don't think they would have stayed quiet on this by now considering they were willing to disclose everything else.

Pudsy33

Was Gilroy suggesting that there was a motor doping case about to break? Or was he just saying that as it has been getting attention this year?

kumate_champ07

this interview had nothing new, the man has not changed and its doubtful he ever will. I dont think I will ever listen or read any more interviews of him

ThisRegard

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Was Gilroy suggesting that there was a motor doping case about to break? Or was he just saying that as it has been getting attention this year?

Impression I got was there was one on the way and it was perhaps historical.

Wanderer78

maximum12 wrote:

The part where he was going on "are you nuts" was an example of lances psychopathic behaviour. Psychopaths will try and make the other person look like the crazy, irrational person while they remain calm.

I would class him more of a sociopath than a psychopath, but both have similar traits

LionelNashe

I don't think Gilroy thought for a second that Lance had used a motor. I think he asked if Lance used a motor, and if Lance would have used a motor (given the opportunity), purely as a set-up to his next question, that is: Why would Lance use EPO and not use a motor? What's the difference? It was just an unusual way to approach the question of what goes on in the mind of a blatant cheater. However, Gilroy bungled it by asking the question twice (maybe even 3 times), when once would have been enough. This gave Armstrong the opportunity to deliberately misunderstand the purpose of the line of questioning, and bluster his way out of the topic.

Still, it rattled Armstong enough that he just gave a blunt, unapologetic answer to the question of whether his 7 jerseys are still hanging up in his home: "Absolutely". This was very telling.

Bad interview.

Gilroy has a really annoying habit of asking a question in 10 sentences where 1 would do. It gives the interviewee an opportunity to focus on the bit he is comfortable with. It's also hard for the listener to remember what the question was when you're wondering when he'll stop talking.

Armstrong was just horrific. Like a man who was being forced to do it, disinterested, sounded like he was simply saying whatever he had to say to get through it, sticking with the implausible half lies he has erected to replace the whole lying structure around his cheating.

LionelNashe

Still, fair play to Gilroy for not speaking during the 8 second silence. It was a stand-off, and Armstrong cracked first. Then when Gilroy just repeated his question: "Really?" I think I laughed out loud.

I guess the whole Armstrong thing is old news to the regulars in this forum, but as somebody who hadn't paid much attention to it before I found it very good listening.

LionelNashe

LionelNashe wrote: »

Still, fair play to Gilroy for not speaking during the 8 second silence. It was a stand-off, and Armstrong cracked first. Then when Gilroy just repeated his question: "Really?" I think I laughed out loud...

He was a bit cowed by the "are you a rookie" jibe.

He could have had a prepared answer for any nastiness - "yes, when it comes to cheating to win huge sports events and earn millions I am a rookie and you are the expert, but that's not something to crow about so bear with me"

flatty

I never believed the Armstrong myth, and think his behaviour was, at the time, reprehensible. Not the doping, it was wide place, he was just more organised than others, but his treatment of people, but that is his nature, if threatened, to attack. His treatment of paul kin age in particular was shameful.
I think, however, that he has confessed to as much as he could have since then, and has opened himself to derision, lawsuits and bankruptcy by doing so.
Hincapie is the one who really boils my piss. He owed lance Armstrong pretty much everything he had, yet he threw him under the bus to save his own skin. He is a weasel.
I think lance is in Dublin in part because of Emma o Reilly, and paul kimmage. I honestly think he is remorseful for the way he treated them. The drugs, like people say, I think he believes he was cycling against other druggies, and has the honesty not to feel guilt about this, whereas just the drug taking ate Tyler Hamilton up.
He's an unusual man, lance, who has lived a life less ordinary, and I'd love to hear the talk. I'd not pay 175 euro to do so, but would pay 50 or so just for his bit.
I think mechanised doping questions would be better aimed at cancellara personally.

onmebike

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Was Gilroy suggesting that there was a motor doping case about to break? Or was he just saying that as it has been getting attention this year?

ThisRegard wrote: »

Impression I got was there was one on the way and it was perhaps historical.

That caught my attention too. I think he said that 1999/2000 was when some Hungarian (?) guy was in a position to offer it to interested parties and that there was a big story on the way.

I didn't know of a Hungarian inventor, that these motors had been around that long and there was a story looming.

flatty

<snip>
Anyhow , lequipe that week insinuated mechanical doping, complete with diagrams of how the bike could be set up with internal batteries etc, and shortly thereafter, random bike tests were introduced at the finish lines of major races (X-rays) now superseded by in-race testing.
There was also a clip floating round a while back of a lad who fell off in a race, and his wheels just kept spinning and spinning.

micar

flatty wrote: »

There was also a clip floating round a while back of a lad who fell off in a race, and his wheels just kept spinning and spinning.

This one

https://youtu.be/ideiS-6gBAc

LionelNashe

micar wrote: »

This one

https://youtu.be/ideiS-6gBAc

One of the comments on that video has this interesting link though:

https://www.instagram.com/p/sh0fSPirPW/

kumate_champ07

LionelNashe wrote: »

One of the comments on that video has this interesting link though:

https://www.instagram.com/p/sh0fSPirPW/

looks like he's controlling the bike himself, he has his hand on the bars and guides it in an arc

buffalo

D9Male wrote: »

Gilroy has always had a problem with asking long questions.

Typical Gilroy:
Do you find the daily life of a cyclist hard? Because it strikes me that a person with your personality would prefer blah blah blah.

Rather than just asking a simple question. No one really wants to hear the interviewer.

I thought the extension to the question was a tool to prevent Armstrong from rattling off a stock answer, and taking the interview in a definite direction that Gilroy wanted to explore - out of Armstrong's control.

I hate giving oxygen to anything Armstrong, but had a listen to this and Gilroy impressed me. As someone else said, the fact that Armstrong just hung up at the end says a lot.

D9Male

I wouldn't give Gilroy that much credit. He is at it the whole time,and it strikes me that he is looking to showcase his knowledge of his subject to the audience, but in particular the interviewee. Listen to his Off the Ball interviews, I would say the average length of his questions is over 30 seconds.

Gilroy also seems to lack a little bit of skill in reading when an interviewee is getting cheesed off. I can live with the mechanical doping question, but not the follow-up.