planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:02 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

Armstrong: champ or cheat?
Champ 17%  17%  [ 12 ]
Cheat 61%  61%  [ 44 ]
Meh - the sport is so rotten, I can't be bothered 22%  22%  [ 16 ]
Total votes : 72
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1376
Location: Wrexham, UK
SchumieRules wrote:
jammin78 wrote:
Laura23 wrote:
He's a knob and I hope he gets his just desserts, not just a lifetime ban and his tour wins taken away but his prize money too.

However I don't see why he shouldn't bring down everyone else associated with him, they are guilty too and they should face the consequences of their actions as much as Armstrong.

Exactly. Anyone who has been involved should be brought down.


On that, I wonder how many people will jump on the "I didn't know anything, it was all him" wagon to save their *rse...

An awful lot I would imagine. It's many people's nature to try and pass the blame. Hell, I try and pass the blame if I can get away with it in work. Not on something like murder, or anythign really bad, just little things where the other person is just as responsible as me.

A lot of people who deserve to be found out likely won't.

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 11:45 am
Posts: 804
DaveStebbins wrote:
sultanofhyd wrote:
New York Times

The New York Post is definitely NOT the New York Times.


The quote was taken from here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/sport ... imes&_r=1&

I later found the picture on a forum, but instead of adding it in a new post I edited it into my previous post.

_________________
Apparently religious people didn't like my signature, hah! Don't read it if you are so offended by it.

When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1538
Armstrong had been at the head of the biggest supporting cheat in history, one that I can't honestly see ever being topped. He has quite possibly hammered in all the remaining nails in cycling's coffin. Indeed, depending on further investigations, the IOC have threatened to remove cycling from the Olympics. I'm confident this won't happen but to even mention it as a possibility is enough.

He has stopped other clean cyclist's from winning not only the greatest race in cycling, but also individual stages, something that cyclists that will never win overall covert the most in their career. Spectators have traveled from across the globe to support him at great cost to themselves but also spectators of other cyclists that have been cheated out of success.

When he writes the inevitable next book I hope 100% of the profit goes to Livestrong, the charity that could quite possibly suffer as a result of this.

He should either return his yellow jerseys to the Tour de France or flog them off, again to charity.

He is an utter disgrace.

Amazingly enough, I'd be thrilled to find out that it's him that was clean all along and in fact the others are wrong. Somehow I don't see this happening.....

On a personal note, the joy and excitement I experienced and shared with my family and friends watching his seemingly heroic cycling can never be returned to me. All those memories are now worthless.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Los Angeles, California
Asphalt_World wrote:
Armstrong had been at the head of the biggest supporting cheat in history, one that I can't honestly see ever being topped. He has quite possibly hammered in all the remaining nails in cycling's coffin. Indeed, depending on further investigations, the IOC have threatened to remove cycling from the Olympics. I'm confident this won't happen but to even mention it as a possibility is enough.

He has stopped other clean cyclist's from winning not only the greatest race in cycling, but also individual stages, something that cyclists that will never win overall covert the most in their career. Spectators have traveled from across the globe to support him at great cost to themselves but also spectators of other cyclists that have been cheated out of success.

When he writes the inevitable next book I hope 100% of the profit goes to Livestrong, the charity that could quite possibly suffer as a result of this.

He should either return his yellow jerseys to the Tour de France or flog them off, again to charity.

He is an utter disgrace.

Amazingly enough, I'd be thrilled to find out that it's him that was clean all along and in fact the others are wrong. Somehow I don't see this happening.....

On a personal note, the joy and excitement I experienced and shared with my family and friends watching his seemingly heroic cycling can never be returned to me. All those memories are now worthless.


Good post, but since his competitors were cheating too, a cheater would've won even if Armstrong had not taken part.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1538
Not all his competitors were cheating and certainly some of those that could have won stages had he and others in on the scam not been cheating must feel really hacked off. Glory and financial reward has been denied to them and can never be rectified.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
SchumieRules wrote:
kai_ wrote:
I've thought about what I'd have him do quite a lot. First of all, IMO he has to be prepared to go properly on record and under oath. That's the priority. Second, the individuals he hurt are the most important people in all this and he has to put things right with them. The public and his image are the least important and yet the way he's managing this he is making that his priority. If he then wants to go public then he should do it live, no questions off-limits and be willing to be questioned by the very journalists who tried to nail him the first place. But most importantly, quite the opposite of wanting this to all continue as some sort of public spectacle, I think he should go and actually deal with the harm he did first.

Beyond that, Armstrong made himself the story. He cheated and lied his way to seven Tours de France and rejoiced in the attention and power that gave him. He created, as I think I said earlier in this thread, the image of a hero, of someone who could beat the odds and then go on to do amazing things. It's not like he won the Tours and shunned all the rest. He shouldn't then when it all comes crashing down be excused from having to deal with how big the story is. He played that game for over a decade - it isn't all going to disappear in a couple of months. And he is doing it again. His choice for how he 'redeems himself' is to hire the same media consultant that Clinton used during the Lewinski scandal and to have an interview with the biggest talk-show host of all time. He's the one making himself the story.

The story is far more than doping in cycling as well. It's actually a story of white-collar crime and the harm it can do. I'm going to make what will be seen as a very unpopular comment here, but hopefully people will see what I mean. If Armstrong had physically harmed people - beaten them or similar - even one or two, we'd be calling for his head and asking that he be locked up. Yet the way he wielded his power likely caused a lot more damage to a lot more people - careers that never took off, careers destroyed, people living in fear from the bullying, abuse and death threats, journalists and other individuals who spoke out being sued and losing goodness knows how much of their livelihoods just for telling the truth.

If we accept what Armstrong did, then as far as I can see all the world is saying is "do what you like and as long as you say 'whoops' afterwards that's OK". It's not. I'm not saying that I haven't made mistakes, but when I've made mistakes I've been taught to own my mistakes and take responsibility for them. All I'm saying is that Armstrong should do the same. An interview on Oprah is not taking responsibility.


Aaaah, the Alonso 2007 tactic! Do what you want, as long as you come clean you'll be ok!

Now, Armstrong can do nothing to make things right. Nothing at all. If he apologises, then what? Are his team mates going to get their careers back? Are the journo's going to get their jobs back now? The people he affected will think "see, I told you so", maybe sue him for some money. But what is that going to do other than sooth their hurt egos?

The damage is done now. And I don't demand a public apology, this would be just for the public's eyes. If he feels like he has to apologise to these people, he should do it in private (maybe in a dark basement while they wear boxing gloves!); if it is in public it would feel very fake.

But that's my point. I don't think Armstrong should be making this public confession. I think he should go away and actually deal with the things that he did. Whether he can put things right isn't to do with me, but to do with the people he affected with all this. It'd be of no consequence to me if I never heard anything about Lance Armstrong again.

However he has chosen to do this and therefore he invites scrutiny on his actions. He's the one making himself a public figure and dragging out this saga all over again. My scrutiny is that this is nothing more than a stage-managed act designed to restore his image and enable him to get back into competition again. I've merely stated the things that I believe he would and should be doing if this was in any way genuine. I'm also trying to look at this from the perspective of the people he affected. One of the things that Andreu said was that she wanted Armstrong to acknowledge what happened in that doctor's office originally and if that's what she wants, after having the guts to stand up to Armstrong for all that time and copping all that she did in the meantime then I support that.

I think it was you, SchumieRules, who said what I believed was the most spot on comment in this whole thread: "the cover-up is worse than the lie". This confessional is focusing on the lies and there's a whole lot more to it with regards to the cover-up. Armstrong doesn't just need to come clean about the lies he told, he also needs to come clean about the things he did to cover up those lies. The situation isn't isolated to "OK yes I doped" but is more "I wanted to be at the top and I did all these things to get and stay there: I took drugs, I bullied anyone who tried to expose me, I made sure that anyone who wasn't with me never had a chance etc etc" and the things he did as part of that cover-up are actions for which he also has to make amends.

I have my principles and beliefs when it comes to situations like this. The big one of which is that when someone does the wrong thing I won't let them off the hook until they care about the people they affected. I see absolutely no evidence to suggest that Armstrong cares two hoots about anyone else; he once again only cares about himself. Armstrong was able to do the harm that he did precisely because he didn't care about anyone but himself. He had no problem slandering his former masseur because the impact on her was of no consequence to him. If he's still the same then the problem remains.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3963
Hey Kai, I agree. It wasn't me who said it, originally at least, but yeah, it was spot on. The cover up is worse than the lie. And it was proved once again.

But regarding Lance, I'm still a bit divided on this. Not of his guilt; how could anyone be, since he admitted it himself? But the cover up. I am quite sure there were more people involved; the scale of this thing was too big for one man alone. Whether it was one, two, twenty, I don't know, I just can't believe that he did everything by himself. Someone was giving him the drugs, helping him with blood transfusions and whatever other tricks he used, someone overlooked all his team-mates complaints, someone must have spotted something wrong, in such a long period.

And more importantly, someone was happy making money next to him. And I don't see anyone else being accused. Everyone is silent, happy for Armstrong to take the fall. As for the people who he "bullied" to do stuff for him, I don't have much sympathy. You always have a choice. Bullies should not be encouraged. It is clear that we don't know to what lengths he went with his bullying, but I don't like the whole "Piquet" style either, acting like the innocent victim that couldn't do much.

I'm sure quite a lot of people are happy but also a bit scared by all of this

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5637
Asphalt_World wrote:
Armstrong had been at the head of the biggest supporting cheat in history, one that I can't honestly see ever being topped. He has quite possibly hammered in all the remaining nails in cycling's coffin. Indeed, depending on further investigations, the IOC have threatened to remove cycling from the Olympics. I'm confident this won't happen but to even mention it as a possibility is enough.

He has stopped other clean cyclist's from winning not only the greatest race in cycling, but also individual stages, something that cyclists that will never win overall covert the most in their career. Spectators have traveled from across the globe to support him at great cost to themselves but also spectators of other cyclists that have been cheated out of success.

When he writes the inevitable next book I hope 100% of the profit goes to Livestrong, the charity that could quite possibly suffer as a result of this.

He should either return his yellow jerseys to the Tour de France or flog them off, again to charity.

He is an utter disgrace.

Amazingly enough, I'd be thrilled to find out that it's him that was clean all along and in fact the others are wrong. Somehow I don't see this happening.....

On a personal note, the joy and excitement I experienced and shared with my family and friends watching his seemingly heroic cycling can never be returned to me. All those memories are now worthless.

I doubt that there were clean winners before Armstrong. You must note that Armstrong wins happened at the same time when doping for the first time in history was taken as a serious issue. I think current rules are present since Athens 2004. Not trying to excuse the man, but the chance of any clean riders being denied win solely by US Postal riders is very slim. Think why there will no winners of the 7 Tours. Had Armstrong never competed in Tour, cheater would still have won them. You are very naive if you think that Armstrong robbed you. You were robbed during most of Olympic games too and every sport that is mainly based on strength of muscles. The whole scandal is not because Armstrong or others were the only one cheating, but because sport decided to seriously fight doping in mid 2000s.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
SchumieRules wrote:
Hey Kai, I agree. It wasn't me who said it, originally at least, but yeah, it was spot on. The cover up is worse than the lie. And it was proved once again.

But regarding Lance, I'm still a bit divided on this. Not of his guilt; how could anyone be, since he admitted it himself? But the cover up. I am quite sure there were more people involved; the scale of this thing was too big for one man alone. Whether it was one, two, twenty, I don't know, I just can't believe that he did everything by himself. Someone was giving him the drugs, helping him with blood transfusions and whatever other tricks he used, someone overlooked all his team-mates complaints, someone must have spotted something wrong, in such a long period.

And more importantly, someone was happy making money next to him. And I don't see anyone else being accused. Everyone is silent, happy for Armstrong to take the fall. As for the people who he "bullied" to do stuff for him, I don't have much sympathy. You always have a choice. Bullies should not be encouraged. It is clear that we don't know to what lengths he went with his bullying, but I don't like the whole "Piquet" style either, acting like the innocent victim that couldn't do much.

I'm sure quite a lot of people are happy but also a bit scared by all of this

I don't have sympathy for the people who went along with him. I agree with you that it's no good saying, "I only took drugs because Lance bullied me into it." As you say, those people had a choice. The people I'm referring to are the riders who refused to be bullied and didn't take the drugs and then didn't get opportunities, the people who spoke out from the get go or who, once they became aware of it, made the decision to walk away, and the journalists and individuals in the anti-doping organisations who had integrity and pursued those who were doing the wrong thing.

I also don't for a second believe that Armstrong is the only one involved. The doctor, Alboreto appears to have had a large role to play, and there's indications that people in cycling and anti-doping organisations were as well. I don't think any more of them than I do of Armstrong. But he courted the spotlight, which is why he's attracting so much attention and commentary. I also, as yet, haven't heard stories of them bullying and intimidating people into toeing the line or participating in destroying careers directly or suing people when they made accusations; if I did of course my comments would apply to them.

I hope Armstrong DOES lift the lid on everyone involved. I certainly won't criticise him for trying to pass the buck (even if that's what he's doing) because I think that getting the details and seeing how it was done and holding everyone who was part of it responsible is the most important part. That sort of thing has a chance of really helping to fix the problems in cycling and bring some credibility back to the sport and act in prevention of something like this happening again.

Thing is that he has to go on record under oath. If he's prepared to admit everything in that context and therefore accept the use of it in lawsuits against him then that would go a long way to showing he takes responsibility.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3963
Passing the buck is one way of looking at this. I agree and I also hope he comes clean and shares the ways he did it and the people involved. Not to take them down with him, as an act of revenge. But to show how it was done and avoid future attempts. Similar to say Frank William Abagnale, Jr., he was one of the biggest con artists that got caught, but then employed by the feds and went on to become a consultant for them.

Lance should do the same. Co-operate, advise and try actively to make amends for the sport that he harmed so much. An apology is easy; try to make amends would show guts and even command some respect to some level. In my eyes at least

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
SchumieRules wrote:
Passing the buck is one way of looking at this. I agree and I also hope he comes clean and shares the ways he did it and the people involved. Not to take them down with him, as an act of revenge. But to show how it was done and avoid future attempts. Similar to say Frank William Abagnale, Jr., he was one of the biggest con artists that got caught, but then employed by the feds and went on to become a consultant for them.

Lance should do the same. Co-operate, advise and try actively to make amends for the sport that he harmed so much. An apology is easy; try to make amends would show guts and even command some respect to some level. In my eyes at least

Yes, exactly.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:36 pm
Posts: 17
I would love to believe that the last two winners of the tour did it clean, and tbh i still believe that contador was clean just got burned for a bad choice of food. Watch contador this year and even clean he will be the one to beat. Lance has done an immense amount for charity and for cycling's popularity worldwide, that has now been probably forever ruined by his drug use and the manner of his drug use. I still see him as a great champion and grew up watching him beat some amazing (yet also doped) athletes. I feel slightly sorry for him but he will certainly never be forgotten and will now be an example that even the most revered of sports-people are not above the law. I will watch his interview with interest, but agree with many that with it being on oprah we will not get full disclosure (i hope i am wrong).

To sum up: lance armstrong: A fallen champion who still gets my respect but not my 100% adulation. But its ok because we now have new, clean champions who are not afraid to show their suffering and pain to win (fairly and honestly) the best race in the world.

Thank you lance, but move over because we have new champions....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
I think Lance is no different than any other elite athlete who will do whatever is acceptable in the sport to win, and then a little bit more. If doping was as rampant as it now seems it was, then all of his competitors were doing the same, and he still beat them. So from a "was he really that good?" standpoint, for me, yeah he was.

I can fully understand the inability to stop the train once it got rolling. I know the feeling. Its a mistake, a crappy thing to do, makes him a bad role model, blah blah blah.

But in the end, if he hadn't done what he had, there's be no Livestrong and no $470 million raised to help cancer survivors and further research. I certainly don't think he's someone for kids to look up to, but I don't think he's scum either.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:00 am
Posts: 493
Location: Running wide at Bergwerk
ashley313 wrote:
I think Lance is no different than any other elite athlete who will do whatever is acceptable in the sport to win, and then a little bit more. If doping was as rampant as it now seems it was, then all of his competitors were doing the same, and he still beat them. So from a "was he really that good?" standpoint, for me, yeah he was.

I can fully understand the inability to stop the train once it got rolling. I know the feeling. Its a mistake, a crappy thing to do, makes him a bad role model, blah blah blah.

But in the end, if he hadn't done what he had, there's be no Livestrong and no $470 million raised to help cancer survivors and further research. I certainly don't think he's someone for kids to look up to, but I don't think he's scum either.


All you can say about Lance now is that he was better than the other cyclists who had access to the same doping program as him. He can never be remembered as objectively the best in the sport. He was able to - forgive me - use the Adrian Newey of sports doping to get his edge, and there were only what, a dozen or so other riders with the same access.

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Sounds like the access was there, just not the resources. That's the same for any sport.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
Well I watched the first part of the interview today and I had a couple of questions for people perhaps more knowledgeable about the specifics of this than I. I've looked around on the internet for answers but so far haven't been able to find relevant information.

Armstrong stated that he competed clean in the 2009 and 2010 Tours de France. I'm unsure as to whether to believe him on that. Is there a possible reason why he would need to maintain the lie for those particular years? Such as a legal one regarding the statute of limitations or to do with endorsements. Is it because his doping can't actually be proven conclusively enough during those years? My understanding is that the only real basis they have for that is the USADA report stated that there was less than a one in a million chance of his blood readings being real, which could be regarded as either reasonable or unreasonable odds.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1538
Well what a truly pathetic human being he is. The things he said in the interview to try top make it seem less of a crime are ridiculous. He looked up cheat in the dictionary and wasn't a cheat because he viewed it as a level playing field. Oh come on.

What a waist of space he is.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3963
Asphalt_World wrote:
Well what a truly pathetic human being he is. The things he said in the interview to try top make it seem less of a crime are ridiculous. He looked up cheat in the dictionary and wasn't a cheat because he viewed it as a level playing field. Oh come on.

What a waist of space he is.


Haha Asphalt, you sound royally pee'd off!


Where did you watch the interview? I haven't watched it yet + spare time at work = Happy Friday!

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
Overall I was unimpressed with Armstrong's interview. I'm sure most people will assume that I went into it skeptically and cycnically and there was no chance of him making any sort of impression, but that wasn't the case.

Whenever a question was asked about what he did do, he'd search for the one thing he could hang onto that had been misrepresented. For example, when they were discussing the USADA report he immediately leapt into the fact that their accusation of him cheating in 2009 and 2010 was wrong and when discussing Betsy Andreu he focused on the fact that he hadn't called her fat. All of which may be the case, but rather misses the point, which was that it was about what he did do.

Although it was supposed to be a 'nothing off limits' interview it was constrained by Armstrong refusing to discuss other people's involvement. That was used as a tool on a number of occasions for him to avoid addressing a question properly - essentially "well that involves other people so I can't comment". It was also in contradiction with him expressing a desire towards the end of the time when they were discussing what he could do to clean up cycling.

It seemed to me that he either really doesn't understand his role in all this or he is refusing to acknowledge it. Yes it's true that doping in cycling existed before Armstrong and that others were involved. Yes it's true that he wasn't the only person with authority about who rode in the US Postal Team. But he was very unwilling to admit his role in it and determined to downplay it and sidestep his influence. I also thought it interesting that he referred to having a "truth and reconciliation" forum in cycling rather than properly cleaning up the sport by holding people to account. It seemed he's not prepared to look at what he did as wrong.

He did avoid a full admission with details.

I was most unimpressed that he simply would not acknowledge the conversation in the doctor's office that Betsy Andreu has always referred to. It was the one question he simply refused. I got the impression that he wanted to maintain his stance that she was lying about it but knew he couldn't.

The only time I felt he was sincere was when he essentially said that he regretted coming back in 2009 and 2010 because he got caught. That's the thing I don't like - if Armstrong really believes that what he did was right and there were no problems with it then he should just say that. And if that is what he really believes and he doesn't say it then he's just being manipulative to his own ends.

Oprah was too soft and gave him too much control over the narrative. At times she probed, but she didn't push him hard enough nor draw him back to the central points.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:51 am
Posts: 1049
Saw the interview. I can't help but think he's still trying to wriggle out of this with a positive image instead of being genuinely sorry for what he's done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1311
Location: Sydney, Australia
kai_ wrote:
Overall I was unimpressed with Armstrong's interview. I'm sure most people will assume that I went into it skeptically and cycnically and there was no chance of him making any sort of impression, but that wasn't the case.

Whenever a question was asked about what he did do, he'd search for the one thing he could hang onto that had been misrepresented. For example, when they were discussing the USADA report he immediately leapt into the fact that their accusation of him cheating in 2009 and 2010 was wrong and when discussing Betsy Andreu he focused on the fact that he hadn't called her fat. All of which may be the case, but rather misses the point, which was that it was about what he did do.

Although it was supposed to be a 'nothing off limits' interview it was constrained by Armstrong refusing to discuss other people's involvement. That was used as a tool on a number of occasions for him to avoid addressing a question properly - essentially "well that involves other people so I can't comment". It was also in contradiction with him expressing a desire towards the end of the time when they were discussing what he could do to clean up cycling.

It seemed to me that he either really doesn't understand his role in all this or he is refusing to acknowledge it. Yes it's true that doping in cycling existed before Armstrong and that others were involved. Yes it's true that he wasn't the only person with authority about who rode in the US Postal Team. But he was very unwilling to admit his role in it and determined to downplay it and sidestep his influence. I also thought it interesting that he referred to having a "truth and reconciliation" forum in cycling rather than properly cleaning up the sport by holding people to account. It seemed he's not prepared to look at what he did as wrong.

He did avoid a full admission with details.

I was most unimpressed that he simply would not acknowledge the conversation in the doctor's office that Betsy Andreu has always referred to. It was the one question he simply refused. I got the impression that he wanted to maintain his stance that she was lying about it but knew he couldn't.

The only time I felt he was sincere was when he essentially said that he regretted coming back in 2009 and 2010 because he got caught. That's the thing I don't like - if Armstrong really believes that what he did was right and there were no problems with it then he should just say that. And if that is what he really believes and he doesn't say it then he's just being manipulative to his own ends.

Oprah was too soft and gave him too much control over the narrative. At times she probed, but she didn't push him hard enough nor draw him back to the central points.

kai, I didn't quite read his interview the way you did so I guess it is about personal interpretation. After the interview, on TV here in Oz, they had a body language expert on who said that he thought the only time Lance lied was when he sought of looked sideways & denied that he had bullied or encouraged anyone to dope, which I thought was rather interesting. He also made some interesting observations about parts of the interview where he said Lance was being truthful but playing for the sympathy vote. Somehow I can't blame him for that, afterall, he has had a long way to fall. I don't think that any interview he could do will please everyone.

I must admit that I am a bit conflicted here. On the one hand I absolutely adhor any drug taking in sport & always have, & I am so disappointed to find out that all the rumours about Lance are true. On the other hand, having lost family & close friends to cancer & presently having my eldest brother fighting unoperable prostrate cancer for the last 5 years plus finding out last year he had melanoma & beating that & knowing the amount of fight that takes, I still admire Lance Armstrong for beating his cancer & surviving & going back to racing. I would like to think that this confession will not take away the hope of other cancer sufferers that he gave. And that is a good thing cause it is hard enough as it is. I am not excusing him but maybe because I have worked in the psychology profession for over 20 years I have heard things I didn't want to & other things that made me feel humble. I guess the bottom line is that I have learnt not to judge anyone because I have found out that sometimes, you just don't know. Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7653
Location: London
Lance Armstrong is no sportsman. He's a weak and deceitful man.

His interview was awful. He clearly was gunning for the sympathy vote, oh I cheated but poor me had to because everyone else was doing it as well. That is no excuse. Better being a clean loser than a dirty winner. It looks like he blames everyone in his team but himself for the cheating and that really is pathetic when he was the ringleader. He could have stopped it all at a moments notice but greed got the better of him. His records will be forgotten, his legacy tarnished and the man himself doesn't seem to care all that much because he made his money.

I hope Lance Armstrong decides to leave the public limelight for good ASAP. For the sake of Cycling if nothing else. The sooner this good for nothing piece of trash disappears the quicker Cycling can move on to a new era.

Armstrong truly is the worst example of a "sportsman" the modern era has seen, possibly any era has seen. He deserves no respect, he gave no one respect when he lied about how he won his titles, so why should he get any in return. One half hearted confession doesn't go very far.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5637
kai_ wrote:
Overall I was unimpressed with Armstrong's interview. I'm sure most people will assume that I went into it skeptically and cycnically and there was no chance of him making any sort of impression, but that wasn't the case.

Whenever a question was asked about what he did do, he'd search for the one thing he could hang onto that had been misrepresented. For example, when they were discussing the USADA report he immediately leapt into the fact that their accusation of him cheating in 2009 and 2010 was wrong and when discussing Betsy Andreu he focused on the fact that he hadn't called her fat. All of which may be the case, but rather misses the point, which was that it was about what he did do.

Although it was supposed to be a 'nothing off limits' interview it was constrained by Armstrong refusing to discuss other people's involvement. That was used as a tool on a number of occasions for him to avoid addressing a question properly - essentially "well that involves other people so I can't comment". It was also in contradiction with him expressing a desire towards the end of the time when they were discussing what he could do to clean up cycling.

It seemed to me that he either really doesn't understand his role in all this or he is refusing to acknowledge it. Yes it's true that doping in cycling existed before Armstrong and that others were involved. Yes it's true that he wasn't the only person with authority about who rode in the US Postal Team. But he was very unwilling to admit his role in it and determined to downplay it and sidestep his influence. I also thought it interesting that he referred to having a "truth and reconciliation" forum in cycling rather than properly cleaning up the sport by holding people to account. It seemed he's not prepared to look at what he did as wrong.

He did avoid a full admission with details.

I was most unimpressed that he simply would not acknowledge the conversation in the doctor's office that Betsy Andreu has always referred to. It was the one question he simply refused. I got the impression that he wanted to maintain his stance that she was lying about it but knew he couldn't.

The only time I felt he was sincere was when he essentially said that he regretted coming back in 2009 and 2010 because he got caught. That's the thing I don't like - if Armstrong really believes that what he did was right and there were no problems with it then he should just say that. And if that is what he really believes and he doesn't say it then he's just being manipulative to his own ends.

Oprah was too soft and gave him too much control over the narrative. At times she probed, but she didn't push him hard enough nor draw him back to the central points.

You must consider that the date of interview isn't random. The statute of limitation means that any criminal action can't be brought anymore. That make his confession a bit cynical.

I agree with most of your points, expect one. I hate when cheaters like David Millar point finger at others. I'm glad Armstrong avoided that. Armstrong isn't right person to judge anyone.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 11:45 am
Posts: 804
DrG wrote:
kai_ wrote:
Overall I was unimpressed with Armstrong's interview. I'm sure most people will assume that I went into it skeptically and cycnically and there was no chance of him making any sort of impression, but that wasn't the case.

Whenever a question was asked about what he did do, he'd search for the one thing he could hang onto that had been misrepresented. For example, when they were discussing the USADA report he immediately leapt into the fact that their accusation of him cheating in 2009 and 2010 was wrong and when discussing Betsy Andreu he focused on the fact that he hadn't called her fat. All of which may be the case, but rather misses the point, which was that it was about what he did do.

Although it was supposed to be a 'nothing off limits' interview it was constrained by Armstrong refusing to discuss other people's involvement. That was used as a tool on a number of occasions for him to avoid addressing a question properly - essentially "well that involves other people so I can't comment". It was also in contradiction with him expressing a desire towards the end of the time when they were discussing what he could do to clean up cycling.

It seemed to me that he either really doesn't understand his role in all this or he is refusing to acknowledge it. Yes it's true that doping in cycling existed before Armstrong and that others were involved. Yes it's true that he wasn't the only person with authority about who rode in the US Postal Team. But he was very unwilling to admit his role in it and determined to downplay it and sidestep his influence. I also thought it interesting that he referred to having a "truth and reconciliation" forum in cycling rather than properly cleaning up the sport by holding people to account. It seemed he's not prepared to look at what he did as wrong.

He did avoid a full admission with details.

I was most unimpressed that he simply would not acknowledge the conversation in the doctor's office that Betsy Andreu has always referred to. It was the one question he simply refused. I got the impression that he wanted to maintain his stance that she was lying about it but knew he couldn't.

The only time I felt he was sincere was when he essentially said that he regretted coming back in 2009 and 2010 because he got caught. That's the thing I don't like - if Armstrong really believes that what he did was right and there were no problems with it then he should just say that. And if that is what he really believes and he doesn't say it then he's just being manipulative to his own ends.

Oprah was too soft and gave him too much control over the narrative. At times she probed, but she didn't push him hard enough nor draw him back to the central points.

kai, I didn't quite read his interview the way you did so I guess it is about personal interpretation. After the interview, on TV here in Oz, they had a body language expert on who said that he thought the only time Lance lied was when he sought of looked sideways & denied that he had bullied or encouraged anyone to dope, which I thought was rather interesting. He also made some interesting observations about parts of the interview where he said Lance was being truthful but playing for the sympathy vote. Somehow I can't blame him for that, afterall, he has had a long way to fall. I don't think that any interview he could do will please everyone.

I must admit that I am a bit conflicted here. On the one hand I absolutely adhor any drug taking in sport & always have, & I am so disappointed to find out that all the rumours about Lance are true. On the other hand, having lost family & close friends to cancer & presently having my eldest brother fighting unoperable prostrate cancer for the last 5 years plus finding out last year he had melanoma & beating that & knowing the amount of fight that takes, I still admire Lance Armstrong for beating his cancer & surviving & going back to racing. I would like to think that this confession will not take away the hope of other cancer sufferers that he gave. And that is a good thing cause it is hard enough as it is. I am not excusing him but maybe because I have worked in the psychology profession for over 20 years I have heard things I didn't want to & other things that made me feel humble. I guess the bottom line is that I have learnt not to judge anyone because I have found out that sometimes, you just don't know. Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth :D


There is a common misconception about Livestrong - all the funds collected by Livestrong are used for cancer AWARENESS and not one penny for RESEARCH. What they do is noble but they are hardly the most important cancer foundation out there.

And about the body language, Lance has used the 'I didn't dope' statement throughout his professional career from 1993 till this interview, I'm sure he knows how to control his body language to lie convincingly in his sleep. ;)

_________________
Apparently religious people didn't like my signature, hah! Don't read it if you are so offended by it.

When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 11:45 am
Posts: 804
dizlexik wrote:
kai_ wrote:
Overall I was unimpressed with Armstrong's interview. I'm sure most people will assume that I went into it skeptically and cycnically and there was no chance of him making any sort of impression, but that wasn't the case.

Whenever a question was asked about what he did do, he'd search for the one thing he could hang onto that had been misrepresented. For example, when they were discussing the USADA report he immediately leapt into the fact that their accusation of him cheating in 2009 and 2010 was wrong and when discussing Betsy Andreu he focused on the fact that he hadn't called her fat. All of which may be the case, but rather misses the point, which was that it was about what he did do.

Although it was supposed to be a 'nothing off limits' interview it was constrained by Armstrong refusing to discuss other people's involvement. That was used as a tool on a number of occasions for him to avoid addressing a question properly - essentially "well that involves other people so I can't comment". It was also in contradiction with him expressing a desire towards the end of the time when they were discussing what he could do to clean up cycling.

It seemed to me that he either really doesn't understand his role in all this or he is refusing to acknowledge it. Yes it's true that doping in cycling existed before Armstrong and that others were involved. Yes it's true that he wasn't the only person with authority about who rode in the US Postal Team. But he was very unwilling to admit his role in it and determined to downplay it and sidestep his influence. I also thought it interesting that he referred to having a "truth and reconciliation" forum in cycling rather than properly cleaning up the sport by holding people to account. It seemed he's not prepared to look at what he did as wrong.

He did avoid a full admission with details.

I was most unimpressed that he simply would not acknowledge the conversation in the doctor's office that Betsy Andreu has always referred to. It was the one question he simply refused. I got the impression that he wanted to maintain his stance that she was lying about it but knew he couldn't.

The only time I felt he was sincere was when he essentially said that he regretted coming back in 2009 and 2010 because he got caught. That's the thing I don't like - if Armstrong really believes that what he did was right and there were no problems with it then he should just say that. And if that is what he really believes and he doesn't say it then he's just being manipulative to his own ends.

Oprah was too soft and gave him too much control over the narrative. At times she probed, but she didn't push him hard enough nor draw him back to the central points.

You must consider that the date of interview isn't random. The statute of limitation means that any criminal action can't be brought anymore. That make his confession a bit cynical.

I agree with most of your points, expect one. I hate when cheaters like David Millar point finger at others. I'm glad Armstrong avoided that. Armstrong isn't right person to judge anyone.


The statute of limitations can be waived if it can proved that there is a conspiracy, ie 3 or more people are involved. He will surely be facing perjury charges.

_________________
Apparently religious people didn't like my signature, hah! Don't read it if you are so offended by it.

When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5637
swthomas1987 wrote:
I would love to believe that the last two winners of the tour did it clean, and tbh i still believe that contador was clean just got burned for a bad choice of food. Watch contador this year and even clean he will be the one to beat.

Maybe not clean, but definitely cleaner. The overall speeds during some major uphills decreased in recent years. Contator is tricky case. Nowadays they use all kinds of cream that disappear quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if Contador was catch after using such a thing. Hopefully he is clean since then.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5637
sultanofhyd wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
kai_ wrote:
Overall I was unimpressed with Armstrong's interview. I'm sure most people will assume that I went into it skeptically and cycnically and there was no chance of him making any sort of impression, but that wasn't the case.

Whenever a question was asked about what he did do, he'd search for the one thing he could hang onto that had been misrepresented. For example, when they were discussing the USADA report he immediately leapt into the fact that their accusation of him cheating in 2009 and 2010 was wrong and when discussing Betsy Andreu he focused on the fact that he hadn't called her fat. All of which may be the case, but rather misses the point, which was that it was about what he did do.

Although it was supposed to be a 'nothing off limits' interview it was constrained by Armstrong refusing to discuss other people's involvement. That was used as a tool on a number of occasions for him to avoid addressing a question properly - essentially "well that involves other people so I can't comment". It was also in contradiction with him expressing a desire towards the end of the time when they were discussing what he could do to clean up cycling.

It seemed to me that he either really doesn't understand his role in all this or he is refusing to acknowledge it. Yes it's true that doping in cycling existed before Armstrong and that others were involved. Yes it's true that he wasn't the only person with authority about who rode in the US Postal Team. But he was very unwilling to admit his role in it and determined to downplay it and sidestep his influence. I also thought it interesting that he referred to having a "truth and reconciliation" forum in cycling rather than properly cleaning up the sport by holding people to account. It seemed he's not prepared to look at what he did as wrong.

He did avoid a full admission with details.

I was most unimpressed that he simply would not acknowledge the conversation in the doctor's office that Betsy Andreu has always referred to. It was the one question he simply refused. I got the impression that he wanted to maintain his stance that she was lying about it but knew he couldn't.

The only time I felt he was sincere was when he essentially said that he regretted coming back in 2009 and 2010 because he got caught. That's the thing I don't like - if Armstrong really believes that what he did was right and there were no problems with it then he should just say that. And if that is what he really believes and he doesn't say it then he's just being manipulative to his own ends.

Oprah was too soft and gave him too much control over the narrative. At times she probed, but she didn't push him hard enough nor draw him back to the central points.

You must consider that the date of interview isn't random. The statute of limitation means that any criminal action can't be brought anymore. That make his confession a bit cynical.

I agree with most of your points, expect one. I hate when cheaters like David Millar point finger at others. I'm glad Armstrong avoided that. Armstrong isn't right person to judge anyone.


The statute of limitations can be waived if it can proved that there is a conspiracy, ie 3 or more people are involved. He will surely be facing perjury charges.

No. He carefully avoided talking about others. And if charges aren't going to be brought because of USADA report, the interview won't change much.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1311
Location: Sydney, Australia
sultanofhyd wrote:
DrG wrote:
kai_ wrote:
Overall I was unimpressed with Armstrong's interview. I'm sure most people will assume that I went into it skeptically and cycnically and there was no chance of him making any sort of impression, but that wasn't the case.

Whenever a question was asked about what he did do, he'd search for the one thing he could hang onto that had been misrepresented. For example, when they were discussing the USADA report he immediately leapt into the fact that their accusation of him cheating in 2009 and 2010 was wrong and when discussing Betsy Andreu he focused on the fact that he hadn't called her fat. All of which may be the case, but rather misses the point, which was that it was about what he did do.

Although it was supposed to be a 'nothing off limits' interview it was constrained by Armstrong refusing to discuss other people's involvement. That was used as a tool on a number of occasions for him to avoid addressing a question properly - essentially "well that involves other people so I can't comment". It was also in contradiction with him expressing a desire towards the end of the time when they were discussing what he could do to clean up cycling.

It seemed to me that he either really doesn't understand his role in all this or he is refusing to acknowledge it. Yes it's true that doping in cycling existed before Armstrong and that others were involved. Yes it's true that he wasn't the only person with authority about who rode in the US Postal Team. But he was very unwilling to admit his role in it and determined to downplay it and sidestep his influence. I also thought it interesting that he referred to having a "truth and reconciliation" forum in cycling rather than properly cleaning up the sport by holding people to account. It seemed he's not prepared to look at what he did as wrong.

He did avoid a full admission with details.

I was most unimpressed that he simply would not acknowledge the conversation in the doctor's office that Betsy Andreu has always referred to. It was the one question he simply refused. I got the impression that he wanted to maintain his stance that she was lying about it but knew he couldn't.

The only time I felt he was sincere was when he essentially said that he regretted coming back in 2009 and 2010 because he got caught. That's the thing I don't like - if Armstrong really believes that what he did was right and there were no problems with it then he should just say that. And if that is what he really believes and he doesn't say it then he's just being manipulative to his own ends.

Oprah was too soft and gave him too much control over the narrative. At times she probed, but she didn't push him hard enough nor draw him back to the central points.

kai, I didn't quite read his interview the way you did so I guess it is about personal interpretation. After the interview, on TV here in Oz, they had a body language expert on who said that he thought the only time Lance lied was when he sought of looked sideways & denied that he had bullied or encouraged anyone to dope, which I thought was rather interesting. He also made some interesting observations about parts of the interview where he said Lance was being truthful but playing for the sympathy vote. Somehow I can't blame him for that, afterall, he has had a long way to fall. I don't think that any interview he could do will please everyone.

I must admit that I am a bit conflicted here. On the one hand I absolutely adhor any drug taking in sport & always have, & I am so disappointed to find out that all the rumours about Lance are true. On the other hand, having lost family & close friends to cancer & presently having my eldest brother fighting unoperable prostrate cancer for the last 5 years plus finding out last year he had melanoma & beating that & knowing the amount of fight that takes, I still admire Lance Armstrong for beating his cancer & surviving & going back to racing. I would like to think that this confession will not take away the hope of other cancer sufferers that he gave. And that is a good thing cause it is hard enough as it is. I am not excusing him but maybe because I have worked in the psychology profession for over 20 years I have heard things I didn't want to & other things that made me feel humble. I guess the bottom line is that I have learnt not to judge anyone because I have found out that sometimes, you just don't know. Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth :D


There is a common misconception about Livestrong - all the funds collected by Livestrong are used for cancer AWARENESS and not one penny for RESEARCH. What they do is noble but they are hardly the most important cancer foundation out there.

And about the body language, Lance has used the 'I didn't dope' statement throughout his professional career from 1993 till this interview, I'm sure he knows how to control his body language to lie convincingly in his sleep. ;)

Actually, I purposely didn't mention his cancer foundation as I don't know what happens there or what happens with any funds they have raised. I mentioned only my admiration for his own personal fight against cancer as I do know how difficult that can be & sometimes, no matter how hard you fight, it it not successful. It is a very hard & personal battle & I can't take that away from him regardless of what else he has done :-((


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1538
SchumieRules wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Well what a truly pathetic human being he is. The things he said in the interview to try top make it seem less of a crime are ridiculous. He looked up cheat in the dictionary and wasn't a cheat because he viewed it as a level playing field. Oh come on.

What a waist of space he is.


Haha Asphalt, you sound royally pee'd off!


Where did you watch the interview? I haven't watched it yet + spare time at work = Happy Friday!


I watched it on a stream.

I'm about as angry as its possible to be about him really. From a personal point of view I hard spent hard earned money, and I didn't have much then, to travel to France to see one of the greatest cyclists the sort has ever seen. That now feels a waist of time and effort. I bought his books, videos about his winning tours, all now worthless items. Millions will have done the same over the years.

I'm also angry about the effect on the sport even down to amateur levels. How many parents now think it's a waist of time and money paying lots of money for equipment, travel, etc to support their child's dream of becoming a pro rider when the sport is painted in such as bad light?

I'm fuming to be honest.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3963
Asphalt_World wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
Well what a truly pathetic human being he is. The things he said in the interview to try top make it seem less of a crime are ridiculous. He looked up cheat in the dictionary and wasn't a cheat because he viewed it as a level playing field. Oh come on.

What a waist of space he is.


Haha Asphalt, you sound royally pee'd off!


Where did you watch the interview? I haven't watched it yet + spare time at work = Happy Friday!


I watched it on a stream.

I'm about as angry as its possible to be about him really. From a personal point of view I hard spent hard earned money, and I didn't have much then, to travel to France to see one of the greatest cyclists the sort has ever seen. That now feels a waist of time and effort. I bought his books, videos about his winning tours, all now worthless items. Millions will have done the same over the years.

I'm also angry about the effect on the sport even down to amateur levels. How many parents now think it's a waist of time and money paying lots of money for equipment, travel, etc to support their child's dream of becoming a pro rider when the sport is painted in such as bad light?

I'm fuming to be honest.


I can tell; it's waste, not waist!!!

I can imagine how you feel. I never buy stuff like that myself, so I can't comment, but it sounds like if you want to be left alone with him in a room... Armed with a baseball bat!

In the end of the day, he will get what he deserves

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
It was painful to watch the interview. So awkward. I don't think he was necessarily looking for sympathy, just honestly explaining his feelings throughout the career, and what he did. There were so many times he said he did the wrong thing, turnipped up, was a bad person for it...without any pleading to believe his rationalization. He's in an incredibly tough position trying to give this interview while not allowed to talk about things and people still involved in legal matters, and really he shouldn't be talking about others anyway so that just complicates it further.

Nothing he did is right, but I can understand why he did all of it, and he's pretty much still the same person I always thought he was.

I work in a sport where illegal doping is the norm, not the exception, and people at every level do it. You can do it passively, or aggressively. I'm pretty sure I have at some point passively participated without any intention of gaining an advantage, and at times probably unknowingly. Our banned substance list is so long and complicated its impossible to know it all, and some of them are included in products in such small quantities that the manufacturer doesn't list them in the ingredients, but those tiny amounts will still test positive. Besides the well known substances, I don't really look out for any others, except when competing internationally because its easier to get caught and there is more at stake if you do.

The only reason I don't use the more aggressive tactics are the side effects. The stuff that can and does happen just aren't worth the risk to me. I wish I could say the reason I don't go that route is because its cheating and I don't want to cheat, but its not so. If I really wanted to have the business that those employing those tactics do, I would need to do the same, but I'm not geared up for that business at this time.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 2334
The OP's view seems an accurate summary.

Armstrong did not do anything other pro cyclists have been doing for decades. To me it seems hypocritical to strip his TdF wins; what about all other winners since WW2? How many were 'clean'? If Lance is stripped, so should all/most others.

Officials are no angels (in any sport) and it was fairly common knowledge among even club and amateur cyclists that doping was almost the norm at top level. The officials did very well on Armstrong's back, with him getting the huge US tv audience involved. They did not do much about their lunch ticket, did they? Now they are all self-righteous and full of morality.

What the public don't realise is how unnaturally hard the TdF is; the majority of cyclists, the domestiques/tea,m players and supporters, do not earn what the top ones earn. Most had/have to be racing in-low paid kermesses in northern France, Belgium or Holland within days of doing the TdF. Without drugs they could not have done this or earned their living.

For me Armstrong will always be a great cyclist, an exceptional athlete. Completing the TdF is outstanding; winning it against other pros takes exceptional ability. Lance did so much in raising money for cancer, etc. His own battle with cancer and subsequent book, inspired so many to take up cycling. What a legacy.

I cannot argue about his inter-personal behaviour, his bullying and unprincipled tactics against team-mates and rivals, which are his negative aspects.

The doping? Even in the sixties, TdF multi-winner Jacques Anquetil was 'high' when he did his phenomenal time trials. Forties and fifties great cyclist Fausto Coppi said when asked what he 'took': "Do you think we drink lemonade to keep going?"

I'm not condoning substance-taking, nor do I have any opinion on how to prevent it in cycling.

I am just appalled at the self-righteousness of so many around the world, many who know nothing of cycling, and those who one minute praised Lance as a hero and for his fame and success, the next minute are cutting him to pieces on the moralistic bandwagon. What about the hundreds of other pro cyclists over many years, who took performance-enhancers?

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm
Posts: 1750
POBRatings wrote:
The OP's view seems an accurate summary.

Armstrong did not do anything other pro cyclists have been doing for decades. To me it seems hypocritical to strip his TdF wins; what about all other winners since WW2? How many were 'clean'? If Lance is stripped, so should all/most others.

Officials are no angels (in any sport) and it was fairly common knowledge among even club and amateur cyclists that doping was almost the norm at top level. The officials did very well on Armstrong's back, with him getting the huge US tv audience involved. They did not do much about their lunch ticket, did they? Now they are all self-righteous and full of morality.

What the public don't realise is how unnaturally hard the TdF is; the majority of cyclists, the domestiques/tea,m players and supporters, do not earn what the top ones earn. Most had/have to be racing in-low paid kermesses in northern France, Belgium or Holland within days of doing the TdF. Without drugs they could not have done this or earned their living.

For me Armstrong will always be a great cyclist, an exceptional athlete. Completing the TdF is outstanding; winning it against other pros takes exceptional ability. Lance did so much in raising money for cancer, etc. His own battle with cancer and subsequent book, inspired so many to take up cycling. What a legacy.

I cannot argue about his inter-personal behaviour, his bullying and unprincipled tactics against team-mates and rivals, which are his negative aspects.

The doping? Even in the sixties, TdF multi-winner Jacques Anquetil was 'high' when he did his phenomenal time trials. Forties and fifties great cyclist Fausto Coppi said when asked what he 'took': "Do you think we drink lemonade to keep going?"

I'm not condoning substance-taking, nor do I have any opinion on how to prevent it in cycling.

I am just appalled at the self-righteousness of so many around the world, many who know nothing of cycling, and those who one minute praised Lance as a hero and for his fame and success, the next minute are cutting him to pieces on the moralistic bandwagon. What about the hundreds of other pro cyclists over many years, who took performance-enhancers?

Then what do you say to Bassons or Simeoni who took a stance against the dopers and where hounded out of the sport with Armstrong as the ring leader? Or all the others who didn't make it because they were not prepared to cheat?

_________________
If...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:43 am
Posts: 154
Must be totally gutting for those who believed he was innocent and it was all a witch hunt.

Mr Raq is a massive cycling fan and has idolised Lance for years...he is totally speechless watching the interview.

_________________
Brazil 1994 Image Brazil 2012


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 3426
Location: Nebraska, USA
POBRatings wrote:
The OP's view seems an accurate summary.

Armstrong did not do anything other pro cyclists have been doing for decades. To me it seems hypocritical to strip his TdF wins; what about all other winners since WW2? How many were 'clean'? If Lance is stripped, so should all/most others.

Officials are no angels (in any sport) and it was fairly common knowledge among even club and amateur cyclists that doping was almost the norm at top level. The officials did very well on Armstrong's back, with him getting the huge US tv audience involved. They did not do much about their lunch ticket, did they? Now they are all self-righteous and full of morality.

What the public don't realise is how unnaturally hard the TdF is; the majority of cyclists, the domestiques/tea,m players and supporters, do not earn what the top ones earn. Most had/have to be racing in-low paid kermesses in northern France, Belgium or Holland within days of doing the TdF. Without drugs they could not have done this or earned their living.

For me Armstrong will always be a great cyclist, an exceptional athlete. Completing the TdF is outstanding; winning it against other pros takes exceptional ability. Lance did so much in raising money for cancer, etc. His own battle with cancer and subsequent book, inspired so many to take up cycling. What a legacy.

I cannot argue about his inter-personal behaviour, his bullying and unprincipled tactics against team-mates and rivals, which are his negative aspects.

The doping? Even in the sixties, TdF multi-winner Jacques Anquetil was 'high' when he did his phenomenal time trials. Forties and fifties great cyclist Fausto Coppi said when asked what he 'took': "Do you think we drink lemonade to keep going?"

I'm not condoning substance-taking, nor do I have any opinion on how to prevent it in cycling.

I am just appalled at the self-righteousness of so many around the world, many who know nothing of cycling, and those who one minute praised Lance as a hero and for his fame and success, the next minute are cutting him to pieces on the moralistic bandwagon. What about the hundreds of other pro cyclists over many years, who took performance-enhancers?


+1

the most reasoned post I have seen in this thread yet.

nobody is saying what Lance did was right, not PoB or anyone else, however, PoB is right, it has to be viewed in perspective.... in this case, the times, the actions of the competitors, and the actions/inactions of the organizers and overseers.

I feel about Lance the same way I feel about the "steroid" era of Major League Baseball. If Mark McGwire hits a home run off of Roger Clemens, and both are on steroids, it is what it is, a home run... to say it didn't happen because they are known steroid users in a sport that was dominated by steroids in their time doesn't cut it.

The same is true of Lance and professional cycling. If the majority of competitors used drugs, then they competed on "fair" ground. Yes, in both cycling and baseball there may have been some who did not and sadly, they are always going to be tainted by the era, fair or not. Whether Wiggins used drugs or not, he will carry the stain of the era, and that is unfortunate. It is easy to look for a scapegoat, and Armstrong has certainly made himself a front and center example, but to take out your anger on the whole era by pinning it on one person is not only unreasonable but also unfair.

As PoB said, the sport gained and grew a great deal due to Armstrong's success, and it was a dirty sport that was allowed to be a dirty sport by the very people who should have been protecting it.

so, if you are going to strip Armstrong of championships then you must strip all who have proven positive or admitted to it. If MLB is going to keep Bonds, MacGwire, Clemens at al out of the Hall of Fame because of cheating (drugs) then they should go back and kick out the alcholics, other drugs such as amphetimines, the drunks who bragged about playing drunk, et al.

Sometimes you just have to say "oh fairy cakes, we screwed that up", clean yourselves (sport) up and move on.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5637
PzR Slim wrote:
POBRatings wrote:
The OP's view seems an accurate summary.

Armstrong did not do anything other pro cyclists have been doing for decades. To me it seems hypocritical to strip his TdF wins; what about all other winners since WW2? How many were 'clean'? If Lance is stripped, so should all/most others.

Officials are no angels (in any sport) and it was fairly common knowledge among even club and amateur cyclists that doping was almost the norm at top level. The officials did very well on Armstrong's back, with him getting the huge US tv audience involved. They did not do much about their lunch ticket, did they? Now they are all self-righteous and full of morality.

What the public don't realise is how unnaturally hard the TdF is; the majority of cyclists, the domestiques/tea,m players and supporters, do not earn what the top ones earn. Most had/have to be racing in-low paid kermesses in northern France, Belgium or Holland within days of doing the TdF. Without drugs they could not have done this or earned their living.

For me Armstrong will always be a great cyclist, an exceptional athlete. Completing the TdF is outstanding; winning it against other pros takes exceptional ability. Lance did so much in raising money for cancer, etc. His own battle with cancer and subsequent book, inspired so many to take up cycling. What a legacy.

I cannot argue about his inter-personal behaviour, his bullying and unprincipled tactics against team-mates and rivals, which are his negative aspects.

The doping? Even in the sixties, TdF multi-winner Jacques Anquetil was 'high' when he did his phenomenal time trials. Forties and fifties great cyclist Fausto Coppi said when asked what he 'took': "Do you think we drink lemonade to keep going?"

I'm not condoning substance-taking, nor do I have any opinion on how to prevent it in cycling.

I am just appalled at the self-righteousness of so many around the world, many who know nothing of cycling, and those who one minute praised Lance as a hero and for his fame and success, the next minute are cutting him to pieces on the moralistic bandwagon. What about the hundreds of other pro cyclists over many years, who took performance-enhancers?

Then what do you say to Bassons or Simeoni who took a stance against the dopers and where hounded out of the sport with Armstrong as the ring leader? Or all the others who didn't make it because they were not prepared to cheat?

Lets hang the man, but ignore riders like Jacques Anquetil keep their titles. Or use common sense and realize that World Anti-Doping Code was implemented only in 2004 and there were no clean heroes at cycling before. The sport was generally very dirty. During 1984 Olympic games there were no safeguards for any medical records collected and organizers destroyed all evidence. Get some perspective before treating Armstrong like the only cheater in cycling or sports. Beside that as Armstrong and many before him said the non cheaters were minority in peleton.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
dizlexik wrote:
kai_ wrote:
Overall I was unimpressed with Armstrong's interview. I'm sure most people will assume that I went into it skeptically and cycnically and there was no chance of him making any sort of impression, but that wasn't the case.

Whenever a question was asked about what he did do, he'd search for the one thing he could hang onto that had been misrepresented. For example, when they were discussing the USADA report he immediately leapt into the fact that their accusation of him cheating in 2009 and 2010 was wrong and when discussing Betsy Andreu he focused on the fact that he hadn't called her fat. All of which may be the case, but rather misses the point, which was that it was about what he did do.

Although it was supposed to be a 'nothing off limits' interview it was constrained by Armstrong refusing to discuss other people's involvement. That was used as a tool on a number of occasions for him to avoid addressing a question properly - essentially "well that involves other people so I can't comment". It was also in contradiction with him expressing a desire towards the end of the time when they were discussing what he could do to clean up cycling.

It seemed to me that he either really doesn't understand his role in all this or he is refusing to acknowledge it. Yes it's true that doping in cycling existed before Armstrong and that others were involved. Yes it's true that he wasn't the only person with authority about who rode in the US Postal Team. But he was very unwilling to admit his role in it and determined to downplay it and sidestep his influence. I also thought it interesting that he referred to having a "truth and reconciliation" forum in cycling rather than properly cleaning up the sport by holding people to account. It seemed he's not prepared to look at what he did as wrong.

He did avoid a full admission with details.

I was most unimpressed that he simply would not acknowledge the conversation in the doctor's office that Betsy Andreu has always referred to. It was the one question he simply refused. I got the impression that he wanted to maintain his stance that she was lying about it but knew he couldn't.

The only time I felt he was sincere was when he essentially said that he regretted coming back in 2009 and 2010 because he got caught. That's the thing I don't like - if Armstrong really believes that what he did was right and there were no problems with it then he should just say that. And if that is what he really believes and he doesn't say it then he's just being manipulative to his own ends.

Oprah was too soft and gave him too much control over the narrative. At times she probed, but she didn't push him hard enough nor draw him back to the central points.

You must consider that the date of interview isn't random. The statute of limitation means that any criminal action can't be brought anymore. That make his confession a bit cynical.

I agree with most of your points, expect one. I hate when cheaters like David Millar point finger at others. I'm glad Armstrong avoided that. Armstrong isn't right person to judge anyone.

My annoyance about it came from the fact that I didn't believe he was not talking about them because he didn't feel it was his place but because it gave him a good way of avoiding questions and protecting himself.

More than that for me Armstrong naming others is not about him judging people, but about him helping clean up cycling and pave the way for the future. He knows how it was done and those involved.

The more I go back over the interview and look at it from a legal perspective the more I think that Armstrong's dancing was all about protecting himself from legal ramifications.

If he names other people they will throw him under a bus. At the moment the major players - the people who organised and ran things are all staying quiet because they face serious consequences. The riders who have come forward were only ever really at risk of bans from the sport, but Armstrong, Ferrari, anyone in the UCI who assisted in covering up could face criminal charges.

I was thinking that the statute of limitations might be the reason he refused to acknowledge 2009 and 2010 (I said that in a prior post). That is still within the statute time period. And you raise a very interesting point about his reasons for not naming other people - because in order for the statute to be waived for earlier matters AFAIK they have to prove a conspiracy.

I've also been thinking that the reason he was apprehensive to talk about the details of how they managed it and pressuring other cyclists is because that could open him up to criminal charges related to drug trafficking and drug pushing. Plus in playing it down he takes himself out of the position of being involved in the organising and restricts himself to simply being one of the dopers.

The way he managed the questions about donations to the UCI, saying that they rang him and asked him for a donation, means that he hasn't made any admission of bribery.

His denial about any involvement from powerful government players in getting criminal investigations dropped is IMO meaningless because admitting something like that would not only open up a whole raft of investigations but he'd also be an enemy of people who have more power than he does.

Plus there's potential for fraud charges related to the whole thing. However that was something he really couldn't get around. Any admission that he cheated and lied exposes him to fraud but he could hardly do the interview without admitting those things. However in making it out to be a smaller than it was he limits the extent of the fraud.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
dizlexik wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
Then what do you say to Bassons or Simeoni who took a stance against the dopers and where hounded out of the sport with Armstrong as the ring leader? Or all the others who didn't make it because they were not prepared to cheat?

Lets hang the man, but ignore riders like Jacques Anquetil keep their titles. Or use common sense and realize that World Anti-Doping Code was implemented only in 2004 and there were no clean heroes at cycling before. The sport was generally very dirty. During 1984 Olympic games there were no safeguards for any medical records collected and organizers destroyed all evidence. Get some perspective before treating Armstrong like the only cheater in cycling or sports. Beside that as Armstrong and many before him said the non cheaters were minority in peleton.

I don't think anyone is ignoring other riders or the broader problem. But saying that Armstrong's behaviour is mitigated by the fact that others were doing it doesn't really hold sway. If a group of people go into a shop all steal something, that doesn't mean that each individual's stealing is somehow less bad. We 'hang' them all.

The other thing is that Armstrong wasn't just a mere doper but involved with the organising, development and concealment of the whole thing. To go back to my stealing example, if one of those people tried to bully everyone else into stealing and made threats against those who refused to go along with it then they would face more sanctions than those who merely did the stealing.

And then, as PZR Slim said, there are genuinely innocent riders who refused to participate in it all and who were never given opportunities as a result or were hounded out of the sport, at least a proportion of the responsibility of which falls on Armstrong's shoulders. They did nothing wrong.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5637
kai_ wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:
Then what do you say to Bassons or Simeoni who took a stance against the dopers and where hounded out of the sport with Armstrong as the ring leader? Or all the others who didn't make it because they were not prepared to cheat?

Lets hang the man, but ignore riders like Jacques Anquetil keep their titles. Or use common sense and realize that World Anti-Doping Code was implemented only in 2004 and there were no clean heroes at cycling before. The sport was generally very dirty. During 1984 Olympic games there were no safeguards for any medical records collected and organizers destroyed all evidence. Get some perspective before treating Armstrong like the only cheater in cycling or sports. Beside that as Armstrong and many before him said the non cheaters were minority in peleton.

I don't think anyone is ignoring other riders or the broader problem. But saying that Armstrong's behaviour is mitigated by the fact that others were doing it doesn't really hold sway. If a group of people go into a shop all steal something, that doesn't mean that each individual's stealing is somehow less bad. We 'hang' them all.

The other thing is that Armstrong wasn't just a mere doper but involved with the organising, development and concealment of the whole thing. To go back to my stealing example, if one of those people tried to bully everyone else into stealing and made threats against those who refused to go along with it then they would face more sanctions than those who merely did the stealing.

And then, as PZR Slim said, there are genuinely innocent riders who refused to participate in it all and who were never given opportunities as a result or were hounded out of the sport, at least a proportion of the responsibility of which falls on Armstrong's shoulders. They did nothing wrong.

Before Armstrong nobody cheated, whole peleton was clean and young professional cyclist first contact with doping was when they spotted Armstrong and his team? Or not? I bet most or all of cyclist that made it to the highest level like Tour had already known how the sport worked.

Acknowledge that he was cheater, but don't blame him for the culture of the sport that has been there for decades before Armstrong. Clean riders rode with handicap and were denied victories for ages and according to many ex-riders they weren't majority, rather minority if there were any during some ancient tours.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
dizlexik wrote:
kai_ wrote:
I don't think anyone is ignoring other riders or the broader problem. But saying that Armstrong's behaviour is mitigated by the fact that others were doing it doesn't really hold sway. If a group of people go into a shop all steal something, that doesn't mean that each individual's stealing is somehow less bad. We 'hang' them all.

The other thing is that Armstrong wasn't just a mere doper but involved with the organising, development and concealment of the whole thing. To go back to my stealing example, if one of those people tried to bully everyone else into stealing and made threats against those who refused to go along with it then they would face more sanctions than those who merely did the stealing.

And then, as PZR Slim said, there are genuinely innocent riders who refused to participate in it all and who were never given opportunities as a result or were hounded out of the sport, at least a proportion of the responsibility of which falls on Armstrong's shoulders. They did nothing wrong.

Before Armstrong nobody cheated, whole peleton was clean and young professional cyclist first contact with doping was when they spotted Armstrong and his team? Or not? I bet most or all of cyclist that made it to the highest level like Tour had already known how the sport worked.

Acknowledge that he was cheater, but don't blame him for the culture of the sport that has been there for decades before Armstrong. Clean riders rode with handicap and were denied victories for ages and according to many ex-riders they weren't majority, rather minority if there were any during some ancient tours.

I'm not holding him responsible for the culture of doping and I never have done. I'm holding him responsible for his actions within that culture and refusing to use the culture as any sort of mitigation of his actions.

If every single person who entered the world of cycling doped then there would be an argument to say that Armstrong was merely one cheater amongst many. However the fact is that not everyone broke the rules, that there were people who rode clean and there were people who refused to be drawn into that culture.

And he didn't just dope and cheat: there were other things he did as part of that for which he needs to be held responsible and those things contributed not just to his success but to him getting away with what he did for so long. If Armstrong had just doped to gain an advantage in his own performance and hadn't bullied or tried to cover up times when he got caught or made donations to the UCI or sued people who tried to expose him then he would neither have been as successful as he was nor would this be the story it is now.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group