# Lance Armstrong interview airings & discussions.



## Radchenister (17 Jan 2013)

Today I find myself in two minds on the issue; the voice on one shoulder is manically urging me to soak up every second, staring wide eyed at all the gory details ... whilst the sensible side doesn't feel quite right about it, it's like there's something a bit grubby and undignified about going out your way to watch two 1.5 hr sessions of Oprah and Lance dabbing tears from eyes.

What do you think?


----------



## phil_hg_uk (17 Jan 2013)

got it setup on sky+ will watch if I am still awake


----------



## fossala (17 Jan 2013)

What channel is showing it in the UK?


----------



## thom (17 Jan 2013)

Definitely interested but I shall try to view an upload when I awake in the morning.
When it suits me.


----------



## Andrew_P (17 Jan 2013)

Only problem I am gong to have is avoiding forums + news items + FB + Twitter + TV News until 8pm Friday Night so I can watch it without any spoilers.


----------



## musa (17 Jan 2013)

Discovery channel 502(?) 
Its going to be repeated at 8pm


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Jan 2013)

musa said:


> Discovery channel 502(?)
> Its going to be repeated at 8pm


Discovery channel, Sky *520*


----------



## oldroadman (17 Jan 2013)

Seems appropriate this time of year, pantomime season. I suppose he will seek to shift blame on to "the system", UCI, sponsors, anyone he can try to drag down into the mire with him. And Oprah will maybe forgive him. So that will be alright, then.


----------



## raindog (17 Jan 2013)

I'll just read a short review of the essential elements. No bloody way am I watching that.


----------



## thom (17 Jan 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Seems appropriate this time of year, pantomime season. I suppose he will seek to shift blame on to "the system", UCI, sponsors, anyone he can try to drag down into the mire with him. And Oprah will maybe forgive him. So that will be alright, then.


Likely true but if in doing so he does reveal facts of UCI corruption and similar, that would be pretty important for cycling's future would it not ? Particularly in light of WADA/USADA's non participation in the UCI's "independent" review.


----------



## Radchenister (17 Jan 2013)

Here's the Discovery Channel timings:
http://www.tvguide.co.uk/search.asp?title=lance armstrong&submit.x=9&submit.y=19
I think it's:
PT1 in the early hours tonight / tomorrow at 2 a.m., re-aired at 8pm tomorrow.
PT2 6.30 p.m. Saturday. (Edit: Sky say different to this link - 8 p.m. ? - please check for yourself)
Bound to be numerous internet options / newscasts aired in-between.


----------



## Gary E (17 Jan 2013)

I'll catch the headlines in the news.
But to be honest I think he's only doing it to get some measure of forgiveness in a relatively safe (non cycling anyway) environment.
I wonder if he'd be so keen to give the interview if the show had a few more guest cyclists on, say Wiggo or Cav or maybe some of those that finished second to him and didn't get the rewards he did.
Too little, too late in my humble opinion.


----------



## musa (17 Jan 2013)

Cycling news to stream it live online 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/lance-armstrong-confession-2013

Thanks for the correction DM


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

thom said:


> Likely true but if in doing so he does reveal facts of UCI corruption and similar, that would be pretty important for cycling's future would it not ? Particularly in light of WADA/USADA's non participation in the UCI's "independent" review.


Thom, his interview has not a single thing to do with cycling's future.

Every second of it is about one thing and one thing only...

...Lance Armstrong's future...

..which is what everything in his life to date has always been about. And always will be.


----------



## thom (17 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Thom, his interview has not a single thing to do with cycling's future.
> 
> Every second of it is about one thing and one thing only...
> 
> ...


Facts are facts. Whether they come from Lance or not.
If you read some of my posts, you can see I think the whole thing stinks as a PR exercise.

But if Lance were to start providing testimony of corruption by current members of the UCI, I know everyone here would care about the implications to how cycling's future will be governed. Likewise, testimony against dodgy doctors still involved in cycling would be of undeniable importance.


----------



## mark st1 (17 Jan 2013)

Radchenister said:


> Here's the Discovery Channel timings:
> http://www.tvguide.co.uk/search.asp?title=lance armstrong&submit.x=9&submit.y=19
> I think it's:
> PT1 in the early hours tonight / tomorrow at 2 a.m., re-aired at 8pm tomorrow.
> ...


 
Part 2 is channel 520 at 8pm Saturday according to my Sky planner ?


----------



## Radchenister (17 Jan 2013)

I just typed out the info' on the link enclosed; have no clue how accurate it is, Sky are likely to know their own times best I presume .


----------



## mark st1 (17 Jan 2013)

Nice one. I couldn't find part 2 until you pointed me in the right direction anyway. I didn't know if the Friday morning one was just an edited version of the whole thing.


----------



## Radchenister (17 Jan 2013)

Another good point - I did read the detailed info' and it was vague, I have assumed it is just a re-airing at a reasonable time of day - made this assumption due to the length of it but could be wrong.
*Edit:*
*Have just checked my Sky Box (UK).*
*Friday Part 1 - 2 a.m (early hours tonight) and a re run at 8 p.m tomorrow.*
*Saturday Part 2 - 8 p.m. *


----------



## yello (17 Jan 2013)

I'm interested (do bears shoot in the woods?) but I'll not be watching. They'll be plenty enough dissection and analysis to read afterwards. That'll do me. I'm only along for the ride now.


----------



## Radchenister (17 Jan 2013)

I'm interested as well but on the other hand I can't help feeling it's all a bit much now though and continues to be a media game with more of the egocentric positioning that we've come to expect from Mr L.E.Gunderson.

I did expect more 'wish LA would remove himself from the spot light, fade away and never darken our doors again' style comments.

This whole thing of dragging it out over weeks and airing it over two days is one of the reasons I'm feeling uncomfortable with giving him the time of day; perhaps I should shut up though, as I started this thread, which I'll admit probably doesn't do much towards letting it fizzle out!?


----------



## rich p (17 Jan 2013)

Are you kidding Rad? This has been the best off-season story to keep us all sane till the new season starts!
LA can feck off then and not mess up the classics.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

thom said:


> Facts are facts. Whether they come from Lance or not.
> If you read some of my posts, you can see I think the whole thing stinks as a PR exercise.
> 
> But if Lance were to start providing testimony of corruption by current members of the UCI, I know everyone here would care about the implications to how cycling's future will be governed. Likewise, testimony against dodgy doctors still involved in cycling would be of undeniable importance.


I've no doubt he doesn't give a jot about any 'collateral damage' however much you and I might relish it and however much they deserve it. He ain't doing it because it is the right thing to do, oh no, he's doing it because it is the best thing to do for Lance Armstrong. If he can get enough advantage from the situation without naming names the names will go unnamed.


----------



## thom (17 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> I've no doubt he doesn't give a jot about any 'collateral damage' however much you and I might relish it and whoever much they deserve it. He ain't doing it because it is the right thing to do, on no, he's doing it because it is the best thing to do for Lance Armstrong. If he can get enough advantage from the situation without naming names the names will go unnamed.


Greg I agree with your first bit. I'm not quite so sure that nothing material will emerge from this or subsequent interviews though - we will only find out when we get to see the broadcasts.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Jan 2013)

thom said:


> Likely true but if in doing so he does reveal facts of UCI corruption and similar, that would be pretty important for cycling's future would it not ? Particularly in light of WADA/USADA's non participation in the UCI's "independent" review.


 
... or is this a teaser to say "I have the dirt. lets talk about reducing the ban?"


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

thom said:


> Greg I agree with your first bit. I'm not quite so sure that nothing material will emerge from this or subsequent interviews though - we will only find out when we get to see the broadcasts.


I think we are in violent agreement.


----------



## Mr Celine (17 Jan 2013)

We should have been shown a trailer in which Lance recommends his drug of choice for when he needs to stay awake.


----------



## ColinJ (17 Jan 2013)

I'm often awake until about 3:30 these days so I might as well watch the interview online.


----------



## Brahan (17 Jan 2013)

Ok, so the whole programme has had a massive amount of build up which means millions of people will be watching. Millions of people watching means a huge bill for advertisers. I wonder how much that pr1ck Lance demanded to do the interview....lining his pockets....you bet! I wonder what scumsucking companies will be trying to gain on the back of this.


----------



## Herbie (18 Jan 2013)

Radchenister said:


> Today I find myself in two minds on the issue; the voice on one shoulder is manically urging me to soak up every second, staring wide eyed at all the gory details ... whilst the sensible side doesn't feel quite right about it, it's like there's something a bit grubby and undignified about going out your way to watch two 1.5 hr sessions of Oprah and Lance dabbing tears from eyes.
> 
> What do you think?


 

I think LA should be forgotten about never spoken about again and sent in to total obscurity to room 101.....i wonder how much hes getting paid for these interviews? he'll need the dough if he to quite rightly has to pay back winnings from all his ill gotten gains.


----------



## Brahan (18 Jan 2013)

Yes, but there's already a huge PR machine working in his favour: hearing about Phil Knight saying that there still may be an opportunity for Lance to work with Nike is a joke. They're all a shower of twerps.


----------



## Kies (18 Jan 2013)

Set via ipad ... Gotta love technology (at times)


----------



## Trail Child (18 Jan 2013)

OMG, watching it now ...


----------



## ColinJ (18 Jan 2013)

Hmmm!


----------



## Trail Child (18 Jan 2013)

He's certainly going out of his way not to name names ...


----------



## kedab (18 Jan 2013)

he's got a ball of steel - he's giving oprah the, 'lance interviews lance' treatment to a certain extent - rephrasing her questions to answer the way he wants to. deary me L.A, you just can't lay it out there can you?


----------



## kedab (18 Jan 2013)

awww and he's even bottled out of the '96 indiana hosptial story...c'mon lance this isn't good enough...he's not cried yet either which i am most disappointed with.


----------



## kedab (18 Jan 2013)

ahhh! the tears come in tomorrow's show - nicely set up oprah.


----------



## ColinJ (18 Jan 2013)

I think he is saying as much he can say without naming names, and risking ending up in prison! I'm sure that the tears will flow in the second programme when he talks about his family and Livestrong. He's very good at this, isn't he - I almost feel sorry for him!

How many ad breaks an hour do they have in the USA!


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (18 Jan 2013)

I'm in two minds whether to watch it. One part of me does, but the other half just wants to starve the cheating barsteward of the publicity he so obviously craves.


----------



## Trail Child (18 Jan 2013)

I thought he looked old, tired, uncomfortable and defeated.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Jan 2013)

well, I tried. Fell asleep at one in the morning!


----------



## Mapster5 (18 Jan 2013)

Tyler Hamilton's book profits will drop like a brick


----------



## raindog (18 Jan 2013)

What a slimy, lying scumbag b@stard he's been.


----------



## musa (18 Jan 2013)

Couldn't stay up however I told you say rings to me
Nice PR stunt though


----------



## threebikesmcginty (18 Jan 2013)

raindog said:


> What a slimy, lying scumbag b@stard he's been.



He still is, r'dog.


----------



## Noodley (18 Jan 2013)

Trail Child said:


> I thought he looked old, tired, uncomfortable and defeated.


 
Is that 4 of the new dwarves?


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (18 Jan 2013)

Hell, I thought it was going to be a summary. I don't have to watch the spectacle do I?


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (18 Jan 2013)

Brahan said:


> hearing about Phil Knight saying that there still may be an opportunity for Lance to work with Nike is a joke. They're all a shower of twerps.


 
Yes more likely Pfizer or Roche. He could be their lab test rat.


----------



## johnr (18 Jan 2013)

thanks iotcb, saved a lot of searching.


----------



## mickle (18 Jan 2013)

There is already a thread dedicated to this subject.


----------



## Noodley (18 Jan 2013)

Exactly mickle.


----------



## rich p (18 Jan 2013)

I have it recorded but having read the synopsis I'm ambivalent about watching the creep. No admission of the hospital/Andreu confession, no tell-all about the UCI, no explanation of the donation - it all smacks of an anodyne, self-serving penitence.
Maybe I will watch though!


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (18 Jan 2013)

Well i was happy with the first minute of that interview with the YES and NO questions. 

No need to watch the rest of it........


----------



## Noodley (18 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> I have it recorded but having read the synopsis I'm ambivalent about watching the creep. No admission of the hospital/Andreu confession, no tell-all about the UCI, no explanation of the donation - it all smacks of an anodyne, self-serving penitence.
> Maybe I will watch though!


 
I watched about 2 mins of clips this morning on TV news, dinnae bother wasting your time.

I also watched Emma O'Reilly on ITV. They showed a clip of the interview where Armstrong said he had "reach out" to her, which transpires amounted to one attempted phonecall on Sunday, which she didnae get. Well done Lance, you are da man!

Edit - actually it might be worth watching just so we can refute the alleged "tell all confession" when the nobbers start...


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> I watched about 2 mins of clips this morning on TV news, dinnae bother wasting your time.
> 
> I also watched Emma O'Reilly on ITV. They showed a clip of the interview where Armstrong said he had "reach out" to her, which transpires amounted to one attempted phonecall on Sunday, which she didnae get. Well done Lance, you are da man!
> 
> Edit - actually it might be worth watching just so we can refute the alleged "tell all confession" when the nobbers start...


 They allready have


----------



## rich p (18 Jan 2013)

It's shite and full of evasion.
He swerves or denies questions about team doping programme, Ferrari gets a clean honest guy appraisal, the donation was because he's altruistic - he is still lying like a scumbag.


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Jan 2013)

Boring........ and Oprah sounds like a slo-mo.


----------



## rich p (18 Jan 2013)

and he refuses to acknowledge Betsy Andreu's hospital story although he has apologised to them. What the hell is that about? He's cherry-picking which bits of truth to tell.


----------



## PaulB (18 Jan 2013)

Just read someone claiming Armstrong will be forgiven if he rides this year's TdF....with Oprah on his back!


----------



## beastie (18 Jan 2013)

I thought Oprah did quite well really, an aggressive style of questioning would probably have failed to get much response. She asked a lot of the right questions, but she could have tried to get more details, follow ups and explanations. There should have been more Ja oder Nein questions for sure though.


----------



## PaulB (18 Jan 2013)

Mapster5 said:


> Tyler Hamilton's book profits will drop like a brick


Should never have been allowed to profit from his criminality. Don't buy books by crooks.


----------



## Radchenister (18 Jan 2013)

Just caught BBC Breakfast News - that'll do it for me for now; it's becoming a soap opera - will there be canned laughter, oohs and ahhs added next?

Perhaps stop giving the guy air time after tomorrow?

Edit:
Booger - pressed on the YouTube link, now I've been caught in the gaze of the Medusa ... dope (pun intended).


----------



## User169 (18 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> and he refuses to acknowledge Betsy Andreu's hospital story although he has apologised to them. What the hell is that about? He's cherry-picking which bits of truth to tell.


 
There was an ex-poster (!) who used to bang on at great length about the fact that LA's medics had signed affidavits to the effect that they'd never asked him about PEDs. If he admits the Andreus' story is correct, I guess those medics will have some questions to answer. As you say, quite a bit of cherry-picking going on.


----------



## Zofo (18 Jan 2013)

thanks


User said:


> View:
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43EE9I8ZMFc



thanks for posting


----------



## 400bhp (18 Jan 2013)

I haven't watched it -but have recorded it.

If he had admitted doping and he has sued people for calling him a liar, then why can't he be tried for perjury? Or did he never swear under oath?


----------



## black'n'yellow (18 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> then why can't he be tried for perjury? Or did he never swear under oath?


 
he can - and he did


----------



## raindog (18 Jan 2013)

Greg's not convinced
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-not-satisfied-with-armstrongs-admission


----------



## StuAff (18 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> It's s***e and full of evasion.
> He swerves or denies questions about team doping programme, Ferrari gets a clean honest guy appraisal, the donation was because he's altruistic - he is still lying like a scumbag.


I can only agree, having read the transcript. The bits he confessed to amount to stating the bleeding obvious, the 'apologies' are incredibly mealy-mouthed, and the claim he didn't dope during the comeback has already been rubbished by USADA. Oh yes, and he didn't view it as cheating at the time & he didn't bully any of the team into following his lead. Yeah, right.......


----------



## Silver Fox (18 Jan 2013)




----------



## StuAff (18 Jan 2013)

Silver Fox said:


>


Good spot. Already posted in the 'new improved...' thread though


----------



## Crackle (18 Jan 2013)

Brian Cookson was interviewed on BBC breakfast this morning and was absolutely damning about the interview, saying that Armstrong should still be the subject of legal investigation and should be testifying to WADA.

At one point he referred to Armstrong saying that what US Postal did was nothing to what the East German programmes of the cold war period did and said if that's the base of his moral compass then it says everything you need to know about him.

I wish I could find a link to it but I can't.


----------



## italiafirenze (18 Jan 2013)

He has been very carefully versed on what he can and can't say without implicating himself as a criminal.

I watched it this morning as it aired and even though everybody expected it hearing the "Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes" was still a little shocking. Even up until then, I don't think I thought he would ever admit it. Not that I didn't think he did it, but that I didn't think he could own up.

People seem to be disappointed with his confession. It's hard to imagine how he could have come across that would've pleased people, but he seemed to straddle the line between not genuine enough and not apologetic enough.

The apologies he tacked onto the end of almost every sentence seemed a little hollow. The details are where he seemed to tell the truth, he seemed almost brazen. He kept referring to it as "what I did" or "that thing" never really saying it which tells me he hasn't really accepted it yet. I agree with LeMond that he feels no remorse. As usual, he's only sorry he got caught. That much was obvious when he talked about regretting his comeback.

I'm just thumbing through my copy of "The Lance Armstrong Training Program" to see where I missed the chapters on EPO, HGH and Testosterone.


----------



## Silver Fox (18 Jan 2013)

The cycnic in me is wondering what's his motivation for this sudden, unconvincing, display of contrition.

A personality like his wouldn't do this unless there was some ulterior motive. I'm also wondering who he has the black on, now he's spilled the beans I suspect there'll be a few sleepless nights for those who relied on Armstrong's silence to protect their reputations, possibly.


----------



## thom (18 Jan 2013)

Silver Fox said:


> The cycnic in me is wondering what's his motivation for this sudden, unconvincing, display of contrition.
> 
> A personality like his wouldn't do this unless there was some ulterior motive.


pressure from the foundation ?

Am about to watch this first section now - sounds like the guy needs to be put on the stand in some context and made to answer questions at risk of perjuring himself.


----------



## Silver Fox (18 Jan 2013)

StuAff said:


> Good spot. Already posted in the 'new improved...' thread though


 
Doh !!! Thanks anyway.


----------



## raindog (18 Jan 2013)

two conflicting headlines in CN this morning
*"McQuaid praises Armstrong for confronting his past"*

*"Betsy Andreu furious and close to tears after Armstrong interview"*

luckily the victims aren't being ignored
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/18/lance-armstrong-drugs-betsy-andreu


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Jan 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Boring........* and Oprah sounds like a slo-mo.*


 
What a nobber I am, at some points she did go into a slo-mo kind of thing, some sort of synching of audio and video on youtube maybe? lol


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Jan 2013)

Did anyone notice that when he quoted the dictionary definition of ''cheat'' he completely missed out the ''unfair'' bit? That's how cheating gets incorporated into competing.

Trust an American to turn a route into a rout!


----------



## Radchenister (18 Jan 2013)

I've just watched it all; to quote another well known fantasy figure _'as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University' _!


----------



## Hont (18 Jan 2013)

I can't put it any better than this...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-president-gives-scathing-review-of-armstrong-interview

World Anti-Doping Agency president John Fahey has dismissed Lance Armstrong's interview with Oprah Winfrey as "nothing but a public relations exercise."
In a scathing review of the 90-minute program shortly after its airing, Fahey told _ABC News 24_ in Australia that Armstrong's mode of confession was a calculated move designed so that the Texan would not be faced with tough questions.
"We learnt nothing new," said Fahey. "He refused to give names of the entourage, the officials, the other riders, the source of the drugs which he admitted taking and he indicated at the same time that he harassed and bullied many decent and honest people with litigation and public statements - even though those people were telling the truth.
"If he'd wanted to come clean and seek redemption I would hope that he would seek some appropriate tribunal and give evidence under oath, subject himself to cross-examination and tell the facts. Not just the snippets that he sees is convenient for his own purposes."


----------



## totallyfixed (18 Jan 2013)

Pah! I was hoping for a blood bath instead of a shampoo and set. I honestly believe he has grossly misjudged the public and media. This wasn't cathartic, it was never meant to be, it was calculating and cynical, the actions of a true sociopath for all the world to see. I hear Betsy Andreu is a tad upset over on CNN.
Quote of the interview for me was: LA - " I regard Michele Ferrari as a good man and a smart man, and I still do"
I am waiting for tomorrows B sample to confirm he is a positive liar.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (18 Jan 2013)

Hont (and John Fahey) have got it spot on. He has done nothing like coming clean nor done justice to his victims (and there were victims). But then this is exactly what we expected.


----------



## Herbie (18 Jan 2013)

Trail Child said:


> I thought he looked old, tired, uncomfortable and defeated.


 
good....all things he deserves


----------



## jdtate101 (18 Jan 2013)

Also I can just imagine some Hollywood types planning a "Lance Armstrong, The Rise & Downfall Of An American Sporting Legend" type movie of all this, it's almost inevitable......


----------



## totallyfixed (18 Jan 2013)

Found this: 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTrkBRwT5Uc


----------



## montage (18 Jan 2013)

The fact he had that audacity to laugh at times when he should have been crying.......


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Jan 2013)

His eyes are too close together!


----------



## kedab (18 Jan 2013)

ColinJ said:


> I think he is saying as much he can say without naming names, and risking ending up in prison! I'm sure that the tears will flow in the second programme when he talks about his family and Livestrong. He's very good at this, isn't he - I almost feel sorry for him!
> 
> How many ad breaks an hour do they have in the USA!


agree with that, as much as I find him a contemptible man I did watch thinking, 'goodness lance, you could sell sand to the Arabs'


----------



## thom (18 Jan 2013)

Yep. Nope. 

I think when he said that he regretted his comeback because without it he wouldn't be sitting there talking about no getting away with it, you need know nothing more.

In this first part, he concedes only that which was incontestable. I hope he will be more forthcoming at some point with USADA/WADA and that this is just a first step.


----------



## Nearly there (18 Jan 2013)

Picking his answers carefully I thought


----------



## Nearly there (18 Jan 2013)

If I were Wiggins I wouldn't try to win the Tdf this year after what Armstrong said


----------



## oldroadman (18 Jan 2013)

Delet Oprah, insert Paxman. Then it might get a bit more interesting.
Am I alone in thinking that people like Dick Pound IOC member (great name for a ......) and Fahey of WADA are playing personal and career publicity games as well. They are acting as badly as Hein in some ways, playing with a sport for their own political career ends.
Sometimes I t6hink it would be good if they all just went away into obscurity (which Fahey and Pound are busy ensuring they achieve exactly the opposite).


----------



## italiafirenze (18 Jan 2013)

He was hardly going to come on and start naming all the soigneurs, doctors, suppliers and middlemen that were involved. Fahey has been naive to expect it. Perhaps he "knew" what had gone on. Perhaps WADA and USADA were certain that their findings were truth, but until Lance said Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, there was always some public doubt and resentment.

Of course this was going to be on his terms, he requested the interview. This is a chance to try to win back some public opinion before he gets in serious trouble, which they must have realised was inevitable.

Fahey said "When someone justifies all of the wrongs that he did on the basis that everyone else was doing it and when someone gives the impression as I distinctly got that the biggest mistake that he ever made in all of this was to come back in 2009 and 2010 and had he not made that comeback he might have got away with it. That tells me that he regrets all the occurred because he got caught."

I think at least that shows some true emotional honesty. I'd rather he said that and I can judge him based on it than he lies about being sorry. I don't know which monastry Fahey grew up in, but I don't he's perfect.

And I wouldn't expect him to come on and start dragging everybody down with him. Though he all but pointed the finger at George Hincapie. Somehow Lance calling you a friend is a pretty damning conclusion now.

Personally I think it would be vulgar to try and name the names, the legal eagles might care about who facilitated what, but the public aren't interested.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (18 Jan 2013)

Christophe Bassons has reminded me of something I wrote in one of the other threads on Lance a while back, that he has serious (Republican) political ambitions (Governor of Texas, at the very least) and that this interview can also be seen as trying to rebuild a foundation for a political career.


----------



## albion (18 Jan 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> That's how cheating gets incorporated into competing.
> Trust an American to turn a route into a rout!



Follow soccer and you sense that Fifa enjoy cheating with it being just another part of the game.


----------



## mickle (18 Jan 2013)

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/536477/wada-chief-slams-lance-armstrong-interview.html


----------



## rich p (18 Jan 2013)

italiafirenze said:


> He was hardly going to come on and start naming all the soigneurs, doctors, suppliers and middlemen that were involved. Fahey has been naive to expect it. Perhaps he "knew" what had gone on. Perhaps WADA and USADA were certain that their findings were truth, but until Lance said Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, there was always some public doubt and resentment.
> 
> Of course this was going to be on his terms, he requested the interview. This is a chance to try to win back some public opinion before he gets in serious trouble, which they must have realised was inevitable.
> 
> ...


 
It's not naiivety on Fahey part or any others on here. This is exactly what we (and he, I suspect) expected, in that he admits to what we already knew, but we were hoping without much expectation that he'd come up with some detail.
Pointed the finger at George Hincapie?
GH was one of the USPS riders that confessed to USADA! He pointed the finger at himself.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Jan 2013)

Colin Murray's BeSpoke radio 5 programme is on now. No prizes for guessing what the main subject is.


----------



## ColinJ (18 Jan 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Colin Murray's BeSpoke radio 5 programme is on now. No prizes for guessing what the main subject is.


Snow?


----------



## Zofo (18 Jan 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Christophe Bassons has reminded me of something I wrote in one of the other threads on Lance a while back, that he has serious (Republican) political ambitions (Governor of Texas, at the very least) and that this interview can also be seen as trying to rebuild a foundation for a political career.


 
A lying, cheating prat--definitley Presidential material.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Jan 2013)

ColinJ said:


> Snow?


 By curious coincidence, they're talking about Bassons right now.


----------



## gavintc (18 Jan 2013)

I find Lance an interesting character. I will admit to liking him through the later part of his career, almost to the stage of believing his propaganda, despite the evidence stacking up against him. I was lucky to cycle with him Paisley about 5 years ago. However, as the doping information started to unfold from opinion to fact, my opinions changed. I was alarmed at the depth of his control of his teams and the extent of his bullying. So, on the evidence, he should be hated. But, he must have an excellent PR machine, capable of keeping him in suitable words - almost politician like. 
But, I found the bits of Oprah which I have watched, deeply unconvincing. His cold demeanour and manner which he answered the questions was not good and I think this will be a watershed which leads to his undoing as a personality and the general public acceptance of the depth of his cheating. 

Sadly, overall these Lance revelations will not be good for cycling.


----------



## BJH (18 Jan 2013)

Finally got round to watching parts of he interview - cant find he full one ????

He looks like he has a sheet of cold ice behind his eyes whenever she asks a question, calculated answers and a very clever means of admitting but making sure he keeps the story to support the version of he truth he wants

The comments on the interview pretty much show where the issues are in the sport:
Pat McQuaid - so everything is fine and dandy now and nothing wrong at he UCI despite the mention of shady dealings by Lance
Voight, Schleck etc it's all in the past so everything's fine

Thank god that LeMond, Dick Pound, David Walsh have stuck to the point that he has not showed contrition, he has not opened up and he has more to answer to. Please don't get caught up in decrying these guys as trying to fluff up there own careers, it needs saying.

What exactly will he do for Bassons then, will he get a forty minute call as recompense for having his career shortened.

Still a COTHO


----------



## Danny (18 Jan 2013)

Best tweet on the subject from @Uk_Sniper1



> Lance Armstrong should be applauded for being able to ride on bike so well on drugs. I tried it once & hit a dog and fell into a canal.


----------



## Trail Child (18 Jan 2013)

I wouldn't be surprised if he becomes POTUS in my lifetime.


----------



## Kies (18 Jan 2013)

He is a good actor .... Could be some mileage in that prediction ;-)


----------



## stewie griffin (19 Jan 2013)

Trail Child said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if he becomes POTUS in my lifetime.


 
Is that like "Toys R Us" for marijuana?


----------



## stewie griffin (19 Jan 2013)

A perfect summery of Lance Armstrong
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
Scary how accurate that is.


----------



## Trail Child (19 Jan 2013)

I started watching the second part .... I really think this guy needs therapy.

ETA: He just admitted he's now in therapy. That therapist has a big job ahead, me thinks.


----------



## Trail Child (19 Jan 2013)

stewie griffin said:


> Is that like "Toys R Us" for marijuana?


Sorry ... President Of The United States.


----------



## Trail Child (19 Jan 2013)

The man finally cracks .......


----------



## mr_hippo (19 Jan 2013)

What a monumental waste of time! The 'bare all' interview that did not! 

Thanks for choosing Oprah, being interviewed by her must be like being savaged by a dead worm on steroids! Be a man and face the likes of interviewers of the same calibre as Jeremy Paxman or even Piers Morgan.,

Employ a media coach because your mannerisms spoke louder than you did. I watched your eyes to see if you were lying! Most people have an automatic reaction if they tell a lie, not foolproof but a good indicator. 

Your refusal to name names is another way of trying to elicit sympathy "I may be a lying, cheating bar steward but I am no grass." What you forgot to add was “This interview is all about Me, Me, Me and don’t forget that!” What are you afraid of, being sued? You did that to innocent people and not only won but ruined reputations.

We saw an interview with Betsya Andreu, remember her? The wife of Frankie one of your former team mates. She alleges that you called her something like a 'fat, ugly, stupid bitch.' I shall translate your reply from Weasalese to English: "I did not call her fat so if she is lying about that then what else is she lying about?

Have I finished? Nearly done! If I had my way, your appeal against your ban would go ahead with the case getting adjourned sine die, you would be stripped of all assets and sold and these would include joint assets. The proceeds would buy a small house for your family and the rest may, in some small way, recompense your victims.

To prove to you that I am not all bad, I will allow you to change name to Tom Pepper, Tom Who? He was a bigger liar than Satan and is the only one ever to be expelled from Hell for lying!


----------



## johnr (19 Jan 2013)

Not a fan then?


----------



## raindog (19 Jan 2013)

mr_hippo said:


> We saw an interview with Jackie Andreu, remember her? The wife of Frankie one of your former team mates.


You mean Betsy.


----------



## mr_hippo (19 Jan 2013)

raindog said:


> You mean Betsy.


Sorry for the mistake, I had a senior moment and had a picture of her in my mind and I confused her wtyh a old friend of mine.


----------



## Radchenister (19 Jan 2013)

I notice the links to the last interview are gone now (removed from YouTube due to copyright). Looks like you can still catch parts here: http://www.oprah.com/own_tv/onc/lance-armstrong-one.html .

*Edit: Syncronisity with above post and scrap my link - doesn't work in UK (for me anyway).*


----------



## italiafirenze (19 Jan 2013)

Oprah is getting quite the slagging off, but I was surprised she asked as many cycling questions as she did. Though they seemed to be confined to the first few questions of the interview. 

She was always going to be more interested in the human aspect. She interviewed him like he was a celebrity husband who had cheated on his wife. You could easily substitute doping for adultery in that interview and get roughly the same outcome. 

You can't be surprised she didn't ask how many doses of EPO it takes to win a Tour or who supplied it or which doctors provided it or which other riders were using it. That's just not interesting to her audience.

The one big question was "Lance, you've been caught, how do _you_ feel about that now?" and sometimes he seemed to be honest about it, sometimes he didn't (he couldn't seem to decide what he deserved or didn't and how sorry he was). And I think Oprah did a good job of getting that answered. Especially at the point he broke down about his son.

Although I agree that a Piers Morgan interview would've dug into far more detail because he loves the details. He asked Ken Barlow how many women he'd slept with for god's sake.


----------



## Herzog (19 Jan 2013)

italiafirenze said:


> Oprah is getting quite the slagging off, but I was surprised she asked as many cycling questions as she did. Though they seemed to be confined to the first few questions of the interview.
> 
> She was always going to be more interested in the human aspect. She interviewed him like he was a celebrity husband who had cheated on his wife. You could easily substitute doping for adultery in that interview and get roughly the same outcome.
> 
> ...


 
For a person who knows very little about cycling (as far as I've read), I thought she did a good job. There were a few routes which she didn't pursue which she should have (e.g., donations to the UCI, hospital room 'confession' etc.), but LA wouldn't have 'gone there' anyway. Overall, pretty much as expected.


----------



## italiafirenze (19 Jan 2013)

Herzog said:


> For a person who knows very little about cycling (as far as I've read), I thought she did a good job. There were a few routes which she didn't pursue which she should have (e.g., donations to the UCI, hospital room 'confession' etc.), but LA wouldn't have 'gone there' anyway. Overall, pretty much as expected.


 
I think she could sense which questions he wasn't going to answer and didn't press him on those things. Maybe she did and it was cut. Who knows.

He was worried about incriminating himself or others and so didn't want to answer.


----------



## Noodley (19 Jan 2013)

I'll start paying attention to what he says once he decides to speak to an anti-doping organsiation, or a proper cylicng journalist with a reputation for an anti-doping stance and who can ask any question and get a proper honest answer.

I dinnae think that'll happen any time soon.


----------



## musa (19 Jan 2013)

How about ummmm

Piers Morgan?


----------



## just jim (19 Jan 2013)

Lance plans to appear on Oprah to explain his behaviour on Oprah.


----------



## Radchenister (19 Jan 2013)

Whilst we're pondering truth, spin and the balanced interpretation of facts with regards Mr L.E.Gunderson as he holds centre stage, this is the issue (i.e. the threats and intimidations) that troubles me most :


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp68bYTTpoc


----------



## TheDoctor (19 Jan 2013)

My description of him in 2008 is still looking valid!


----------



## Noodley (19 Jan 2013)

TheDoctor said:


> My description of him in 2008 is still looking valid!


 
My description of him always is better - but it would get me banned.


----------



## TheDoctor (19 Jan 2013)

Give us a clue, then?


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (19 Jan 2013)

When Lance said he wants to compete again, I was wondering if we could get him a boxing licence. I would pay good money to watch him get knocked out.


----------



## Noodley (19 Jan 2013)

TheDoctor said:


> Give us a clue, then?


 
OK, name it in one...

C


----------



## TheDoctor (19 Jan 2013)

You Next Tuesday?


----------



## albion (20 Jan 2013)

Oprah certainly did him no favours.
Walsh talking on Radio 5 was probably right in 'almost feeling sorry for him'.

His glib looking reactions were certainly more to do with nerves.
Oprah does 'cosy' so that's what we strangely got. (have only heard couple of clips)


----------



## Kies (20 Jan 2013)

Would have preferred a Piers Morgan grating ..... He didn't answer enough questions for me. If you have decided to come clean and start this "process" as he called it, then turn over every stone and lets see what lies beneath. I found his answers too calculated and lacking any real depth


----------



## Noodley (20 Jan 2013)

Can I just clarify one point - Piers Morgan is a nobber. Now can people stop holding him in high regard as an interviewer. Thank you, carry on...


----------



## Kins (20 Jan 2013)

Can't see him changing enough to tell the whole truth in public ever. He is still to far up his own arse.

He can make money now by doing multiple interviews etc in the various media and I expect him to grab the money in both hands.

Only thing that raised hope in the second interview was when he talked about his ex wife and kids, but do I think he will fundamentally change, like he said he hoped to, not a chance.


----------



## Silver Fox (20 Jan 2013)

Just watched the second part of the interview. When he was talking about his children I briefly saw a glimpse of Armstrong the human being not the ruthless control freak liar.

Words are cheap and as much as I now dislike the man, moving forward his actions not words in the coming months / years will be an indication of just how genuinely remorseful he really is.


----------



## tug benson (20 Jan 2013)

oprah is a weird looking women


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Jan 2013)

Can someone give me a dummy's guide to the statute of limitations? Or, in other words, has LA only confessed to stuff he won't risk going to jail for?


----------



## rliu (20 Jan 2013)

The statute of limitations basically places a time limit on when you can bring a civil or criminal proceedings for an offending act. The rationale behind it is that essentially if too much time elapses witness evidence and other material evidence becomes unreliable. From Googling it seems potential perjury charges normally have a limitation of 3 years in the US


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Jan 2013)

rliu said:


> The statute of limitations basically places a time limit on when you can bring a civil or criminal proceedings for an offending act. The rationale behind it is that essentially if too much time elapses witness evidence and other material evidence becomes unreliable. From Googling it seems potential perjury charges normally have a limitation of 3 years in the US


Cheers, rliu. So he could just about have got away with admitting doping in 2009 but not 2010?


----------



## Andrew_P (20 Jan 2013)

This was an opening gambit, a come and get me I have lots to tell (maybe) - on my own terms to the USADA. 

He clearly regretted not taking the keep 5, and take two years ban to 'fess up early doors. He now wants to open negotiations, the confession to taking PEDS was just that not much else in detail if he had given the detail then he had played all his cards. 

This was never ever going to be cleansing of the soul interview, it was a sales pitch (not that good either, it didn't offer nor imply that he could hand the UCI on a plate) Clearly a no-no question was anything to do with Bruyneel, I think even someone with very little research would have pieced together that connection... eh (eh in my best Dutch accent)


----------



## rliu (20 Jan 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Cheers, rliu. So he could just about have got away with admitting doping in 2009 but not 2010?


 
I would imagine that's his reasoning, as the USADA report relates to the USPS and Discovery Channel years so it is unlikely enough witnesses would come forward about his doping in 2009 and 2010, particularly given the coloured past of the people involved with Astana and Radioshack


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (20 Jan 2013)

Silver Fox said:


> Just watched the second part of the interview. When he was talking about his children I briefly saw a glimpse of Armstrong the human being not the ruthless control freak liar.


 
Really? - I felt that was was he was trying to present, he was trying to come across as a caring father and family man. It seemed calculated as did his emotional reaction when talking about this.
This is the same family man who walked out on his wife when a sniff of Sheryl Crow came along.. If he cared about family, he should name the people who assisted him.. Knud Jensen, Tom Simpson and others who died from doping were someone's son, brother, friend and family.
Lance needs to remember this a not only needs to ensure that no rider dies unnecessarily in the future but he needs to set the correct example to his children.
Sadly In terms of the Interview I felt his children were no different to EPO used in the tours in as much as they were nothing more than a means to get the result Lance desired


----------



## rich p (20 Jan 2013)

Kies said:


> Would have preferred a Piers Morgan grating .....


 
This is becoming ridiculous in deciding which chat show host people would prefer.
Russell Harty, Parky, Mrs Merton?
Armstrong should be talking to WADA, USADA or even the UCI before he does the late night sofas.


----------



## Crackle (20 Jan 2013)

Jonathan Ross


----------



## just jim (20 Jan 2013)

Silver Fox said:


> Just watched the second part of the interview. When he was talking about his children I briefly saw a glimpse of Armstrong the human being not the ruthless control freak liar.
> 
> Words are cheap and as much as I now dislike the man, moving forward his actions not words in the coming months / years will be an indication of just how genuinely remorseful he really is.


 
Something about this clip bothers me: 


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-OkFKJBSbw


----------



## rich p (20 Jan 2013)

Crackle said:


> Jonathan Ross


Woss, you ranker.


----------



## yello (20 Jan 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Or, in other words, has LA only confessed to stuff he won't risk going to jail for?


 
It's worth remembering the doping isn't illegal in the USA (hence USADA being able to punish Armstrong - it's not a criminal matter so need for courts). He wouldn't face criminal prosecution or jail time for a simple admission of doping. He might if he used illegal substances though, but even then the charge would be possession rather than using.

Lying under oath is illegal though - it's perjury and is subject to statute of limitations. Armstrong's legal team would have made sure he didn't come remotely close to crossing that line. Armstrong claims not to have doped in the come back years (despite blood analysis suggesting otherwise) and part of the reason for not owning up to that period MAY may have been something to do with the statute of limitations. I obviously don't know since I'm don't know what his legal team would have advised. It's also possible he was telling the truth.

However, this is a guy that's been lying for the last 15 years, right up to a few weeks ago. So I'm not going to start believing him now. His confessions are not motivated by remorse. He wants back into triathlon and competition, he wants his old life back. He doesn't accept he's done wrong and seems not to understand the notion of punishment.


----------



## StuAff (20 Jan 2013)

rliu said:


> The statute of limitations basically places a time limit on when you can bring a civil or criminal proceedings for an offending act. The rationale behind it is that essentially if too much time elapses witness evidence and other material evidence becomes unreliable. From Googling it seems potential perjury charges normally have a limitation of 3 years in the US


Opinions seem to differ as to whether LA is _completely _immune or not from perjury charges (not least from his own lawyers- if it was clear he'd be safe admitting doping during the comeback, he'd have done it). Jeff Tillotson, lawyer for SCA Promotions (and who will be asking for their $12m back) thought the statute applied. The claim he didn't dope during the comeback almost certainly risks charges at least being considered for that period. And perjury regarding earlier testimony could still be a legal option if it was considered that LA (and others) actively prevented the discovery of relevant information. Ongoing actions to continue a cover-up (for example) would in any case extend the time period in which charges could be brought. But that's only one more of the potential legal threats. The Sunday Times has already started proceedings to get its 2006 libel settlement back. The DoJ still has the option to join (more likely take over) the Landis lawsuit and the Los Angeles US Attorney's Office may resume its investigation. And if either or both of those parties get involved, they will most definitely find a way to make their cases.
In short: He's anything but safe.


----------



## rliu (20 Jan 2013)

The limitation period differs between civil and criminal actions so I wasn't suggesting Armstorng is legally untouchable, but seems to be safe from perjury charges for his 2005 deposition


----------



## Andrew_P (20 Jan 2013)

StuAff said:


> He's anything but safe.


I would say he knows almost exactly what the financial cost will be, and was prepared and capable of paying it. From the outside the only risk he could not factor was the FBI and perjury, but knowing his personality he probably had that base covered. All the other costs are his stake money on a gamble on getting a reduced ban, even with the sublimal message of being happy if he was able to run the Chicago marathon at 51 (ten year ban).


----------



## StuAff (20 Jan 2013)

rliu said:


> The limitation period differs between civil and criminal actions so I wasn't suggesting Armstorng is legally untouchable, but seems to be safe from perjury charges for his 2005 deposition


Agreed, you weren't suggesting he was completely in the clear. But he still could, at least according to some, face perjury charges for that deposition (assuming the feds went down that route)....


----------



## StuAff (20 Jan 2013)

LOCO said:


> I would say he knows almost exactly what the financial cost will be, and was prepared and capable of paying it. From the outside the only risk he could not factor was the FBI and perjury, but knowing his personality he probably had that base covered. All the other costs are his stake money on a gamble on getting a reduced ban, even with the sublimal message of being happy if he was able to run the Chicago marathon at 51 (ten year ban).


It remains to be seen, but I can't help thinking that would be wishful thinking on his part. Very wishful.


----------



## yello (20 Jan 2013)

StuAff said:


> Opinions seem to differ as to whether LA is _completely _immune or not from perjury charges.


 
You're right. I'm not keeping up to date with it all these days but I have been surprised that some articles seem to assume he is likely to face perjury charges, which was not my understanding. You'd have thought something like that was cut and dried but seemingly not. 

I'd assumed that amongst the numerous reasons that Armstrong didn't speak to USADA was that those conversations would have been under oath and as such reset the SOL clock. A sporting ban would have been nothing in comparison to potential federal punishments (million $ fines, jail time).

Personally, I reckon any perjury will be let slide. I reckon he faces a more likely action from the whistleblower case and/or fraud/misuse of federal funds.


----------



## StuAff (20 Jan 2013)

yello said:


> Personally, I reckon any perjury will be let slide. I reckon he faces a more likely action from the whistleblower case and/or fraud/misuse of federal funds.


I agree. I'm sure most plaintiffs, current and potential, are more interested in compensation than incarceration. Unless they can get both, of course.


----------



## raindog (20 Jan 2013)

yello said:


> You're right.


ayup yello - get back to "spanners" quick


----------



## Noodley (20 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2266397, member: 45"]My only comments...


I watched the confession bit at the start and was surprised at how angry he made me feel. I couldn't stick it for much longer after that
He deserves a punch in the face for his answer to the "why now?" question
[/quote]


Would you not like to choose which chat show host you think would have been better?


----------



## yello (20 Jan 2013)

raindog said:


> ayup yello - get back to "spanners" quick


 
[OT] - 'ow do raindog. Praps I ought, my rear dérailleur is in need of adjustment!  [/OT]


----------



## kedab (20 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2266438, member: 45"]I don't think he'd have done it with anyone he couldn't control. So that's Brit interviewers out.[/quote]

i reckon Parky would've stopped selling insurance for a bit if they'd asked him


----------



## Noodley (20 Jan 2013)

kedab said:


> i reckon Parky would've stopped selling insurance for a bit if they'd asked him


 
He coulda taken a free Parker pen with him to stab Lance in the leg with.


----------



## yello (20 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> He coulda taken a free Parker pen with him to stab Lance in the leg with.


 
Just as well he wasn't interviewed by someone called Dickinson then


----------



## Kies (20 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> This is becoming ridiculous in deciding which chat show host people would prefer.
> Russell Harty, Parky, Mrs Merton?
> Armstrong should be talking to WADA, USADA or even the UCI before he does the late night sofas.




I agree, but that isn't what was happening.


----------



## Radchenister (20 Jan 2013)

A little light relief:


----------



## Silver Fox (20 Jan 2013)

V for Vengedetta said:


> Really? - I felt that was was he was trying to present, he was trying to come across as a caring father and family man. It seemed calculated as did his emotional reaction when talking about this.
> This is the same family man who walked out on his wife when a sniff of Sheryl Crow came along.. If he cared about family, he should name the people who assisted him.. Knud Jensen, Tom Simpson and others who died from doping were someone's son, brother, friend and family.
> Lance needs to remember this a not only needs to ensure that no rider dies unnecessarily in the future but he needs to set the correct example to his children.
> Sadly In terms of the Interview I felt his children were no different to EPO used in the tours in as much as they were nothing more than a means to get the result Lance desired


 
I'm not defending him, far from it, I think the bloke is a turd of the highest order. The point I'm making is post Oprah, his actions will speaker louder than words.


----------



## edindave (20 Jan 2013)

The interviews gave me a bit of a deja vu - I instantly thought about Fred Goodwin, post the 2008 bank bailout. It's as if it's not that he regrets what he did, it's the fact that the masterplan went wrong that's the issue for him.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> This is becoming ridiculous in deciding which chat show host people would prefer.
> Russell Harty, Parky, Mrs Merton?
> Armstrong should be talking to WADA, USADA or even the UCI before he does the late night sofas.


 
But as Loco has pointed out and I have mentioned on other threads.

This is a sales pitch and a teaser. WADA is out there offering a reduced ban and that is what Armstrong is playing for.

Take the "alleged" UCI bribe. It will take a lomg time to prove whether it was or wasn't but if Armstrong states it was a bribe - case closed

Unacceptable to some, and we will see varying levels of outrage, but the question is how far the WADA are willing to bargain to get this information?


----------



## Radchenister (20 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Take the "alleged" UCI bribe. It will take a lomg time to prove whether it was or wasn't but if Armstrong states it was a bribe - case closed.


 
Supposition, UCI claim they never understood it that way and proposition nullified.


----------



## zophiel (20 Jan 2013)

well that was a waste of 2 hours. first five minutes told everything the rest was all flowers and bs.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (21 Jan 2013)

jdtate101 said:


> Also I can just imagine some Hollywood types planning a "Lance Armstrong, The Rise & Downfall Of An American Sporting Legend" type movie of all this, it's almost inevitable......


You must be psychic. 

http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/cycling/item/202268-lance-armstrong-movie-in-the-works

Why JJ Abrams wants this i don't know. He usually deals with evil black smoke lurking in the darkness and destroying the lives of all around it. Oh wait........


----------



## jdtate101 (21 Jan 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> You must be psychic.
> 
> http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/cycling/item/202268-lance-armstrong-movie-in-the-works
> 
> Why JJ Abrams wants this i don't know. He usually deals with evil black smoke lurking in the darkness and destroying the lives of all around it. Oh wait........


 
Well, Hollywood are so transparent that this was never really in doubt.......must admit I wouldn't have bet on JJ Abrams, not his usual fare.


----------



## just jim (21 Jan 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> You must be psychic.
> 
> http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/cycling/item/202268-lance-armstrong-movie-in-the-works
> 
> Why JJ Abrams wants this i don't know. He usually deals with evil black smoke lurking in the darkness and destroying the lives of all around it. Oh wait........


 
Working title: "The Warp Factor"


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (21 Jan 2013)

http://www.vulture.com/2013/01/lance-armstrong-books-headed-to-fiction.html


----------



## black'n'yellow (21 Jan 2013)

has anyone posted this yet..? I'm sure they have, but I can't be bothered to check...

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


----------



## mark st1 (21 Jan 2013)

black'n'yellow said:


> has anyone posted thie yet..? I'm sure they have, but I can't be bothered to check...
> 
> http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2013/01/20/lance-armstrong-lies-to-oprah-winfrey/


 
Class


----------



## montage (21 Jan 2013)

http://now.msn.com/lance-armstrong-books-moved-to-fiction-section-in-australian-library

Not checked to see if this has already been posted, but library banishes LA books to fiction section ....


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (21 Jan 2013)

montage said:


> http://now.msn.com/lance-armstrong-books-moved-to-fiction-section-in-australian-library
> 
> Not checked to see if this has already been posted, but library banishes LA books to fiction section ....


 
You're all right it's only been posted twice before so far. That's nothing on a thread about LA.


----------



## BJH (21 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> This is becoming ridiculous in deciding which chat show host people would prefer.
> Russell Harty, Parky, Mrs Merton?
> Armstrong should be talking to WADA, USADA or even the UCI before he does the late night sofas.



Mrs Merton wold be great:
'So Lance, what first attracted you to cheat and lie to make millions, becoming a major star in sport and the wider world and having anything you want, was it the Dad that left, the fact that your mother thought you were an a hole or the losing a plum'


----------



## BJH (21 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> Would you not like to choose which chat show host you think would have been better?




Is that at punching him?? I want Rossy, long arms he cold get a good swing up first


----------



## thom (26 Jan 2013)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmgMUFzmDss


----------



## Risex4 (27 Jan 2013)

http://www.satirewire.com/content1/?p=4596


----------



## Andrew_P (27 Jan 2013)

hmm is this the play move? Won't talk to the USADA but might or will to WADA and UCI under oath. Who does he need onside to reduce ban that is relevent to Tri and Ironman?


----------



## yello (27 Jan 2013)

I think WADA should be who Armstrong talks to, not UCI nor USADA. UCI are out for obvious reasons; they have no credibility. And, imo, there's too 'bad blood' (ho ho) between Tygart and Armstrong for there to be a free and frank exchange. What Armstrong may say is potentially way more important than any personal feuds he might feel he has with USADA, so let's remove any obstacles to him speaking.

Further, I'm actually inclined, somewhat surprisingly, to generally agree with Armstrong (or his legal team, whoever actually said it) that WADA are also the more appropriate body to speak to.


----------



## BJH (27 Jan 2013)

And if he does get to speak to WADA directly rather than USADA he gets away with his suggestion that he has been wronged by USADA.

Shouldn't be up to him to decide, he is no longer the patron, he is just another cheat and should be dealt with by his countries control bodies.


----------



## rich p (27 Jan 2013)

More smoke and mirrors IMHO. I can't see him confessing the real truth unless he was to get something substantial back.
i.e. a much-reduced sentence.
That should never happen after what he has done to the sport especially if he admits the real truth by naming names and the obvious fact that he doped again on his comeback.


----------



## just jim (28 Jan 2013)

Well, it seems Bradley Cooper is set to play Armstrong in film's producer JJ Abram's biopic.
Seemingly well prepared for the upcoming role, Bradley Cooper previously played Templeton "Faceman" Peck in the motion picture remake of "The A-Team".

"Suave, smooth-talking, and hugely successful with women, Peck serves as the team's con man and scrounger, able to get his hands on just about anything they need, using various disguises..."


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Jan 2013)

just jim said:


> Well, it seems Bradley Cooper is set to play Armstrong in film's producer JJ Abram's biopic.
> Seemingly well prepared for the upcoming role, Bradley Cooper previously played Templeton "Faceman" Peck in the motion picture remake of "The A-Team".
> 
> "Suave, smooth-talking, and hugely successful with women, Peck serves as the team's con man and scrounger, able to get his hands on just about anything they need, using various disguises..."


He also starred in the film "Limitless" which was about a loser dead beat who took a miracle drug and overnight became a somebody!!!


----------



## just jim (28 Jan 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> He also starred in the film "Limitless" which was about a loser dead beat who took a miracle drug and overnight became a somebody!!!


 
Nice one!


----------



## yello (28 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> I can't see him confessing the real truth unless he was to get something substantial back.


 
True. He'll not tell all. And certainly not under oath (thinks, does talking to WADA rather than USADA mean it's not under oath... hmmmm.... I wonder why he might prefer WADA then?)

Nah, looks like he lied in his confession. This is no reformed character (as if we ever thought he would be). He's agenda driven, I doubt we'll ever see anything we'd all call genuine remorse.


----------



## Andrew_P (28 Jan 2013)

I asked about the WADA vs USADA I can only assume the meat has better potential for LA with WADA.


----------



## yello (28 Jan 2013)

> Armstrong's arrogance and contempt for others, the indignant effort to turn tables on his accusers, charging them with vindictiveness and envy, his brutal assault on their characters and his attempts to destroy their careers -- it all describes the narcissist who feels that his ideal self-image is under siege.


 
An interesting read with a little background into Armstrong's upbringing

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...e-narcissism-explains-lance-armstrong/272568/



> The man is engaged in damage control, saying whatever he believes necessary to retrieve some part of his public image and the chance to compete again one day. He wants to salvage a portion of the Armstrong myth, his idealized false self, and then begin to rebuild it.


----------



## rich p (28 Jan 2013)

yello said:


> An interesting read with a little background into Armstrong's upbringing
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...e-narcissism-explains-lance-armstrong/272568/


 On some online site (possibly this one!) I saw a link to a bulletpoint description of a sociopath which nailed Armstrong almost to a tee.


----------



## Crackle (28 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> On some online site (possibly this one!) I saw a link to a bulletpoint description of a sociopath which nailed Armstrong almost to a tee.


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


----------



## rich p (28 Jan 2013)

Very similar Crackle but the one I saw only missed the target by saying that the sociopath lacked dedication to hard work.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (29 Jan 2013)

Meanwhile, L'équipe are reporting that the UCI has dissolved its own commission.

EDIT: sorry, I didn't realise this news was already being discussed on the UCI tipped off riders thread.


----------



## Radchenister (29 Jan 2013)

More here - http://www.independent.ie/sport/oth...g-inquiry-is-branded-disgraceful-3369501.html and here - http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/536640/uci-disbands-independent-commission.html

Looks like the pendulum has swung back into the shadows then (for the moment) ... they might just have declared open season for journalists though  .

*EDIT: ... nor did I  ... jump to here: *
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/uci-tipped-riders-about-test-results.122475/#post-2282655


----------



## david k (29 Jan 2013)

yello said:


> An interesting read with a little background into Armstrong's upbringing
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...e-narcissism-explains-lance-armstrong/272568/


 
great read


----------

