Lance Armstrong interview airings & discussions.

[mark st1]

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.
Bound to be numerous internet options / newscasts aired in-between.

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

 

[Radchenister]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ColinJ]

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

 

[Brahan]

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]

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.