Bye Lance

[padbeat]

but not all that convincing.  After all the denials and persecution of whistleblowers,  I'm not sure I'd trust him to tell me the time.

[Rhys W]

Matt Seaton and Dr Hutch are casting their sceptical eyes over it live on the Guardian. No wool pulled over their eyes.

[woollypigs]

O is not Paxman that is for sure.

[padbeat]

Have you phoned Betsy Andreau?

[Jakob]

Hmm. I can't think of any reason why O'Reilly should accept his apology.
He's good at this, though.

[Rhys W]

Totally avoiding the Betsy Andreu question, i.e. not admitting to EPO, HGH, cortisone, testosterone before he got ill.

[Jakob]

Well, he didn't directly admit it...only thing he really denies was calling her fat!

[padbeat]

It's almost as if he had a lawyer prepping him for days in advance saying "You can't say this, that , or that, but if you prase it like this, nobody can stick it to you."


Oh, hang on.

I hope the PR benefit to him (if any) is severely diminished by the real-world events knocking him off the top of the news agenda.

[jane]

Take it to P&BI.

It's not that interesting.

Actually, some of us might dare to suggest it's a bit more interesting than all this endless boring discussion over some nasty piece of work who used to ride a bike quite well.  But that's a bit cheeky of me, as this is a thread for those who still find it mildly entertaining, I guess, so.......I'll get my coat.

(And I peeked in, so I guess I am a little guilty of rekindling interest in this unpleasant character.  I wish we could just let him sink into the obscurity he deserves. )

[Lordy]

Clearly we all not going to be in agreement on this nor even have the same view of LA before this (or even when he was racing).  I find it sad, but perhaps just as sad as finding out that Eddy Merckx bullied the peloton and failed 3 drug tests in his career.  This doesn't make anything right but let's hope the discussion can move on in positive way, but I fear that's only possible with the inevitable 'independent root and branch review' , if only that could happen, let's hope.

[Euan Uzami]

one thing i'm wondering - did he actually ever really even have cancer? or was that just another lie, as well, to engender sympathy towards him and divert attention?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Do you really think that?

[jane]

To be honest, it's not his drug taking that bothered me.  It's the revelations about how badly he seems to have treated the people around him, some whom he counted as friends. There are drugs everywhere in sport, and I personally believe cycling gets far more than its fair share of opprobrium for this practice.  If it wasn't for the fact that the drugs can do so much damage to those that take them, many of whom are young and impressionable when first exposed to the pressure to take them, pressure which comes from those who have the power in their sport, then I would say just decriminalise it.  Elite sport these days seems populated by a lot of people who are so driven to succeed they will do anything within their power to win. (I am talking about the whole elite sport set up here). 
And, Lordy, there's a lot that is great and worthy of celebration about cycling, but this particular thread is about the one aspect of the sport where it is pretty difficult to find anything positve to say, IMO, anyway.  it is entitled Bye Lance, after all. 

[rogerzilla]

one thing i'm wondering - did he actually ever really even have cancer? or was that just another lie, as well, to engender sympathy towards him and divert attention?

I think that's a given.  Probably not caused by the drugs either, since he was in the prime age range for testicular cancer.

[Hot Flatus]

Take it to P&BI.

It's not that interesting.

Actually, some of us might dare to suggest it's a bit more interesting than all this endless boring discussion over some nasty piece of work who used to ride a bike quite well.  But that's a bit cheeky of me, as this is a thread for those who still find it mildly entertaining, I guess, so.......I'll get my coat.

(And I peeked in, so I guess I am a little guilty of rekindling interest in this unpleasant character.  I wish we could just let him sink into the obscurity he deserves. )

Well, you popped in to try and stir up a row and it didn't work so then you leave but make sure you get your nasty little jibe in to try and devalue the thread.

Classy. Stay gone.

[citoyen]

Actually, some of us might dare to suggest it's a bit more interesting than all this endless boring discussion over some nasty piece of work who used to ride a bike quite well.

But still not interesting enough that I could bring myself to engage in a discussion on the subject in the P&BS section of this forum.

As for Lance, well, judging by reports this morning, all I can say is I'm glad I didn't sacrifice any of my much-needed beauty sleep to watch a sociopathic liar dissembling for two hours.

d.

[cyclone]

That would make it more interesting....

[jane]

Take it to P&BI.

It's not that interesting.

Actually, some of us might dare to suggest it's a bit more interesting than all this endless boring discussion over some nasty piece of work who used to ride a bike quite well.  But that's a bit cheeky of me, as this is a thread for those who still find it mildly entertaining, I guess, so.......I'll get my coat.

(And I peeked in, so I guess I am a little guilty of rekindling interest in this unpleasant character.  I wish we could just let him sink into the obscurity he deserves. )

Well, you popped in to try and stir up a row and it didn't work so then you leave but make sure you get your nasty little jibe in to try and devalue the thread.

Classy. Stay gone.

Please don't try and read my mind.  I had no intention of stirring up a row or devaluing the thread.  I was just expressing my opinion concerning discussions about Lance Armstrong in general.  I believe I am entitled to do that, just as anyone is entitled to disagree with me.  You may note I expressed my opinion without making unpleasant personal remarks about any individual here.   I would consider that the kind of behaviour that really does devalue a thread. 
You'll be pleased to read that I have no intention of discussing this particular point any further.  But I may well drop in again and share my opinion about Armstrong, media coverage of his confession, doping or any other issue I choose,  if I have the time or the inclination. 

[Nuncio]

The other interesting claim was that it all ended in 2005 and that he was clean during he comeback.  Does anyone believe that?  And the mess he got into in not denying/confirming Betsy Andreu's testimony

I've watched it all.  It wasn't what I expected.  No tears and none of the huggy 'empathy' stuff (yet).  Nor much that we didn't know already.  Armstrong's decision not to speak about individuals - even Ferarri - other than himself dented some of the interest.  And I know there's a lot of material to be got through but it all seemed to ramble too much.  No depth. Nicole Cooke was right - this is still under his terms.  It should be happening in a court, under oath, with skilled professionals who can cross-examine properly.

[Andrew]

The interview seems to have been very well managed. Not that that overly surprises me. From what I've read so far, there seems to have been an effort to keep it focused on doping to win 7 TdFs. That might satisfy many (so well played Lance/Fabiani) but the story is bigger than that.

What is interesting to me is what he hasn't said, hasn't commented on, names he has deliberately not mentioned. It seems the whole interview might have only owned up to the 'done and dusted' stuff but gave few/no 'revelations' that might lead to further actions. Again, well played Mark Fabiani. 

[LEE]

I'm glad I didn't sacrifice any of my much-needed beauty sleep to watch a sociopathic liar dissembling for two hours.

They are/were all liars.  No point in taking drugs and admitting it.

The Armstrong (dream)machine was just bigger than the others.  I can see how it all snowballed.

Like most people though, what I find most disturbing, totally unacceptable in fact, is suing the innocent people around him for telling the truth.

Doping in cycling and denying it is one thing, he certainly wasn't alone in that respect, but actively seeking to destroy people, to prop up a continuing lie  is another.

I hope he spends a long time in court and spends a lot of money paying these people some of the money he cheated them out of.

A million dollars would mean more to me than a telephoned apology.

On the interview...I thought he seemed quite open and contrite.  More so than I expected.

[Tigerrr]

I am puzzled why folk spend time on this thread purely to let others know how uninterested they are in the whole thing. That is such an odd thing to do isnt it? This thread in particular seems to attract a lot of it. It's a strange internet behaviour.
Anyway I think the LA story is fascinating.  Its a real life myth/fable unfolding - I don';t think its got much to do with cycling, its way bigger than that (maybe thats what hacks the parochial cyclists off - he is/was bigger than cycling and probably had more impact on the sport than any other cyclist in history. In effect he stole cycling from the cyclists, and reshaped it to his purpose). 
Its more like Icarus, or the fall of the Titans, or Faust.  Armstrong is a larger than life figure - a man who sought to become a god. It may yet unfold that he succeeds, as I think the fascination is only going to grow.

[LEE]

It should be happening in a court, under oath, with skilled professionals who can cross-examine properly.

Is there a chance of this?

I thought he'd lied under oath (or does this fall under double-jeopardy?)

I'm surprised people are surprised that this was well-managed.  He's walking a legal tightrope.

As for confessing to pre-cancer doping...didn't NIKE sponsor him throughout that period?  I bet there are NIKE lawyers hanging on his every word.

This is purely about the damage he did to other people that concerns me.  I can't single him out for doping any more than I can enjoy seeing that cheat Vinokourov picking up a gold medal at the Olympics.  Once you cheat, you're a cheat, once or seven times.

It's how far you are prepared to go, how willing you are to damage others, that singles him out.

[Euan Uzami]

Do you really think that?

Well I didn't really think he'd taken drugs, but then it turns out he had.

Honestly? If I were to guess, I'd say no, that's one thing he probably didn't make up. But one can't help but wonder. It's not like it's never been done before.

[TimC]

It should be happening in a court, under oath, with skilled professionals who can cross-examine properly.

Is there a chance of this?

I thought he'd lied under oath (or does this fall under double-jeopardy?)

I'm surprised people are surprised that this was well-managed.  He's walking a legal tightrope.

As for confessing to pre-cancer doping...didn't NIKE sponsor him throughout that period?  I bet there are NIKE lawyers hanging on his every word.

And I bet there are LA lawyers lined up to fight back. The reason Nike et al sponsored Armstrong was to gain publicity for their brands. He delivered in spades, hence they paid him a lot of money. He's been retired a while now, so, while he may still have been receiving some kind of retainer, he's hardly the focus of any of his ex-sponsors' marketing efforts, and hasn't been for some years. Therefore I'd hazard a guess that the potential damage to those companies' reputations is a lot less than they might initially think, and I would expect LA's lawyers to fight on those grounds. I also suspect that they've done the risk assessment prior to this interview and concluded that the danger to his remaining fortune is now fairly limited.