Lance Apologizes!!

donrhummy

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstro ... n-expected

"Twelve months ago, I expected it," he said in response to the question of whether he had anticipated wearing yellow again. "Here's a confession: I expected it to be easier.

"Six months ago, I did not expect it. I realised, oh shit, this is harder than I thought. That's the truth. As has been reported in the press, I was disrespectful, to Carlos Sastre, to Christian Vande Velde, to the guys who were a presence in last year's Tour - and that was not correct.

drenkrom

:shock:

Colour me surprised. Very favorably surprised.

mididoctors

its a smart move

juggler

all said and done i was disappointed he didn't get yellow today, ..... Mrs Juggler was even glued to the TV this afternoon, and then went off upstairs when the provisional result said Armstrong was in second...... she was interested in cycling... unheard of

so many people are interested again in this sport...no bad thing

Bakunin

He was disrespectful. He should have apologized.

iainf72

juggler wrote:

so many people are interested again in this sport...no bad thing

Replace "sport" with "Lance" and you're closer to what's happening.

juggler

Bakunin wrote:

He was disrespectful. He should have apologized.

Sorry, a bit more information please... no idea what you are talking about

dennisn

juggler wrote:

all said and done i was disappointed he didn't get yellow today, ..... Mrs Juggler was even glued to the TV this afternoon, and then went off upstairs when the provisional result said Armstrong was in second...... she was interested in cycling... unheard of

so many people are interested again in this sport...no bad thing

My 12 year old niece and I watched a week or so of the Tour together last year.
Looks like we might do it again this year. Although she does seem to have an attraction
for the "crashes". Still, she was glued to the TV.

iainf72

Let's balance the apology with this

Yes, you texan tool, cycling was clean when you were around.

Bronzie

juggler wrote:

Sorry, a bit more information please... no idea what you are talking about

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ju ... los-sastre

juggler

saw that one already.. pretty tame compared to Cav calling the other teams 'juniors' yesterday. wouldn't read too much into that.

Harry182

Re original post -

:shock:

curiouser and curiouser...

afx237vi

juggler wrote:

saw that one already.. pretty tame compared to Cav calling the other teams 'juniors' yesterday. wouldn't read too much into that.

Cav's comments were also criticised. Stephen Roche was on Eurosport today saying that Cav ain't a rookie anymore and should think about learning some humility.

andy_wrx

It's a very back-handed apology isn't it ?

He says that a year ago it looked easy, he thought that the riders out there were poor quality, journeymen rather than big champions, nothing like the competition he used to face, so he thought he could waltz back in, kick ass and get an easy 8th win.

But he says it hasn't been that easy, he's had to come back, work a bit harder than he expected, but now look, I've missed-out on Yellow by 0.22sec...

Mind-games : he's telling the other riders that he thinks they're cr*p and he intends to walk all over them.

He's expecting them to read this and believe it...

...and then all he has to do is get Bertie to believe it too, because Levi and Klodi already believe it.

dennisn

Someone once said that "it's not bragging if you can do it". Probably won't win you any friends but, still, it's not bragging.

jackhammer111 - banned

iainf72 wrote:

Let's balance the apology with this

Yes, you texan tool, cycling was clean when you were around.

Lance was mealy pointing out that when Clerc said: ""reopening a troubled chapter of the Tour history", he should not be implying the chapter that followed under his watch was cleaner than the Lance era.

And the bit about Lance being cleared by a "Dutch Lawyer"? Do Dutch lawyers have some bad reputations I don't know about?

The guy lead an investigation commissioned buy UCI that said: "The report said tests on urine samples were conducted improperly and fell so short of scientific standards that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest they "constitute evidence of anything."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ype=health

jackhammer111 - banned

donrhummy wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-admits-attaining-yellow-jersey-overall-victory-harder-than-expected

"Twelve months ago, I expected it," he said in response to the question of whether he had anticipated wearing yellow again. "Here's a confession: I expected it to be easier.

"Six months ago, I did not expect it. I realised, oh shoot, this is harder than I thought. That's the truth. As has been reported in the press, I was disrespectful, to Carlos Sastre, to Christian Vande Velde, to the guys who were a presence in last year's Tour - and that was not correct.

There's nothing Lance can do that will satisfy the people out there who hate Lance beyond all reason. Nothing.

jackhammer111 - banned

andy_wrx wrote:

It's a very back-handed apology isn't it ?

He says that a year ago it looked easy, he thought that the riders out there were poor quality, journeymen rather than big champions, nothing like the competition he used to face, so he thought he could waltz back in, kick ass and get an easy 8th win.

But he says it hasn't been that easy, he's had to come back, work a bit harder than he expected, but now look, I've missed-out on Yellow by 0.22sec...

Mind-games : he's telling the other riders that he thinks they're cr*p and he intends to walk all over them.

He's expecting them to read this and believe it...

...and then all he has to do is get Bertie to believe it too, because Levi and Klodi already believe it.

If you think it's a mind game.. ok... but here he also says: "I may not be strong enough to win"

http://player.sbs.com.au/tdf#/tdf_08/in ... countback/

donrhummy

jackhammer111 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

And the bit about Lance being cleared by a "Dutch Lawyer"? Do Dutch lawyers have some bad reputations I don't know about?

I think everyone's forgetting something VERY important about that lawyer (Emile Vrijman) -- he wasn't just a lawyer, he was head of the Dutch anti-doping agency for ten years!

richard wants a baum

I dont think the fact that he was dutch had anything to do with it. Lets face it Armstrong likes to play mind games and is a bit of a bully. He apologized because his hardly "kicking arse" and his probably sick of answering questions regarding that comment.

donrhummy

richard wants a baum wrote:

I dont think the fact that he was dutch had anything to do with it. Lets face it Armstrong likes to play mind games and is a bit of a bully. He apologized because his hardly "kicking ars*" and his probably sick of answering questions regarding that comment.

??? What are you talking about? I was pointing out that he was head of an anti-doping agency, not that he's dutch! My point is that he was VERY qualified to handle the investigation.

richard wants a baum

Umm someone was asking what was the deal with Dutch lawyers and i was saying that their wasnt.

And the bit about Lance being cleared by a "Dutch Lawyer"? Do Dutch lawyers have some bad reputations I don't know about?

Clear things up a bit.

Unsheath

iainf72 wrote:

Let's balance the apology with this

Yes, you texan tool, cycling was clean when you were around.

It's like exposing drug cheats is actually a bad thing.

Let's just conveniently let all the dopers and slide and heck, why bother testing at all. That would be Utopia and the 'Perfect' situation wouldn't it.

As for whether the lawyer was Dutch, German, Australian whatever... The key point is that they were appointed by the UCI. Perhaps If we had a independent review/commission we wouldn't have the same outcome. Ironic he mentions the word corruption as well. I think he meant Hein and Co and not the ASO.

iainf72

donrhummy wrote:

I think everyone's forgetting something VERY important about that lawyer (Emile Vrijman) -- he wasn't just a lawyer, he was head of the Dutch anti-doping agency for ten years!

And? Lets not go over this ground. Scientists have said the tests were valid, the UCI said this year they were valid. Sure, can't be sanctioned for them and it was clever journalism rather than anything else.

The meat of that article was that fact it was Clerc's problem there were positives in the Tours Lance wasn't at. Uh huh.

andyp

The Vrijman report was publically codemned by WADA;

"The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical. Were the matter not so serious and the allegations it contains so irresponsible, we would be inclined to give it the complete lack of attention it deserves."

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/newsarticle. ... Id=3115287

Lest we forget, Emile Vrijman was a personal friend of Hein Verbruggen, and has been accused of colluding with doped athletes in the past.

A current member of the UCI's medical commission stated on German TV this year that there was nothing wrong with the science behind the tests on Armstrong's 1999 samples, rather the procedures followed meant no disciplinary case could be opened. Which is tantamount to saying that Armstrong doped but got away with it.

knedlicky

Unsheath wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Let's balance the apology with this
Yes, you texan tool, cycling was clean when you were around.

It's like exposing drug cheats is actually a bad thing.
Let's just conveniently let all the dopers and slide and heck, why bother testing at all. That would be Utopia and the 'Perfect' situation wouldn't it.

Not only could the exposures in the after-LA years (partly possible because of Clerc’s anti-doping stance) be judged positively rather than negatively, as LA implies they should, but also LA seems to have forgotten that Clerc was in charge of ASO from year 2000, so for 6 of LA’s Tour victories.
So if LA is right that under Clerc’s reign and leadership “cycling was not perfect", then that might be a real ‘from the horse’s mouth' statement, because LA himself also benefited.

The main reason Clerc was pushed out wasn’t poor leadership but that the Amaury organisation, after first supporting Clerc, changed its mind about being prepared to go against the UCI. Amaury also liked the idea of Armstrong’s return, whereas Clerc looked ready to prevent it, and possibly also exclude anyone under any suspicion of doping (so Contador too). Having had to cancel the Dakar car rally, the Amaury organisation didn’t want to risk the Tour going pear-shaped, so the organisation, in which the widow of its deceased founder still has a large say, decided to put her inexperienced son in charge, whom the Amaury board knew she could control.

Clerc’s dismissal wasn’t the only one by the Amaury organisation in 2008, it also dismissed two chief editors of L’Equipe (which it owns), supposedly because of falling sales to occasional readers (those who bought it 2-3 times a week). The organisation decided not to replace them, instead to have the lower editors of the newspaper be under the direct control of the Amaury board.
This very much strikes of control of journalism a la Berlusconi or as in authoritarian countries. But it probably suits LA because it means L’Equipe have been ‘neutered’ in respect to criticising him.

le_patron

iainf72 wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

The meat of that article was that fact it was Clerc's problem there were positives in the Tours Lance wasn't at. Uh huh.

From Lance's perspective that probably makes sense. He sees cycling and especially the TdF as a shiny product that makes lots of money, grows his stature and gives him influence, so can't understand why people like Clerc deliberately do things that are likely to undermine this. An extension of the soup-spit.

The Amuary's obviously thought this eventually too.

Doesn't sit well with lots of other people and I am surprised there was no follow up question. It's the same with lots of responses he gives, I always want to ask a crucial follow up...but it rarely happens.

Kléber

Armstrong should take up tennis, a deft backhander and he's deflected all the talk about him onto Patrice Clerc. Impressive.

don key

jackhammer111 wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-admits-attaining-yellow-jersey-overall-victory-harder-than-expected

"Twelve months ago, I expected it," he said in response to the question of whether he had anticipated wearing yellow again. "Here's a confession: I expected it to be easier.

"Six months ago, I did not expect it. I realised, oh shoot, this is harder than I thought. That's the truth. As has been reported in the press, I was disrespectful, to Carlos Sastre, to Christian Vande Velde, to the guys who were a presence in last year's Tour - and that was not correct.

There's nothing Lance can do that will satisfy the people out there who hate Lance beyond all reason. Nothing.

You can make these silly, misleading statements but there is plenty of reason and the word hate is always used by people in your corner, rarely by those who have reason. I have no reason to like him so I don't.

dougzz

It's not an apology it's simply manipulation. Mostly the media love this guy, or they're scared of him. So he makes the right sound bite for the moment. He's dominated the TdF and he's doing the same to the media.

LA cares about LA, nothing or no one else, aside from a couple people. If he wants to appear a little conciliatory he makes the right noise. He doesn't care what Sastre or Vandevelde think of him, or anyone else come to that.

He cares about public perception of him simply in terms of his income.

micron

WADA entirely discredited the Vrijman report - and the report itself never disputed that the samples were Armstrong's.

I would expect Clerc to turn the question round and ask Armstrong exactly why he finds himself out of a job - does it have anything to do with the meeting Armstrong called with ASO at the beginning of the year to discuss his 'comeback' - something to which Clerc was opposed?

There's no doubt a major 'charm offensive' is happening here - the backhanded apology, the fact that he will only be interviewed by Frankie Andreu (keeping your enemies closer? Particularly before the Lemond - Trek case kicks off?), the comments about there being '2 types of leader' (think he's confusing the latter with being the team captain). A little bit of 'nice' never harms a celebrity.

Whatever else Armstrong is, he's a master at keeping 'Brand Armstrong' in the public eye. Is the attention good for cycling? It's great if those who are interested in Armstrong stick around when he's gone again - but I think the 'Lance Effect' is far more prevalent in the US than in the sport's traditional heartland and is overstated in terms of people becoming fans of the sport.