Armstrong interview
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
0
Comments
-
I think he could still salvage some respect, with an honest outpouring... even after all the previous denials. It wouldn't make it right, but it would bring closure (and would be satisfying to know how it was done and whether he was getting help from the authorities!!).
I for one enjoyed his achievements at the time, and it probably was a pretty level (if muddy) playing field.0 -
Thats really interesting, Armstrong's position is very different and much less bullish than it has ever been in the last 15 or so years. I wonder why he has chosen now to soften his position and attitude to the various investigations and claims against him.0
-
Is it though? His basically saying I'm done denying it take what you want from that what you want. He will never admit to it, but his not going to waste money defending his reputation, its been muddied enough that it wouldn't make a difference anyway. To be honest i kind of hope it all goes away, its like watching the 6 sequel to a crap movie.Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0
-
nic_77 wrote:(and would be satisfying to know how it was done and whether he was getting help from the authorities!!).
I don't think that would ever come out. It was utterly destroy the UCI. While some people may rightly suggest that's a good thing, it would also destroy cycling in the process.
Not something I'd want to see.0 -
richard wants a baum wrote:Is it though? His basically saying I'm done denying it take what you want from that what you want. He will never admit to it, but his not going to waste money defending his reputation, its been muddied enough that it wouldn't make a difference anyway. To be honest i kind of hope it all goes away, its like watching the 6 sequel to a crap movie.
It's more than that though surely? If he is prepared to concede all or some of his Tour titles then he is admitting he doped, an honest man would be screaming blue murder at the very suggestion.0 -
From someone like Armstrong, this is nothing less than an outright admission that he doped.The American appears to indicate that he won’t fight future investigations, and acknowledges that he could lose at least one Tour title as a result...
"If there are other things that arise, I’m not contesting anything."
He gave a short answer when writer Josh Eells asked him how he would react if his seventh Tour victory was struck off, presumably by USADA. “I wouldn’t be unhappy,” he said, appearing to have come to terms with that possibility.
After that point more agencies become involved, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General, plus both the civil and criminal divisions of the Department of Justice... “I had days where I thought I was f*cked,” he said,
A far cry from 'there is nothing to find' and 'I look forward to the USADA investigation so that I will be vindicated'.0 -
richard wants a baum wrote:Is it though? His basically saying I'm done denying it take what you want from that what you want. He will never admit to it, but his not going to waste money defending his reputation, its been muddied enough that it wouldn't make a difference anyway. To be honest i kind of hope it all goes away, its like watching the 6 sequel to a crap movie.
Totally agree with your comment.0 -
Seriously though, who gets the prize if not Armstrong? And if they are stripping him of titles, could somebody have a word about Dickie Virenque's record haul of KOM jerseys? To be honest, I'd be happy if it was just established as fact that he doped, to shut up all the naive fanboys out there. Beyond that, well, who wasn't doping? The sport was (is?) sick.0
-
-
-
USADA investigating perhaps? I thought there were rumours that teh FBI were going to provide the evidence from their investigations, in which case he's probably screwed. Makes sense to start the climbdown / PR campaign now if that's the case. I've always thought "Lance - The Movie" would be a far more engrossing affair if he was shown to be a flawed character - a Shakespearean tragedy rather than an "uplifting feel good" movie. I think if he spins this right, he could paint himself as a flawed character who wasn't prepared to leave any stone unturned in his efforts to beat cancer and prove to the world that cancer survivors could fight back, etc etc. I'm sure the American Max Clifford is hard at work right now.0
-
My gut says he knows something is going to/might be said, else I don't understand what he gains from saying this.0
-
The Mad Rapper wrote:nic_77 wrote:(and would be satisfying to know how it was done and whether he was getting help from the authorities!!).
I don't think that would ever come out. It was utterly destroy the UCI. While some people may rightly suggest that's a good thing, it would also destroy cycling in the process.
Not something I'd want to see.
If that's what needs to happen to sort the mess out once and for all, then so be it. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
The fans and sponsors would could back if the sport was re-built on more solid foundations.0 -
Yep, he doesn't strike me as the type of guy who'd just give up fighting. Still 5 of his tours are safe (the statute of limitations for doping cases being 8 years?) so he's still equal to Merckx, Hinault et al.
Ps this is in response to Rick Chasey 2 posts above0 -
Yes, they are about as 'safe' as the win by Riis.ShinyHelmut wrote:Yep, he doesn't strike me as the type of guy who'd just give up fighting. Still 5 of his tours are safe (the statute of limitations for doping cases being 8 years?) so he's still equal to Merckx, Hinault et al.
I think they should leave the results as they are and, like Riis, just put an asterisk next to all his 'wins'.
I note that he is quoted as saying:
OK, stop lying, give a full admission and a public apology to Bassons, Simeoni, Betsy Andreu, Prentice Steffan, Stephanie McIllvain and everyone one else you have bullied or besmirched for daring to speak the truth.We all want to be loved, we all want to be respected, we all want to be thought of as fair and ethical and admirable men,”
It is interesting that behind all the bluster and bravado even he seems to think that he was in big trouble with the Federal investigation. OK, so his 'patron saint of cancer' public image no doubt helped, but I would love to know what happened behind the scenes to cause the, apparently imminent, charges to be dropped.0 -
All he has to do is say "I did it all in order to give hope to cancer patients" and the gullible will swallow it hook, line and sinker. His reputation might even be enhanced amongst his disciples if it becomes fully clear just how many 'sacrifices' he had to make in order to win the Tour and thereby 'raise cancer awareness'...nic_77 wrote:I think he could still salvage some respect, with an honest outpouring... even after all the previous denials. It wouldn't make it right, but it would bring closure (and would be satisfying to know how it was done and whether he was getting help from the authorities!!).0 -
nic_77 wrote:I think he could still salvage some respect, with an honest outpouring... even after all the previous denials.
I think that would be too costly (financially speaking).
For sure the investigations have cost him a lot anyway, as much in sponsorship as legal costs.
In the unlikely event he IS innocent, then he's been truly f*cked. Is unlikely though.0 -
nic_77 wrote:The Mad Rapper wrote:nic_77 wrote:(and would be satisfying to know how it was done and whether he was getting help from the authorities!!).
I don't think that would ever come out. It was utterly destroy the UCI. While some people may rightly suggest that's a good thing, it would also destroy cycling in the process.
Not something I'd want to see.
If that's what needs to happen to sort the mess out once and for all, then so be it. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
The fans and sponsors would could back if the sport was re-built on more solid foundations.
But if you make an omelette you dont need to break lots of eggs, retire all the chickens and ruin the farmers. I think if you had a situation like in germany, but more far reaching, "the sport of professional cycling" would have a tough time and a very long time building back trust, I think that would hurt a lot of the teams and riders as well, and all the people associated with the teams, mechanics, soigneurs etc.
Seems like he is limiting the damage early doors, because the way he is saying stuff now is very different to before when he was very bullish. Its more apologetic now, guardedly so, but still...0 -
(doper or not...)
Armstrong wrote:“It doesn’t matter anymore. I don’t run around bragging, feeling like I have to be a seven-time Tour de France champion,” he answered.
Sorry, What?!?!?
Armstrong wrote:“I’m sure it has been. But I’m OK with that. We all want to be loved, we all want to be respected, we all want to be thought of as fair and ethical and admirable men,” he said “But very few people are unimpeachable. I’ve resigned myself to the fact that there are always going to be questions.”
Again, Sorry Lance but you don't win admiration by being a colossal pr1ck to everyone and anyone who does nt blow smoke up your arse 24/7!!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
All he has to do is say "I did it all in order to give hope to cancer patients" and the gullible will swallow it hook, line and sinker. His reputation might even be enhanced amongst his disciples if it becomes fully clear just how many 'sacrifices' he had to make in order to win the Tour and thereby 'raise cancer awareness'...nic_77 wrote:I think he could still salvage some respect, with an honest outpouring... even after all the previous denials. It wouldn't make it right, but it would bring closure (and would be satisfying to know how it was done and whether he was getting help from the authorities!!).
He could just tell the truth and say that doping had been part of cycling for decades before he was even born and he needed to do it to beat the likes of Pantani, Basso, Ullrich, Vino et al.
Unfortunately some people just won't accept this and prefer to stick to the Official Version Of The Truth, in which doping isn't rampant in professional sport and it's just a few bad apples who dope and they are Villains Who Must Be Destroyed.0 -
johnfinch wrote:Unfortunately some people just won't accept this and prefer to stick to the Official Version Of The Truth, in which doping isn't rampant in professional sport and it's just a few bad apples who dope and they are Villains Who Must Be Destroyed.
Doping involves more than just a rider. It's a doctor, it's a supplier, etc etc.
A lot of people made a good amount out of Armstrong. It's not straightforward like that. It's effectively a business decision.
Like I said, I can't see any upside to this unless it's damage limitation for a potential theat to him on the horizon.0 -
If he was finally found guilty of all this.... It sounds to me like the 'I wouldn't defend it again' attitude is sort of setting up a scenario where he can have lots of the general public think 'well, they only got him when he didn't defend himself' and 'poor old Lance'.
Also, if the facts of any investigation come out clearer than they ever have done, it will take focus away from how clear those facts now are and the PR will be able to spin it like 'Lance was tired and didn't want to defend it, and THATS the only reason he was found guilty'.
He's not stupid that's for sure, he knows if he won't defend then he'll see USADA do 'damage to the image of cycling', and in the light that they will have done so with no 'fight having been won'.
Its all very interesting. Fact is, its obvious that something is coming from the interview.
I just hope he gets it all stripped from him and we get to hear as much of the evidence as possible, and not just from an anti-doping srategic/message viewpoint, from the simple one that we learn as toddlers - you don't cheat.0 -
Where are Moray and DennisN? 0
-
I just hope he gets it all stripped from him and we get to hear as much of the evidence as possible, and not just from an anti-doping srategic/message viewpoint, from the simple one that we learn as toddlers - you don't cheat.
That's not going to happen though because of the statute of limitations.
I'd like to see the truth and some apologies but I'm not holding my breath....0 -
ShinyHelmut wrote:I just hope he gets it all stripped from him and we get to hear as much of the evidence as possible, and not just from an anti-doping srategic/message viewpoint, from the simple one that we learn as toddlers - you don't cheat.
That's not going to happen though because of the statute of limitations.
I'd like to see the truth and some apologies but I'm not holding my breath....
Also, if they strip him then who do they give it to? And Riis wasn't stripped so where's the precedent? They may as well just put an asterisk next to all his wins (and Pantani, Ullrich, Contador, Indurain - hard to know where to stop really
)
Main thing has to be tightening up going forward, making sure the testing procedures are as tight as possible and that when they do catch somebody they can make it stick (with help from national governing bodies - I'm looking at you, Spain).0 -
“I’d never waste another minute trying to convince somebody I’m innocent,” said the Texan. “I think everybody’s made up their minds. Nobody’s on the fence about me anymore. It’s kind of refreshing. If someone says, ‘I think you F*** cheated, I go, ‘ok, great. Can we talk about something else? Because I really don’t give a shit what you think. I’m not going to waste any more time having that argument.”
Then admit it Lance, because otherwise the argument won't go away0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:Where are Moray and DennisN?
Slowly stirring from their hibernation in the Bat Cave? :P
Another barely chipper doping story for GT time.
This Giro is a major FAIL. Lightweight, in fact."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Which is of course true, and whoever wins the Tour de France this year will probably be doped as well.johnfinch wrote:Unfortunately some people just won't accept this and prefer to stick to the Official Version Of The Truth, in which doping isn't rampant in professional sport and it's just a few bad apples who dope and they are Villains Who Must Be Destroyed.
However, I think that there is a lot of truth in what David Walsh said about some doping because they are dragged into it in order to survive whilst others, due to them being being willing to push the doping envelope to its limits, effectively drag others into the same arena. Armstrong, with his determination to dominate others and, as one interview in Texas Monthly back in July 2001 put it "rub.. the Gallic nose into the pavement again, always a trusty pleasure", was exactly such a rider. Indurain probably 'set the bar' before him.0 -
What if, maybe, just maybe, he didn't dope? There must have been some guys back then, not all at the back, who refused to?
If we can never believe them, just let them dope and then see how fast they can go.0 -
i8contador wrote:What if, maybe, just maybe, he didn't dope? There must have been some guys back then, not all at the back, who refused to?
If we can never believe them, just let them dope and then see how fast they can go.
You got onto the internet today found this site and typed that which means you:
1) know how to type and ..
2) know how to use the internet.. but
3) still made that post
:roll:
In addition just for the record - what does berty taste like???'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'0
