Lance doping confession - I want an apology from him!

tailwindhome

gtvlusso wrote:

Going to bed early to be up at 2am.....gonna stream it, Virgin Media - don't let me down!

You serious?


Don't expect anything you haven't heard already.

Anything 'juicy' will be discussed behind closed doors with USADA.

gtvlusso

**Bottle of scotch to mash through too.....!

Oh, my back hurts!

meanredspider

Wallace1492 wrote:

I don't doubt that Lance's charitable efforts have done plenty of good, but what was the reason, to alleviate his guilty feelings, put something back for the cheating he was doing, or just as a genuinely good guy wanting to help others. His actions from his sporting endevours kinda answers that one for me.

Agree with all you've written - except your final point. As Ned Boulting, I think, writes in his recent book, you need to think of LA the Cyclist in a different way from LA the Cancer Survivor.

Kieran_Burns

Incidentally he lost his Bronze Medal as well:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/ja ... mpic-medal

Wallace1492

meanredspider wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

I don't doubt that Lance's charitable efforts have done plenty of good, but what was the reason, to alleviate his guilty feelings, put something back for the cheating he was doing, or just as a genuinely good guy wanting to help others. His actions from his sporting endevours kinda answers that one for me.

Agree with all you've written - except your final point. As Ned Boulting, I think, writes in his recent book, you need to think of LA the Cyclist in a different way from LA the Cancer Survivor.

Maybe so. Maybe his charitable efforts are some thing he can do and put in all his positive efforts in a genuine way and are completely seperate from his fairly despicable acts in covering up his cheating and lying. However I find it hard to reconcile the two. Life's really genuine good guys are usually good in all aspects, albeit most will have some dark secret or past, but not usually in the same league as Lance.

I like to think I have a fairly open mind, and like to see the best in folk, even Lance, so maybe you are right there, though still have a lot of reservations on his reasons, but maybe I am too cyclical.

tetm

At least we've heard it from him now though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/17/lance-armstrong-oprah-winfrey-interview-live-blog

Twitter is on fire!

rick_chasey

Well looks like I made the right choice, going for a no holds barred, warts and all move for bed at a reasonable hour.

meanredspider

• He looked amazingly sleek, healthy, only slightly greyer. For a guy whose world has been torn down in the last six months, he appeared remarkably unstressed. Whatever he's on now, I'd like some too, please.

There's a man who doesn't understand what it is to be a young cancer survivor. If you "want some too", you should have got cancer early in life. After that, very very little is going to faze you. Nothing fazes me and I'm only the dad of a teenage cancer survivor.

First.Aspect

That's an interesting perspective MRS, but I think Lance is cool calm and collected because he is a bit of a sociopath, and its nothing whatsoever to do with cancer. That's simply a helpful lever for him just now.

rjsterry

First Aspect wrote:

That's an interesting perspective MRS, but I think Lance is cool calm and collected because he is a bit of a sociopath, and its nothing whatsoever to do with cancer. That's simply a helpful lever for him just now.

Have to agree that you are being rather generous MRS. the admission that he couldn't remember whether he sued Emma O'Reilly - I think the line was "We sued so many people" - shows that he's barely even paused to reflect on what he's done.

Interesting to see Nicole Cooke's take on it this morning.

gtvlusso

So he did it then.....and was a bit of a bully.

Nothing said against the UCI or anyone else, glad he admitted to treating a few people very badly, Emma o'Reilly for example.

EKE_38BPM

I've seen clips on the news that he has admitted doping, but has anyone found a link so that I can watch the interview for myself?

gtvlusso

rjsterry wrote:

Interesting to see Nicole Cooke's take on it this morning.

Where is this fella? Linky?

rjsterry

gtvlusso wrote:

So he did it then.....and was a bit of a bully.

Nothing said against the UCI or anyone else, glad he admitted to treating a few people very badly, Emma o'Reilly for example.

Well, sort of. He was trying to play down the bullying, like it was just a bit of name calling, rather than systematically destroying people's careers.

rjsterry

gtvlusso wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Interesting to see Nicole Cooke's take on it this morning.

Where is this fella? Linky?

Was on BBC Breakfast at about 0745

gtvlusso

rjsterry wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Interesting to see Nicole Cooke's take on it this morning.

Where is this fella? Linky?

Was on BBC Breakfast at about 0745

F&cking Octonauts....who'd have kids eh!

il_principe

The whole thing is pathetic. He's clearly decided to cover up some of the lies with a dash of truth. No apology to Frankie & Betsy either. No shame.

gtvlusso

Il Principe wrote:

The whole thing is pathetic. He's clearly decided to cover up some of the lies with a dash of truth. No apology to Frankie & Betsy either. No shame.

Be interesting to see what part deux holds.....If there is any further conscience crisis.

I agree though - at this point, no shame.

tailwindhome

Anyone believe the denial about the comeback years?

Wallace1492

Just started watching the interview. First opinion is that it is pretty open. Fully honest, well, at this point, I don't think he has anything further to gain by not telling the whole truth.

tailwindhome

Wallace1492 wrote:

Just started watching the interview. First opinion is that it is pretty open. Fully honest, well, at this point, I don't think he has anything further to gain by not telling the whole truth.

NVM

Wallace1492

TailWindHome wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Just started watching the interview. First opinion is that it is pretty open. Fully honest, well, at this point, I don't think he has anything further to gain by not telling the whole truth.

NVM

NVM? Non Volatile Matter? Is that what Lance was injecting?

tailwindhome

Wallace1492 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Just started watching the interview. First opinion is that it is pretty open. Fully honest, well, at this point, I don't think he has anything further to gain by not telling the whole truth.

NVM

NVM? Non Volatile Matter? Is that what Lance was injecting?

NVM = Nevermind

Thought better of my original response....

meanredspider

First Aspect wrote:

That's an interesting perspective MRS, but I think Lance is cool calm and collected because he is a bit of a sociopath, and its nothing whatsoever to do with cancer. That's simply a helpful lever for him just now.

rjsterry wrote:

Have to agree that you are being rather generous MRS. the admission that he couldn't remember whether he sued Emma O'Reilly - I think the line was "We sued so many people" - shows that he's barely even paused to reflect on what he's done.

My comment was aimed more at the "world has been torn down" statement. I shared this with my wife who agreed totally. I honestly believe I can deal with just about anything after what we've been through. If my boss came into my office now and said "We're making you redundant", I'd shrug my shoulders - I KNOW I can get through it - I have a degree of mental toughness I never knew possible. Right in front of me as I type is a (somewhat inarticulate) quote from a guy called Ian Ruhter (look him up on Vimeo, his massive photos are just amazing) "The only limitations there are are the ones that I put on myself". I believe that totally. And I didn't survive cancer. I wasn't faced with my own mortality. I didn't go through the chemo or the surgery, the disfigurement, the hair loss, the nausia, the drugs etc I went through my own personal hell but I have no doubt it's a fraction of what my son, Charlie, went through.

But it has changed me profoundly. I search out things to continuously prove to myself that it has too. It's given me an empathy I didn't have. But it's also given me some contempt for trivia and a hardness I didn't have before - the world's become MORE black & white. I will take on any adversity and know I can withstand it.

I think it's all part of what LA refers to as "survivor syndrome" (in It's Not About The Bike) and what follows from that. I lost count of the number of times I had tears running down my face as I read that book, so accurate was it to our experiences, our thoughts, our worries. I suppose that's given me some empathy with LA. I had him sign my copy when we did the Dornoch Twitter ride.

I'm not going to defend what he did - it's indefensible - but I do have an understanding, I believe, of how cancer has in some small way influenced the way he's behaved. Hamilton's book has given me a better understanding of the mindset of a cycling cheat. There's clearly other parts to LA I don't understand (I can't really see how he can say Ferrari is a "Good man") and never will.

bigmat

gtvlusso wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Interesting to see Nicole Cooke's take on it this morning.

Where is this fella? Linky?

Was on BBC Breakfast at about 0745

F&cking Octonauts....who'd have kids eh!

Actually it was on against Chuggington. Bizarrely, my little boy happily watched Nicole but when I turned Chuggington on he complained! Wasn't long before Octonauts came on though.

Wallace1492

Well, that's part 1 watched. Seemed to answer the questions he was asked truthfully, as in we know what the answers were and he confirmed them. Didn't come over as being too remorseful, or in any way ashamed of his actions. In fact said that if he had not done comeback, there would have been no interview i.e. he would not have been caught.

He is right that it is probably too little, too late for the vast majority of people. Is he genuine when he said that he wished he had co-operated with the USADA investigation? We may never know.

He did not make any revelations other than what was known, but did look extremely uncomfortable throughout. Only question he avoided was whether Betsy Andreu was correct when she heard him admit to doctors that he had taken numerous performance enhancing drugs when he was having cancer treatment. Maybe because he was under oath when he completely denied that had happened.

Although extremely uncomfortable, he did seem cool, and well in control of what he was saying, not revealing more than was necessary, and probably being quite careful with his answers.

Did it enhance my opinion of Lance, well no, he seems in no way ashamed or really sorry of what he did, rather that he is more sorry he was caught. Maybe part 2 may be more contrite, but I doubt it.

bigmat

TailWindHome wrote:

Anyone believe the denial about the comeback years?

I don't believe anything he says, except the bits that confirm what the investigations have already proven.

CiB

Only watched up to the first ad break but the flasher that popped up in screen detailing USADA's opinion that his blood & urine levels in his biological passport for 2009/10 carried a "1 in a million" chance of being natural seemed to conflict with his assertion that he stopped doping in 2005 and was clean in both the 2009 and 2010 tours. Trouble is once someone admits to lying through his teeth and being a dirty untrustworthy steaming hypocrite it's difficult to credit any of his denials & claims as having any degree of truth in them.

Might be able to watch the rest in a while as the snow means it's a likely work from home for the rest of the day. That's what we're being told - think I'll wait till it's deep enough to be dangerous then go.

rjsterry

meanredspider wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

That's an interesting perspective MRS, but I think Lance is cool calm and collected because he is a bit of a sociopath, and its nothing whatsoever to do with cancer. That's simply a helpful lever for him just now.

rjsterry wrote:

Have to agree that you are being rather generous MRS. the admission that he couldn't remember whether he sued Emma O'Reilly - I think the line was "We sued so many people" - shows that he's barely even paused to reflect on what he's done.

My comment was aimed more at the "world has been torn down" statement. I shared this with my wife who agreed totally. I honestly believe I can deal with just about anything after what we've been through. If my boss came into my office now and said "We're making you redundant", I'd shrug my shoulders - I KNOW I can get through it - I have a degree of mental toughness I never knew possible. Right in front of me as I type is a (somewhat inarticulate) quote from a guy called Ian Ruhter (look him up on Vimeo, his massive photos are just amazing) "The only limitations there are are the ones that I put on myself". I believe that totally. And I didn't survive cancer. I wasn't faced with my own mortality. I didn't go through the chemo or the surgery, the disfigurement, the hair loss, the nausia, the drugs etc I went through my own personal hell but I have no doubt it's a fraction of what my son, Charlie, went through.

But it has changed me profoundly. I search out things to continuously prove to myself that it has too. It's given me an empathy I didn't have. But it's also given me some contempt for trivia and a hardness I didn't have before - the world's become MORE black & white. I will take on any adversity and know I can withstand it.

I think it's all part of what LA refers to as "survivor syndrome" (in It's Not About The Bike) and what follows from that. I lost count of the number of times I had tears running down my face as I read that book, so accurate was it to our experiences, our thoughts, our worries. I suppose that's given me some empathy with LA. I had him sign my copy when we did the Dornoch Twitter ride.

I'm not going to defend what he did - it's indefensible - but I do have an understanding, I believe, of how cancer has in some small way influenced the way he's behaved. Hamilton's book has given me a better understanding of the mindset of a cycling cheat. There's clearly other parts to LA I don't understand (I can't really see how he can say Ferrari is a "Good man") and never will.

I'm not for a moment discounting your own experience, but he specifically admitted to doping and pressuring people who didn't toe the line before he developed cancer. His experience of cancer might have reinforced preexisting character traits, but it seems he was like that from the start.

meanredspider

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not for a moment discounting your own experience, but he specifically admitted to doping and pressuring people who didn't toe the line before he developed cancer. His experience of cancer might have reinforced preexisting character traits, but it seems he was like that from the start.

For sure, cancer doesn't (mostly) explain the nasty bits. That wasn't my point. My point is that he can appear so calm under fire now will, in some way, be explained by surviving cancer. He knows how sh!t things can really be - this will be minor league in comparison.