Lance doping confession - I want an apology from him!

veronese68

meanredspider wrote:

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.

I completely agree that having cancer will change someone. However I firmly believe what you have gone through is worse. If you're ill there's not really a lot to do apart from staying positive and trying to get better. People used to tell me I was brave for going through it, no I wasnt. The choice is have chemo or die, there's nothing brave about it. But, as you say it's changed me. I don't think it's made me any more motivated, quite the reverse professionally. It made me realise what's important in life and where my priorities lie.

Sewinman

All rather disappointing. Re the comeback - perhaps he is worried that it was less than 5 years ago.

I agree with RJSterry regarding Lance's personality and cancer. The guy is a win at all costs type. If you read Hincapie's statements this was in place before cancer and he started taking drugs then too. Re being calm - its a huge relief for him, no doubt. I don't think being calm in such circumstances is a trait of cancer survivors only, so its a bit of a stretch to 'credit' his cancer experience for his TV performance, with all due respect.

I can't help but have a horrible grudging respect for him - the sort of bloke that wins wars.

greg66_tri_v2.0

BigMat wrote:

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 uncovered.

FTFY. [Pedant] Investigations don't prove anything. They gather and collate evidence. [/pedant]

Isn't the time-honoured rubric something like "I found Mr. X to be an unreliable and at times incredible witness. I treat all of his oral evidence with extreme caution, and unless it is corroborated by or consistent with independent third party evidence or documents, I reject it."

meanredspider

Veronese68 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

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.

I completely agree that having cancer will change someone. However I firmly believe what you have gone through is worse. If you're ill there's not really a lot to do apart from staying positive and trying to get better. People used to tell me I was brave for going through it, no I wasnt. The choice is have chemo or die, there's nothing brave about it. But, as you say it's changed me. I don't think it's made me any more motivated, quite the reverse professionally. It made me realise what's important in life and where my priorities lie.

We didn't really have any choice either. What age (if you don't mind me asking) were you when treated? I believe (which is why I've refered to it in what I've written) that getting cancer when you're young is, mentally at least, different. You have your whole life stretching out in front of you, you believe you're invincible, and then, suddenly that all changes. You're faced with your own mortality at an age when you have hardly thought about it. You are likely rendered sterile. Life suddenly looks very very different. Not to mention the pain, misery & suffering of the treatment (a year spent visiting a Teenage Cancer Trust ward taught me a huge amount about how these kids change) that almost none of your peers have experienced. Charlie is profoundly different: utter utter determination, single-minded and hard as nails - it's not difficult to see how, with a few character "flaws" mixed in, you could end up with something not unlike LA.

Cancer in later life is something we've somehow grown to expect. My dad's been diagnosed with cancer recently - it's just nothing like the life-change, world-inverting event that Charlie's cancer is/was. We're better equipped to deal with it. He's actually more at peace with himself. It's still horrendous (I've been unlucky enough to just be surrounded by cancer in the last 3 years) but somehow not the same.

I don't want to derail this with a debate about the effects of cancer in the young. What LA did was very very wrong.

veronese68

meanredspider wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

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.

I completely agree that having cancer will change someone. However I firmly believe what you have gone through is worse. If you're ill there's not really a lot to do apart from staying positive and trying to get better. People used to tell me I was brave for going through it, no I wasnt. The choice is have chemo or die, there's nothing brave about it. But, as you say it's changed me. I don't think it's made me any more motivated, quite the reverse professionally. It made me realise what's important in life and where my priorities lie.

We didn't really have any choice either. What age (if you don't mind me asking) were you when treated? I believe (which is why I've refered to it in what I've written) that getting cancer when you're young is, mentally at least, different. You have your whole life stretching out in front of you, you believe you're invincible, and then, suddenly that all changes. You're faced with your own mortality at an age when you have hardly thought about it. You are likely rendered sterile. Life suddenly looks very very different. Not to mention the pain, misery & suffering of the treatment (a year spent visiting a Teenage Cancer Trust ward taught me a huge amount about how these kids change) that almost none of your peers have experienced. Charlie is profoundly different: utter utter determination, single-minded and hard as nails - it's not difficult to see how, with a few character "flaws" mixed in, you could end up with something not unlike LA.

Cancer in later life is something we've somehow grown to expect. My dad's been diagnosed with cancer recently - it's just nothing like the life-change, world-inverting event that Charlie's cancer is/was. We're better equipped to deal with it. He's actually more at peace with himself. It's still horrendous (I've been unlucky enough to just be surrounded by cancer in the last 3 years) but somehow not the same.

I don't want to derail this with a debate about the effects of cancer in the young. What LA did was very very wrong.

I think we're saying the same thing regarding LA. He wasn't an angel before the cancer and that wasn't the trigger that set him on that road, but going through something like that gives you more strength of character.
I was 36 when I was diagnosed. I've been around kids in their late teens and people in their 80s whilst I was being treated. The older ones were generally very pragmatic and accepting of their plight. The younger ones were more upsetting for me. I just knew that I had to get through it and tried not to think of any other outcomes. difficult at times I grant you.Probably drifting too far off topic now, sorry.

tailwindhome

Suprised DDD hasn't posted yet.

tailwindhome

Do you feel like Lance owes you an apology?

I don’t even know how he could phrase it, if he does. “I’m sorry I was kind to you and your dying wife, then leveraged your gratitude and trust into a smokescreen for my cheating and lying.”

http://www.fatcyclist.com/

supersonic

It made me realise what's important in life and where my priorities lie.

Very much this. I was diagnosed with pheochromocytoma in 2003, which made me very ill. It changed me for the better though.

-spider-

Veronese68 wrote:

I completely agree that having cancer will change someone. However I firmly believe what you have gone through is worse. If you're ill there's not really a lot to do apart from staying positive and trying to get better. People used to tell me I was brave for going through it, no I wasnt. The choice is have chemo or die, there's nothing brave about it. But, as you say it's changed me. I don't think it's made me any more motivated, quite the reverse professionally. It made me realise what's important in life and where my priorities lie.

This ^^

My wife died just over a year ago after an eleven year battle with cancer. She wasn't ill for all of that time - she won some battles and lost others. But she was amazingly positive right up to the end. The biggest challenge she faced, she said, was telling our kids (10 and 13 at the time) that she only had weeks to live (while still looking great and after a brilliant active summer of music festivals, walking holidays, a great trip to Paris, etc) - she insisted she was the one to do that. She approached this not as a statement of fact, it was a lengthy conversation about life and what it really means. Through her long battle with cancer, like Veronese, she appreciated what is important in life - and was able to pass on much of her learning to our children. What astonishing strength.

Lance is a cancer survivor - I admire him for that and the way in which he fought back to health (I have read "It's Not About the Bike" too. That also took incredible inner strength.

Lance is also a cheat, a cheat in a sport that I love dearly. The lengths he went to, to maintain his lie went way beyond what is acceptable (if indeed anything is). The only thing he can do to come up in my estimation is to face up to his wrong doing, under oath, and let his formerly admiring public, know the full story - not reveal the (partial) story in some light weight chat on a prime time TV show.

rick_chasey

Lying is bad kids.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD

I couldn't watch it, couldn't bring my self to do so. I heard it on LBC, the bit where Oprah asks him a direct question and Lance simply answered "Yes". I was like "Lance, NOOOOOO!!!!!"

A tear filled eye as I listened to the truth I couldn't handle.

Sewinman

Its a shame that stuff like this is basically make believe...it got me into cycling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXPXHK7I1iQ

Wallace1492

Sewinman wrote:

Its a shame that stuff like this is basically make believe...it got me into cycling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXPXHK7I1iQ

They were all on "The Juice", so not make believe, level playing field and all that.
It was so widespread back then, that why is it a surprise. That sort of stuff got me into cycling, and the rise of Robert Millar 5 or 6 years before. Think there is no question he, and virtually all riders then were at it, but I don't feel particularly cheated about it, was still riveting TV and amazing achievements.

meanredspider

I'm a bit conflicted by this stuff. If they are all doping (which it's pretty safe to assume they were) there is some aspect of it being a "level playing field". I accept that some people responded better to the drugs than others and that they were all cheating. But a colleague of mine has a natural Hct level at 50 (or even above) - he's a pretty amazing athlete - these guys were getting there by non-natural ways.

rjsterry

I thought the level playing field/everyone was at it argument had been thoroughly debunked. Surprised that people are still parroting this stuff.

Many were doping, to different levels, and in different ways. That is not the same thing at all. What LA and others did has rendered most of the results of that period meaningless.

meanredspider

rjsterry wrote:

I thought the level playing field/everyone was at it argument had been thoroughly debunked. Surprised that people are still parroting this stuff.

Many were doping, to different levels, and in different ways. That is not the same thing at all. What LA and others did has rendered most of the results of that period meaningless.

Depends what you mean. It seems they all had access to pretty much the same stuff (EPO, Transfusions, testosterone, Growth Hormone etc) so, in that sense, it was "level". Seems most of them used it too. The only aspect I can see that was different was whether it worked for them or not. As the measure (for EPO & transfusions at least) was the Hct limit of 50, at least that aspect was "level" too (like running the same fuel in your car) - the key difference would then be how well the rest of your body used it (lungs, muscles etc)

Sewinman

Some people have naturally high blood levels though don't they - near 50 naturally. So they can't really do much EPO without going over that level, allowing everyone else to dope up to them. They may have got where they are through having naturally high blood values, and that advantage is removed. Then there is the when and why for of the different products, which would depend on the quality of doctor. Plus it was all done secretly...Lance may have had a superior doping schedule etc.

So many variables - it can't be described as 'level'.

bigmat

Not level. Has the debate not even moved beyond that basic fact yet? Depressing if not. Firstly, not everyone was cheating. So at the very least, those guys have been cheated by Lance and co. You may not have heard of the guys who tried to do it clean, which pretty much sums the whole thing up.

gtvlusso

DonDaddyD wrote:

I couldn't watch it, couldn't bring my self to do so. I heard it on LBC, the bit where Oprah asks him a direct question and Lance simply answered "Yes". I was like "Lance, NOOOOOO!!!!!"

A tear filled eye as I listened to the truth I couldn't handle.

You can't handle the truth!!!!!

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

I couldn't watch it, couldn't bring my self to do so. I heard it on LBC, the bit where Oprah asks him a direct question and Lance simply answered "Yes". I was like "Lance, NOOOOOO!!!!!"

A tear filled eye as I listened to the truth I couldn't handle.

Poor.

tailwindhome

Update: He stated he didn’t dope since 2005. We’ve seen him working with Ferrari after this date but run with this for a minute. Because if the ban is reduced from a lifetime to eight years then 2005 + 8 = 2013. Meaning if Armstrong can assist USADA in their prosecution and convince them he’s been clean since the 2005 then he can race this summer. Big ifs but maybe this sheds light on his agenda?

http://inrng.com/2013/01/questions-afte ... more-12616

iPete

daviesee

TailWindHome wrote:

Update: He stated he didn’t dope since 2005. We’ve seen him working with Ferrari after this date but run with this for a minute. Because if the ban is reduced from a lifetime to eight years then 2005 + 8 = 2013. Meaning if Armstrong can assist USADA in their prosecution and convince them he’s been clean since the 2005 then he can race this summer. Big ifs but maybe this sheds light on his agenda?

http://inrng.com/2013/01/questions-afte ... more-12616

Also, the statute of limitations in the U.S. is 8 years so while it may still be possible to prosecute for perjury, it will be difficult. At least that's what they were saying on the radio this afternoon.
Convenient coincidence? I doubt it.

EKE_38BPM

I've now watched the first interview and Lance looks very slimy. Even Mrs EKE, who knows nothing about Pro cycling and cares even less, watched about thirty seconds of it and decided that you can't believe or trust a word he says.

iPete wrote:

I don't understand this. Is there any controversy over Neil (other than the Moon landing deniers) or is it just that they share a surname?

SteppenHerring

meanredspider wrote:

I'm a bit conflicted by this stuff. If they are all doping (which it's pretty safe to assume they were) there is some aspect of it being a "level playing field". I accept that some people responded better to the drugs than others and that they were all cheating. But a colleague of mine has a natural Hct level at 50 (or even above) - he's a pretty amazing athlete - these guys were getting there by non-natural ways.

No. Not level (as others have said). Sure, EPO etc. was available to everyone but without being able to afford the right doctors to design the program and monitor it, then it could be ineffective or it could be fatal - as many riders found out (or didn't because they were dead).

Kieran_Burns

rolf_f

What's disgusting about Armstrong is not that he doped but how he went about it. The example of Emma O'Reilly is a case in point. If you are going to dope for your own personal wealth and glory, at least have the decency to do it in carefully and in private so you don't suck those who work for you (for a salary, and not a percentage) into your lies. Accusing someone of being an alcoholic and a prostitute and suing them when they are just telling the truth is not really pardonable.

And still he doesn't get it. After an entire career built on doped success, he still thinks all it will take is a quick, half arsed apology and he should be allowed to compete again. He's learned nothing at all.

Incidentally, he'll have started well before the cancer - in the very pro Armstrong "Lance Armstrong - the worlds greatest champion" by John Wilcockson, it seems pretty obvious that 1994-95 was the turn over point.

meanredspider

SteppenHerring wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'm a bit conflicted by this stuff. If they are all doping (which it's pretty safe to assume they were) there is some aspect of it being a "level playing field". I accept that some people responded better to the drugs than others and that they were all cheating. But a colleague of mine has a natural Hct level at 50 (or even above) - he's a pretty amazing athlete - these guys were getting there by non-natural ways.

No. Not level (as others have said). Sure, EPO etc. was available to everyone but without being able to afford the right doctors to design the program and monitor it, then it could be ineffective or it could be fatal - as many riders found out (or didn't because they were dead).

I only half accept this argument. Only half, because it's true of absolutely every aspect of competitive sport - I can't think of a sport where having more and better resources available to you isn't an advantage. And, let's not forget, it's not as if LA started from a privileged background - far from it. He needed to succeed first.

I do think that this whole saga is laced with a huge amount of hypocrisy and envy: cheats and liars that didn't cheat and lie quite as well. Again, I'm not trying to defend LA, I'm just not feeling particularly sorry for most of the other people caught up in this. The Sunday Times for instance - let's just remember who owns that paper and what other papers in the Murdoch group have done. Tyler Hamilton (as an example of a fellow rider) cheated, got caught, denied it, fought to discredit the tests, then finally came clean - he deserves our sympathy why? I feel a little, I guess, for Emma O'Reilly - though I know very little about the circumstances. It just seems that cycling was corrupt and knew it was corrupt and she must have displayed some naivety not to have realised that being so close to the athletes.

And, @Rolf F - I didn't see LA as expecting to be able to compete again after his O.W.N admission. He may believe that's the beginning of the path - and maybe he's right. I do believe some sort of Truth Commission is needed, though, because so much of the "sport" was implicated by all of this. My own opinion is that it's probably fairer to assume that everybody knew what was going on, so widespread does it seem to have been.

Hoopdriver

meanredspider wrote:

SteppenHerring wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'm a bit conflicted by this stuff. If they are all doping (which it's pretty safe to assume they were) there is some aspect of it being a "level playing field". I accept that some people responded better to the drugs than others and that they were all cheating. But a colleague of mine has a natural Hct level at 50 (or even above) - he's a pretty amazing athlete - these guys were getting there by non-natural ways.

No. Not level (as others have said). Sure, EPO etc. was available to everyone but without being able to afford the right doctors to design the program and monitor it, then it could be ineffective or it could be fatal - as many riders found out (or didn't because they were dead).

I only half accept this argument. Only half, because it's true of absolutely every aspect of competitive sport - I can't think of a sport where having more and better resources available to you isn't an advantage. And, let's not forget, it's not as if LA started from a privileged background - far from it. He needed to succeed first.

I do think that this whole saga is laced with a huge amount of hypocrisy and envy: cheats and liars that didn't cheat and lie quite as well. Again, I'm not trying to defend LA, I'm just not feeling particularly sorry for most of the other people caught up in this. The Sunday Times for instance - let's just remember who owns that paper and what other papers in the Murdoch group have done. Tyler Hamilton (as an example of a fellow rider) cheated, got caught, denied it, fought to discredit the tests, then finally came clean - he deserves our sympathy why? I feel a little, I guess, for Emma O'Reilly - though I know very little about the circumstances. It just seems that cycling was corrupt and knew it was corrupt and she must have displayed some naivety not to have realised that being so close to the athletes.

And, @Rolf F - I didn't see LA as expecting to be able to compete again after his O.W.N admission. He may believe that's the beginning of the path - and maybe he's right. I do believe some sort of Truth Commission is needed, though, because so much of the "sport" was implicated by all of this. My own opinion is that it's probably fairer to assume that everybody knew what was going on, so widespread does it seem to have been.

Very well put.