Doprah - SPOILERS

TheBigBean

Am I only one who is interested in whether he doped to win the worlds?

Otherwise, he pretty much says that he is sorry for getting caught not sorry for doping. Seems true.

ddraver

By the way - It's not the best quality (slows down a bit), but if you go on YouTube, the NewsPoliticsNow clips are covering a lot of the big points...

You have to click through them and they re not in order, but...

Teddy Westside

You know, of all the things he said in part one, the one I'm most inclined to believe in the context it was used is that it was impossible to win le Tour without doping. If "everyone" was doing it, then even a sensational athlete could struggle to win against that.

And here's the thing which has bothered me for years...

Whilst there can be no doubt it's the riders' faults if they dope (even if it's a choice of that or find something other than cycling to make money from) are the top cycle races simply too tough? If so, is it not the race organisers and UCI who have to shoulder part of the blame for the drug culture in the sport? Now, if we can all accept Brad Wiggins as a clean champion (for the sake of argument, even if some don't want to believe that), then it is of course possible to win clean, but are the Grand Tours in particular actually too much of a challenge for the human body?

I don't want to see a Tour, Giro or Vuelta where every rider makes the finish any more than I suspect most fans would but I can't help wondering if the difficulty in finishing a 3 week race (in addition to racing a full season) has actually bred the cheating drugs culture. Maybe I'm wrong and it's not such a huge challenge for a well-trained athlete, and that it was simply a case of a few bad eggs trying to get a step up on the rest of the filed which started the drive for artificial ways to win, but I'll probably always wonder if it was chicken or egg which came first.

None of the above points excuse cheating though, just to be clear.

powerbookboy

ddraver wrote:

By the way - It's not the best quality (slows down a bit), but if you go on YouTube, the NewsPoliticsNow clips are covering a lot of the big points...

You have to click through them and they re not in order, but...

There's a torrent on thepiratebay that came down in about 20mins.

He seemed a bit deflated, pretty honest, but didn't answer a lot of the big questions convincingly. Shut down discussion about Ferrari, the 2001 EPO positive, the donation to the UCI. Found it laughable when he tried to claim he was clean in 2009.

Not enough contrition I'm sure for many people. I'd have liked him to just let rip, say what he actually thinks - would have been so much more fun.

Let's petition for a Cooke vs Armstrong head to head interview. My money's on the lass. She looks like a puncher; he looked like a hair-puller in this interview.

ddraver

^^ I don't think that's the case. GT cycling is a sport which is based on 3 factors, Recovery, Power to Weight and the amount of oxygen you can get to the muscles. That makes drugs overwhelmingly effective compared to other sports.

If there is one rider doping he will beat every other rider who may be naturally better than him just because those 3 factors are better.

We don't like to admit it to ourselves but if we re honest, Skill, tactical nouse, cunning, race craft, panache or whathaveyou have nothing to do with winning a GT. The longer the GT, the more that is the case

^I can never find stuff on piratebay, but it ll be on that Dutch Torrent site soon enough if that's the case

buckmulligan

I don't buy that at all.

These guys are racing against each other, not the clock; if everyone's riding clean then someone has to win. In effect, you're bringing in to question the integrity of every finisher of a grand tour! They're not 'too much of a challenge for the human body', I dare say you could any reasonably serious amateur cyclist off the street, give him a decent training regime and he'll be able to make it round the route of the tour if you give him 12 hours a day. Clearly the difference is the pace that the race is ridden at and that is a result of the whole peloton and whether they're clean or not.

And as with most sports, the riders who are in contention for a GT win will be training to peak in those weeks, they won't be riding a full roster of events beforehand.

Jez mon

Fair enough to Lance, he admitted he was a bully and that he doped to win the tour. He also takes responsibility for his doping.

Not sure I believe him about doping on his comeback.

ocdupalais

Jez mon wrote:

Fair enough to Lance, he admitted he was a bully and that he doped to win the tour. He also takes responsibility for his doping.

Not sure I believe him about doping on his comeback.

With so many other questions remaining unanswered (unless there's a deluge of them in the 2nd half of interview), how much more of what he says, as he squirms his way to redemption, are you going to believe if more solid evidence that he doped post '05 emerges?

After all those years of lying and denial, then essentially "radio silence", this was his chance to come totally clean - not partially.

He's become the very person he claimed Landis to be.

Teddy Westside

BuckMulligan wrote:

In effect, you're bringing in to question the integrity of every finisher of a grand tour!

Absolutely not my intention.

They're not 'too much of a challenge for the human body', I dare say you could any reasonably serious amateur cyclist off the street, give him a decent training regime and he'll be able to make it round the route of the tour if you give him 12 hours a day. Clearly the difference is the pace that the race is ridden

To clarify, the section of your comment I have emboldened is part of the point I was making and I should have added that. In other words, "too much of a challenge for the human body to achieve in the time-scale we expect of them. I dare-say I could complete the Tour de France route if you gave me enough weeks ( and the odd sneaky long water bottle handover up a mountainside!) to do it. but I think I'd need more than a couple of rest days!

Richmond Racer

OCDuPalais wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Fair enough to Lance, he admitted he was a bully and that he doped to win the tour. He also takes responsibility for his doping.

Not sure I believe him about doping on his comeback.

With so many other questions remaining unanswered (unless there's a deluge of them in the 2nd half of interview), how much more of what he says, as he squirms his way to redemption, are you going to believe if more solid evidence that he doped post '05 emerges?

After all those years of lying and denial, then essentially "radio silence", this was his chance to come totally clean - not partially.

He's become the very person he claimed Landis to be.

As well as what he didnt say, there were enough porkies in that interview for him to beat Pinocchio in the Great Nose Growing Championships

thomthom

Betsy really upset:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTrkBRwT5Uc

ddraver

I hope someone gave her a hug after that....

andyp

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Alan A wrote:

Nicky Campbell ripping into Tony Doyle on 5Live by replaying Doyle's staunch defence of Armstrong from an interview in August. Gotta feel sorry for people like Doyle today.

Im quite sure Nicky Campbell has never been wrong about anything. What a bell

Campbell is a bell. But so is Tony Doyle, possibly even a larger one than Campbell (if that is possible).

EKIMIKE

You can usually find the stuff that Youtube quickly purges still hanging around on Dailymotion (No-one gets the French by the balls )... Full interview:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xwuu2x ... Pk3oCeEyUI

ddraver

Excellent! Afternoon work radio sorted!

thomthom

"Monsieur Lance! Sank you!"

EKIMIKE

Hmm he gets the caveats in quick doesn't he. Within 10 minutes:

- Everyone else had access to everything i did (Bullshit.)
- It wasn't as "big" as the East German doping programme (Obviously, that's not what USADA/Tygart said, they said sophisticated i.e. implying an unprecedented level of deception, influence and planning.)
- I never made anyone do it (Again, bullshit.)

Very clever with his use of words - obviously been heavily advised by his legal team. All the statements above can be technically correct if you rely on a strict semantic interpretation. However, the complex reality would suggest otherwise. Standard (and effective) tactics in matters of law and interpretation.

cornerblock

I haven't watched it yet, is there any sign that he could have been wearing an earpiece, with legal advice or answers being fed to him? I would not put it past him.

RichN95.

EKIMIKE wrote:

- It wasn't as "big" as the East German doping programme (Obviously, that's not what USADA/Tygart said, they said sophisticated i.e. implying an unprecedented level of deception, influence and planning.)

The East Germans were a completely different level of doping. If you don't believe me just google 'Heidi Krieger'

EKIMIKE

I know, i'm well aware of the East Germans. The two just simply don't compare. There is no reason to for Armstrong to mention it. But he does because the comparison falls favourably for him.

mididoctors

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Maybe it was true and he was the only one who's testimony didn't reflect reality?

Also, is it a massive stretch that his 2010 tour was clean? If he doped for that level of performance, I hope he kept the receipt.

@Ben

The police don't send anyone to prison.

old is old doped or not

you can't say one way or the other... I guess he was why wouldn't he?

EKIMIKE

She actually pins him on the "I never forced anyone to dope" thing. Correctly identifying his selective word use. (18/19 minutes in). He reluctantly "accepts" it. Qualifying it by saying he never "directly" forced anyone.

He's the perfect client for a lawyer. Absolutely polished. He doesn't need an ear-piece. He is so confident and sure of himself - no doubt due to being all consumed by self-obsession and self-interest. He's the ultimate individualist. An extremist practitioner of Western liberal ideologies of the individual. Wouldn't surprise me if he knew a lot about Ayn Rand's philosophies. He's practically a caricature. People have mentioned it on here; he's a sociopath.

dsoutar

EKIMIKE wrote:

I know, i'm well aware of the East Germans. The two just simply don't compare. There is no reason to for Armstrong to mention it. But he does because the comparison falls favourably for him.

It's like saying Fred West wasn't as bad as Pol Pot

calvjones

So frustrating the BBC item mentions the 'I doped cos of cancer' quote but not Oprah's put down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21070952

From this piece you surmise Armstrong was a bit of a bully, but hey they were all the same.

k-dog

EKIMIKE wrote:

Hmm he gets the caveats in quick doesn't he. Within 10 minutes:

- Everyone else had access to everything i did (Bullshit.)
- It wasn't as "big" as the East German doping programme (Obviously, that's not what USADA/Tygart said, they said sophisticated i.e. implying an unprecedented level of deception, influence and planning.)
- I never made anyone do it (Again, bullshit.)

Very clever with his use of words - obviously been heavily advised by his legal team. All the statements above can be technically correct if you rely on a strict semantic interpretation. However, the complex reality would suggest otherwise. Standard (and effective) tactics in matters of law and interpretation.

I'm not sure. I can see his point on these - EPO and testosterone and cortisone aren't especially exotic things - it appears that most riders could have had access if they wanted.

I think that's why he hesitated around sophisticated. It was a whole other level of sneakiness but the doping itself wasn't hi-tech stuff.

wallace_and_gromit

EKIMIKE wrote:

- It wasn't as "big" as the East German doping programme (Obviously, that's not what USADA/Tygart said, they said sophisticated i.e. implying an unprecedented level of deception, influence and planning.)

Travis also said successful. (He described the USPS operation as the most professional, sophisticated and successful doping operation.)

It's very hard to argue that the USPS results during Lance's TDF years can compare favourably with 2 decades of Olympic, World and European gold medals for the East German ladies in swimming, rowing and speed-skating. They were none too shabby at athletics either.

I think it's a minor point in terms of doping, as the USPS operation was a decidely non-trivial affair; it doesn't need to be the "most" of anything to make the required case against Lance. It's more important in terms of why USADA made the claim when it's at best subjective and at worst manifestly false.

Coriander

RichN95 wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

- It wasn't as "big" as the East German doping programme (Obviously, that's not what USADA/Tygart said, they said sophisticated i.e. implying an unprecedented level of deception, influence and planning.)

The East Germans were a completely different level of doping. If you don't believe me just google 'Heidi Krieger'

Dear God!

EKIMIKE

Maybe you have a point on the access to drugs thing. But ultimately how do we know? I would suspect that initially that was the case - he had as much access as the next man. However his rapid accumulation of wealth thereafter surely raises questions around 'staying ahead of the game' so to speak. Especially when the ability to test for EPO was introduced. He would have been foolish not to use money, contacts and influence to get an advantage. As i understand it, EPO is some kind of generic drug. CERA shows us that much.

As for the "most [...] successful doping operation" we have a massive problem with defining the word successful. Is it sporting success; success in avoiding detection; success in making money through endorsements? In many ways the USPS operation was more successful than the East Germany operation. For example the East Germans were caught out by simple tests. It was relatively easily exposed. The only shock was the scale and the oddity that the athletes were unaware. USPS successfully flouted the testing regime, even when resources we poured into developing new and better testing. This is why he persisted with the 'never tested positive' line. To an extent it was true - at the time he never tested positive. It was an unprecedented success.

In any case this is the prime reason for Armstrong framing the comparison of USPS and East Germany - it detracts from his wrongdoing. There is no merit in comparing the two. Unless of course you're wanting to diminish subjective gravity of the case against Armstrong. East Germany's doping programme is factually immaterial.

disgruntledgoat

Coriander wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

- It wasn't as "big" as the East German doping programme (Obviously, that's not what USADA/Tygart said, they said sophisticated i.e. implying an unprecedented level of deception, influence and planning.)

The East Germans were a completely different level of doping. If you don't believe me just google 'Heidi Krieger'

Dear God!

I read that as a dig at Ullrich, as in "I would have won anyway"

Coriander

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Coriander wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

- It wasn't as "big" as the East German doping programme (Obviously, that's not what USADA/Tygart said, they said sophisticated i.e. implying an unprecedented level of deception, influence and planning.)

The East Germans were a completely different level of doping. If you don't believe me just google 'Heidi Krieger'

Dear God!

I read that as a dig at Ullrich, as in "I would have won anyway"

Sorry DG, is that a response to me? No, I was just stunned at what happened to Heidi Krieger.