Doprah - SPOILERS

disgruntledgoat

Coriander wrote:

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.

Not aimed at you no, it was in response to LA's comparison of USPS with East Germany.

wallace_and_gromit

EKIMIKE wrote:

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.

An excellent post, even if I don't agree withyour ultimate conslusion.

Re the first bold bit, I'd think sporting success has to be a major component of the assessment of the successfulness of a doping programme. People dope to win at sport. Winning then provides the means to pursue other agendas. For Lance, it was to get rich. For the East Germans, it was the ability to prove the success of their political system. If Lance had been the son of an Arab oil sheikh (or someone else filthy rich) who'd funded the same doping programme but he'd not won, we wouldn't be talking about Lance. In fact, we'd barely have heard of him. It was success on a bike via doping that created Lance as he is. Winning is the key measur of success re doping.

Re the second bold bit, the problem actually is Travis making the comparison in the first place. It serves no real purpose and cannot be proved either way. As we demonstrate, it's not easy to agree on what successful actually is!

EKIMIKE

Yes but if you read the report and the statement Tygart never makes a direct comparison with East Germany. He makes this statement:

USADA Statement wrote:

The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.

It's an ambiguous claim that lends itself to comparison. I'd suggest it was an unwise claim to make. However you can even make the case for it being true in respect of sporting success. The only goal for Armstrong was the Tour De France. In every attempt between 1999 and 2005 he was successful. A 100% success rate. 2009/10 is the obvious blemish but things had moved along considerably with dope testing and we can't be sure he doped at that time (although i'm inclined to believe he did). Anyway there isn't much merit in making this point.

Again, i'm simply trying to emphasise how trivial it is to compare the two. We could sit here all day making the case for either USPS or East Germany being worse. The problem with adjectives it that they entail a subjective element, influenced by context, which allows you to manipulate their definition. Define sophisticated, define professionalized (sic), define successful, what about biggest, what about immoral, what about profitable e.t.c.

It's a complete distraction from the point. A tactical masterstroke from Armstrong and his lawyers.

wallace_and_gromit

EKIMIKE wrote:

Yes but if you read the report and the statement Tygart never makes a direct comparison with East Germany.

Indeed he didn't but he did compare USPS to "the history of sport" with absolutely no caveats or exclusions. Therefore, by implication, nothing, nowhere and nobody is excluded. East Germany then automatically pops to the top of any list of doping programmes!

It was a daft comment to make in my view. Interesting that the report itself doesn't make the claim. It is much more measured and doesn't make any absolute comparison. The statement came only in press releases and on the USADA website and my reluctant conclusion is that Travis/USADA were indulging in a little politcal grandstanding. Lance was already dead with the report. They didn't need to try and kill him again!

Mayhemwmb

Watched part one and also reading "The secret Race",

The two taken together certainly suggest that the whole top end of the peleton for this period of cycling were doping. (most were caught anyway or retired whilst ahead of the game)
Where Lance went wrong was the fact that he was so adversarial in the way he conducted himself. This annoyed so many people - over time the momentum has built and his bubble has burst. Of course he's going to try and limit the damage to himself, clearly he knows loads more but he'll not spill the beans at the minute for fear of litigation etc.
I do think the UCI WADA and others are not completely blameless.....

But lets be clear - to perform at the top end of any sport there has to be a ruthless driven individual at the core - being nice etc simply doesn't work - it's a race and generally the winner takes all, if the topend are doping then to simply compete you have to make the choice - most did

Do I care - not really, however I do find the whole affair very interesting.

Moomaloid

Has anyone found a link to a stream or download yet? Gagging to see the show

EKIMIKE

Mayhemwmb wrote:

But lets be clear - to perform at the top end of any sport there has to be a ruthless driven individual at the core - being nice etc simply doesn't work - it's a race and generally the winner takes all...

This is the Western style liberal, ultra-individualist caricature. A complete myth, but a widely subscribed to one in our culture nevertheless. You don't have to be a cvnt to be successful.

It's a shame this myth gets perpetuated because you end up with people like Lance Armstrong who become the caricature. All his caveats, qualifications and justifications in the interview were punctuated by the clichéd language of (what i suppose could be called) the cvnt myth: 'i was on the attack', 'win-at-all-costs', 'i did what i had to'. It defies logic, rationality and any sort of basic personal integrity.

deejay

Moomaloid wrote:

Has anyone found a link to a stream or download yet? Gagging to see the show

You are, well shame on you.
As far as I've seen (I turn it off or get out the room) It's a Lying Scumbag saying yes to her "Yes/No questions.
I'm just not interested in what a known Liar has to say.

Richmond Racer

Moomaloid wrote:

Has anyone found a link to a stream or download yet? Gagging to see the show

Here you go

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

EKIMIKE

I put a link to the full interview on the previous page. Frenchfighter put one on the other LA thread.

mididoctors

good thing he came clean early so as not put everyone thru a big drama

RichN95.

Richmond Racer wrote:

Moomaloid wrote:

Has anyone found a link to a stream or download yet? Gagging to see the show

Here you go

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

If you don't want to sit through the whole thing, here's the highlights in 4 minutes: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ktlincoln/watch ... prah-in-fo

Jez mon

EKIMIKE wrote:

Mayhemwmb wrote:

But lets be clear - to perform at the top end of any sport there has to be a ruthless driven individual at the core - being nice etc simply doesn't work - it's a race and generally the winner takes all...

This is the Western style liberal, ultra-individualist caricature. A complete myth, but a widely subscribed to one in our culture nevertheless. You don't have to be a cvnt to be successful.

It's a shame this myth gets perpetuated because you end up with people like Lance Armstrong who become the caricature. All his caveats, qualifications and justifications in the interview were punctuated by the clichéd language of (what i suppose could be called) the cvnt myth: 'i was on the attack', 'win-at-all-costs', 'i did what i had to'. It defies logic, rationality and any sort of basic personal integrity.

Now that's loser talk if I ever heard it

Ultimately the more negative aspects of Lance's personality do seem to have served him well at times during his career.

RichN95.

In tonight's episode Armstrong will talk about his charity, his family and his future. Here is a sneak preview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeCOfNWjJUs

ratsbeyfus

Most interesting bit for me was the BS about not doping during comeback. Innrng has theory that LA is hoping that an 8 year reduced ban might get backdated to 2005 (i.e. last time he admits to doping) so that he can compete this year. I'm not convinced that's the reason, but LA throwing obvious lies into the mix on Oprah was a really stupid thing to do. When any half-witted cycling journalist (e.g. 2x a 'Paul Kimmage') digs into his comeback and shows that he did dope in 2009, he's gonna look like an even bigger pathological liar in the eyes of the US public. Doh!

prawny

Watching it now. What a dick.

I've heard more than once today though that 'he beat all the other dopers so it doesn't really matter' tosh, I give up. The problem is that people don't understand or care about cycling.

secretsqirrel

mididoctors wrote:

good thing he came clean early so as not put everyone thru a big drama

thomthom

RichN95 wrote:

In tonight's episode Armstrong will talk about his charity, his family and his future. Here is a sneak preview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeCOfNWjJUs

No reason to watch that then.

rob churchill

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Most interesting bit for me was the BS about not doping during comeback. Innrng has theory that LA is hoping that an 8 year reduced ban might get backdated to 2005 (i.e. last time he admits to doping) so that he can compete this year. I'm not convinced that's the reason, but LA throwing obvious lies into the mix on Oprah was a really stupid thing to do. When any half-witted cycling journalist (e.g. 2x a 'Paul Kimmage') digs into his comeback and shows that he did dope in 2009, he's gonna look like an even bigger pathological liar in the eyes of the US public. Doh!

Was he competing in triathlons between his retirement and his comeback? If so, another motive might be that he thinks admitting to doping in triathlon would reduce his chances of ever being allowed to compete in another one (and admitting to doping in 2005 and 2009 would be tantamount to admitting doping in between.)

Surely not even a character as narcissistic as LA could seriously imagine he'd be allowed a ban backdated so far that he gets to compete again this year?

startern

Very, very strange, U-turn.

Richmond Racer

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Most interesting bit for me was the BS about not doping during comeback. Innrng has theory that LA is hoping that an 8 year reduced ban might get backdated to 2005 (i.e. last time he admits to doping) so that he can compete this year. I'm not convinced that's the reason, but LA throwing obvious lies into the mix on Oprah was a really stupid thing to do. When any half-witted cycling journalist (e.g. 2x a 'Paul Kimmage') digs into his comeback and shows that he did dope in 2009, he's gonna look like an even bigger pathological liar in the eyes of the US public. Doh!

Kimmage is NOT an investigative journalist. Its very much Walsh who is.

USADA have the opinion of Ashenden that Lance's blood levels in 09 were tampered with. However, its only an opinion - which is nothing like as legally robust as actual evidence (e.g. witness statements). This could be USADA's weakest area and part of the bargaining chips when they and Lance sit down again to seriously work out what he's going to get if he names enough names.

ratsbeyfus

I was actually making a very weak dig at Kimmage's skills as a journalist. He strikes me as a bit of a tool.

Richmond Racer

ratsbeyfus wrote:

I was actually making a very weak dig at Kimmage's skills as a journalist. He strikes me as a bit of a tool.

Ah...a rodent after my own heart

Richmond Racer

Tonight's going to be teary night innit

Yellow Peril

I think the game has moved on beyond Kimmage's skill set. Rough ride was an important book of its time when no-one was speaking out within the peleton. Now it is about evaluating a very complex web of implication and he's not demonstrating an ability to do that

RichN95.

Yellow Peril wrote:

I think the game has moved on beyond Kimmage's skill set. Rough ride was an important book of its time when no-one was speaking out within the peloton. Now it is about evaluating a very complex web of implication and he's not demonstrating an ability to do that

Kimmage is like Blockbuster and HMV. The world has moved on and he's still stuck in 2005 doing the same old thing.

Cumulonimbus

Did he say when he started doping after recovering from cancer? He made a first comeback where he did ok but then gave up in Paris-Nice. He then didnt do much for a bit before disappearing off into the mountains with Carmichael where he magically improved. I have wondered before if he did try to come back clean but then decided he didnt want to just be another cyclist in the peloton and decided to start doping again.

Richmond Racer

RichN95 wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

I think the game has moved on beyond Kimmage's skill set. Rough ride was an important book of its time when no-one was speaking out within the peloton. Now it is about evaluating a very complex web of implication and he's not demonstrating an ability to do that

Kimmage is like Blockbuster and HMV. The world has moved on and he's still stuck in 2005 doing the same old thing.

Some people have still got the HMV gift token and think if they hang around long enough he's going to redeem it for them

Jez mon

Cumulonimbus wrote:

Did he say when he started doping after recovering from cancer? He made a first comeback where he did ok but then gave up in Paris-Nice. He then didnt do much for a bit before disappearing off into the mountains with Carmichael where he magically improved. I have wondered before if he did try to come back clean but then decided he didnt want to just be another cyclist in the peloton and decided to start doping again.

Nope, but he said (to paraphrase) after cancer, he gave everything 100%, including his doping regime.

Eddie72

I thought Oprah's questioning was better than I was expecting. OK, you were never going to get a Paxman-like performance, but for someone who presumably knew nothing about cycling a couple of weeks ago she'd obviously done her homework and and asked most of the questions I wanted to see.

I particularly liked the approach of getting him to sit there and watch the video of himself giving that speech on the podium in 2005 and also the footage of him lying at the SCA hearings - brought back the reality of what he's done.

I was a bit disappointed with the discussion on the 2001 Tour de Suisse test. After Lance said there was no cover-up I at least wanted to hear what Lance's version was, is he admitting there was an anomalous result or not?