A Very Bad Morning For Lance

[Daisy]

Strong words here:

Don't believe a word he says, because not a word he says can be believed. When he looks at Winfrey with the doleful eyes of contrived contrition (carefully coached, because this is the biggest role of his life) and says I did it (he will apparently admit to limited blood doping), know that he did ten times more. When he says he didn’t do it, which I imagine he will do when it comes to threatening other teammates, know that Armstrong is just continuing his lies.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... oping.html

[jazzcyclist]

Considering the potential legal jeopardy that he could be facing, it's hard to imagine that Armstrong will answer the question with complete candor.

[Pego]

I anticipate something along the line of "I doped as much as all of my accusing competitors did. The playing field was even, I was the best."

[eldanielfire]

But then Oprah isn't about getting to the truth, it's about rich and famous people painting an image and ensuring you have a career after a scandal.

I completely disagree with you on this. I thought Oprah did a good job and it was pretty obvious that she didn't believe her. What else did you expect her to do, waterboard Marion?

She didn't probe one bit of her story. Not a single "But so and so said......are they lying?". The courts have vsaid...........happened. It was Oprah didn't believe her really but she didn't do anything at all but let/encourage Marion to continue with her lies. However I wouldn't have been surprised if their wasn't prior contracts to not ask certain questions, that's pretty standard in many interviews, especially one that would attract interest, ratings and money. Also Marion Jones is a pathlogical liar, she's the sort who convinces herself it's unfair that people don't believe her so it's unikel anbody would get to the bottom in a interview.

[jazzcyclist]

She didn't probe one bit of her story. Not a single "But so and so said......are they lying?". The courts have vsaid...........happened. It was Oprah didn't believe her really but she didn't do anything at all but let/encourage Marion to continue with her lies. However I wouldn't have been surprised if their wasn't prior contracts to not ask certain questions, that's pretty standard in many interviews, especially one that would attract interest, ratings and money. Also Marion Jones is a pathlogical liar, she's the sort who convinces herself it's unfair that people don't believe her so it's unikel anbody would get to the bottom in a interview.

Was Oprah as thorough as Bob Costas would have been which is what I would have liked? No. Would Marion have admitted being a willing doper if Oprah had been more thorough? Not likely. Was is obvious to any reasonably intelligent person that Marion was lying and that Oprah didn't believe her? Yes. The bottom line is that Oprah exposed Marion for all the world to see, though it may not have been to your liking.

Also check out the job the Piers Morgan did on Marion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZw_e_a9jTw]

[jazzcyclist]

I anticipate something along the line of "I doped as much as all of my accusing competitors did. The playing field was even, I was the best."

If it's true that he got the UCI to coverup a failed drug test, it can be argued that the playing field wasn't level, unless he says that so-and-so got the UCI to cover up for him too.

[26mi235]

I anticipate something along the line of "I doped as much as all of my accusing competitors did. The playing field was even, I was the best."

If it's true that he got the UCI to coverup a failed drug test, it can be argued that the playing field wasn't level, unless he says that so-and-so got the UCI to cover up for him too.

I am a little hazy here on what the reference is to a 'failed test'. There is one case where the expert has repeatedly said that the results were (in my words) consistent but inconclusive but that the USADA has run with it as a positive test despite repeated clarifications by the expert that it was not a 'positive' test result. Not sure if this was the Swiss test (Tour of Switzerland) as I am a bit hazy since there are many details and many allegations. I am pretty sure that, given the circumstances as I understand them in this one case, no court of law in the US would take the evidence in this instance and call it a failed test.

[guru]

Considering the potential legal jeopardy that he could be facing...

He's working on it...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cy ... g/1831665/

All I can say is, good luck with THAT lol

[Marlow]

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/50460308/ ... s-cycling/

. . . duh

[guru]

Things about to get real for Armstrong

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cy ... t/1834841/

[jazzcyclist]

Things about to get real for Armstrong

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cy ... t/1834841/

This is why I thought it was ridiculous when much of the sanctimonious, hypocritical sports media slammed Mark McGuire for pleading the fifth when he got called before Congress.

[Brian]

A nice piece today:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/questions- ... tsrc=yahoo

.

[guru]

Terrific insider stuff on how the Armstrong/Tygart meeting came to pass, and what went down. Tygart had to be loving every minute of it.

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 ... reno64-wsj

[jazzcyclist]

I think that Tygart is engaging in hyperbole when he accuses US Postal of running the most sophisticated doping program in the history of cycling, because I don't think they had anything on Festina and Telekom back in their heyday.

[Brian]

Terrific insider stuff on how the Armstrong/Tygart meeting came to pass, and what went down. Tygart had to be loving every minute of it.

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 ... reno64-wsj

Good one; thanks for posting it.

Sort of takes some of the "spec" out of the speculation.
:]

[26mi235]

I think that Tygart is engaging in hyperbole when he accuses US Postal of running the most sophisticated doping program in the history of cycling, because I don't think they had anything on Festina and Telekom back in their heyday.

It is likely that the Postal system WAS more sophisticated; the Festina and Telekom systems were simpler because there was less testing to avoid. I also think that part of the sophistication was how to set up the levels so that they did not get detected given the testing regime. This led to more frequent and more constrained doping.

[jazzcyclist]

I think that Tygart is engaging in hyperbole when he accuses US Postal of running the most sophisticated doping program in the history of cycling, because I don't think they had anything on Festina and Telekom back in their heyday.

It is likely that the Postal system WAS more sophisticated; the Festina and Telekom systems were simpler because there was less testing to avoid. I also think that part of the sophistication was how to set up the levels so that they did not get detected given the testing regime. This led to more frequent and more constrained doping.

I guess you have a point about Festina since they preceded Armstrong's reign, but Telekom's dominance preceded and coincided with Armstrong's reign, and they won many stages, two Yellow jersey, multiple Green jerseys and consistently put people on the podium without getting their riders busted. If not for Armstrong, they probably would have won four or five more yellow jerseys, and remember, the only reason we know that Bjarne Riis and Erik Zabel were doping is because they admitted to it, not because they were caught.

[Master Po]

Didn't he write a book titled It's Not About the Bike? If I'm remembering that correctly, he at least was truthful in that title. It wasn't about the bike at all...

[jazzcyclist]

How many folks here remember the Armstrong-Simeoni confrontation on the 18th stage of the 2004 Tour de France?

What does it mean to be a patron of the Tour de France?

Is a patron simply the strongest rider of his era, or is there something more? In the true sense of the word, there is. A patron is not just a champion, but a godfather of sorts, a man who can dictate the moods and mores of the peloton, who can turn even a seemingly meaningless stage to his end. Typically, it is also a benefactor of sorts, a man whose magnanimity can elevate the dignity of the sport through observation of its most time-honored precepts, key among them sportsmanship.

We saw a patron on Tour today, but it was not a benevolent one.

Instead, the ugliest side broke out of the race's grandest champion today when Lance Armstrong bolted out of the pack to join Filippo Simeoni, who had just before broken free himself in an attempt to bridge up to the break.

On reaching the six-rider move, Simeoni said Armstrong looked over at him and smirked, "Bravo. Nice move." When Jose Vicente Garcia Acosta pleaded with Armstrong to drop back and let the break have an honest chance to continue, Armstrong reportedly told them he would gladly do that, under one condition: Simeoni was not to continue in the break, either. Faced with the choice of sinking the chances of six riders or his own, Simeoni drifted back to the pack, accompanied by Armstrong.

In between, the two riders talked, with Armstrong even briefly placing his hand on Simeoni's shoulder. "Armstrong and I spoke as the peloton was catching us but I prefer not to say what he said," Simeoni told BICYCLING's European Correspondent, James Startt, at the finish of stage 18. "It was too serious." Once back in the field, Armstrong spoke and laughed with numerous riders and at one point made the sign of zipping lips.

Simeoni is one of cycling's most anonymous riders. In an 11-year career he has had just one significant win, a stage of the 2000 Regio Tour, and as a career gregario, or helper, he has done little to distinguish himself good or bad. But two years ago Simeoni hurled himself into a most unwelcome and glaring spotlight when he became a key witness in the ongoing trial of Doctor Michele Ferrari, a by-turns acclaimed and notorious physician, who was being tried in the Italian province of Bologna for sporting fraud. Armstrong had publicly disclosed only months earlier that he was one of Ferrari's clients.

Read more here: http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycli ... down-rider

The other thing that I remember about this stage is how all the other riders in the peleton were patting Armstrong on the back for a job well done after he and Simeoni dropped back to the peleton, and even Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwin seemed to be pleased with what transpired.

[tandfman]

Victor Conte's take on the Lance interview with Oprah (via Twitter):

The bits of the Armstrong interview w/ Oprah that are dribbling out make it seem like they've simply agreed to serve each others' agendas

One of Lance's agendas right now has to be figuring out how to make money. I would imagine the Oprah people are paying him a bundle.

[guru]

One of Lance's agendas right now has to be figuring out how to make money.

Or more to the point, keep the money he has(which seems to be shrinking with each passing day)


http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/15/news/po ... index.html

[gh]

from that last piece (bf mine)

<<The exact value of Armstrong's deals with the two companies isn't known, but Nike is the biggest spender on athlete endorsement deals in the world. Its annual report shows it has signed commitments for $3.2 billion worth of endorsement deals over the next five years.>>

[jazzcyclist]

Or more to the point, keep the money he has(which seems to be shrinking with each passing day)


http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/15/news/po ... index.html

I've never heard of a sponsor asking for money back after it drops one of its athletes for misconduct. Normally they just void the rest of the contract. Is there any precedent for this?

The cyclist, who has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, is in negotiations to return some portion of the agency's sponsorship money, the source said.

USPS was one of Armstrong's biggest financial supporters during the most successful period of his career, and millions of dollars were paid to finance the team's operations.

While total figures are not available, USPS paid more than $30 million to sponsor the cycling team between 2001 and 2004, according to documents reviewed by ESPN and the Wall Street Journal.

[tandfman]

Another good Armstrong link. The URL says it all.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/brettsmiley/wat ... times-7n2d

[gh]

go to the front page, and you can now vote for greatest liar of all time

(speaking of which, local talking head on the radio, not normally a rabble-rouser, says that if it turns out that Lance made the whole cancer thing up, he'd believe it) (that seems a tad harsh)

[tandfman]

Oprah was on the CBS morning show, promoting the interview. Link to her comments (fairly lengthy), currently on front page here.

Time planner alert: The interview ran longer than anticipated and so it will be aired over two nights instead of one.

[gh]

greatest liar of all time material moved to separate thread in Things Not Track (where this thread will also end up once the furor dies down)

[marknhj]

greatest liar of all time material moved to separate thread in Things Not Track (where this thread will also end up once the furor dies down)

I wondered where my post about cycling went.

Nicole Cook, GB 2008 road racing gold medalist, released this statement yesterday on her retirement. Scroll down about half way to, The Dark Side:

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

[tandfman]

The Onion's take on Lance.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/havent ... way,29317/

[guru]

ESPN an hour-long Outside The Lines today on Armstrong. 3:00 PM ET(now)

Program leads off with the entirety of a Bob Ley / Armstrong OTL interview from 2006 regarding rumors/accusations. Armstrong's comments, in light of current circumstances, leads to no other conclusion than the man is a psychopath.

[jazzcyclist]

the man is a psychopath.

"Psychopath"? Isn't that word reserved for folks like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy?

For whatever it's worth, here's Oprah's characterization of the interview:

Oprah Winfrey says Lance Armstrong was "forthcoming" in their 2.5 hour interview, a session during which the disgraced cyclist admitted using performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France, NBC News has confirmed.

"I think the entire interview was difficult" for Armstrong, Winfrey said. “He was pretty forthcoming.”

“It was surprising to me," she said of his approach to the interview, adding that "we were mesmerized and riveted by some of his answers.”

Winfrey appeared on CBS Tuesday morning to discuss her sit-down with the disgraced cyclist. When asked if Armstrong was contrite, she demurred.

Advertise | AdChoices"I feel that he answered the questions in a way that he was ready," Winfrey said. "I choose not to characterize. I would rather people make their own decisions about whether he was contrite or not."

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 ... g-use?lite

[tandfman]

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary's website:

The most frequently looked up words on this site:

Past 24 Hours

1.fabrication

[guru]

the man is a psychopath.

"Psychopath"? Isn't that word reserved for folks like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy?

You dont have to be a murderer to be a psychopath. And yeah, he fits the bill.(First sentence hilarious considering your comment)

http://healthland.time.com/2012/11/19/l ... in-dutton/

No sooner is the word out of someone’s mouth than images of [serial killers] like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer come to mind. It doesn’t automatically mean that you’re a criminal or serial killer. When psychologists talk about psychopaths, what we refer to are people with a distinct set of personality characteristics including ruthlessness, fearlessness, mental toughness, a charismatic personality and lack of conscience and empathy.

[26mi235]

(Psychiatry) a person afflicted with a personality disorder characterized by a tendency to commit antisocial and sometimes violent acts and a failure to feel guilt for such acts Also called sociopath
psychopathic adj
psychopathically adv

and (subset from Wikipedia:

Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: Factors, Facets, and Items[3] Factor 1 Factor 2 Other items

While some call him a pathological liar, I do not think that is particularly the case. You could say that he told one continuing lie, rather than he lied a lot (about many different things).

Facet 1 Interpersonal

Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth [was his sense way out of line with what others thought?]
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative

Facet 2 Affective

Lack of remorse or guilt
Emotionally shallow
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions [Other than one huge instance, all the stuff around doping, where is the indication here?]

Facet 3 Lifestyle

Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle [No]
Lack of realistic, long-term goals [NO]
Impulsiveness [No]
Irresponsibility

Facet 4 Antisocial

Poor behavioral controls [No, usually very good control]
Early behavioral problems [not unusual as far as I know, especially for a male raised without a father]
Juvenile delinquency [none to speak of]
Revocation of conditional release [no]
Criminal versatility. [no]

Parasitic lifestyle [no]
Many short-term marital relationships [yes]
Promiscuous sexual behavior [? with celebrities that situations are very different, did not get the playboy type of image in the 1989-1995 time frame]

[Hil-da]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/ja ... -statement
Nicole Cooke, the 2008 women's World and Olympic road race champion, retired yesterday.
If you haven't read the statement she gave yesterday, you really should.
This single handedly demolishes any defence Lance can possibly give.