A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
My guess is that he plays (and wins with) the full-on sympathy card.
Oprah: "Whatever motivated you to take these drugs?"
Lance: "You've got to remember, I was coming off a scary case of cancer. At one point I didn't even know if I was going to live, let alone ever ride again. After all that agonizing chemo and radiation, there were times when I felt like I wanted to die. When my health started to return, I was willing to do everything and anything to feel like a normal human-being again. And then I realized that not only could I be normal, I could be super -normal. And I didn't have to do anything that all my peers weren't doing anyway, so at the time it didn't seem like such a bad thing to do. I now realize what a terrible decision that was."
And he doesn't have to say another word: that wins him the public's heart back, just like that.
(and it's possible—maybe even probable?—that all that made-up speech is true, save for the final sentence of course)
gh wrote:that wins him the public's heart back, just like that.
We'll see, I guess. While the cancer ploy has some weight, I can't believe it will be that easy to "win the public's heart back," if it is possible at all. The cycling world wrote him off quite some time ago--in part for his bullying and ultra-aggressive personality (which will not be changed). The general public doesn't care hugely about the technical details of any of this, but I would presume that his coming-to-Jesus will be too little and too late.
gh wrote:(and it's possible—maybe even probable?—that all that made-up speech is true, save for the final sentence of course)
But that confession would seem to imply that he wasn't doing drugs before he got cancer which is not true. About the only questions I can think of that I'd like to have answered is who first introduced him to drugs, when did he first start doping.
As kuha alluded to, the sympathy card is going to be hard to play considering Armstrong's bullying tactics and incessant threats. The hard questions will be related to those issues. Let's see if Winfrey asks them - and if so what he has to say for himself.
gh wrote:My guess is that he plays (and wins with) the full-on sympathy card.
Oprah: "Whatever motivated you to take these drugs?"
Lance: "You've got to remember, I was coming off a scary case of cancer. At one point I didn't even know if I was going to live, let alone ever ride again. After all that agonizing chemo and radiation, there were times when I felt like I wanted to die. When my health started to return, I was willing to do everything and anything to feel like a normal human-being again. And then I realized that not only could I be normal, I could be super -normal. And I didn't have to do anything that all my peers weren't doing anyway, so at the time it didn't seem like such a bad thing to do. I now realize what a terrible decision that was."
And he doesn't have to say another word: that wins him the public's heart back, just like that.
(and it's possible—maybe even probable?—that all that made-up speech is true, save for the final sentence of course)
Don't forget:
Q. So why all the vehement denials? Why not just come clean right away?
A. Because I was afraid doing so would damage the credibility and effectiveness of my [cancer] foundation. Some people--and companies understandably worried about their image--would unfairly tie the organization to their personal feelings about me and withold their [financial] backing in the future. Now it doesn't matter; people have already made up their minds.
[Again, as gh said, who's to say this isn't really the truth of it? If two of us--both with media ties, btw--thought this way, perhaps it is indeed accurate.] .
Just hope his delivery is better than Wood's .. wonder why he never did an "Oprah" ... could even she have things she would not touch ... or was he scared of her white hot grilling ...
GMH454 wrote:Just hope his delivery is better than Wood's .. wonder why he never did an "Oprah" ... could even she have things she would not touch ... or was he scared of her white hot grilling ...
guru wrote:As kuha alluded to, the sympathy card is going to be hard to play considering Armstrong's bullying tactics and incessant threats. The hard questions will be related to those issues. Let's see if Winfrey asks them - and if so what he has to say for himself.
He might just write that off on the omertà that existed in the peleton long before he became a pro cyclist.
guru wrote:As kuha alluded to, the sympathy card is going to be hard to play considering Armstrong's bullying tactics and incessant threats. The hard questions will be related to those issues. Let's see if Winfrey asks them - and if so what he has to say for himself.
He might just write that off on the omertà that existed in the peleton long before he became a pro cyclist.
Not so eaily "written off" - his lawsuits, or mudslinging at Travis Tygart and USADA
guru wrote:As kuha alluded to, the sympathy card is going to be hard to play considering Armstrong's bullying tactics and incessant threats. The hard questions will be related to those issues. Let's see if Winfrey asks them - and if so what he has to say for himself.
He might just write that off on the omertà that existed in the peleton long before he became a pro cyclist.
Not so eaily "written off" - his lawsuits, or mudslinging at Travis Tygart and USADA
Exactly. I presume that he's going to be sued by that Brit newspaper that he FALSELY sued in order to shut up several years back. He's cost lots of people time, trouble, and money. There's no reason any of that SHOULD be forgiven, and that dynamic will play out in the media for years, I presume.
What will be shocking is if anyone actually believes much of anything that comes out of this guy's mouth. This is damage control and a salvage mission and nothing more. He has a calculayef agenda just as he had with everything else he has done. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
gh wrote:(and it's possible—maybe even probable?—that all that made-up speech is true, save for the final sentence of course)
But that confession would seem to imply that he wasn't doing drugs before he got cancer which is not true. About the only questions I can think of that I'd like to have answered is who first introduced him to drugs, when did he first start doping.
Did you not see the Marion Jones Oprah interview?
She spouted all kinds of lies and insisted that she never knew she was taken performance enhancers all that time, despite multiple partners who where heavily involved in drugs, Balco timetables, several witnesses who saw her take various kinds and spoke to her about the effects and her concerns and the fact she even hired Ben Johnson's old coach later on in her career. Marion Jones version of events cntridicted virtually everybody else's version of events. It was ridiculous to anybody body who even vaguely followed the story.
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.
eldanielfire wrote:Did you not see the Marion Jones Oprah interview?
She spouted all kinds of lies and insisted that she never knew she was taken performance enhancers all that time, despite multiple partners who where heavily involved in drugs, Balco timetables, several witnesses who saw her take various kinds and spoke to her about the effects and her concerns and the fact she even hired Ben Johnson's old coach later on in her career. Marion Jones version of events cntridicted virtually everybody else's version of events. It was ridiculous to anybody body who even vaguely followed the story.
Yes, I saw that interview. Here are the relevant parts of it IMO:
I doubt very seriously that Lance is going to pull a Marion and pretend he didn't know what he was taking. Hopefully Lance will surprise us and speak with the same candor that Kelli White did when Bryant Gumbel interviewed her for HBO's Real Sports.
eldanielfire wrote: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?
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.
eldanielfire wrote: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.
eldanielfire wrote: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:
Pego wrote: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.
Pego wrote: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.
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.
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.
jazzcyclist wrote: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 wrote: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.
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...
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.
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.
