Anyone watching Armstrong's interview?

[Trane]

She treated him with kid gloves. A real sports journalist would've ripped him to shreds, but he would never have put himself in that position. At the end of the day, the guy's a piece of shit. He ruined other people's lives. He tarnished the sport of cycling in such a way that it will take years, decades to recover. He can't even just say "I'm sorry for fucking up", because he's such an arrogant asshole.

Well he's done no worse cheating than plenty others before him... He just did it MUCH better, with his Belgian director's help. Bruyneel was definitely a cheater himself...

But yes, opposite/contrary to the other doped riders (who remained somewhat humble, while cheating), Lance was totally an arrogant arsehole...

if he lied about the cancer, that would be the greatest con of all time.

Let's not overdo it... He was gone for over two years from the circuit... Too high a risk of never returning to the same level he was at after a two-year lay-off. I don't think he would've cooned anyone about this...

however... what kind of product did he take to get a testicle cancer in his early 20's???

[Scott Bails]

We don't get the OWN channel but from what I have read he wasn't too forthcoming. He is about as repentant as Barry Bonds.

Frankly, I'm glad he wasn't repentant. That's so cliche these days. From what I saw, there were no tears, and IMO, he almost deserves credit for that. I mean, didn't we all expect the weepy confession, like everybody else? We all know the guy's a dick, and he didn't run from that.

He tarnished the sport of cycling in such a way that it will take years, decades to recover.

Let's not go too overboard here. He's not alone. The whole sport is corrupt, from the top down.

She was way better than I was expecting, but I agree a real journalist would have ripped him to shreds.

As Tom said, that wasn't going to happen. Remember, Armstrong is all about control, and he wasn't going to admit anything to someone who would "rip him to shreds." If we didn't get Oprah, or someone similar, we wouldn't get a confession.

Please. I'm not even a 100% sure that Magic Johnson is telling the truth.

Yeah, that's a whole other issue. Really, really fishy there. I'm surprised no investigative reporter has looked into that.

[Progmatic]

some interesting information on one of Armstrong's biggest financial backers.

I am not buying into this crap. Cycling is a massive business. TdF is the most watched event in the World. Those people around him were primary beneficiary of his talent, sweat and PED abuse. It was Lance who was putting his health, life and character on the line. Everyone knew that the sport is as dirty as it gets and that it is very likely that not only the athlete was using PED but also that there is a risk of him getting cought sooner or later. I would not be surprised if some of these alleged victims are not sponsors of his behaviour. Now everyone is washing their hands.

[Duncan Glenday]

Is this interview a real apology or a PR stunt to improve public image?

IMO:

a failed PR stunt to improve public image

So you enjoy Oprahs channel, huh.

I'll watch any f***ing channel - from the liberal to the conservative news channels (there are no neutral ones any more), right down to Oprah's channel, and I'll make up my own f***ing mind.

I think he should be at least fined for doing the interview with her and not a real news organization.

I can't blame him for going to Oprah ... there are no real news organizations any more.

...
I read an article today that stated that the IOC might consider dropping cycling events from the next Olympic games.
...

Fine. But then they must also track and field, weight lifting, wrestling, rowing, and every other sport which has been exposed to systemic doping.

See here for an impressively long list of people - and the sports they replresent - who have been guilty of doping in Olympics.
If you're too lazy to click the link:
- 626 athletes have been guilty
- 128 (20%) are cyclists - I'll sadly admit they're by far the most guilty, but some other bad sportsmen include:
- Swimming - 45 guilty
- Baseball - 54 guilty
- Weightlifting - 64 guilty
- Soccer - 69 guilty
- A whopping 68 separate sports have had guilty participants

If they did this - I think the next winter olympics will be left with curling, and the summer olympics will be left with tiddlywinks.

[Dave the Brave]

Why not make taking enhancers totally legal across the whole sports world.
It will even out the field and its up to the athlete to decide if he wants to pollute his body or not.

DtB

[Yodelgoat]

Obviously, he was going to appeal to emotion, and not to fact. So, he went where he would automatically have a 95 percent open hearted audience. He would never go on a station where the majority of listeners are men. We call BS much more easily than the average Opra watcher.

[Scott Bails]

Why not make taking enhancers totally legal across the whole sports world.
It will even out the field and its up to the athlete to decide if he wants to pollute his body or not.

DtB

It's up to the athlete now.

[Progmatic]

Why not make taking enhancers totally legal across the whole sports world.
It will even out the field and its up to the athlete to decide if he wants to pollute his body or not.

DtB

I like it...let's call it Open division...anything goes...let spectators and sponsorship decide whether it represents any value...(e.g. like WWF)

[Scott Bails]

I like it...let's call it Open division...anything goes...let spectators and sponsorship decide whether it represents any value...(e.g. like WWF)

Are you implying that the WWF has value?

[Progmatic]

Are you implying that the WWF has value?

Sure like any business...

[Vic2012]

I haven't and won't watch the interviews. I don't have the Oprah channel and if I did I still wouldn't bother. The story interests me but watching an Oprah interview doesn't interest me in the least.

I think he's doing damage control. I doubt he's remorseful but I think he knows he's been cornered and he probably feels that admitting to doping might make him look a little better in the court of public opinion. We're pretty forgiving. The guy wasn't a serial killer, he just cheated in his sport. I think more than anything what people might not forgive is how he ruined and threatened people's lives. I really don't give a shit that he cheated (took PEDs), or for that matter any athelete in any sport, during any era. It's just not important to me. Atheletes are entertainers, that's it. That's why this PED thing isn't something I get my shorts in a twist about. We've discussed this on various threads for a few years. Atheletes, throughout history have always cheated in one way or another, in every sport, at every level. So I really couldn't care less who's doping or not.

I think the sport of cycling is done for now. Whatever integrity it had is gone. And I'm sure there will be a ripple effect in other sports too (I don't mean team sports like basketball, soccers, etc. I mean the lesser track & field type sports).

[Duncan Glenday]

Why not make taking enhancers totally legal across the whole sports world.
It will even out the field and its up to the athlete to decide if he wants to pollute his body or not.

DtB

Not in a million years it won't.

Those with bigger budgets will beat those with smaller - and sports become a competition of which chemicals are beat and who can afford them.

And the victims will be the athletes - who will suffer permanent physical damage.

[Duncan Glenday]

My take on the Armstrong issue is a bt different from most:

1). Unfair:

Well - has it been unfair? No, and yes.

No, because he cheated, he was investigated, he was caught, the end.

Yes - because everyone else cheated, and they all got a pass (at least, in comparison with the aggressive pursuit of Armstrong). He was invistigated, is guilty, and should be punished. They should have been investigated just as aggressively, and if guilty, should have been punished just as hard.

Yes - unfair because the likes of Eddie Merckx and other past and present titans of the sport have not been pursued in the same way - yet in various ways, they have been just as guilty.

Yes - unfair because this has overshadowed doping in other sports - such as soccer, track and field, wrestling, swimming, baseball, football, and many others. Going after just one kinkpin in just one sport it pretty f***ing tilted.

2). Sad - because Armstrong virtually had to do it:

Frankly, if Armstrong wanted to win he simply had to dope. The sad truth is that if he'd stayed clean, he would have been a mid-pack rider at best. Through no fault of his own - he had few other choices. But he chose not to use those few other choices (which we can discuss separately).

Instead, he chose not just to go along with doping, but to become the godfather of doping.

3). Saddened by the personality revealed by this scandal:

We'd all thought he was Mr. Niceguy, the cancer survivor who showed the world, the guy everyone wanted to like and support. Turns out that his selft-righteous, self-entitled, bullying tactics revealed a personality that was unlikeable and unsupportable. That's a big let down to his former supporters.

4). Pissed off because he's turned a magnificent sport into a f***ing joke:

The doping antics of Armstrong and hundreds of other cyclists have done more damage to the sport than anyone can imagine. In parts of Europe, cycling is as popular as football and baseball combined here in the USA. It took 20 years to finally get the US into serious cycling, and when the international fields were finally being recognized and cycling finally became not just a marginal Olympic sport but one of the most popular and most watched ... *THIS* scandal blows the entire sport's credibility in a way that will take 2 decades to recover.

Tragic failure.

Armstrong wasn't the sole cause of that failure, but he was central to it.

Those of us involved in day-to-day participation in the sport, support, and advocacy of cycling feel as if the rug has been pulled from under our feet.

5). Confused about the future or sports:

There is precisely one way to level the playing field: Nobody dopes. Period.

But for as long as the prize money, the accolades, the pressures, the advancing technology, and the flagrant disregard for old fashioned sportsmanship continue - I'll be surprised if that happens any time in the future. So there will always be a suspicion in the back of every spectator's mind about whether their favorite athlete really won the latest event, or if something sneaky was going on behind the scenes.

The simple, old-fashioned enjoyment of sport spectatorship and participation are - apparently - things of the past.






Finally - regarding Armstrong's interview with Oprah: In light of the bigger issues at stake, it's just "noise". Just another bossy, entitled athlete who'e been taught all his life that he "can do no wrong" ... backpedaling. (Anyone remember Tiger Woods?) But as a road cyclists, Armstrong ought to know that backpedaling doesn't move you forward.

[Scott Bails]

Excellent post, Duncan. Really well-stated.

[Vic2012]

Good post Duncan. I wondered when you'd weigh in. I don't disagree with 99 percent of what you say regarding Armstrong, cycling, PEDs , etc. I think the big difference is that this guy was a DYNASTY. He dominated his sport. It's like when there are dynasties in football (like the Patriots) someone always gets suspicious that somebody has to be cheating. I mean, my god, 7 TDF titles? How's that humanly possible? Was his ego so out of control that he didn't think anyone would ever suspect he must've been cheating? Yeah all the other cyclists were doping too, but you'd think after 2 or 3 TDF titles he'd take a break for a few years.

[Progmatic]

Although I agree mostly with you Duncan, I do not believe for second that he should be in it alone. Therefore I do not buy the "godfather" of PEDs stuff or statements like that it was just him bullying people. You cannot run the drug ring or bully your way around if you do not have an entourage of accomplices, sponsors and supporting cast. He is only tip of the iceberg (arguably the most visible part) of much sinister machinery of money producing sport machine.

[Jerjo]

Great post Duncan.

The bullying behavior is what really rankles me. He wasn't just defending himself over the years when he was accused of cheating, he was going global thermonuclear war against his critics. His actions were despicable. And thus there's articles like this: http://deadspin.com/5976386/lance-ar...a-huge-asshole

[enpdllp]

Frankly, I'm glad he wasn't repentant. That's so cliche these days. From what I saw, there were no tears, and IMO, he almost deserves credit for that. I mean, didn't we all expect the weepy confession, like everybody else? We all know the guy's a dick, and he didn't run from that.

As Tom said, that wasn't going to happen. Remember, Armstrong is all about control, and he wasn't going to admit anything to someone who would "rip him to shreds." If we didn't get Oprah, or someone similar, we wouldn't get a confession.

I did not expect Armstrong weeping or jumping on Oprah's couch begging for forgiveness. Just a sincere apology would have been adequate. If he was not going to be sincere, or at least appear sincere, why do it? As it is right now, the feds could reopen his case and take him to the cleaners, plus a multitude of folks that were sued by him could also take him to court. Some of the PEDs he was using are considered controlled substances and crossing borders with them could be used as drug trafficking charges. The amount of damage he has done with this interview is potentially larger than any sanctions that the UCI or WADA have placed on him. I am still baffled on why he went through this interview. Doing it was taking the "control" out of his hands.

Great post Duncan. I agree with most of what you said.

Regarding the unfair part, there were some instances that the pursuit of Armstrong might have been aggressive, but he was the one who had the most to lose and the one that would had made the best example for the rest of the cycling community if he was caught. Putting that type of effort on a way lesser rider with nothing to lose would have not made economic sense to the investigators or had the same effect to the cycling community. Although most of the riders that confessed using PEDs on USADA's investigation are not riding professionally anymore, they all got punished and received suspensions from the sport and any stage wins were removed from their record. Armstrong had the same opportunity many times in the past to confess and receive the same penalties, but he decided to fight them because he thought he was above the law and was never going to get caught. If he really care as much as he says about the sport of cycling, he could have confessed a long time ago and spill all the nitty gritty details on his doping regime to help the doping agencies to develop a more thorough detection program. Instead he decided to perpetuate his greatness and destroyed anyone who tried to expose his PED use.

His "Mr. Niceguy" image was just the media bowing to him. There were many reports of his not so nice behavior by many of his colleagues during his TdF days, but most of the media decide to ignore them and kept pushing the cancer survivor story. He was already a douche well before he got cancer. I still remember watching on TV his entitled behavior during the road race on the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 where he broke away from his pack trying to catch some folks that broke away earlier in the race and then being caught by his pack some minutes later. After he recovered, he started pressing the riders on that pack to carry him to the breakaway. The other riders pretty much ignored his pleas to increase the pace and do the dirty work for him so he could win a medal.

Regarding Tiger Woods, his issues were of a personal nature and not related to the sport. Huge difference from Armstrong's case.

[meimjustalawnmower]

Pathetic.

[80s were ok]

still wanna know why bikers dress like clowns??

[Camelogue]

No

no interest in it.

[Shadow]

Why not make taking enhancers totally legal across the whole sports world.
It will even out the field and its up to the athlete to decide if he wants to pollute his body or not.

DtB

Not really. Drugs have a different effect on everyone.

[Duncan Glenday]

I'd be happy if he answers the question of why bikers dress up like the Marillion jester.

As a biker, I have 2 things to say:



and



Why do basketball players wear stupid ghetto-looking drooping shirts and loose pants? Oh - wait - maybe it's because because the style is actually designed HELP their performance. And the colors represent their teams.

Why do football players wear leg-hugging pantyhose instead of pants, like real men, and those bright colored shirts? Oh - wait - maybe it's because they're actually designed HELP their performance. And the colors represent their teams.

Why do race car drivers wear clown suits? Oh - wait - maybe it's because they're purpose-designed, and their advertising helps pay for the sport.

Why do (pick your favorite sport) wear (insert derogatory statement here)?



In the case of cyclists:

The tight pants are necessary for a few reasons - including:

- A looser fit means less aerodynamic drag. Sound stupid? Try riding at 25+mph for just a few miles, and see how the flapping of loose pants holds you back. It's amazing how much effect wind resistance can slow you down.

- They prevent chafing. Try riding over 100 miles just once, and you'll soon learn what damage and infections can be caused by the constant friction and sweat of pedaling.

The jerseys:

- Tighter fit again means less aerodynamic drag.

- The glossy sheen of the fabric is caused by the need to wick sweat away from the body. Try riding all day long in July in a cotton shirt and see how much sweat accumulates.

- The colors are a combination of the team's colors (same as football, hockey, and basketball players), and the graphics are almost 100% sponsor endorsements that help pay for the sport - same as the Nascar driver's suit, same as the Nascar car itself.



Derogatory remarks are not funny.

[Oreb]

I think the guy's a sociopath. He clearly has no genuine grasp of the morality most of us try to adhere to.

[Vic2012]

at Duncan's last post. What I've never understood is the helmets they wear. What purpose do they serve? The helmet sits on the very top of the head and there's no other protection for the rest of the head around the ears, neck, etc. I don't get it. How do those helmets protect them? I mean, if you go head over heels and land on your head you'll probably end up a quadraplegic. If you fall sideways you'll still probably break your neck.

I have a bar buddy who was a serious cyclist many years ago. So, as the beer flowed we got into a discussion about Lance Armstrong. He said what we've all been saying about the sport. Every single person who competes in the most prestigious cycling tours are ALL doping. You can't compete without doping. It's like body building. There's no way you can enter a Mr. Universe, Mr. Olympia, or even at the small potatoes levels without taking steroids. So, using that logic (that all serious, competitive cyclists are doping) it must mean that Lance Armstrong really was that good. In other words, if the playing field was level, and NO ONE in cycling doped, Lance would've won a few trophies anyway. I'm not sure I buy it but he might've at least won one TdF.