Do you believe that Lance's interview with Oprah improves his situation?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Do you believe that Lance's interview with Oprah improves his situation?

  • No, but he told the whole truth

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Didn't watch the 2nd part, but as I've mentioned before, from the 1st part, everybody could see that he was a sociopath with no remorse.

I don't think the 2nd part matters a lot because people's views will be mostly shaped from the 1st part,
 
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
The fact that he is still denying he doped during his 2009-2010 comeback, isn't going to help him get into the good graces of the anti-doping authorities anytime soon.
 
May 11, 2009
117
0
0
Pazuzu said:
The fact that he is still denying he doped during his 2009-2010 comeback, isn't going to help him get into the good graces of the anti-doping authorities anytime soon.
I was stunned he said that. Who in their right mind would believe the story about his ex-wife as being the reason to stop doping. It defies all logic.
 
wirral said:
He has an army of lawyers advising him and a lot of powerful friends, allies and co-conspirators in the cycling world and beyond. So, this Oprah interview was carefully choreographed in terms of content, key message and omissions.

He would not have done it if it was not the best path for him.
Of course he thinks that doing the interview would benefit him. That doesn't mean that it would ultimately reap the results that he hoped. He is now being skewered relentlessly in the media. He has no source of income other than his bike shop, whatever investments he has, and whatever media suckers are willing to pay him to continue to tell his version of the truth, an actual truth that is available for all that is willing to seek it out, regardless of his efforts to refute the facts. As such he is worse off now because he revealed himself to the world as the arrogant, narcissitic, bullying.......(I could go on and on) that many of us already knew him to be. By his expanding the exposure of his deception by going on Oprah he simply opened a Pandora's Box of demons that he would have been better off leaving closed. People will now be curious enough to read more about his interraction with all the people he trampled on.
The internet is a dangerous thing.

What came to mind during his time on Oprah is that he is like a reptile. I kept expecting his tongue to intermittently flash out from his mouth. Simply coldblooded, ruthless and lacking empathy or compassion.

His only reason for coming forward and admitting his deception is so obviously not due to any remorse on his part but because his getting caught has necessitated him going into survival mode to get back remnants of what he lost. It's my opinion that he could really care less about the lives and reputations he's destroyed. He's simply coldblooded.

He had no burden on his shoulders in terms of living this lie because he truly believed that he was just the best among the rest of what he believed to be a sport of cheaters. He doesn't see himself as having any type of advantage over his rivals, while at the same time acknowledging that there was no way for him to know if all the rest of the peloton was cheating as he was.
 
The posting of his picture with him and his TDF jerseys symbolizes his attitude and remorse, it's not like it happened a long time ago.

We will look back in several months and say, "that didn't work out to well for him."
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
I'm satisfied with Lance's confession. No doubt, soon more details to come. Confession was held in a more frank manner than I personally expected. Before the interview I admitted Lance just could say 'yeah, it was' and finish by and large. It didn't happen. His words about talk to his son even touched me. To me Armstrong is an outstanding athlete whose aspiration to fame and control over everything ruined himself. The way people hate him is just direct proportion of his titles period. Sociapath? Calm down. There are a lot of people whom Lance ensured good tidy well-off life and they will always support him.

I don't understand what did you expect from this iron man? Tears and physiognomies you would consider sincere or what?
 
airstream said:
I'm satisfied with Lance's confession. No doubt, soon more details to come. Confession was held in a more frank manner than I personally expected. Before the interview I admitted Lance just could say 'yeah, it was' and finish by and large. It didn't happen. His words about talk to his son even touched me. To me Armstrong is an outstanding athlete whose aspiration to fame and control over everything ruined himself. The way people hate him is just direct proportion of his titles period. Sociapath? Calm down. There are a lot of people whom Lance ensured good tidy well-off life and they will always support him.

I don't understand what did you expect from this iron man? Tears and physiognomies you would consider sincere or what?
Don't you think their willingness to toe-the-Lance-line as he directed them to is the reason they prospered and kept quiet while others ended up as roadkill?
 
airstream said:
I'm satisfied with Lance's confession. No doubt, soon more details to come. Confession was held in a more frank manner than I personally expected. Before the interview I admitted Lance just could say 'yeah, it was' and finish by and large. It didn't happen. His words about talk to his son even touched me. To me Armstrong is an outstanding athlete whose aspiration to fame and control over everything ruined himself. The way people hate him is just direct proportion of his titles period. Sociapath? Calm down. There are a lot of people whom Lance ensured good tidy well-off life and they will always support him.

I don't understand what did you expect from this iron man? Tears and physiognomies you would consider sincere or what?
Riders have their own moral choices to make. Armstrong was not a drug lord, forcing others to inject themselves. He was a bully for success. It is interesting hearing comments from some riders that are still riding who see Armstrong as a some kind of devil where those riders themselves rode on teams with dopers who were caught ! The reactions were much more muted about that. From what we know of those years if Armstrong had not doped, another doper would have won.........probably. Yes Armstrong was not entirely convincing in the interview and is still coming to grips with his decision to make the doping admissions. Did we expect more to come out of the interviews ? By admitting to doping I still place Armstrong above people that have been banned and have never admitted it. Vino, Valverde, Contador amongst others. Just because he won and lost seven Tours does not mean he should be seen as being seven times worse. How many dopers have returned to the peloton and are now making a good living after two year bans ? I think a lifetime ban in all sports is excessive especially while we have people like Riis still involved in the sport. I don't agree that Lance will always have support from the people he was good to. Not only will he alienate family and friends to some degree but associates usually lose interest in people when success or fame disappears. I think the world is about to become a much more lonely place for Armstrong. And yes you have to sympathise with the children and mother in full view of the media storm and public opinion.
 
compete_clean said:
I was stunned he said that. Who in their right mind would believe the story about his ex-wife as being the reason to stop doping. It defies all logic.
Bowling Ball for one. Some people just want to plug into that scam, be lied to, treated with contempt, and believe. I don't get it, but it's out there.

I had a casual conversation with some people I run into regularly who don't know cycling and don't care and it seems to me *exactly* the right message got across. Nothing but indifference and derision. As in the guy is poison. I'm thinking he'll be getting away with a huge number of crimes. Pay to play judicial system combined with strong-arm politics works great now.

There's a long, long way to go yet. Hein and Pat need to be replaced. I don't know how that will work exactly. Patrice Clerc should be in Hein's job. The IOC would sh!t a brick if that happened. C'mon Mr. Clerc! USAC is a lost cause.
 
movingtarget said:
...Armstrong was not a drug lord, forcing others to inject themselves. He was a bully for success.
Sourced, bought controlled substances, shipped them all over the world, uncontrolled human experimentation, evading enforcement efforts. Drug lords would probably be envious.

movingtarget said:
From what we know of those years if Armstrong had not doped, another doper would have won.........probably.
This is a failed excuse. Is there a Wonderboy excuse regenerator app for your ipad or something? They desperately need to add some carraige returns..

How many others called the "what about the children?" ploy besides me? That's how cornered the terrorist is. He had to use the family as a defense shield. No wonder Hein and Thom loove him so much.
 
Jan 15, 2013
909
0
0
No, he totally and utterly blew it. There is no chance for him to comeback now, not even with a full confession, the ban will not be lifted.
Thank God!
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Angliru said:
Don't you think their willingness to toe-the-Lance-line as he directed them to is the reason they prospered and kept quiet while others ended up as roadkill?
No, it is mutually beneficial cooperation. Or Armstrong should provide one's prosperity completely gratuitously?

movingtarget said:
Riders have their own moral choices to make. Armstrong was not a drug lord, forcing others to inject themselves. He was a bully for success.
Like any other great champion. Contador prefers to cry. Wiggins says f**k you etc. Being a bully for success is inevitable condition why they are champions.

It is interesting hearing comments from some riders that are still riding who see Armstrong as a some kind of devil where those riders themselves rode on teams with dopers who were caught !
As for it, I'm shocked too. Armstrong said he heard 5 out of 200 had been riding clean. I consider this number quite plausible even for 2004-2005, the time I started following. However McEwen said: 'Oh we believed!' How could you believe idiot when even sprinters necessarily doped back then not to mention about GC contenders??! Unbelievable.

The reactions were much more muted about that. From what we know of those years if Armstrong had not doped, another doper would have won...
Absolutely. Even today Wiggins and Contador refuse to lay out their GT blood values based on idiotic considerations of confidentiality. We have minimal changes for better, if we really have any...

How many dopers have returned to the peloton and are now making a good living after two year bans ?
3. Basso, Valverde and Contador. One might come back successfully even if one is popped while being a superstar, otherwise one collides with huge problems.

I think a lifetime ban in all sports is excessive especially while we have people like Riis still involved in the sport. ublic opinion.
I think bans should be increased up to 4 years. Life time bans can entail extensive ground for diversions and other criminal acts that would be very bad.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
airstream said:
Like any other great champion. Contador prefers to cry. Wiggins says f**k you etc. Being a bully for success is inevitable condition why they are champions.
Can you give examples of Coppi beng a bully, Bartali, Anquetil, LeMond, Indurain, Pantani, Ullrich or Contador?

Otherwise it seems you expect someone who wants to win so bad needs to be a bad person to do it. To me that exposes a flaw in your thought process.
 
Benotti69 said:
Can you give examples of Coppi beng a bully, Bartali, Anquetil, LeMond, Indurain, Pantani, Ullrich or Contador?

Otherwise it seems you expect someone who wants to win so bad needs to be a bad person to do it. To me that exposes a flaw in your thought process.
No but at least four of them are cheats. Anquetil even openly admitted taking amphetamines when he was still racing. Being a bully is secondary.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
movingtarget said:
No but at least four of them are cheats. Anquetil even openly admitted taking amphetamines when he was still racing. Being a bully is secondary.
Can you list any champions who are bullys from that list?

You have dodged the question, it was not about doping.
 
DirtyWorks said:
Sourced, bought controlled substances, shipped them all over the world, uncontrolled human experimentation, evading enforcement efforts. Drug lords would probably be envious.

This is a failed excuse. Is there a Wonderboy excuse regenerator app for your ipad or something? They desperately need to add some carraige returns..

How many others called the "what about the children?" ploy besides me? That's how cornered the terrorist is. He had to use the family as a defense shield. No wonder Hein and Thom loove him so much.
By that definition he wasn't the only one with a drug program. As for the terrorist comparisons, lighten up, that is ridiculous.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Can you give examples of Coppi beng a bully, Bartali, Anquetil, LeMond, Indurain, Pantani, Ullrich or Contador?

Otherwise it seems you expect someone who wants to win so bad needs to be a bad person to do it. To me that exposes a flaw in your thought process.
It depends on what we imply by bully. It is tough to evalutate Coppi and Bartali - media did not have such a global influence at that times. But everyone remembers Pantani's Giro dismissal I think. That was just a huge grievance to the whole world from him. The same works for Contador. The man imitates tears and threatens to quite the sport if he gets banned. He has no doubt he is right within the limits of current system. Is that bully? To me, for sure. Yes, probably it is not so spectacular like Lance's defiant hyper agression. But by and large there are the same mad egocentrism and intimidation [again, we know only USPS story partially] behind all of this stories. I don't defend Armstrong but there is no doubt other guys' confessions is the matter of the time exceptionally and they will not be lesser liars than Lance. All the more so I'm sure others co-called great ones really admired how Armstrong defended himself during all these years.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
airstream said:
It depends on what we imply by bully. It is tough to evalutate Coppi and Bartali - media did not have such a global influence at that times. But everyone remembers Pantani's Giro dismissal I think. That was just a huge grievance to the whole world from him. The same works for Contador. The man imitates tears and threatens to quite the sport if he gets banned. He has no doubt he is right within the limits of current system. Is that bully? To me, for sure. Yes, probably it is not so spectacular like Lance's defiant hyper agression. But by and large there are the same mad egocentrism and intimidation [again, we know only USPS story partially] behind all of this stories. I don't defend Armstrong but there is no doubt other guys' confessions is the matter of the time exceptionally and they will not be lesser liars than Lance. All the more so I'm sure others co-called great ones really admired how Armstrong defended himself during all these years.
Fail!
Bully
/ˈbo͝olē/
Noun
A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.

So you are posting false accusations that winners need to be Bullys. A few are but I dont see it as part of the make up of what makes a winner.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Fail!
Bully
/ˈbo͝olē/
Noun
A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.

So you are posting false accusations that winners need to be Bullys. A few are but I dont see it as part of the make up of what makes a winner.
There are no true or false accusations. There are ur opinion and mine. I think a certain chunk of work on 'intimidation' is implemented by others as well.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
airstream said:
There are no true or false accusations. There are ur opinion and mine. I think a certain chunk of work on 'intimidation' is implemented by others as well.
Can you give examples of other champions intimidating others in a manner that would be considered bullying to back up your post that it is part of what makes a winner?

Otherwise you have made a false accusation.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Can you give examples of other champions intimidating others in a manner that would be considered bullying to back up your post that it is part of what makes a winner.
No. Is that so important? It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or do you offer to divide cheats on evil dopers (Armstrong) and kind dopers (others)?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
airstream said:
No. Is that so important? It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or do you offer to divide cheats on evil dopers (Armstrong) and kind dopers (others)?
you felt it was important enough to post it and label it as a trait of champions and winners.

When called on it you have failed to produce an alternative winner apart from Armstrong who is a bully or who bullied his opponents in achieving his wins.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts