Lance appearing on Oprah next week

[RobbieCanuck]

Tygart never had any real interest in Lance telling all - as witness the indecent haste with which they produced the charging document before any real diplomacy - reinforced by the total intransigence of Tygart ...

The reality is that LA knows plenty enough to help the sport not least by showing up UCI for what it is... If the sport will not budge off 8 years to do that, it is passing up a massive opportunity. Why should LA give up what he knows except in exchabge for a reasonable deal?

This aburd comment demonstrates the kind of cycling fan the sport needs to be rid of. There is NOTHING LA can tell Tygart or WADA that he does not already know. For LA to now disengenuosly try to save his bacon after having endless opportunity to confess merely reiterates what a shallow, contemptable and characterless charlatan that is Lance Armstrong.

Any “confession” by LA has to be viewed in its context – cynical, calculating and desperate. Real redemption requires the redeemer to have redeeming qualities of character. Armstrong has none. His fraud is the greatest in sports history. His denials, bullying, hollow lawsuits, in short his behaviour during the period of denial (1993 to present) make this that rare and egregious case where redemption should not be available to a serial liar and cheat.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

It proves the obvious - Tygart never had any real interest in Lance telling all - as witness the indecent haste with which they produced the charging document before any real diplomacy - reinforced by the total intransigence of Tygart demonstrated here at this meeting in which it would appear LA was ready to deal.

So Why did Tygart bother to go if he knew he would not be offering a deal and digging his heels in on 8 years - in complete defiance of Tygarts stating previously that truth and reconciliation needed minimal sanctions to work. Seems to me Tygart went because he wanted to humiliate Armstrong face to face - hard to see any other purpose was served.

The reality is that LA knows plenty enough to help the sport not least by showing up UCI for what it is, and I think LA should cut a deal direct with WADA to tell what he knows. If the sport will not budge off 8 years to do that, it is passing up a massive opportunity. Why should LA give up what he knows exceot in exchabge for a reasonable deal?

This aburd comment demonstrates the kind of cycling fan the sport needs to be rid of. There is NOTHING LA can tell Tygart or WADA that they do not already know. For LA to now disengenuosly try to save his bacon after having endless opportunity to confess merely reiterates what a shallow, contemptable and characterless charlatan is Lance Armstrong.

Any “confession” by LA has to be viewed in its context – cynical, calculating and desperate. Real redemption requires the redeemer to have redeeming qualities of character. Armstrong has none. His fraud is the greatest in sports history. His denials, bullying, hollow lawsuits, in short his behaviour during the period of denial (1993 to present) make this that rare and egregious case where redemption should not be available to a serial liar and cheat.

 

[RownhamHill]

This aburd comment demonstrates the kind of cycling fan the sport needs to be rid of. There is NOTHING LA can tell Tygart or WADA that they do not already know. For LA to now disengenuosly try to save his bacon after having endless opportunity to confess merely reiterates what a shallow, contemptable and characterless charlatan is Lance Armstrong.

Any “confession” by LA has to be viewed in its context – cynical, calculating and desperate. Real redemption requires the redeemer to have redeeming qualities of character. Armstrong has none. His fraud is the greatest in sports history. His denials, bullying, hollow lawsuits, in short his behaviour during the period of denial (1993 to present) make this that rare and egregious case where redemption should not be available to a serial liar and cheat.

I'm going to start this post by saying instinctively I agree with all this above. And also that I haven't read this whole thread, so apologies if what I'm about to say has been covered.

But one thing struck me reading this, alongside some of the coverage on AP this morning from an 'insider familiar with the situation' of the interview and the apology to livestrong staff.

So Lance is a competitive guy, right? What if he's decided that he's played his original hand, lost big-time, and so is now - entering Race Radio's metaphorical 4th quarter - he's changing tack, and going 'all-in' on being the 'best redemption story' there ever was.

And in order to do that, rather than a mealy-mouthed, cynical half confession that deflects blame and leaves him looking like a deluded has been (my original expectation), he's going to genuinely go through a proper 'confession, lose his fortune, apologise to Landis' type narrative arc over the next few months/years, in order to (at some point) build himself back up in public as a good guy who has learnt his lesson? For argument's sake we can call it the 'Hail Millar' play.

Regardless of whether that's motivated by genuine remorse, or some cynical competitive, control freakery and the desire to 'win' in the end (and, honestly, how could we ever know either way?), if he does properly confess, pay-up and say sorry (in an appropriate fashion) - how are we supposed to react to him then? Is it really a rare and egregious case in which - under no circumstances - redemption is impossible, and if not, what conditions need to be met for redemption to be achieved?

I am aware this may be pie-in-the-sky and it might be business as usual when the interview broadcasts (I'm certainly not here to defend Lance). But it's an interesting thought experiment, and is giving me cognitive dissonance just imagining how I'd react.

I guess we will find out on Thursday/Friday how it all goes down!

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

I'm going to start this post by saying instinctively I agree with all this above. And also that I haven't read this whole thread, so apologies if what I'm about to say has been covered.

But one thing struck me reading this, alongside some of the coverage on AP this morning from an 'insider familiar with the situation' of the interview and the apology to livestrong staff.

So Lance is a competitive guy, right? What if he's decided that he's played his original hand, lost big-time, and so is now - entering Race Radio's metaphorical 4th quarter - he's changing tack, and going 'all-in' on being the 'best redemption story' there ever was.

And in order to do that, rather than a mealy-mouthed, cynical half confession that deflects blame and leaves him looking like a deluded has been (my original expectation), he's going to genuinely go through a proper 'confession, lose his fortune, apologise to Landis' type narrative arc over the next few months/years, in order to (at some point) build himself back up in public as a good guy who has learnt his lesson? For argument's sake we can call it the 'Hail Millar' play.

Regardless of whether that's motivated by genuine remorse, or some cynical competitive, control freakery and the desire to 'win' in the end (and, honestly, how could we ever know either way?), if he does properly confess, pay-up and say sorry (in an appropriate fashion) - how are we supposed to react to him then? Is it really a rare and egregious case in which - under no circumstances - redemption is impossible, and if not, what conditions need to be met for redemption to be achieved?

I am aware this may be pie-in-the-sky and it might be business as usual when the interview broadcasts (I'm certainly not here to defend Lance). But it's an interesting thought experiment, and is giving me cognitive dissonance just imagining how I'd react.

I guess we will find out on Thursday/Friday how it all goes down!

Question: Would he be doing any of this if he did not need USADA to reduce his ban?

Answer: No fcuking way.

End of story.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/questions-oprah-should-ask-lance-armstrong-230849439.html

This story by Dan Wetzel summarizes it at best. Really hope Oprah asks at least one of these questions. Way better then Welsh's questions. On which Welsh will agree I think

Here is what Dan Wetzel states in his article, noted above,

"Lance Armstrong doesn't really owe much to most of us..."

"The sport of cycling itself? Well, that endeavor has proven nearly corrupt to the core. If anything, those races Armstrong won were on a fairly level playing field – a dirty one, but level nonetheless. Cycling is a great sport, but this is an unavoidable byproduct."

It is abundantly clear that Wetzel knows nothing about PEDs. By taking PEDs no one was on a level playing field because PEDs, like any drug affects everyone differently. Wetzel should know better. Everyone has a unique hematocrit level, and homogolous blood doping may or may not result in an advantage. In LAs case blood doping resulted in a huge advantage. Were he cycling clean he would have been a middle of the pack racer - no question!

For Wetzel to say this was "an unavoidable by-product" and that LA doesn't owe anything to anyone is absurd. His fraud is the greatest fraud in sporting history. He should crawl across the World, for the rest of his life, begging forgiveness for 20 years of serial lying, cheating, bullying and false pretence.

 

[RownhamHill]

Question: Would he be doing any of this if he did not need USADA to reduce his ban?

Answer: No fcuking way.

End of story.

Yeah, I'm not sure it is though.

I'm not asking about his motivations. More, if he does everything you would expect a penitent person to do - confess, apologise, settle law-suits, change behaviour - regardless of if that's only motivated by his desire to 'win' in an abstract sense, or to compete in triathlons, or whatever else we want to speculate, then how do you react?

If the metaphorical crocodile genuinely ends up looking, walking, and quacking like a duck, at which point (if ever) does it become a duck? And at which point do you start throwing it crusts of bread at the canal. . .

 

[JimmyFingers]

Anything he does from now on is the last throw of the dice of a desperate man. He has nowhere to go and it will be interesting if he pulls down the UCI house of cards with him. Presumably this is why Pat and Hein have worked so hard to protect. The clock is ticking

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Of course it's calculated. Expect nothing less than extreme precision too. The lies have to work very well and somehow fit on top of the decades of lying that came before.

What are these interesting events? Real or otherwise, please share. No judgement on you for sharing. Just post em' up!

In my opinion he has or his lawyers have made some loose deals already with the Federal Government, USADA, and on a more personal level Tyler and Floyd. Just my opinion.

My opinion is based on a source that has proven to be very very reliable in the past and they would be the first to jump up and down if Lance was going to take the FULL brunt of everything. See Lance went after this source with many different approaches on a personal level so this source would be overjoyed if it all came down to JUST LANCE.

I am left to believe that the UCI and the money men / providers for the Team should not be getting much rest these days.

 

[reginagold]

A penitent person is imho is not one who blames the parent for their own bad behavior. WSJ story still has LA doing that when he visited Tygart in December. A dozen or more years of cheating and, as Nicole Cooke said, stealing paychecks and prize money from other riders - gone because now "I'm sorry?". No, it starts to be gone when actual money is paid to those who were hurt. And a penitent person does even more, not just the minimum of paying whatever is left after the giant legal team yet again beats up those saying they've been hurt.

He's still trying to win, so be it. Just don't say believe he's sincerely sorry, unless that's simply "sorry he got caught."

NYT yesterday was pretty clear about the ongoing misuse of Livestrong to prop him up. We were told he'd resigned from the Foundation, what's with him wandering in and having an all hands meeting? He still "controls" it? Hmmm.

 

[mountainrman]

There is NOTHING LA can tell Tygart or WADA that they do not already know.

I shall Ignore the flame: on the point of substance I disagree.

There is a lot they do not yet know. For example: Who specifically was tipping off USPS about coming dope testers? What was the role of Weisel in this? Was he actually part of managing the fraud: according to Mercier it was in full force before Lance even joined.

Any “confession” by LA has to be viewed in its context – cynical, calculating and desperate.

The fact that confessions are (almost) ALL self serving desparate and made when there are no other avenues left is not just an "LA" thing.
Tyler made a mint out of writing a book. Hincapie confessed to get a sweetheart deal of a nothing 6 months and allowed to ride TdF in exchange for a lifetime of doping , being a major part of the same conspiracy, and it was just a good deal for him the reason he confessed. All doping confessions are self serving.

Actually the one who stood to gain least was Landis, but that was only because he had already lost it all, and there is a hint of "vengeance" in his motives. Not altruism.

When was the last time a doper who had neither been caught , failed a test or implicated came in from the cold and said "I doped and for the good of the sport I will now tell all..."

Be real.

I think LA knows plenty worth knowing both about doping in USPS , derivatives of it, and other parts of the sport including the dubious role of UCI, The sport should do the "usual" deal. A lighter sensible ban (ie not 8 years - which is life by any other name) in exchange for that.
If a detail confession blows UCI out of the water, and forces change, that alone has been worthwhile - and that is a cycling fan speaking.

 

[reginagold]

In my opinion he has or his lawyers have made some loose deals already with the Federal Government, USADA, and on a more personal level Tyler and Floyd. Just my opinion.

My opinion is based on a source that has proven to be very very reliable in the past and they would be the first to jump up and down if Lance was going to take the FULL brunt of everything. See Lance went after this source with many different approaches on a personal level so this source would be overjoyed if it all came down to JUST LANCE.

I am left to believe that the UCI and the money men / providers for the Team should be not getting much rest these days.

Does your source have any info on the status of the money laundering issues? He is still at risk of some serious criminal charges/penalties. It could be that this entire admission process is to shift public perceptions in advance of some as yet undisclosed criminal proceedings. Few can cross borders with piles of undeclared cash these days. Lawyer Luskin isn't a IOC/USADA expert - he's a money laundering legal expert. There is much new info that has come out since the DOJ shelved the criminal matter almost a year ago.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It proves the obvious - Tygart never had any real interest in Lance telling all - as witness the indecent haste with which they produced the charging document before any real diplomacy - reinforced by the total intransigence of Tygart demonstrated here at this meeting in which it would appear LA was ready to deal.

So Why did Tygart bother to go if he knew he would not be offering a deal and digging his heels in on 8 years - in complete defiance of Tygarts stating previously that truth and reconciliation needed minimal sanctions to work. Seems to me Tygart went because he wanted to humiliate Armstrong face to face - hard to see any other purpose was served.

The reality is that LA knows plenty enough to help the sport not least by showing up UCI for what it is, and I think LA should cut a deal direct with WADA to tell what he knows. If the sport will not budge off 8 years to do that, it is passing up a massive opportunity. Why should LA give up what he knows exceot in exchabge for a reasonable deal?

I don't know but what I thought it demonstrated is that Tygart has a tone of integrity and morals. I mean morals within the sporting world. Just my take.

Nothing comes cheap in life. Chances were given and not taken there has to be consequences to that decision. No free pass in other words.

But in the end In my Opinion something was concluded from either that meeting or a meeting / exchange after the Denver meeting.

 

[Benotti69]

<fanboy babble>


When was the last time a doper who had neither been caught , failed a test or implicated came in from the cold and said "I doped and for the good of the sport I will now tell all..."

Armstrong has no intention of doing anything for the good of anyone but Armstrong.

Watch him burn anyone to save his own skin.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Does your source have any info on the status of the money laundering issues? He is still at risk of some serious criminal charges/penalties. It could be that this entire admission process is to shift public perceptions in advance of some as yet undisclosed criminal proceedings. Few can cross borders with piles of undeclared cash these days. Lawyer Luskin isn't a IOC/USADA expert - he's a money laundering legal expert. There is much new info that has come out since the DOJ shelved the criminal matter almost a year ago.

No I have no inside info with regards to laundering etc.

To be clear the source of my information was vague but clear that this will be a complicated mess before all is said and done. Time will tell as with anything.

One thing is for 100% certain the clinic and twitter will be a couple of very good locations to find tidbits of real info, not the Network Media.

 

[mountainrman]

my Opinion something was concluded from either that meeting or a meeting / exchange after the Denver meeting.

You think a deal might have been done after the Denver meeting?

I (myself) just cannot see why Lance would hand over a lot of the dirty information which will leave him open to further spats and action with UCI, Weisel and the rest for just for a reduction to 8 years - which in sporting terms is still life and so pointless from his perspective - so I HOPE the dialogue continued, and Tygart came out negotiating this time.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You think a deal might have been done after the Denver meeting?

I (myself) just cannot see why Lance would hand over a lot of the dirty information which will leave him open to further spats and action with UCI, Weisel and the rest for just for a reduction to 8 years - which in sporting terms is still life and so pointless from his perspective - so I HOPE the dialogue continued, and Tygart came out negotiating this time.

I thought you were the guy who was a "fan of justice"?
Well the agreed rules are that a reduction from a life ban is 8 years.
If Armstrong wanted to make a genuine contribution (which would involve complete disclosure) then he would not even request a reduction - but that his neither his (or your) motivation.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You did not answer the question.
If you want the truth about UCI and LA to dish the dirt on it, what are you willing to concede to get it? 8 years is not a concession.

It was Tygarts job to strike that deal - and by the accounts of that meeting in Denver he failed. So not such a Sterling job since LA or so we are told by insiders came willing to deal.

What deal would you have done to expose McQuaid and Verb?
2-4 years stood a chance of being agreed, and I would have agreed depending on how much LA agreed to tell.

Only a willfully blind sycophant would make such a statement. Tygart already struck his deal. He won the case. Wonderboy came to the meeting with the attitude that he was going to dictate how things happened. He doesn't have that power but he is too stupid to realize it. Tygart is holding all of the cards and power here.

Troll away trollboy, troll away.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I thought you were the guy who was a "fan of justice"?
Well the agreed rules are that a reduction from a life ban is 8 years.
If Armstrong wanted to make a genuine contribution (which would involve complete disclosure) then he would not even request a reduction - but that his neither his (or your) motivation.

There's all manner of give and take in this, though, even at the USADA end of things. Hincapie et al got laughably small bans in exchange for grassing up Armstrong, where their offences on a standalone basis warranted the maximum possible penalty for a first offence.

This is justified (though it is subjective) on the grounds that this is a price worth paying to bring down Armstrong given the severity of his offences. If reducing Armstrong's ban to something short, so that he can get back in Triathlons in a year or so, is the "market price" for information to bring down the UCI, then Travis will have some serious thinking to do. If Lance makes the offer and Travis turns it down then questions would be asked - if only by Lance's fanboys - as to whether Travis's actions were truly impersonal, or whether he was just out to get Lance. Lance may have no further to fall, but Travis certainly has.

Without following through to try and bring down the UCI, then all those free passes just to bust Armstrong is not a good contribution from Travis. If the UCI can be brought down and replaced by a reputable body then there is hope for cycling, and the deals that have been made so far will have been worth it.

 

[martinvickers]

Question: Would he be doing any of this if he did not need USADA to reduce his ban?

Answer: No fcuking way.

End of story.

To misquote the man, it's not about the ban.

It's about money, and not becoming Marion Jones. He wants to stay fairly rich, and very free. Everything else comes waaaaayyy second.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There's all manner of give and take in this, though, even at the USADA end of things. Hincapie et al got laughably small bans in exchange for grassing up Armstrong, where their offences on a standalone basis warranted the maximum possible penalty for a first offence.

The charges against Hincapie et al were very different, they got a 2 year ban reduced to 6 months for cooperating.

This is justified (though it is subjective) on the grounds that this is a price worth paying to bring down Armstrong given the severity of his offences. If reducing Armstrong's ban to something short, so that he can get back in Triathlons in a year or so, is the "market price" for information to bring down the UCI, then Travis will have some serious thinking to do. If Lance makes the offer and Travis turns it down then questions would be asked - if only by Lance's fanboys - as to whether Travis's actions were truly impersonal, or whether he was just out to get Lance. Lance may have no further to fall, but Travis certainly has.

Without following through to try and bring down the UCI, then all those free passes just to bust Armstrong is not a good contribution from Travis. If the UCI can be brought down and replaced by a reputable body then there is hope for cycling, and the deals that have been made so far will have been worth it.

And Tygart is bound by those rules.
It would take the intervention of WADA to implement some new rule or amnesty.

 

[ValleyFlowers]

Here is the video of Oprah describing the interview.
Aired on CBS This Morning.

 

[spetsa]

Lance may have no further to fall, but Travis certainly has.

What have you been paying attention to?

 

[lean mean &green]

I'm going to start this post by saying instinctively I agree with all this above. And also that I haven't read this whole thread, so apologies if what I'm about to say has been covered.

But one thing struck me reading this, alongside some of the coverage on AP this morning from an 'insider familiar with the situation' of the interview and the apology to livestrong staff.

So Lance is a competitive guy, right? What if he's decided that he's played his original hand, lost big-time, and so is now - entering Race Radio's metaphorical 4th quarter - he's changing tack, and going 'all-in' on being the 'best redemption story' there ever was.

And in order to do that, rather than a mealy-mouthed, cynical half confession that deflects blame and leaves him looking like a deluded has been (my original expectation), he's going to genuinely go through a proper 'confession, lose his fortune, apologise to Landis' type narrative arc over the next few months/years, in order to (at some point) build himself back up in public as a good guy who has learnt his lesson? For argument's sake we can call it the 'Hail Millar' play.

Regardless of whether that's motivated by genuine remorse, or some cynical competitive, control freakery and the desire to 'win' in the end (and, honestly, how could we ever know either way?), if he does properly confess, pay-up and say sorry (in an appropriate fashion) - how are we supposed to react to him then? Is it really a rare and egregious case in which - under no circumstances - redemption is impossible, and if not, what conditions need to be met for redemption to be achieved?

I am aware this may be pie-in-the-sky and it might be business as usual when the interview broadcasts (I'm certainly not here to defend Lance). But it's an interesting thought experiment, and is giving me cognitive dissonance just imagining how I'd react.

I guess we will find out on Thursday/Friday how it all goes down!

this would be the ideal "intern" post at this juncture except its far too thoughtful to actually be one, they'd have to pay real money for this kind of stuff.

a very interesting experiment indeed. i think the answer lies in the question, do you care more about seeing armstrong ruined or seeing competitive sport cleaned up?

 

[Biggut]

I think they should re-dub and re-shoot the scene from Dodgeball. Instead of telling Peter Le Fevre that he didn't quit, he should point out that if the opposition are highly honed athletes the simple way to be competitive is to dope yourself to the gills. Next shot Lefevre being injected by Armstrong befoer going on to win the Vegas Dodgeball final.

Actually maybe they could combine Dodgeball with Oprah and give Floyd, Tyler etc wrenches...

 

[reginagold]

Anybody care to guess how Oprah is going to be hurt by this? You don't hang with LA and come away a winner. That's his role.