Lance appearing on Oprah next week

[Fatclimber]

Ahh so it appears as if I will be proved right again. In the reports I have read in the dailies today, quoting the New York Times and USA Today, a source very close to Armstrong has claimed that the Texan will confess (partially) to doping on Oprah and will say he’s sorry (!), but will not provide details as to his sources, methods and the stuff he was on.
.....

The answers you seek are mostly those of us minority cycling fans desire, above and beyond what will captivate the attention of the general US public. He's choosing his forum which just so happens to benefit him the most just like anybody would do. Of course it won't live up to anywhere near it's potential and won't satisfy those of us here. armstrong doesn't care, it's that large group of sympathy-givers he's trying to sway.

The thing that struck me about Floyd was how, even after admitting doping, in interviews he still made it clear that he felt he was a deserving champion. These idiots just don't think they did anything wrong. Hushovd, S Sanchez, Friere, and all the other fools confirm that they still maintain this mentality.

The questions above from "The Roar" would be fantastic to have answered. Walsh's questions are severely lacking compared to those, what happened David?

 

[86TDFWinner]

Ahh so it appears as if I will be proved right again. In the reports I have read in the dailies today, quoting the New York Times and USA Today, a source very close to Armstrong has claimed that the Texan will confess (partially) to doping on Oprah and will say he’s sorry (!), but will not provide details as to his sources, methods and the stuff he was on.

Now I said the only reason a confession of his would be worth listening to, would be if he came totally clean: what were his sources, methods and, above all, the stuff he was on? I also said he was only doing this to try to redirect the focus of the narrative, in his own base interests, while taking us all for fools. I hope people aren’t stupid enough to bite and that it totally backfires on him, for what is surely a gross miscalculation, as he’s lost all moral purchase and public appeal.

At any rate I’ve been saying for years, because it’s what I’ve been hearing for years, that Armstrong was no ordinary doper, nor even just a quite astute one: but that he had unique access to certain drugs before they went more mainstream, and then when they did he was already on to the newest thing. This partly because of his cancer treatments, which gave him such privileged access: for example, it’s reported in Hamilton’s book (p. 250) that a source familiar with the federal investigation “said an account that Lance had in the late 1990’s gained him access to a blood booster called HemAssist, a new drug that was in clinical trials at the time. ‘If somebody was going to design something better than EPO, this would be the ideal product,’ said Dr. Robert Przybelski, who was director of hemoglobin therapeutics at Baxter Healthcare, which developed the drug.” This can only be linked to his cancer legacy.

When Hamilton was first given blood transfusions, LA had already been given them for the past years, which would seem to indicate that, at that point, he was now onto the next thing in the arms race. It would now appear that cancer truly ended up being an athletic benefit to Armstrong, though not for weight loss, but in providing him blood boosting pharmaceuticals to which only he had special access, which was continued and reinforced when he became the sport’s Godfather. Always one step ahead of the competition, including his own teammates.

This is why the Oprah interview, if resulting thus, will only be another farce within the farce.

Try to keep up, broken record

 

[veganrob]

So Lance is going to answer all the questions Oprah asks. That doesn't mean a thing. Oprah has never sked a tough question in her life. No danger at all for Lance. Proof he is still playing to the idiot fanboys of the world.
And also, any confession he makes on Oprah is not the same as making a statement to USADA. Somebody verify that for me. SO no, no triathlons for Blunderboy.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/01/13/21-questions-oprah-probably-wont-ask-lance-armstrong/

says there will be live streaming:

Editor’s note: Oprah’s Next Chapter featuring Lance Armstrong will be streamed on Oprah.com on (Australian time) Friday 18/1 1pm AEDT (US time: Thursday 1/17 at 9pm ET/8pm CT)

 

[reginagold]

says there will be live streaming:

Editor’s note: Oprah’s Next Chapter featuring Lance Armstrong will be streamed on Oprah.com on (Australian time) Friday 18/1 1pm AEDT (US time: Thursday 1/17 at 9pm ET/8pm CT)

This entire thing is of course stage managed to get the largest possible audience. We can wait to read the press reports - or contribute to he who must not be named by watching live online. I will not add to the crowd they seek to create.

 

[86TDFWinner]

This entire thing is of course stage managed to get the largest possible audience. We can wait to read the press reports - or contribute to he who must not be named by watching live online. I will not add to the crowd they seek to create.

Good post.

 

[mountainrman]

Oprah has been known to give those who have lied to her a very hard time when they come back on the show.

She annihalated author James Frey for just that. Check it out.

She must also know her own reputation is on the line.

 

[Race Radio]

Oprah has been known to give those who have lied to her a very hard time when they come back on the show.

She annihalated author James Frey for just that. Check it out.

She must also know her own reputation is on the line.

James Frey was a contrite wuss. If she gives Lance a hard time he will push right back.

 

[Wallace]

Oprah has been known to give those who have lied to her a very hard time when they come back on the show.

She annihalated author James Frey for just that. Check it out.

She must also know her own reputation is on the line.

Whenever people talk about how tough Oprah can be, they always trot out the James Frey show. One serious interview doesn't negate a whole career's worth of fluff. I predict a totally self-serving Armstrong interview, starting with self-pity ("I had cancer, I had no choice, if I wanted to win, to make a difference...) and working its way to redemption ("when you lose everything, you realize what's really important" or some crap like that), with no concrete details about the stuff that matters (UCI bribes, Ferrari, how the money worked, etc.). In other words, the interview will be good for Lance and Oprah--her fans love a good redemption story and don't give a hairy rat's a$$ about cycling--but for the sport, a total waste of everyone's time.

Of course if I'm wrong I will be overjoyed to eat my words.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Oprah has been known to give those who have lied to her a very hard time when they come back on the show.

She annihalated author James Frey for just that. Check it out.

She must also know her own reputation is on the line.

Whatever plays out during this interview, it is probable that she knew exactly where she wanted to take this from the get go. All this last minute surge of producers interest is 100% for optics.

When you consider, as you say, the ride she gave Frey for the crime of ' misrepresenting your literary work as authentic'....if there is any proportionality in her treatment, Lance would be well advised to be ready for some redux.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Whenever people talk about how tough Oprah can be, they always trot out the James Frey show. One serious interview doesn't negate a whole career's worth of fluff. I predict a totally self-serving Armstrong interview, starting with self-pity ("I had cancer, I had no choice, if I wanted to win, to make a difference...) and working its way to redemption ("when you lose everything, you realize what's really important" or some crap like that), with no concrete details about the stuff that matters (UCI bribes, Ferrari, how the money worked, etc.). In other words, the interview will be good for Lance and Oprah--her fans love a good redemption story and don't give a hairy rat's a$$ about cycling--but for the sport, a total waste of everyone's time.

Of course if I'm wrong I will be overjoyed to eat my words.

Same here...overjoyed but I am not hopeful

 

[Semper Fidelis]

After Lance does a half ***'ed confession and apology there will be enough material to keep this thread and other La Threads going for another 10 years.

With respect to the Fish Hacks self serving 10 questions. What a *****. Time to be a man.

 

[Neworld]

Oprah has been known to give those who have lied to her a very hard time when they come back on the show.

She annihalated author James Frey for just that. Check it out.

She must also know her own reputation is on the line.

My wife had a journal club of 8 women over last night...I had to find respite in my man cave...they appreciated that too. Before my decent into the basement I asked them all about Oprah and being able to ask hard questions...they all laughed in unison. "No", they said. She loves to be apart of ones healing, asking ancillary questions about, "how did it feel when...".

None of them could remember a tough speaking Oprah.

Oprah has an agenda, Lancey has an agenda, cycling fans finding out the truth or a full LA admission of guilt is not on the agenda.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

My wife had a journal club of 8 women over last night...I had to find respite in my man cave...they appreciated that too. Before my decent into the basement I asked them all about Oprah and being able to ask hard questions...they all laughed in unison. "No", they said. She loves to be apart of ones healing, asking ancillary questions about, "how did it feel when...".

None of them could remember a tough speaking Oprah.

Oprah has an agenda, Lancey has an agenda, cycling fans finding out the truth or a full LA admission of guilt is not on the agenda.

Right on.

On the other hand, for true cycling lovers it will be just fun [beer and chips] watching the capo di capi on a female [no pun intended] glossy glossy show asking the grand - clueless - public for forgiveness.

 

[mountainrman]

So what do you expect him to say?

I expect him to make a statement that in essence says :say that having become the voice of cycling by default after that first tour win that he was put in an impossible position of being forced with the unenviable choice of defending an endemically corrupt sport from top to bottom from the highest officials to the lowest domestique , or blowing it out of the water completely. That it was an open conspiracy inside the sport in which allmost all were involved but nobody spoke - because speaking out would stop the gravy train for all of them. That he did not want to be responsible for single handedly destroying the sport by revealing its dirty secrets.

That once you get trapped in such a lie it becomes harder and harder to exit from ithe lie , so once on that path it became hard to exit which is the reason those who are not caught never speak - and in the end he did not create the problem which was endemic in both Cycling and USPS long before him, and carried on as it always had after he left. That it was not up to him to sort it out which was UCI job and he only played to the rules that most others were playing

So he is sorry it has ended where it has , and is sorry for those whose integrity he attacked, but in the end cycling is entertainment - and they were trying to make it entertaining by putting on a show and pushing limits.

Finally to warn that he was only a part of a far bigger problem that still remains so it is not helpful for the sport to blame where it now is just on him - and that the sport could have and should have done more.

That investing his money in testing has been misinterpreted and was done in the hope that a better world could be created for those who come later, than the impossible decisions faced by those entering the sport at top level when he did.

Dont challenge me on whether you believe any of the above but it is what I think he will say.

I am interested to know if he has a punchline in mind. It could be that he will state he would cooperate to tell what he knows in detail, but that USADA will not budge from an 8 year ban, which is so far disproportionate to others! And in essence a detterent to speaking out so why should he bother? Or that there is a lot he cannot say for as long as he alone is threatened with legal action. I think he might also say he was never given a real opportunity to come clean


And in all the above the main disappointment for me is that I believe LA Did have the wealth connections and charisma to actually force clean up the sport.
Most of the previous champions have had a charisma bypass operation which is why they never became household names except perhaps in France.

 

[Neworld]

So what do you expect him to say?

I expect him to make a statement that in essence says :say that having become the voice of cycling by default after that first tour win that he was put in an impossible position of being forced with the unenviable choice of defending an endemically corrupt sport from top to bottom from the highest officials to the lowest domestique , or blowing it out of the water completely. That it was an open conspiracy inside the sport in which allmost all were involved but nobody spoke - because speaking out would stop the gravy train for all of them. That he did not want to be responsible for single handedly destroying the sport by revealing its dirty secrets.

That once you get trapped in such a lie it becomes harder and harder to exit from ithe lie , so once on that path it became hard to exit which is the reason those who are not caught never speak - and in the end he did not create the problem which was endemic in both Cycling and USPS long before him, and carried on as it always had after he left. That it was not up to him to sort it out which was UCI job and he only played to the rules that most others were playing

So he is sorry it has ended where it has , and is sorry for those whose integrity he attacked, but in the end cycling is entertainment - and they were trying to make it entertaining by putting on a show and pushing limits.

Finally to warn that he was only a part of a far bigger problem that still remains so it is not helpful for the sport to blame where it now is just on him - and that the sport could have and should have done more.

That investing his money in testing has been misinterpreted and was done in the hope that a better world could be created for those who come later, than the impossible decisions faced by those entering the sport at top level when he did.

Dont challenge me on whether you believe any of the above but it is what I think he will say.

Glad you added this line, 'cause the above is just as ridiculous as Lance is.

I am interested to know if he has a punchline in mind. It could be that he will state he would cooperate to tell what he knows in detail, but that USADA will not budge from an 8 year ban, which is so far disproportionate to others why should he bother?

That is just it, Lancey is always looking out for what is best for him, 'his' ban reduction, ability to continue to cheat and race and make money. After all the years of acting like a social deviant he is still trying to be a deleterious sociopath. He will not change and that is why he deserves no leniency.

How about, "I am confessing because I was full of lies, anger and deceit, and now REGARDLESS of the outcome today I want to change my life and turn it around. If that helps change cycling so be it. But I have to start correcting my sad putrid life first"

And in all the above the main disappointment for me is that I believe LA Did have the wealth connections and charisma to actually force clean up the sport. Most of the previous champions have had a charisma bypass operation which is why they never became household names except perhaps in France.

This is a valuable point, I hope Oprah asks this as one of her questions!

 

[thehog]

So what do you expect him to say?


And in all the above the main disappointment for me is that I believe LA Did have the wealth connections and charisma to actually force clean up the sport.
Most of the previous champions have had a charisma bypass operation which is why they never became household names except perhaps in France.

This I agree with. But then I look at the "Catlin program" and the attempts to "disable" USADA with political pressure and connections and I see someone who was prepared to dismantle anti-doping to save his own skin. That's bad.

I don't think anyone would disagree the sport is filthy top to bottom. But reenforcing the corruption doesn't give you a pass.

Unless Lance serves up the UCI he'll get no where with a confession. If anyone wants to blow up the sport so it can be fixed then its Lance. He's the only one who can do it.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

This I agree with. But then I look at the "Catlin program" and the attempts to "disable" USADA with political pressure and connections and I see someone who was prepared to dismantle anti-doping to save his own skin. That's bad.

I don't think anyone would disagree the sport is filthy top to bottom. But reenforcing the corruption doesn't give you a pass.

Unless Lance serves up the UCI he'll get no where with a confession. If anyone wants to blow up the sport so it can be fixed then its Lance. He's the only one who can do it.

Yes. All true. But Lance is not interested in cleaning up anything. Lance is interested in Lance. If it means narcing , then that's what he'll do. And if it means dribbling a partial mea culpa, and upholding the Omerta for those who enabled...well he'll do that too.

I just feel that the show will leave many truthseekers disappointed. Unless Oprah goes full ***.

No noise from Bruyneel and co.....wonder if he will co-star....??

 

[rhubroma]

Try to keep up, broken record

Really? Whose asking the really essential question right now?
As far as I can tell no one.

 

[mountainrman]

Unless Lance serves up the UCI he'll get no where with a confession. If anyone wants to blow up the sport so it can be fixed then its Lance. He's the only one who can do it.

I read that to get less than an 8 year ban requires a change to rules. Will that rely on UCI or just WADA? - if reducing the ban relies on UCI support , and full disclosure blows UCI out of the water Then becomes a catch 22. You can be certain LA will not tell without a plea bargain already defined - so there is a stalemate.

 

[reginagold]

So long as Oprah at least once says "biggest fraud in the history of sports" the PR spin will be in context.

 

[Bosco10]

Oprah has been known to give those who have lied to her a very hard time when they come back on the show.

She annihalated author James Frey for just that. Check it out.

She must also know her own reputation is on the line.

lol.. Oprah then did a teary-eyed show apologizing to Frey for her behavior - all done for the cameras of course. And the reason she "annihilated" him in the first place was because it was super personal with her.

 

[thehog]

Yes. All true. But Lance is not interested in cleaning up anything. Lance is interested in Lance. If it means narcing , then that's what he'll do. And if it means dribbling a partial mea culpa, and upholding the Omerta for those who enabled...well he'll do that too.

I just feel that the show will leave many truthseekers disappointed. Unless Oprah goes full ***.

No noise from Bruyneel and co.....wonder if he will co-star....??

Lance full *** would be awesome. But he'd only do that to save his skin also. Pushing the focus away from himself to others.

Nice article here which embodies what you're saying.

People now want this to be some kind of referendum on what you think about drugs in sports, as if somehow that is the real issue here. No it is not, that is just more cheap enabling for Lance Armstrong. The issue is the lying.

The other cyclists didn’t force him to lie, the media sure didn’t force him to lie, the anti-doping agencies didn’t force him to lie. Armstrong, Big Tex, did that all by himself, with this amazing, elaborate athletic Ponzi scheme.

Understand something about Armstrong: Whatever version of the truth he will give Oprah is nothing more than a last resort for him, even as he will certainly tell us about the lives of all the cancer patients he’s touched because of Livestrong. It will just be another example of Armstrong saying anything to save his own sorry self. This isn’t about somebody else’s life. Just his own.

Once Lance Armstrong, whose legend became so much bigger than the facts, was willing to say anything, hurt anybody, call people bitter or call them *****s, who got in his way. Now he is willing to say anything to still make himself the hero of his own drama, the mythology he created and others helped create for him. That doesn’t make you a saint or an icon or a hero. It makes you a cornered rat.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...wide-web-lies-article-1.1239104#ixzz2Hs7Irkyu

 

[rickshaw]

Oprah? So what?

Oprah?, the Mickey Mouse Show?, Pee Wee's Playhouse?, so what? Really, can anyone think that an American TV entertainer on her OWN entertainment show can be significant in anyway? Probably be as relieving and hard hitting as Geraldo opening Al Capone/s secret hideaway.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

This isn't going to be anything new for the Uniballer. He's been getting softball questions for fanboy and girl 'journalists' who know nothing about cycling from CN for years.

It would be hard for Oprah to be less toothless than your usual CN interview. Unlike CN who are always worrying about loosing access, Oprah doesn't really have to worry about that.