• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

Page 551 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Aragon said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzSDNEgV794
Ger Gilroy said:
People have referred to you as a pathological liar and in one case there is a guy who says after the deposition in 2006: 'either all the scientists were wrong or this guy is a psychopath'... I wonder... Do you recognize yourself?
That question sums up nicely the goal and quality of the Gilroy-interview.
This.
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

thehook said:
Lance Doped, lance is/was an ***.

But to say he was not the best rider in his era? C'mon. They ALL could dope. He was just a raving mad man in his dope,prep,nutrition...etc.

There are different perspectives on this. One takes cycling 'as it is and always has been,' and another takes cycling 'as it ought to be.'

If you start from the former (cesspool) perspective, Lance was just another rider who happened to be a hard worker and a good responder to doping.

If you start from the latter (idealized) perspective, Lance is an egregious cheat who stole a place in the peloton from clean riders and conspired with the rest of the peloton to steal races from clean riders.

There is also the 'Lance is a bad man and I hate him' perspective. That perspective derives from a personal feeling of fanboi betrayal. It's not particularly reasonable, but this is all about a phony circus, anyway.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Aragon said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzSDNEgV794
Ger Gilroy said:
People have referred to you as a pathological liar and in one case there is a guy who says after the deposition in 2006: 'either all the scientists were wrong or this guy is a psychopath'... I wonder... Do you recognize yourself?
That question sums up nicely the goal and quality of the Gilroy-interview.
So Ger is meant to go easy and leave out any reference to him being a complete bull***t artist. He asked the man straight out did he recognise himself being the person we have all stated he is ? No issues there in fact it was a good question.
The motor question starting to take shape too - which explains his reference to it and calling out there may be a story. Guess is Lance will be involved (ie as per Gilroy suggestion he will have been offered a motor not used)
I thought it was a good interview,
 
Re:

sniper said:
Good info. I'll have to check. Last time I looked into Aicar I remember reading it got on the list only in 2011.
If you are right, that's potentially bad news for wiggins should his name ever become associated to aicar use in 2009.
It's confirmed - AICAR is listed as a banned substance effective 010109; according to the WADA 2009 prohibited list report (M3 Gene Doping/page 12):

http://www.ifbb.com/pdf/wadaprohibited.pdf

Also, the AFLD said two new drugs, AICAR & Hematide, were used in that year's Tour. The head of the AFLD said he was "shocked" by the thinness of some of the riders (can't imagine of what he thinks of today's riders. Lol):

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/oct/06/tour-de-france-undetectable-drugs
 
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
Aragon said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzSDNEgV794
Ger Gilroy said:
People have referred to you as a pathological liar and in one case there is a guy who says after the deposition in 2006: 'either all the scientists were wrong or this guy is a psychopath'... I wonder... Do you recognize yourself?
That question sums up nicely the goal and quality of the Gilroy-interview.
So Ger is meant to go easy and leave out any reference to him being a complete bull***t artist. He asked the man straight out did he recognise himself being the person we have all stated he is ? No issues there in fact it was a good question.
The motor question starting to take shape too - which explains his reference to it and calling out there may be a story. Guess is Lance will be involved (ie as per Gilroy suggestion he will have been offered a motor not used)
I thought it was a good interview,
There is a grey area between "leaving out any reference" and roasting a guy half of the interview with incidents he's been apologizing for the last three years. Honestly, aside from some discrepancies regarding LeMond-apology, I don't know if there was any new insight into Lance Armstrong. And yes, if you ask a guy out of blue whether his exercise physiologist offered him a motor, he would be confused.

While Gilroy seems to have done some original research, I am also not that impressed about his knowledge of basic facts. For instance, he thinks the Greg LeMond-Stephanie McIlvain tape as a new information because it was featured in the film Stop at Nothing (2014), whereas in reality the content has been circulating for ten years and anyone with even a miniscule knowledge on the chronology of the SCA case would've known about its existence and also with its key contents.
https://youtu.be/QzSDNEgV794?t=14m34s
 
Jun 17, 2009
24
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

While Gilroy seems to have done some original research, I am also not that impressed about his knowledge of basic facts. For instance, he thinks the Greg LeMond-Stephanie McIlvain tape as a new information because it was featured in the film Stop at Nothing (2014), whereas in reality the content has been circulating for ten years and anyone with even a miniscule knowledge on the chronology of the SCA case would've known about its existence and also with its key contents.
https://youtu.be/QzSDNEgV794?t=14m34s

I listen to Gilroy a lot. He is an excellent interviewer and REGULARLY covers the ins and outs of doping. But this interview was so disappointing.

I simply can't believe he just heard about Stephanie McIlvain. But it sounded like that.

I don't know what went wrong. This should have been the biggest interview of his life and he got caught in the headlights perhaps. Intimidated by Armstong's personality?

I felt he took the wrong tack completely. He tried to establish 2 things - get Lance to self-flagellate and issue another mea culpa, when he has done a lot of mealy mouth apologies already and most sports fans know what a nasty piece of work he was.

And secondly he really pushed the motor topic. To me that sounded like a real shot in the dark. And he got Lance's forthright reaction which, sorry to say so, but sounded pretty genuine. I find it hard to believe that Lance was on the best dope and a motor. I mean Vargas said it was available in 98 but as a prototype. So unless he KNOWS FOR SURE Lance had a motorised bike, and can then bring up Lance's words later as evidence of more lying, then that was just a waste of valuable interview time.

I don't know why he didn't go for the full disclosure angle. Tell him that most sports fans want to know the full who, how, where, and when. Tell him that we know he has only told what he wants us to hear so far.

Get him to admit he is still lying in order to make money/protect what he has and protect the real mafioso like Stapleton et al.
 
Re: Re:

Wicklow200 said:
While Gilroy seems to have done some original research, I am also not that impressed about his knowledge of basic facts. For instance, he thinks the Greg LeMond-Stephanie McIlvain tape as a new information because it was featured in the film Stop at Nothing (2014), whereas in reality the content has been circulating for ten years and anyone with even a miniscule knowledge on the chronology of the SCA case would've known about its existence and also with its key contents.
https://youtu.be/QzSDNEgV794?t=14m34s

I listen to Gilroy a lot. He is an excellent interviewer and REGULARLY covers the ins and outs of doping. But this interview was so disappointing.

I simply can't believe he just heard about Stephanie McIlvain. But it sounded like that.

I don't know what went wrong. This should have been the biggest interview of his life and he got caught in the headlights perhaps. Intimidated by Armstong's personality?

I felt he took the wrong tack completely. He tried to establish 2 things - get Lance to self-flagellate and issue another mea culpa, when he has done a lot of mealy mouth apologies already and most sports fans know what a nasty piece of work he was.

And secondly he really pushed the motor topic. To me that sounded like a real shot in the dark. And he got Lance's forthright reaction which, sorry to say so, but sounded pretty genuine. I find it hard to believe that Lance was on the best dope and a motor. I mean Vargas said it was available in 98 but as a prototype. So unless he KNOWS FOR SURE Lance had a motorised bike, and can then bring up Lance's words later as evidence of more lying, then that was just a waste of valuable interview time.

I don't know why he didn't go for the full disclosure angle. Tell him that most sports fans want to know the full who, how, where, and when. Tell him that we know he has only told what he wants us to hear so far.

Get him to admit he is still lying in order to make money/protect what he has and protect the real mafioso like Stapleton et al.

The real question is why would any journalist see the need to interview a serial doper and cheat when everybody knows the story. The only thing worth waiting for is the results of the qui tam lawsuit.
 
Re: Re:

The real question is why would any journalist see the need to interview a serial doper and cheat when everybody knows the story. The only thing worth waiting for is the results of the qui tam lawsuit.
Yes.. the whole Lance thing is almost played out by now. The guy is stale old news.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

RobbieCanuck said:
Wicklow200 said:
While Gilroy seems to have done some original research, I am also not that impressed about his knowledge of basic facts. For instance, he thinks the Greg LeMond-Stephanie McIlvain tape as a new information because it was featured in the film Stop at Nothing (2014), whereas in reality the content has been circulating for ten years and anyone with even a miniscule knowledge on the chronology of the SCA case would've known about its existence and also with its key contents.
https://youtu.be/QzSDNEgV794?t=14m34s

I listen to Gilroy a lot. He is an excellent interviewer and REGULARLY covers the ins and outs of doping. But this interview was so disappointing.

I simply can't believe he just heard about Stephanie McIlvain. But it sounded like that.

I don't know what went wrong. This should have been the biggest interview of his life and he got caught in the headlights perhaps. Intimidated by Armstong's personality?

I felt he took the wrong tack completely. He tried to establish 2 things - get Lance to self-flagellate and issue another mea culpa, when he has done a lot of mealy mouth apologies already and most sports fans know what a nasty piece of work he was.

And secondly he really pushed the motor topic. To me that sounded like a real shot in the dark. And he got Lance's forthright reaction which, sorry to say so, but sounded pretty genuine. I find it hard to believe that Lance was on the best dope and a motor. I mean Vargas said it was available in 98 but as a prototype. So unless he KNOWS FOR SURE Lance had a motorised bike, and can then bring up Lance's words later as evidence of more lying, then that was just a waste of valuable interview time.

I don't know why he didn't go for the full disclosure angle. Tell him that most sports fans want to know the full who, how, where, and when. Tell him that we know he has only told what he wants us to hear so far.

Get him to admit he is still lying in order to make money/protect what he has and protect the real mafioso like Stapleton et al.

The real question is why would any journalist see the need to interview a serial doper and cheat when everybody knows the story. The only thing worth waiting for is the results of the qui tam lawsuit.

Judging by participation in this thread and the overall response to the interview, I'm going to say the answer t your question is "it sells copy".
 
Re:

sniper said:
Was Lance asthmatic or allergic to anything?

Did he have any TUEs, or a 50+ htc exemption?
I don't know...what would he need any TUEs for? He seemed to be too good of a high responder to O2-vector doping.

And to his credit, he was very meticulous about his diet, training, equipment, etc. (the stuff Sky's into). He also had decent bike skills & uncanny luck at avoiding crashes and staying out of trouble for 7 straight years...things dope has nothing to do with (it's my LA fanboi moment. Lol).
 
Re:

sniper said:
Was Lance asthmatic or allergic to anything?

Did he have any TUEs, or a 50+ htc exemption?
I've never encountered any information about his possible hematocrit exemption, I think his fellow US Postal teammates at least make no mention about it in memoirs or affidavits. There is also some discrepancy about his natural hematocrit, if I recall, Michele Ferrari claimed it was as high as 48. According to It's Not About The Bike (accessed through books.google.com), he had some allergies:
[My personal physician Rick Parker] used to hearing me complain about my sinuses and allergies. Austin has a lot of ragweed and pollen, and no matter how tortured I am, I can't take medication because of the strict doping regulations in cycling. I have to suffer through it.
Poor Lance :(
 
Re: Re:

Nomad said:
sniper said:
Was Lance asthmatic or allergic to anything?

Did he have any TUEs, or a 50+ htc exemption?
I don't know...what would he need any TUEs for? He seemed to be too good of a high responder to O2-vector doping.

And to his credit, he was very meticulous about his diet, training, equipment, etc. (the stuff Sky's into). He also had decent bike skills & uncanny luck at avoiding crashes and staying out of trouble for 7 straight years...things dope has nothing to with (it's my LA fanboi moment. Lol).

Well, he did have saddle sores...note that this article was from 1999, and knowing Sam Abt a bit you can read between the lines. Looking back it's amazing that he wasn't taken down almost 20 years ago: the whole sport had willingly shoved its collective head in the sand.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/22/sports/cycling-armstrong-is-engulfed-by-a-frenzy-over-salve.html

I fully admit to being a fanboi, just as i was a Pantani fanboy, a LeMond fanboy, a Badger fanboy etc. The Hamilton/Landis cases were what completely convinced me that every decent cyclist was doing something to get an illegal edge. LA still gets people's goat because as the above states, he did everything right and won the freakin' TdF 7 times in a row. You'd have thought something would go wrong, but it didn't.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Visit site
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
missed opportunity to build a dialogue with him. For some winning the pissing contest seemed more important.
I think it's fair enough if people have contempt for Lance. But then why try and interview him in the first place? Its a waste of everybody's time if the only purpose is to put Lance in the corner like a naughty schoolboy.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
He may have been wary of the grilling he may have got but I'm delighted he's not coming. This was becoming more about MacKenna and Kimmage and who should interview him than anything to do with Armstrong himself. The interviewer should not become the story.

MacKenna was writing a column the other day about him doing the interview and then we had Kimmage on RTE on Saturday night doing the same. Gilroy too.

There is a place for Armstrong to be interviewed with proper follow ups and so forth, but it might be a good idea to make it solely about Lance.

I can understand Walsh getting criticism for this too with the Program film and all that but these guys were just as guilty of it the last couple of weeks too.

What's more Ewan Mackenna doesn't even follow cycling one bit. He told me that on twitter long ago and yet as of recently he has some new found love for the sport.

You don't see Ballester, Ressiot, or Rouet publicising themselves like this.
 
I was desperate for Lance to become a part of the solution and have always been hoping he could be truly sorry for his actions. From what I've seen and heard of him he's still the same goddam jerk he always was. Still lying, still protecting his money and still trying to control the message. He deserves to be cold shouldered and cast to the side. Dopers are not necessarily horrible people but unfortunately Lance fits into both boxes.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
I listened to MacKenna talking to Ger Gilroy on Newstalk earlier and in fairness he did say that he didn't want to become story, although it still poses the question why then was he publicising it about himself on twitter all the time and then writing about it the other day.

He said he's not happy either with the Irish Independent who were using it to say Kimmage should have got the interview.

I think a few of these journalists need to take a look at the names I mentioned above, or how Seppelt and the ST insight team went about their work in the past. None of them try to become the story and look for a pat of the back.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re:

gooner said:
I listened to MacKenna talking to Ger Gilroy on Newstalk earlier and in fairness he did say that he didn't want to become story, although it still poses the question why then was he publicising it about himself on twitter all the time and then writing about it the other day.

He said he's not happy either with the Irish Independent who were using it to say Kimmage should have got the interview.

I think a few of these journalists need to take a look at the names I mentioned above, or how Seppelt and the ST insight team went about their work in the past. None of them try to become the story and look for a pat of the back.
cheers.
Couldn't agree more with that last paragraph.