• 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 552 - 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:

ontheroad said:
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.
Imo that's pointless.
Lance is human.
I don't think we should expect him to be sorry, when in essence he's been and is being scapegoated for a whole generation many of whom are still making big bucks out of their cheating. So many frauds still walking around unpunished. Exactly whom should Lance be sorry to? Kimmage, sure. And that Italian rider he chased down. But otherwise? Clean cyclists? Sure, but the sport procycling is designed for dopers to surface to the top. That's not really Lances fault.
If the purpose of every future Lance interview is to ask him if he's really sorry, that would be rather lame wouldn't it.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
ontheroad said:
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.
Imo that's pointless.
Lance is human.
I don't think we should expect him to be sorry, when in essence he's been and is being scapegoated for a whole generation many of whom are still making big bucks out of their cheating. So many frauds still walking around unpunished. Exactly whom should Lance be sorry to? Kimmage, sure. And that Italian rider he chased down. But otherwise? Clean cyclists? Sure, but the sport procycling is designed for dopers to surface to the top. That's not really Lances fault.
If the purpose of every future Lance interview is to ask him if he's really sorry, that would be rather lame wouldn't it.
I agree...and I don't why LA is suppose to be the solution when doping neither started nor ended with him. LA was a bully, chronic liar, toughguy and all that; a "pro-wrestling" type attitude he brought to cycling...nothing new there. And I believe he has apologize for his attitude and the way he treated some people back then. But why would he need to apologize for doping when he was competing against other GT contenders who were doping to the best of their abilities and resources. IMO, Lance just beat them at their own game. He even lost his titles while the other career dopers of that time period get to keep their Tour podium finishes and other GT titles.

LA is continually condemned for not repenting nor showing remorse about his doping; perhaps he feels like Di Luca who's "loud & proud" about his doping, even stating he couldn't have won without it (imagine that). Then there's Valverde, who in a recent interview with CyclingTips showed absolutely no remorse for his involvement in Puerto, stating "I just served my 2 yrs" and that "I was a great rider before the ban and even been better after it" (talk about arrogance...geez). Btw, both get to keep their respective GT titles (benevolent dopers will win friends in high places?).

So, it's not only the mean ones that are unrepentant and unashamed of their doping. Lol.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
ontheroad said:
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.
Imo that's pointless.
Lance is human.
I don't think we should expect him to be sorry, when in essence he's been and is being scapegoated for a whole generation many of whom are still making big bucks out of their cheating. So many frauds still walking around unpunished. Exactly whom should Lance be sorry to? Kimmage, sure. And that Italian rider he chased down. But otherwise? Clean cyclists? Sure, but the sport procycling is designed for dopers to surface to the top. That's not really Lances fault.
If the purpose of every future Lance interview is to ask him if he's really sorry, that would be rather lame wouldn't it.

I'm talking more specifically about his actions in dealing with the people he trod over to get to where he was and whose lives he destroyed on the way. There was plenty of collateral damage and he doesn't appear like a guy who is genuinely remorseful for treating people like a piece of dirt, only sorry that he got caught. Lets face it if he hadn't been busted he would still be acting thae way he had been, he's only sorry he got caught and he's still trying to maintain his profile and status and protect the fortune that he won through ill gotten gains by witholding the full truth. Its either all duck or no dinner. A full confession and rebuild, not some half baked version of the truth as a form of battening down the hatches and trying to hold onto the remnants of power and wealth. I thought the interview with Gilroy was very revealing.
 
Re: Re:

Nomad said:
sniper said:
ontheroad said:
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.
Imo that's pointless.
Lance is human.
I don't think we should expect him to be sorry, when in essence he's been and is being scapegoated for a whole generation many of whom are still making big bucks out of their cheating. So many frauds still walking around unpunished. Exactly whom should Lance be sorry to? Kimmage, sure. And that Italian rider he chased down. But otherwise? Clean cyclists? Sure, but the sport procycling is designed for dopers to surface to the top. That's not really Lances fault.
If the purpose of every future Lance interview is to ask him if he's really sorry, that would be rather lame wouldn't it.
I agree...and I don't why LA is suppose to be the solution when doping neither started nor ended with him. LA was a bully, chronic liar, toughguy and all that; a "pro-wrestling" type attitude he brought to cycling...nothing new there. And I believe he has apologize for his attitude and the way he treated some people back then. But why would he need to apologize for doping when he was competing against other GT contenders who were doping to the best of their abilities and resources. IMO, Lance just beat them at their own game. He even lost his titles while the other career dopers of that time period get to keep their Tour podium finishes and other GT titles.

LA is continually condemned for not repenting nor showing remorse about his doping; perhaps he feels like Di Luca who's "loud & proud" about his doping, even stating he couldn't have won without it (imagine that). Then there's Valverde, who in a recent interview with CyclingTips showed absolutely no remorse for his involvement in Puerto, stating "I just served my 2 yrs" and that "I was a great rider before the ban and even been better after it" (talk about arrogance...geez). Btw, both get to keep their respective GT titles (benevolent dopers will win friends in high places?).

So, it's not only the mean ones that are unrepentant and unashamed of their doping. Lol.

Two good, pragmatic responses teasing out the silliness of 'sorry', 'contrition', 'remorse', 'part of the solution.' Not to mention the furtive rubbing of the Betsy, Lemond and Simeoni amulets.Too bad Ger hadn't taken that approach into consideration before his unproductive flail.
 
Re: Re:

ontheroad said:
I'm talking more specifically about his actions in dealing with the people he trod over to get to where he was and whose lives he destroyed on the way. There was plenty of collateral damage and he doesn't appear like a guy who is genuinely remorseful for treating people like a piece of dirt, only sorry that he got caught. Lets face it if he hadn't been busted he would still be acting thae way he had been, he's only sorry he got caught and he's still trying to maintain his profile and status and protect the fortune that he won through ill gotten gains by witholding the full truth. Its either all duck or no dinner. A full confession and rebuild, not some half baked version of the truth as a form of battening down the hatches and trying to hold onto the remnants of power and wealth. I thought the interview with Gilroy was very revealing.
This is a very unpopular position and slightly off-topic, but here something about "lying" to digest...

Without defending all the nasty, unnecessary and costly legal suits and other malicious comments from Lance, there is some truth in the notion of great thinker Homer Simpsons, who once remarked that "it takes to two lie: one to lie and one to listen". Had Mr. Simpson actually substituted the word "to listen" with "to ask questions that force respondent to lie", it would be more accurate, because if you don't like people to lie, don't make them to lie, it is simple as that.

One could even question whether these "Do you dope?"-type sentences are even technically questions, because according to Oxford Dictionary, the meaning of the noun "question" is the following:
OXFORD DICTIONARY said:
A sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/question

That means that if even before opening your mouth, you already know the answer to your sentence ("no, I don't dope"), the sentence doesn't give any new information and thus is not even a question but just more eloquently worded "*** you!".

This doesn't mean that journalists mentioned even in this thread haven't obtained good information on doping issues through interviews with the culprits, but some of the questions posed by journalists are just borderline stupid (e.g. Gilroy's equivalent of "do you think you are a psychopath?").
 
Re:

gooner said:
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.
Not does McKenna appreciate anyone pointing out to him the problems with his proposal to ban TUEs. Some people need to stick to asking questions and leave policy to people who actually understand this stuff.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
gooner said:
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.
Not does McKenna appreciate anyone pointing out to him the problems with his proposal to ban TUEs. Some people need to stick to asking questions and leave policy to people who actually understand this stuff.

Agree, I read his column about that the other day, no grasp whatsoever of the implications of what he was calling for.
 
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.
this is funny man - so fair play on that.

Ewan was confirmed for weeks, didn't say it, until the Kimmage slot on the last word where kimmage was talking about it.
Even then Ewan on twitter said I am staying out of this...in the last few weeks ewan has slowly and quietly done his work begind the scenes, talking to Floyd, betsy, andreu's, kimmage, lemonds...he was asked by his paper to write about lance last weekend.
As for becoming the story...well he went on OTF thurs night after lance cancelled.
He was asked to go on.
Kimmage has taken a back seat the last three weeks.
You talk then of ewan not following cycling - well here is where you are funny. Because cycling journalists have done such a great job? In the last five months ewan has spoken at length with tucker, Rasmussen, joerg, landis, klaas faber, renee anne Shirley and others who I won't name.
good luck finding journalists who have spoken to those.
he was the guy who asked mo farah the only doping question in rio re: smith, adam and Salazar. Funny enough the response he got from athletic journalists was similar to yours...the same journalists who refused to ask farah a question.
You mention those French guys not becoming the story. True, but it was n irish conference, where they wanted an irish speaker...but more than that do you realise the irony of your statement. You have defended walsh to the hilt yet walsh never ever mentions these guys when he is introduced 'as the man who brought down lance.' With the best will in the world, with all the work walsh did on lance, he was not the guy. Lance was home an dry without the feds, it had nothing to do with walsh. Yet walsh allows himself be introduced this way...and that's ignoring the film, which in fairness you do reference.
So basically a cycling journalist is the way forward...and the cycling media are not continuing to disgrace themselves with sky.
Doesn't matter the journalists background, if he has researched the subject, with contacts which other journalists would not be able to access, then he's the right person.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
you make some fair points, Digger, as always, but "talking to (...) betsy, andreu's, kimmage, lemonds".
seriously, is that gonna bring any new insights?

Let me guess, Ewan has learned that it really is all Lance fault? And that from four different sources?
(and fair enough, if he also went to talk to Floyd, Joerg and MRasumussen, R-A-Shirly and the likes, he does deserve credit for that)

As i said, having contempt for Lance is understandable if he used to be your clean yellow hero. Or if he really tried to damage you like Simeoni or Kimmage.
but I don't think Ewan and Ger ever thought he was clean. And Lance never went after them.
More to the point, Lance has been taken down and exposed.
He's no longer part of the problem, has been publicly humiliated, and forced to apologize.
So whence this retrospective desire to humiliate Lance further, make him apologize further, and take him into a pissing contest? It's so *** lame and I honestly don't understand the point of it. If one still feels that much contempt towards Lance, fair enough but then at least have the decency to leave the guy in peace.

Ger still is and will be an excellent interviewer. He just did a lousy job on this occasion.
Maybe he'll be vindicated when evidence of LAnce and a motor turns up. But really does anyone care about that? The problems of cycling doping and motorization are here and now.
Time for Ewan and Ger to move on me thinks.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Lame from MacKenna. Still trying to become the story by kicking into a guy who's already been exposed humiliated, stripped of his results and forced to apologize..
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/armstrong-provokes-only-feelings-of-pity-these-days-nq7b8jh6c

So lets get this sttraight, MacKenna spoke to all those interesting persons, Joerg, Floyd, Rasmussen, R-A Shirly, yet - again - he's left citing the broken record called Betsy Andreu...?
Too lame.
The more I'm hearing Ewan whine about Lance, the more I think Lance was right for cancelling that appointment.
 
Re:

sniper said:
you make some fair points, Digger, as always, but "talking to (...) betsy, andreu's, kimmage, lemonds".
seriously, is that gonna bring any new insights?

Let me guess, Ewan has learned that it really is all Lance fault? And that from four different sources?
(and fair enough, if he also went to talk to Floyd, Joerg and MRasumussen, R-A-Shirly and the likes, he does deserve credit for that)

As i said, having contempt for Lance is understandable if he used to be your clean yellow hero. Or if he really tried to damage you like Simeoni or Kimmage.
but I don't think Ewan and Ger ever thought he was clean. And Lance never went after them.
More to the point, Lance has been taken down and exposed.
He's no longer part of the problem, has been publicly humiliated, and forced to apologize.
So whence this retrospective desire to humiliate Lance further, make him apologize further, and take him into a pissing contest? It's so **** lame and I honestly don't understand the point of it. If one still feels that much contempt towards Lance, fair enough but then at least have the decency to leave the guy in peace.

Ger still is and will be an excellent interviewer. He just did a lousy job on this occasion.
Maybe he'll be vindicated when evidence of LAnce and a motor turns up. But really does anyone care about that? The problems of cycling doping and motorization are here and now.
Time for Ewan and Ger to move on me thinks.
Wai one minute...ewan never learned it was lance's fault. He actually doesn't blame lance for the doping aspect to a large degree at all. Lance was aksed to come by the organisers not by ewan. Ewan only wanted to find out about lance the person not the doping - and whilst doping is the same now as before and after lance, lance is still lying. He is lying about 09 and 10...the make up of the fed case, his thoughts on Floyd, why he made Floyd an enemy to begin with, is all relevant and stuff i'd like to find out. And I don't even admire betsy anymore but in fairness lance said he wouldn't fight her on it - then with ger he did exactly that...plus and this is pertinent to today lance still protects the peloton and sky. Why won't he give an honest answer about sky?

And he has been talking a lot to Floyd and others not mentioned above.

Where lance will never learn, is that it was never the doping, it was his actions off the bike...and I gave him every chance in the last tow years but time and again he acts like this...and as for ger's interview, name one question which as unfair.
You said ger messed it up...lance behaved like a belligerent thug the whole way through. And yes more so than that, lance emailing Hilary to promise campaign funds in return for the feds calling off the chase does make him relevant again,
 
Re:

sniper said:
Lame from MacKenna. Still trying to become the story by kicking into a guy who's already been exposed humiliated, stripped of his results and forced to apologize..
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/armstrong-provokes-only-feelings-of-pity-these-days-nq7b8jh6c

So lets get this sttraight, MacKenna spoke to all those interesting persons, Joerg, Floyd, Rasmussen, R-A Shirly, yet - again - he's left citing the broken record called Betsy Andreu...?
Too lame.
The more I'm hearing Ewan whine about Lance, the more I think Lance was right for cancelling that appointment.

yes, classy guy lance, 23 hours beforehand - sniper he cancelled because of the emails.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Imo you either talk to Lance with a basic amount of respect (ie. not calling him a psychopath, and don't ask for more apologies), or -- if you don't respect him which is fair enough --- then simply don't try to talk to the man. Who said he was classy?

If I decide to talk to him, I take into account that he's already been exposed, already stripped of his results, facing several law suits, has been publicly humiliated, and forced to apologize to a number of people (some of whom aren't exactly sweathearts themselves by the way).
Why all this retrospective anger towards Lance?
What I see is consecutive attempts by Ger and now Ewan to further humiliate him and put him under pressure to go on a new round of apologizing.
Why for *** sake?
All these sarcastic tweets now from Ewan, and his piece in The Times today citing Betsy anecdotes.
Too lame, seriously, and yes, it suggests Ewan wants to become the story.
 
Re:

sniper said:
Imo you either talk to Lance with a basic amount of respect (ie. not calling him a psychopath, and don't ask for more apologies), or -- if you don't respect him which is fair enough --- then simply don't try to talk to the man. Who said he was classy?

If I decide to talk to him, I take into account that he's already been exposed, already stripped of his results, facing several law suits, has been publicly humiliated, and forced to apologize to a number of people (some of whom aren't exactly sweathearts themselves by the way).
Why all this retrospective anger towards Lance?
What I see is consecutive attempts by Ger and now Ewan to further humiliate him and put him under pressure to go on a new round of apologizing.
Why for **** sake?
All these sarcastic tweets now from Ewan, and his piece in The Times today citing Betsy anecdotes.
Too lame, seriously, and yes, it suggests Ewan wants to become the story.

It suggests you ignored my whole post...again what question did ger ask that was unfair...why is lance still lying...lance and Hilary...lance and betsy, sniper I don't even admire her, but the guy wouldn't even meet her and now he's going back on what he said ato oprah....

ewan and the tweets- a month he gave to preparing...flew from brazil and then finds out its over...you think he won't be annoyed...
if I interview lance I nail him on what he is still lying about.

Otherwise he's just another david millar.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Digger said:
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.
this is funny man - so fair play on that.

Ewan was confirmed for weeks, didn't say it, until the Kimmage slot on the last word where kimmage was talking about it.
Even then Ewan on twitter said I am staying out of this...in the last few weeks ewan has slowly and quietly done his work begind the scenes, talking to Floyd, betsy, andreu's, kimmage, lemonds...he was asked by his paper to write about lance last weekend.
As for becoming the story...well he went on OTF thurs night after lance cancelled.
He was asked to go on.
Kimmage has taken a back seat the last three weeks.
You talk then of ewan not following cycling - well here is where you are funny. Because cycling journalists have done such a great job? In the last five months ewan has spoken at length with tucker, Rasmussen, joerg, landis, klaas faber, renee anne Shirley and others who I won't name.
good luck finding journalists who have spoken to those.
he was the guy who asked mo farah the only doping question in rio re: smith, adam and Salazar. Funny enough the response he got from athletic journalists was similar to yours...the same journalists who refused to ask farah a question.
You mention those French guys not becoming the story. True, but it was n irish conference, where they wanted an irish speaker...but more than that do you realise the irony of your statement. You have defended walsh to the hilt yet walsh never ever mentions these guys when he is introduced 'as the man who brought down lance.' With the best will in the world, with all the work walsh did on lance, he was not the guy. Lance was home an dry without the feds, it had nothing to do with walsh. Yet walsh allows himself be introduced this way...and that's ignoring the film, which in fairness you do reference.
So basically a cycling journalist is the way forward...and the cycling media are not continuing to disgrace themselves with sky.
Doesn't matter the journalists background, if he has researched the subject, with contacts which other journalists would not be able to access, then he's the right person.

Kimmage has not taken a back seat on this. He obviously doesn't think MacKenna is up to it on this as he said someone who knows the story more should interview him. That's what got Lance's response on twitter. He was on Ray Darcy last Saturday again talking about a potential interview with him and how he would go about doing an interview with him.

I have said numerous times on here that Walsh has become too much the story. I agree about all these talks and appearances and being introduced that way. His work and journalism informed but didn't take him down. The same can be said on Kimmage. As someone else said on here, he basically wrote a column in '99 about Bassons being the hero of the Tour and stayed pretty much far away from the Tour in Lance's years. He wasn't even at those Tours. Lance even said it during the week, outside of the Cali conference there was zero dealings with him and its painted that he suffered hardship from Lance right from '99. It's there in the revised edition of Rough Ride, he said he didn't want to cover the Tour at the time and preferred covering other sports. '06 was the first Tour he covered properly since the early 90's. Kimmage did come on the story after Lance's comeback in '09 but he was not the big player that some like to think, and that he thinks himself as he said on Ray Darcy, Brendan O'Connor's show and multiple radio interviews over the years. Kimmage has been publicising the interaction he had with Lance through DMs. As an interviewer you don't show your card, you keep you cards close to your chest and don't tell the person you're interviewing that you're going to grill them. I would be very surprised if he got an interview now. I would have Kimmage on a list of other journalists with Lance but not as high as those other journalists I mentioned.

It's pretty clear to me MacKenna has little grasp of the TUE process. His ban on them is too simplistic. In the summer, MacKenna was trying to be in the cool gang. I don't know how many time I heard him say, "I asked Farah about Salazar". It was endless. He was starting to call out other journos and called out Ollie Holt of all people who is far from a fan of a typewriter and put him in his place saying he was enjoying the limelight for asking questions about Farah. He was also coming out with cowardly innuendo towards Thomas Barr. Granted his performance improved a lot, but as a journalist you don't go on twitter implying he may have doped before asking questions later. That can be mistaken for knowledge and it's poor journalism. I don't mind a sports journalist asking questions but I would like a sports journalist who has followed the sport, not a johnny come lately whose eyes lit up at the sound of the d word. I welcome him asking questions of those athletes, but he's out for the publicity and he should look at the examples I mentioned already. He could learn a thing or two. With athletics, he should have a look at Nick Harris with sporting intelligence and Martha Keller for some of their great work. Leave your journalism do the talking.

I'm getting a bit tired of this celebrity journalism. Walsh, Kimmage, MacKenna, are at it. I hope anyone but them get an interview with Lance.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Digger said:
...again what question did ger ask that was unfair...
The psychopath angle was moronic, to be honest.
Asking if he's really really sorry, was similarly futile.
Then for Ger to counter Lance when he said the Lemond's had accepted his apologies, that was, again, silly, to the point of being arrogant ("I have my sources").

The idea of a good question is to retrieve information (see Aragon's excellent post upthread). Ger's line of questioning was completely unfit for that purpose. It was a pissing contest. He was never going to retrieve anything from Lance other than the same old predictable denials.

Again, if one is incapable of showing Lance a minimum of respect, then why bother in the first place.

Digger said:
why is lance still lying...lance and Hilary...lance and betsy, sniper I don't even admire her, but the guy wouldn't even meet her and now he's going back on what he said ato oprah....
Lance is without a doubt the most severely humiliated, punished and exposed cyclist in the history of procycling. While that may be fair, why does he need to be humiliated any further by catching him out on more lies? I'm not interested in that.
If I interview him, Betsy will not be mentioned.
It's not about Betsy.
Meanwhile both Ger and Ewan are making it about Betsy, and without leaving room for the possibility that Betsy's views and anecdotes might be slightly, just a tenie weenie tiny bit, biased. And let's not get started about the Lemonds.

In fact, all the negative stuff that is coming out about Lance is from people who seem to have him on their shitlist. He may or may not deserve their flack, but the thing is: Lance is currently not in a position to defend himself. Any attempt he makes to defend himself only leads to more mockery. So people like Ewan can throw mud at him, and he can't throw aything back.
Take the Lemonds. They can smear Lance at will, and anything he says in return will subsequently be taken apart by people claiming Lance is a bitter jealous loser who can't accept that Lemond won the TdF clean.
So any kind of pissing contest between Lance and Lemond (or Lance and Betsy) is a loose-loose for Lance.
This should be obvious to Ger and Ewan, yet apparently it's not. They just join in the Lance bashing.

The hilary thing? I heard about it vaguely, but I can't be bothered to check what it's about. Currently I only see people piling onto Lance. Again he may or may not deserve that, but the point is that it's getting boring.

Digger said:
ewan and the tweets- a month he gave to preparing...flew from brazil and then finds out its over...you think he won't be annoyed...
sure. But while Ewan's #blameGer hashtag was a joke, there is truth in it.
Ger *** up by showing no intention to build a conversation and instead turning it into a pissing contest.
I assume Lance felt Ewan was going to go the same route as Ger, and so I have to say I respect and understand his decision to cancel the interview.

Digger said:
if I interview lance I nail him on what he is still lying about.
Why? We can figure out ourselves what Lance lied about, can't we?
It's like asking Froome "Do you dope?". There's no point. He'll say "no", for the most obvious of reasons, but we all know the answer is a lie.
Again, Aragon had a good concise post about this upthread: good interviewing is about trying to retrieve information by means of clever questions that will not trigger obvious lies.
In Ger's interview there was no trace of clever questioning.

If we want to hear more from Lance, imo a good approach would be to, firstly, acknowledge his right to be angry at people for the way he's been scapegoated and, secondly, ask what are the things/people he's still angry about.

It's clear that Lance is still angry, but in the platform that Kimmage, Ger and Ewan are giving him, there is no room for that anger. In their minds Lance must pay for his sins till the end of time and must apologize, apologize, apologize.
While that may or may not be legit from their pov, it's just not something I'm interested in.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Whatever happens now, they have got their just rewards. Somehow I don't think any of those three will be getting an interview anytime soon and they have themselves to blame. A complete missed opportunity where they were all in a battle to get an interview.

Once they broadcast their intentions of how they wanted to interview him, I wasn't surprised he pulled out. It's one of the things you don't do as a journalist.

The minute this was announced with MacKenna, he should have laid off twitter and played it low key and not give anything away in how he was going to do the interview. The event was promoted well nonetheless from the organisers side.

Instead he reveled in it all.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

gooner said:
Digger said:
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.
this is funny man - so fair play on that.

Ewan was confirmed for weeks, didn't say it, until the Kimmage slot on the last word where kimmage was talking about it.
Even then Ewan on twitter said I am staying out of this...in the last few weeks ewan has slowly and quietly done his work begind the scenes, talking to Floyd, betsy, andreu's, kimmage, lemonds...he was asked by his paper to write about lance last weekend.
As for becoming the story...well he went on OTF thurs night after lance cancelled.
He was asked to go on.
Kimmage has taken a back seat the last three weeks.
You talk then of ewan not following cycling - well here is where you are funny. Because cycling journalists have done such a great job? In the last five months ewan has spoken at length with tucker, Rasmussen, joerg, landis, klaas faber, renee anne Shirley and others who I won't name.
good luck finding journalists who have spoken to those.
he was the guy who asked mo farah the only doping question in rio re: smith, adam and Salazar. Funny enough the response he got from athletic journalists was similar to yours...the same journalists who refused to ask farah a question.
You mention those French guys not becoming the story. True, but it was n irish conference, where they wanted an irish speaker...but more than that do you realise the irony of your statement. You have defended walsh to the hilt yet walsh never ever mentions these guys when he is introduced 'as the man who brought down lance.' With the best will in the world, with all the work walsh did on lance, he was not the guy. Lance was home an dry without the feds, it had nothing to do with walsh. Yet walsh allows himself be introduced this way...and that's ignoring the film, which in fairness you do reference.
So basically a cycling journalist is the way forward...and the cycling media are not continuing to disgrace themselves with sky.
Doesn't matter the journalists background, if he has researched the subject, with contacts which other journalists would not be able to access, then he's the right person.

Kimmage has not taken a back seat on this. He obviously doesn't think MacKenna is up to it on this as he said someone who knows the story more should interview him. That's what got Lance's response on twitter. He was on Ray Darcy last Saturday again talking about a potential interview with him and how he would go about doing an interview with him.

I have said numerous times on here that Walsh has become too much the story. I agree about all these talks and appearances and being introduced that way. His work and journalism informed but didn't take him down. The same can be said on Kimmage. As someone else said on here, he basically wrote a column in '99 about Bassons being the hero of the Tour and stayed pretty much far away from the Tour in Lance's years. He wasn't even at those Tours. Lance even said it during the week, outside of the Cali conference there was zero dealings with him and its painted that he suffered hardship from Lance right from '99. It's there in the revised edition of Rough Ride, he said he didn't want to cover the Tour at the time and preferred covering other sports. '06 was the first Tour he covered properly since the early 90's. Kimmage did come on the story after Lance's comeback in '09 but he was not the big player that some like to think, and that he thinks himself as he said on Ray Darcy, Brendan O'Connor's show and multiple radio interviews over the years. Kimmage has been publicising the interaction he had with Lance through DMs. As an interviewer you don't show your card, you keep you cards close to your chest and don't tell the person you're interviewing that you're going to grill them. I would be very surprised if he got an interview now. I would have Kimmage on a list of other journalists with Lance but not as high as those other journalists I mentioned.

It's pretty clear to me MacKenna has little grasp of the TUE process. His ban on them is too simplistic. In the summer, MacKenna was trying to be in the cool gang. I don't know how many time I heard him say, "I asked Farah about Salazar". It was endless. He was starting to call out other journos and called out Ollie Holt of all people who is far from a fan of a typewriter and put him in his place saying he was enjoying the limelight for asking questions about Farah. He was also coming out with cowardly innuendo towards Thomas Barr. Granted his performance improved a lot, but as a journalist you don't go on twitter implying he may have doped before asking questions later. That can be mistaken for knowledge and it's poor journalism. I don't mind a sports journalist asking questions but I would like a sports journalist who has followed the sport, not a johnny come lately whose eyes lit up at the sound of the d word. I welcome him asking questions of those athletes, but he's out for the publicity and he should look at the examples I mentioned already. He could learn a thing or two. With athletics, he should have a look at Nick Harris with sporting intelligence and Martha Keller for some of their great work. Leave your journalism do the talking.

I'm getting a bit tired of this celebrity journalism. Walsh, Kimmage, MacKenna, are at it. I hope anyone but them get an interview with Lance.

Not even Walsh is a celebrity journalist! Stop posting shite. If these people were celebrities than they would be on programs outside their profession or on programs talking about other things other than sport.

Have any of these been on strictly come dancing, bake off, big brother, etc etc....that is celebrity.

These journalists have been on programs talking sport. Their job FFS!

Stop posting absolute drivel. Your hatred of journalists who have exposed dopers shows your true thoughts on sport.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Yes, take that in the literal sense as appearing in big brother.

In relation to this, they have become the story. No two ways about it. It's all about them doing the interview.

If they are talking about sport and mainly not themselves on programs, social media and elsewhere, then fair enough. That's hasn't been the case here.

When MacKenna was on Newstalk last night and he said he didn't like to become the story, he obviously knew he was becoming more the story and people were beginning to see it that way.

By the way, Kimmage said on Darcy's show that at one stage he thought he may have been considered for this interview.

Am I a Walsh hater now? :p I've never expressed hatred of journalists exposing dopers. On the contrary I mentioned many of them in this thread. I would be interested to know what doping MacKenna has exposed other than actually shouting Epstein's and other people's work with Farah.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re:

gooner said:
Yes, take that in the literal sense as appearing in big brother.

In relation to this, they have become the story. No two ways about it. It's all about them doing the interview.

If they are talking about sport and mainly not themselves on programs, social media and elsewhere, then fair enough. That's hasn't been the case here.

When MacKenna was on Newstalk last night and he said he didn't like to become the story, he obviously knew he was becoming more the story and people were beginning to see it that way.

By the way, Kimmage said on Darcy's show that at one stage he thought he may have been considered for this interview.

Am I a Walsh hater now? :p I've never expressed hatred of journalists exposing dopers. On the contrary I mentioned many of them in this thread. I would be interested to know what doping MacKenna has exposed other than actually shouting Epstein's and other people's work with Farah.

Not hard for a journalist to become the story when the interviewee runs scared because of what the journalist is going to ask.

I think Gilroy was more of the story than Walsh, Kimmage or Mackenna.

Again the accusation that these are celebrity journalists is utter shite.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Not hard for a journalist to become the story when the interviewee runs scared because of what the journalist is going to ask.

I think Gilroy was more of the story than Walsh, Kimmage or Mackenna.

Again the accusation that these are celebrity journalists is utter shite.

Kimmage on Darcy was prior to Lance pulling out. Again all about him doing the interview is what we heard that night. While even before that we had his comment that someone with more knowledge of the story should do the interview. Who was he hinting at? Especially as he said on Darcy's program that he thought he may have been considered for it. I also think the Irish Independent were using all this to try and get an interview with Kimmage which to be fair to MacKenna on this, he was rightly not happy with.

MacKenna's column and twitter comments were well before Lance backing out too. All this didn't happen with Lance's announcement on the eve of the One Zero event.

Walsh had nothing to do with this with this time, although it can be said in the past about him.

A wasted chance for a good interview.

Play it low key next time lads and drop the egos.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

gooner said:
Benotti69 said:
Not hard for a journalist to become the story when the interviewee runs scared because of what the journalist is going to ask.

I think Gilroy was more of the story than Walsh, Kimmage or Mackenna.

Again the accusation that these are celebrity journalists is utter shite.

Kimmage on Darcy was prior to Lance pulling out. Again all about him doing the interview is what we heard that night. While even before that we had his comment that someone with more knowledge of the story should do the interview. Who was he hinting at? Especially as he said on Darcy's program that he thought he may have been considered for it. I also think the Irish Independent were using all this to try and get an interview with Kimmage which to be fair to MacKenna on this, he was rightly not happy with.

MacKenna's column and twitter comments were well before Lance backing out too. All this didn't happen with Lance's announcement on the eve of the One Zero event.

Walsh had nothing to do with this with this time, although it can be said in the past about him.

A wasted chance for a good interview.

Play it low key next time lads and drop the egos.

Being on TV doesn't make one a celebrity! Kimmage is a well known journalist and outspoken. Of course he is going to be on TV and radio, part of the job and i repeat, he talks sport, not bollix!

As for ego, none bigger than Armstrong!