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

[TexPat]

Old news?

Hmmmm I don't remember ever reading what it was he was doing special vs others?

From The Secret Race (page 96, I think, but pagination may be fluid - I searched for, "Switzerland"):

Seek and ye shall find.
Ye need more sources.

 

[BullsFan22]

Old news?

Hmmmm I don't remember ever reading what it was he was doing special vs others?

From The Secret Race (page 96, I think, but pagination may be fluid - I searched for, "Switzerland"):

But, wait a second, how come we never saw this on OLN?? You know, the tour preview with the USPS boys and following the Lance armada around Europe.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Three things come out in the Patrick interview.

Firstly, he still thinks he is a great champion, yet admits he won because of the dope and that he would not have won without it. How can a champion be great if he cheats? And how can he be a champion if he cheats? These fundamental questions don't get answered using Lance's twisted logic.

Secondly is his mantra that he had to dope because everyone else was. This implies he had no moral choices, which of course he did. He chose the fraudulent course. If he knew everyone else was doping, he could have come out strong against it and perhaps the "dirty era" would not have been so dirty. When you purposely and consciously chose the bed you live in, you cannot change the bed or the linen to sanitize your choices.

Lastly by defining the dirty era as "the late 80s to the mid 2000s" he is in effect saying he did not dope in 2009 and 2010, which is inconsistent with the evidence presented by USADA in the Reasoned Decision.

This interview is just another example of Lance spin and is what we will always get from Lance.

 

[TexPat]

Three things come out in the Patrick interview.

Firstly, he still thinks he is a great champion, yet admits he won because of the dope and that he would not have won without it. How can a champion be great if he cheats? And how can he be a champion if he cheats? These fundamental questions don't get answered using Lance's twisted logic.

Secondly is his mantra that he had to dope because everyone else was. This implies he had no moral choices, which of course he did. He chose the fraudulent course. If he knew everyone else was doping, he could have come out strong against it and perhaps the "dirty era" would not have been so dirty. When you purposely and consciously chose the bed you live in, you cannot change the bed or the linen to sanitize your choices.

Lastly by defining the dirty era as "the late 80s to the mid 2000s" he is in effect saying he did not dope in 2009 and 2010, which is inconsistent with the evidence presented by USADA in the Reasoned Decision.

This interview is just another example of Lance spin and is what we will always get from Lance.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[Scott SoCal]

You hit the nail on the head.

Damn. The psychotherapy still isn't working for Monkeymouth.

Good news is he can go for four hours to every one he spends at his attorney's office.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Damn. The psychotherapy still isn't working for Monkeymouth.

Never has never will. Worse part is, there'll be more(new) Wonderboy fans who will think he's being "honest" now. That's what he's going for, the gullible dopes who still cling to every word he says and think it's the gospel.

 

[poupou]

Next questions for Lance:
"Despite having been cured for cancer by science, you choose to dope and to condamn Bassons who had chosed that terrible widespread disease called doping. Who was the greatest and bravest?"

 

[blackcat]

That is interesting.

In Tyler's book he mentions Lance flying out to Switzerland or something and returning stronger - been a while since I read the book. It left me with a distinct "huh" - as if there was a piece of the puzzle missing from his preparation that noone really seemed to know about.

Is this stuff you're mentioning here anything anyone in authority has expressed any interest in?

Lance was bragging about his horse steroid in the 98 Vuelta

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm not sure what you're asking/alluding to, but can we please stop beating the "LeMond doped too" horse to death though? Unless you can provide any sort of proof that he did, then it's pretty pointless to keep bringing it up in an attempt to protect Wonderboy and others who've doped. Wonderboy lied again about something, not surprising.

I haven't seen someone miss the mark this badly since Ray Charles took batting practice...

Yea, TexPat is an Armstrong apologist...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Damn. The psychotherapy still isn't working for Monkeymouth.

Good news is he can go for four hours to every one he spends at his attorney's office.

"..what am I on? I'm on a psychiatrist's couch 6 hours a day bullsh!tting him relentlessly. What are you on?"

 

[Scott SoCal]

"..what am I on? I'm on a psychiatrist's couch 6 hours a day bullsh!tting him relentlessly. What are you on?"

Brilliantly brilliant.

 

[MacRoadie]

Lastly by defining the dirty era as "the late 80s to the mid 2000s" he is in effect saying he did not dope in 2009 and 2010, which is inconsistent with the evidence presented by USADA in the Reasoned Decision.

And, it's a ridiculously cheap and transparent attempt to yet again try to drag Greg down into the filth with Wonderboy...

 

[Bosco10]

And, it's a ridiculously cheap and transparent attempt to yet again try to drag Greg down into the filth with Wonderboy...

lol.. I caught that too. It's like everything Lance says is loaded.

 

[mewmewmew13]

This guy found redemption.
Provided by his ever diminishing flock.
My boy Gunderson will too.
Baaaaaaaaaaaa.

texPat..I feel as if you have appeared here to guide us...

 

[mewmewmew13]

lol.. I caught that too. It's like everything Lance says is loaded.

Wonderboy does nothing unless it helps him in some way...

 

[MacRoadie]

lol.. I caught that too. It's like everything Lance says is scripted.

Fixed that for ya...

 

[juanito]

LOL, can't believe it! Wonderboy FINALLY admits he couldn't win the TDF w/o doping. Wonder how much this plays into his current lawsuits and so forth. Also....umm Wonderboy, LeMond PROVED you could win the tour while clean in the "late 80s". You just can't admit LeMond was superior to you. Just when you think he can't top himself in the clueless, pathetic liar department, he outdoes himself.


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nbc-y...er-have-won-tdf-without-doping-160508769.html

Didn't he say he couldn't to Oprah? The transcript reads:

Oprah Winfrey: Yes or no, in all seven of your Tour de France victories, did you ever take banned substances or blood dope?

Lance Armstrong: Yes.

Oprah Winfrey: In your opinion was it humanly possible to win the Tour de France without doping, seven times in a row?

Lance Armstrong: Not in my opinion.

 

[stutue]

Clearly Armstrong meant that he felt it wasn't possible to win 7 tours without doping in that era. He's almost certainly right about that.

There are plenty of tour winners who didn't take EPO

 

[Race Radio]

First let me say I hope Lance sorts out his issues and leads a normal, productive, life.

There are many positives to relaunching the Lance Armstrong Foundation. He clearly still has a a good amount of groupies who will do whatever he says. This means $$$. Money for Cancer is good.

The media is a different story. His return to philanthropy could be very similar to his return to bike racing. When he started racing again in 2009 the media was not as willing to buy his BS. They finally looked into things they ignored for years.

Livestrong does some good work now but the first 6 years of Livestrong were a train wreck. 50% of donations went to "Programs" designed to build the brand, the rest was wasted. To think that this will not be explored in depth by the media is delusional.

 

[Granville57]

First let me say I hope Lance sorts out his issues and leads a normal, productive, life.

There are many positives to relaunching the Lance Armstrong Foundation. He clearly still has a a good amount of groupies who will do whatever he says. This means $$$. Money for Cancer is good.

The media is a different story. His return to philanthropy could be very similar to his return to bike racing. When he started racing again in 2009 the media was not as willing to buy his BS. They finally looked into things they ignored for years.

Livestrong does some good work now but the first 6 years of Livestrong were a train wreck. 50% of donations went to "Programs" designed to build the brand, the rest was wasted. To think that this will not be explored in depth by the media is delusional.

Wut?

Not quite following the narrative here.

1) Wishing Lance all the best.
2) Confirming that money for cancer is good.

OK. Whatever.

3) "When he started racing again in 2009 the media was not as willing to buy his BS."
Do you mean besides the overwhelming avalanche of media that most certainly bought every bit of his BS?

4) "To think that this will not be explored in depth by the media is delusional."
What won't be explored? The first 6 years of Livestrong from forever ago?


I can't be the only one mystified by this particular post of yours. #whohackedyouraccount

 

[Merckx index]

There are many positives to relaunching the Lance Armstrong Foundation. He clearly still has a a good amount of groupies who will do whatever he says. This means $$$. Money for Cancer is good.

The question is, if you want to give to a cancer charity, why should you give to one run by LA? What does it have to offer that’s unique? For all the ridicule the Livestrong “awareness” service has generated here, it did seem to offer something that other charities didn’t. If LA were to start a new charity funding cancer research, what would your dollar do there that it wouldn’t do somewhere else? All charities compete with each other to some extent, but when you’re offering basically the same thing as another charity is, you have to have something going on that distinguishes yours from the others.

Before, LA had a story that could draw in donors who wouldn’t necessarily donate to another charity that did the exact same thing. I really doubt that this is the case now. People who are inclined to support cancer research don’t need LA to follow.

If he wants to succeed, I think he has to find a niche that is both unusual and needed. One possibility is to support a particular area of research that isn’t well funded now, because it’s not a major kind of cancer, for example, or it’s even some other kind of disease, or doesn’t even involve a disease, but something else entirely. But then of course LA may not have a personal connection with the victims that he had with cancer, which will make it harder for potential donors to identify with it. Or maybe a charity could fund research based on approaches or concepts that are somewhat out of the mainstream. But I don’t think he can just snap his fingers and say, let’s have a charity, without a lot of hard thought about what it’s going to support.

Though he didn’t ask for my advice, I actually don’t think founding a charity is the way forward for LA. He has a lot of drive, energy, and organizational skills—the blood transfusions didn’t help him much with that—and he can probably succeed reasonably well in business. Assuming he doesn’t get completely cleaned out by the feds, he has enough of a nest egg to start one. If he wants to continue contributing to the war on cancer, there are certainly possibilities in medical technology. He probably has all kinds of scientific contacts from his salad days who could advise him.

 

[Alpe73]

Wut?
I can't be the only one mystified by this particular post of yours. #whohackedyouraccount

Just because one (RR) is committed to a cause, does not preclude him from being 'reasonable.'

" The price of being misunderstood, he thought. They call you devil or they call you god.”

 

[Race Radio]

I can't be the only one mystified by this particular post of yours. #whohackedyouraccount

As with any person I would hope he gets his $hit together. I don't wish the guy any harm, just that he does the right thing

The US media for his comeback was certainly more aggressive then it was in 2003, when they were clueless. If he thinks he is going to skate by without questions this time he is delusional

 

[Race Radio]

The question is, if you want to give to a cancer charity, why should you give to one run by LA?

Bingo.

At this point I don't see what value he bring to the table besides the ability to rally the remaining groupies to raise money that they would have likely given anyways. Perhaps he has something new but at this point it appears to be a way to polish his damaged image

 

[Bluenote]

Have you considered the possibility that he started LAF II out of spite?

He gets invited back to Livestrong (by Ulman), then uninvited, then starts LAF II. The announcement isn't a well thought out launch, just a quick blurb - LAF II, not an awareness charity! LAF II is likely to take donors away from Livestrong - at least the Armstrong faithful types, anyhow.

It'll be interesting to see what happens to Livestrong and to LAF II.