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

[gooner]

I don't think we're being dismissive of Ger's other work and interviews.

We're referring to this on its own.

I thought he left things open to too much interpretation with regards to motors. There maybe a story coming on motors for all I know but did Lance use one in '99? I don't think so. What's more when he asked it and he denied it, he pressed further that he would think the inventor of this technology would come to him first. It seemed subjective on his part.

I don't think Landis or Hamilton would have kept quiet on this in the reasoned decision when they dished out everything else they knew.

Who knows about Lance's return. I suppose that falls into the era on all this. I would be surprised though about his 7 Tour wins.

 

[sniper]

i see what you mean, Budogan. Maybe I sounded too harsh. Agree he deserves lots of respect.
In this case I think he seemed a bit too biased towards voicing the Betsy Andreu side of the story, which by now is sounding like a broken record.

Good point also from Gooner wrt the motor issue. Fully agree. When lance denied, that should have been it. Instead he pushed further. He seemed keen on scoring points against Lance. Sounding tough with no particular purpose.

Ontheroad put it well, too. By pushing that apology-issue he missed out on the opportunity to ask some interesting questions.

But as Gooner says, that's not to take anything away from Gilroy being a frontrunner in terms of quality sports journalism.

 

[cocteau_ireland]

Agree,he should have brought lance in more. Admonishment was the wrong tactic. Armstrong's hubris can always give rise to an opening.

 

[elduggo]

Re:

Missed opportunity from Gilroy to ask some interesting questions. Instead he keeps banging on about the andreus and how lance needs to apologize.
I love Gilroy but that was just lame.
And Gilroy seems happy to ignore the andreus hypocrisy.
Gikroy: "It seems like you still have something against Betsy."
Newsflash Ger: lance is still human.


Lance: "the most important thing is I apologized and they (lemonds) accepted my apologies"
Gilroy "they didn't accept you apologies"
Lance: "how do you know. You weren't on the room"
Gilroy: " I have my sources"

Double facepalm Ger! And again, let's just step over Lemonds own hypocrisy.

in all honesty though, who really gives a damn what Armstrong has to say anymore. Seeing him squirm like that was the best possible outcome, and I thought Ger did a fine job.

I don't think its any secret that Betsy is a 'friend' of that show, hence Gilroy's persistence with the Andreu line of questioning.

 

[Benotti69]

To cut Gilroy some slack. He aint a cycling journo specialist. So he has to know a lot about a lot of sports. I dont think it was the best interview ever, but he made Armstrong very uncomfortable and that is fine with me.

It is interesting that Armstrong wanted to give Kimmage an interview, but it appears he didn't agree to Kimmage's terms, which is a clean sheet, but no off limits in questions. Armstrong probably went for the softbal option, Gilroy.

Armstrong still has to answer questions from Ewan Mckenna live on stage, who aint gonna do a fluffer job like Fotheringham/Moore/Stickland.

 

[gooner]

Obviously Newstalk do otherwise they wouldn't have invited him on.

I don't think there is anything fine about a journalist trying to nail something on someone in the absence of evidence. I don't care if that is Lance Armstrong or anyone else. Standards in journalism apply. As sniper said, he should have moved on after asking about using a motor.

 

[gooner]

Re:

To cut Gilroy some slack. He aint a cycling journo specialist. So he has to know a lot about a lot of sports. I dont think it was the best interview ever, but he made Armstrong very uncomfortable and that is fine with me.

It is interesting that Armstrong wanted to give Kimmage an interview, but it appears he didn't agree to Kimmage's terms, which is a clean sheet, but no off limits in questions. Armstrong probably went for the softbal option, Gilroy.

Armstrong still has to answer questions from Ewan Mckenna live on stage, who aint gonna do a fluffer job like Fotheringham/Moore/Stickland.

Ger Gilroy knows this story inside out.

It's ridiculous to say that we should spare him flack on the motor issue because he doesn't report on the sport full-time. In that case you don't then press on the issue. He nevertheless did and therefore is judged on it.

Armstrong knows there is no conditions set for the onezero event. He said that. Questions are also going to come from the floor outside of MacKenna.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

To cut Gilroy some slack. He aint a cycling journo specialist. So he has to know a lot about a lot of sports. I dont think it was the best interview ever, but he made Armstrong very uncomfortable and that is fine with me.

It is interesting that Armstrong wanted to give Kimmage an interview, but it appears he didn't agree to Kimmage's terms, which is a clean sheet, but no off limits in questions. Armstrong probably went for the softbal option, Gilroy.

Armstrong still has to answer questions from Ewan Mckenna live on stage, who aint gonna do a fluffer job like Fotheringham/Moore/Stickland.

Ger Gilroy knows this story inside out.

It's ridiculous to say that we should spare him flack on the motor issue because he doesn't report on the sport full-time. In that case you don't then press on the issue. He nevertheless did and therefore is judged on it.

Armstrong knows there is no conditions set for the onezero event. He said that. Questions are also going to come from the floor outside of MacKenna.

Gilroy had 30mins and had an audience to deliver too. Not the clinic.

His audience are very familiar with Betsy.

He obviously has a story coming about the motor and put it to Armstrong so when Gilroy can break the story they have Armstrong's quote on it.

The onezero event might just have plants in the audience putting the questions. McKenna wont be a soft touch for Armstrong.

I dont have high expectations of major radio stations who have commmercial interests at first to deliver the type of grilling i want a doping athlete to get. Gilroy probably exceeded my expectations.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

To cut Gilroy some slack. He aint a cycling journo specialist. So he has to know a lot about a lot of sports. I dont think it was the best interview ever, but he made Armstrong very uncomfortable and that is fine with me.

It is interesting that Armstrong wanted to give Kimmage an interview, but it appears he didn't agree to Kimmage's terms, which is a clean sheet, but no off limits in questions. Armstrong probably went for the softbal option, Gilroy.

Armstrong still has to answer questions from Ewan Mckenna live on stage, who aint gonna do a fluffer job like Fotheringham/Moore/Stickland.

Ger Gilroy knows this story inside out.

It's ridiculous to say that we should spare him flack on the motor issue because he doesn't report on the sport full-time. In that case you don't then press on the issue. He nevertheless did and therefore is judged on it.

Armstrong knows there is no conditions set for the onezero event. He said that. Questions are also going to come from the floor outside of MacKenna.

Gilroy had 30mins and had an audience to deliver too. Not the clinic.

His audience are very familiar with Betsy.

He obviously has a story coming about the motor and put it to Armstrong so when Gilroy can break the story they have Armstrong's quote on it.

The onezero event might just have plants in the audience putting the questions. McKenna wont be a soft touch for Armstrong.

I dont have high expectations of major radio stations who have commmercial interests at first to deliver the type of grilling i want a doping athlete to get. Gilroy probably exceeded my expectations.

30 mins and he pressed further on the motor doping after Lance denied it. He should have moved on right there. He tried to pin it on him and if he has no knowledge of Armstrong's use of a motor, that is wrong.

If MacKenna won't be a soft touch, I don't see what the issue is. That being said, I don't know what Kimmage's problem is then in criticising the format or is this more of the nonsense of making the story about the interviewer than the person actually interviewed.

I don't know what kind of questioning will come from the audience, it could be easy, I will reserve judgement on that.

 

[peloton]

Re: Re:

To cut Gilroy some slack. He aint a cycling journo specialist. So he has to know a lot about a lot of sports. I dont think it was the best interview ever, but he made Armstrong very uncomfortable and that is fine with me.

It is interesting that Armstrong wanted to give Kimmage an interview, but it appears he didn't agree to Kimmage's terms, which is a clean sheet, but no off limits in questions. Armstrong probably went for the softbal option, Gilroy.

Armstrong still has to answer questions from Ewan Mckenna live on stage, who aint gonna do a fluffer job like Fotheringham/Moore/Stickland.

Ger Gilroy knows this story inside out.

It's ridiculous to say that we should spare him flack on the motor issue because he doesn't report on the sport full-time. In that case you don't then press on the issue. He nevertheless did and therefore is judged on it.

Armstrong knows there is no conditions set for the onezero event. He said that. Questions are also going to come from the floor outside of MacKenna.

Gilroy had 30mins and had an audience to deliver too. Not the clinic.

His audience are very familiar with Betsy.

He obviously has a story coming about the motor and put it to Armstrong so when Gilroy can break the story they have Armstrong's quote on it.

The onezero event might just have plants in the audience putting the questions. McKenna wont be a soft touch for Armstrong.

I dont have high expectations of major radio stations who have commmercial interests at first to deliver the type of grilling i want a doping athlete to get. Gilroy probably exceeded my expectations.

I think Gilroy did very well. He knows his stuff and got Lance even call him 'superman' and 'rookie'.
Priceless that he even hung up the phone, he clearly wasn't happy. Too funny

 

[sniper]

If you're interested in whom Lance apologized to and how often and whether his apologies were accepted or not by the recipients, you must have enjoyed the first 20 minutes of the show.
Ger turned it into a pissing contest.
'Watch me put lance in his place.'
Lame, and a missed opportunity.

 

[arcus]

Is Armstrong likely to give away juicy / relevatory information in an interview like this? I doubt it. In that context, interviewers will either so soft on him (and let him control the narrative/spin), or make it clear that they're not buying his redemption-tour BS, and remind their audiences what he's really been like. I suspect that was Gilroy's approach.

 

[cocteau_ireland]

Re:

If you're interested in whom Lance apologized to and how often and whether his apologies were accepted or not by the recipients, you must have enjoyed the first 20 minutes of the show.
Ger turned it into a pissing contest.
'Watch me put lance in his place.'
Lame, and a missed opportunity.

My dad once had a pissing contest with david wilkie @ a triathlon in portaferry. poor david's shoes were ruined.

 

[thehook]

Listened to the interview. To me it seemed as he had a condescending tone towards LA. LA may deserve it. But I left feeling like the guy did not break any ground that had not been covered. And was throwing out some back handed info that only he had. But never shared it or the source. Kinda lame IMHO.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

Agree,he should have brought lance in more. Admonishment was the wrong tactic. Armstrong's hubris can always give rise to an opening.

Well, most interviewers would be poking the bear. There are some who could handle it well, but, not all. They'd have to have someone in their earpiece with mastery of the topic or themselves be so well read on the topic they could contemporaneously cite references

Meaning, leaving a serial liar like Wonderboy an opening to trot out the old excuses could end in the interview going bad for the interviewer.

The days of tightly controlled interviews for Wonderboy are over. More good news!

 

[elduggo]

Re: Re:

30 mins and he pressed further on the motor doping after Lance denied it. He should have moved on right there. He tried to pin it on him and if he has no knowledge of Armstrong's use of a motor, that is wrong.

what? he absolutely should not have moved on. Armstrong is a damn liar. He also said he had nothing to do with destroying Lemond's business. Should Gilroy have moved on there?

Gilroy introduced the motor topic to the interview by saying that the Hungarian inventor claimed motors were in existence as early as 1999. Gilroy's angle was, if Armstrong was willing to fill his veins with the shite he was putting in them, why wouldn't he use a motor. He's willing to cheat, why not cheat in a way less risky to your health.

Which part of that do you have a problem with? If Armstrong, somebody who has lied under oath, denies something, you absolutely do not move on. You press and you press. Its the only way to deal with people like that. He deserves no respect, and the usual rules around interviewer/interviewee decorum absolutely do not apply.

Hopefully McKenna hammers him too.

 

[sniper]

Lemond has destroyed more of Lances business than the other way round. I think we can all agree on that.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

30 mins and he pressed further on the motor doping after Lance denied it. He should have moved on right there. He tried to pin it on him and if he has no knowledge of Armstrong's use of a motor, that is wrong.

what? he absolutely should not have moved on. Armstrong is a damn liar. He also said he had nothing to do with destroying Lemond's business. Should Gilroy have moved on there?

Gilroy introduced the motor topic to the interview by saying that the Hungarian inventor claimed motors were in existence as early as 1999. Gilroy's angle was, if Armstrong was willing to fill his veins with the shite he was putting in them, why wouldn't he use a motor. He's willing to cheat, why not cheat in a way less risky to your health.

Which part of that do you have a problem with? If Armstrong, somebody who has lied under oath, denies something, you absolutely do not move on. You press and you press. Its the only way to deal with people like that. He deserves no respect, and the usual rules around interviewer/interviewee decorum absolutely do not apply.

Hopefully McKenna hammers him too.

We know the story with Lemond and the facts are known there. He was right to press him on that. There is no way that is the same as doping with a motor.

As I said, it was grand asking about his use of a motor, yet when he denied he still went further and tried hard to put it on him. He should have moved on. He has no evidence of Armstrong using a motor. You press on issues when the facts are established. They're not here. That's wrong for a journalist. You even talk about "Gilroy's angle".

All I see here again is the same old same old and pin everything on Armstrong. A serial liar doesn't make him a liar on everything. You catch a liar out when there is points of reference. I admit who knows about his return to the sport in '09, but why then would Hamilton or Landis keep quiet on that during his Tour wins when Lance was even talking to them about getting popped in Suisse.

That Armstrong deserves no respect is neither here nor there, nothing suggests so far he used a motor.

I think this was playing to the gallery on Gilroy's part

 

[doperhopper]

Uniballer and motor? May explain his return hopes... then it turned out that he for some reason could not use it - and he was done in the "levelled" field, PED-wise.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Lemond has destroyed more of Lances business than the other way round. I think we can all agree on that.

No. Lance destroyed everything Lance, including his "business" and "charity". Lemond just stood up for himself and told the truth.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Lemond has destroyed more of Lances business than the other way round. I think we can all agree on that.

No. Lance destroyed everything Lance, including his "business" and "charity". Lemond just stood up for himself and told the truth.

John Swanson

Lance too. Stood up for himself when Lemond began singling him out as a doper for no particular reason.
Sure, in the end Lance orchestrated his own exposure, I agree to that. But Lemond was the first to start throwing mud and do damage to Lances reputation. Not the other way round.

Just saying, it's a matter of perspective and it's clear what Ger's perspective was.

Lemond told the truth? Debatable. Certainly not about his own doping he didn't.

 

[MarkvW]

Re:

Lemond has destroyed more of Lances business than the other way round. I think we can all agree on that.

The Greg-Travis-Floyd-Betsy counter-conspiracy! What an awesome force!

 

[Aragon]

Re: Re:

It is interesting that all the people in the world call Lance "a liar" simply for twisting the story into his own advantage when he is encountered with questions and answers them in a way not liked by the audience that apparently knows the whole story. The truth is that we never know for sure who is telling the truth and if he is even lying, so we don't even know if he is tilting the truth into his own advantage.

In comparison, I've never heard anyone calling Tyler Hamilton "a liar" even though there are several instances of omissions, illogicalities and simply false information in his (in many ways brilliant) The Secret Race if you compare the book to his own statements elsewhere and to other material on his story (one pretty famous journalist - who knows T.H. personally - described the book to me as a "very self-serving book").

Without not defending Lance, I think it is obvious that there is a world of difference between defensive lies when faced with unpleasant questions and between manufacturing your own truth voluntarily when you are claiming that you are coming clean.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Lemond has destroyed more of Lances business than the other way round. I think we can all agree on that.

The Greg-Travis-Floyd-Betsy counter-conspiracy! What an awesome force!

It's a bit of a "he who casts the first stone" issue, innit.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Lemond has destroyed more of Lances business than the other way round. I think we can all agree on that.

The Greg-Travis-Floyd-Betsy counter-conspiracy! What an awesome force!

It's a bit of a "he who casts the first stone" issue, innit.

You're not worthy of that chair your sitting on... Emma O'Reilly is a drunk slut. .org or .com!? Etc. Sure. Lemond is the bad guy.

John Swanson