Yes the interview with the cancer survivor was worth including as was the interview with Emma O'Reilly who is probably the hero of the whole sorry saga as she knew what the outcome was going to be initially. I'm sure his comment about his relationship with Sheryl Crowe will be noted ; about how he was with her for a long time but was never very happy ! Not even sure why he would even bother saying that. The most perplexing part was at the very end when he seemed to be saying that Lars Ullrich and Pantani were both victims like him ! He was never close friends with Ullrich but seemed to empathize with him simply because he was Armstrong's main rival through the years. Although Armstrong did do the decent thing and reached out to him when Ullrich was having problems. Armstrong's family seem to be pretty grounded especially his son which was good to see. As for the dinner preparation scene and the cut finger, for some reason I was expecting something weird to happen there and the way he was holding the knife reminded me of how children try and help their mothers in the kitchen ! Landis came across as one of the more interesting personalities in the documentary.
-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
This presentation and her ability to show, in particular his perspective on other riders and what happened to "him" was a good summation. I think it allows the viewer to see more about him than many of his often repeated words and draw independent conclusions.
Last edited:
I take your word on this one, it is the most plausible and likely the 100 % right explanation about the exect authorship of the book.
This also explains why I find so much in La Confidentiel somewhat fresh having heard (and read) the Walsh story repeated almost ad nauseam around 2012-2015.
Nope, He was a cheater.This film is about a guy who "NEVER"; was a sportsman.
The producer of this documentary and other reporters/journalists who have tried to get some sort of insightful interview with Armstrong all make the same mistake-trying to paint a three-dimensional portrait of a one-dimensional character.
Those who are "riveted" by his presence do not see how his boorish arrogance, masquerading as charisma, has affected them when in the presence his of his celebrity. And that difference needs to be clarified for a viewing public who may not be well-versed in all things Armstrong.
Those who are "riveted" by his presence do not see how his boorish arrogance, masquerading as charisma, has affected them when in the presence his of his celebrity. And that difference needs to be clarified for a viewing public who may not be well-versed in all things Armstrong.
Last edited:
I think in the 2nd installment LA pretty much displayed the characteristics you mention. That was a more subtle and damning touch by the journalist and should challenge any blind supporters, somewhat. He is a polarizing figure in that some mega-fans have difficulty admitting how misplaced their support may have been. When they seek to excuse or equivocate his past they may be groping for a justification for their embarrassment.
A POS talking about someone waking up a POS every day...ironic...
And so Bruyneel takes his opportunity to equivocate....and whine as well. While he may have some direct knowledge about fellow racers his take on Lemond is totally self-serving.
These two got caught driving 180mph in a 20 mph school zone. Bitching about the unsanctioned drivers that do 5mph over the limit doesn't make you innocent. 2XPOS.
These two got caught driving 180mph in a 20 mph school zone. Bitching about the unsanctioned drivers that do 5mph over the limit doesn't make you innocent. 2XPOS.
Let me fix that sentence for you:
These two got caught driving 180 mph in a 100 mph zone. Bitching about the unsanctioned drivers doing 175 mph doesn't make you innocent.
For me in general (this could go for or any sports star):
-I was a fan
-I knew something was up
-He got outed
-My feelings weren't hurt
I think that the last point is a big thing. Many people took it personally IMO.
I probably won't watch his 30-30, but I do watch the move occasionally if he has a guest that I want to hear.
LIVESTRONG helped my mother and father a great deal while my dad was dying from cancer. I don't care if it was fake for LA, the organization was good.
The most disgusting display of his personality is how well he gets to live off the proceeds of his ill-gotten gains, money that he stole from sponsors like Bristol-Myers Squibb, speaking engagements from Livestrong and the Tour itself and he is still nothing but a bratty, entitled schmuck.
Gotta love the way he continues to throw Hincapie under the bus with his comment about him-(paraphrasing)"look at Hincapie...and people still buy his ***". Nice. It's easy to lose respect for Hincapie, another pathetic slug in this sordid drama, who refuses to stand up to this bully because all he is thinking about is how he can continue to cash in on his relationship with Armstrong.
Gotta love the way he continues to throw Hincapie under the bus with his comment about him-(paraphrasing)"look at Hincapie...and people still buy his ***". Nice. It's easy to lose respect for Hincapie, another pathetic slug in this sordid drama, who refuses to stand up to this bully because all he is thinking about is how he can continue to cash in on his relationship with Armstrong.
In his latest interview, it appears that Johan Bruyneel is throwing doping allegations, in the direction of Greg Lemond. "Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary evidence."
I just barely skimmed that interview because I mostly don't care what he has to say at this point, but it seemed like he was using the "XXXXX was one of the best and he admitted to doping, but GL still beat him" reasoning. I admit to using that reasoning too.
His personality appears to be a product of his upbringing, if the overall impression of his parents' involvement is accepted. It can't explain everything but he doesn't sound like a person held accountable for much.
As for his ill-gotten gains; look to his investment opportunities from Weisel and other investment types that were overwhelming fans. He didn't earn it so much as being endowed. Nice bail-out, for sure.
While she can argue differently with the rest of us but would she in the context: "His personality appears to be a product of his upbringing, if the overall impression of his parents' involvement is accepted." was of the 30 30 episode.
His personality early and often in the cycling world was very similar to what that episode portrayed, minus the tears.
Certainly he was the best of the "bank robbers" of the Tour de Dope era:
Crazy Stat Shows Just How Common Doping Was In Cycling When Lance Armstrong Was Winning The Tour de France
Lance Armstrong was not alone, he was just better at it.
www.google.com
"More importantly for Lance Armstrong, during the 7-year window when he won every Tour de France (1999-2005), 87% of the top-10 finishers (61 of 70) were confirmed dopers or suspected of doping."
87%!
Called it Tour de Dope...Tour de Pharmacy...Tour de Cheaters...or whatever. Lol.I imagine the other top performing dopers of that prevalent doping era also got to keep all of their ill-gotten earnings (Zulle, Ullrich, Basso, Vinokourov, Rumšas, Mayo, etc). If fact, CAS had ruled that Vinokourov didn't owe the UCI a year’s salary, amounting to €1.2 million, dating back to his positive for homologous blood doping during the 07 Tour. Hilarious!...getting rewarding for doping!
LA was the best placing doper for 7 consecutive Tours. So, the question is how? Better doping program/doctor? Higher responder to the various combinations of drugs? Better doped teams? All of the above?
Since the standard doping products that most everyone was using back then was EPO/blood doping, HGH, androgens, corticosteroids- what gave LA such a decisive advantage over the other dopers? And I've noticed that LA never addresses this nor is he ever asked point blank about it in his interviews (though he'd probably be ambiguous. Lol).
Last edited:
I'd guess all of the above. He had an exclusive contract with Ferrari. Though the number isn't certain, it appears he had a fairly low natural HT, giving him an advantage in EPO/blood transfusions, particularly when the 50% limit was set. Regarding the third, remember, a major innovation of his teams was to have doms good enough to set a very fast pace, and drop all but a handful of rivals when the key MTF began. Doping everyone on the team was critical to that strategy. It also meant focussing totally on LA, with no sprinters or others who might win stages that weren't critical to the GC. Not to mention strong TTers when there was a TTT. Ullrich might have won in 2003 if he hadn't lost significant time in the TTT.
Still another factor was that LA focussed solely on the TDF. Unlike multiple Tour winners preceding him, he never competed in the other GTs during those seven years.
The mean hematocrit of non-doped trained endurance athletes is around 42 %. and Lance's values from the published 2009-2010 data are around that level, so his Hct wasn't at least exceptionally low even if there were a few samples with values slightly below 40 %.
I can recall seeing data that his Vo2Max fell less at altitude indicating that he might've had high lung capacity in relation to body size and therefore his body could've perhaps used the extra RBCs very efficiently.
His lowish(?) natural hematocrit and possible high responsiveness (?) were beyond his control, and one very unpopular view is that his success was caused by him being the best cyclist of the era, be it contrafactual clean against clean peloton or the real one doped against a bunch of dopers.
I can recall seeing data that his Vo2Max fell less at altitude indicating that he might've had high lung capacity in relation to body size and therefore his body could've perhaps used the extra RBCs very efficiently.
His lowish(?) natural hematocrit and possible high responsiveness (?) were beyond his control, and one very unpopular view is that his success was caused by him being the best cyclist of the era, be it contrafactual clean against clean peloton or the real one doped against a bunch of dopers.
Can we make an argument that there were riders in the 70s and the 80s - potential champions - who were removed from the board because of the shift to hormone-based doping? Riders who fell foul of 'big gear' injuries and didn't return? Allan Peiper - a lowly domestique but still relevant - in his autobiography certainly suggests that even with testosterone the super responder myth can be applied. This is him talking of being given testosterone by a Peugeot team doctor: "I think that dose made me so strong that my own muscles actually tore the tendon [in my knee]."
Argument or not, the winning rider of any generation historically, is always going to be the best rider (with adequate good fortune) most suited to the wider context of cycling of the moment in time, including any doping methods and team structures that apply to its context. If you have a rider taking testosterone, that doesn't tear tendons racing against one that does then clearly the race falls to that rider. If you have a rider with an entire team on their side v one that isn't, chances are obviously against the less structured team.
The whole super-responder myth is just that. To get to a point that some will argue doped donkeys beat doped thoroughbreds is simply a reflection of who you thought deserved to win & nothing else imo. If doping donkeys was the key to winning the sports biggest race, why does every team try and sign the best rider they can afford? Tthey would be better off looking lower down the rankings and save a few $million.
The whole super-responder myth is just that. To get to a point that some will argue doped donkeys beat doped thoroughbreds is simply a reflection of who you thought deserved to win & nothing else imo. If doping donkeys was the key to winning the sports biggest race, why does every team try and sign the best rider they can afford? Tthey would be better off looking lower down the rankings and save a few $million.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread- Started by LaFlorecita
- Replies: 51K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 21K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram