The Tour de Oprah (WT) (1 team of 1 rider) Live Thread

[auscyclefan94]

A lot of press strongly praises Oprah with her interviewing. Reasonable? Personally, I say yes. She did a good job, at least so far.

I do like John Fahey's scathing response to Lance's answers. I have always liked Fahey, as a finance minister, WADA chief and now his strong comments against Armstrong.

 

[Benotti69]

Oprah did a decent job for Oprah. But a Walsh or a Kimmage is what was required if Armstrong meant it!

This whole episode is about protecting what is left of the brand, nothing less than that. Not contrite about any of it. He is trying to make people believe he did what he had to do.

Plenty decided not to go that route.

I hope his @$$ get screwed to the wall financially because that is the only way to hurt this guy.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I am assuming that Stephanie was not a 30b6 witness. If she was, her testimony binds Oakley as well. Anyone know whether she was? Maybe Chewie knows the answer to this.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Oprah did a decent job for Oprah. But a Walsh or a Kimmage is what was required if Armstrong meant it!

A Walsh or Kimmage would have been better for cycling fans.

Oprah is better for the general public. They don't know the details. Oprah can spin the story better. I get the feeling that she finds him a despicable character as well.

 

[kurtinsc]

The odd thing with Betsy's response is she seems to think (or have thought beforehand) that Lance's entire purpose of doing this was to make amends to her.

Several times she said things along the lines of "He owes me that".

Here's the thing... confessions of any kind are almost NEVER about the wronged party. They're generally always about the ego of the person confessing. This isn't a "Lance" thing... it's the nature of confessions. They're always focused on the person confessing, not who they may have harmed.

And even so... in the grand scheme of things, Betsy isn't that important. Lance said horrible things about her, but that's really a sidebar on the main story to everyone except her and Frankie.

Lance's purpose was either to cover his **** or to make his concience feel better (or perhaps some combination of both). By not denying or admitting to what Betsy has claimed, he's clearly wanting to cover his **** from a legal angle on that score (not contradicting anything he's said under oath in the past), and he's not remorseful enough about that particular incident to overcome that, especially as he (and frankly most other people who's opinion he's trying to influence) really don't care about that whole incident. If you admit to doping, does it matter to most people if you confirm a specific incident where someone claims you admitted to doping before (other then to Betsy)?

 

[cineteq]

A Walsh or Kimmage would have been better for cycling fans.

Oprah is better for the general public. They don't know the details. Oprah can spin the story better. I get the feeling that she finds him a despicable character as well.

Exactly my thoughts. Many people here underestimated Oprah.

 

[Arnout]

Exactly my thoughts. Many people here underestimated Oprah.

Yeah, and now they have a hard time admitting that, as it is not easy for clinic people to admit they're sometimes wrong as well.

Do you guys really think that Kimmage or Walsh would've got better answers? Armstrong is smart enough to tell only what he wants to tell, no matter what. An interview with Kimmage would only include totally pointless bickering, at least this time we know we at least get everything he wants to tell, whether that is satisfactory or not.

 

[kurtinsc]

Oprah did a decent job for Oprah. But a Walsh or a Kimmage is what was required if Armstrong meant it!

If Walsh or Klimmage did it, I'd be the only person at my workplace who knew about it.

Everyone at my workplace is talking about it now.

They might have asked tougher questions, but the millions of yellow wrist-band folks would sitll be wearing yellow wrist-bands if they interviewed him. With Oprah doing it... that will be much more damaged because a lot more of that type of fan will actually see and hear his admission instead of getting a 1-line recap in a story on ESPN.

Lance had long ago lost the support of those who follow cycling. Hitting that angle with harder questions wouldn't have been as damaging as this will be.

 

[Benotti69]

The odd thing with Betsy's response is she seems to think (or have thought beforehand) that Lance's entire purpose of doing this was to make amends to her.

Several times she said things along the lines of "He owes me that".

Here's the thing... confessions of any kind are almost NEVER about the wronged party. They're generally always about the ego of the person confessing. This isn't a "Lance" thing... it's the nature of confessions. They're always focused on the person confessing, not who they may have harmed.

And even so... in the grand scheme of things, Betsy isn't that important. Lance said horrible things about her, but that's really a sidebar on the main story to everyone except her and Frankie.

Lance's purpose was either to cover his **** or to make his concience feel better (or perhaps some combination of both). By not denying or admitting to what Betsy has claimed, he's clearly wanting to cover his **** from a legal angle on that score (not contradicting anything he's said under oath in the past), and he's not remorseful enough about that particular incident to overcome that, especially as he (and frankly most other people who's opinion he's trying to influence) really don't care about that whole incident. If you admit to doping, does it matter to most people if you confirm a specific incident where someone claims you admitted to doping before (other then to Betsy)?

The way i see it the doping isn't that important. It is the attemped and to a great part the destruction of people's repuations and lives.

He owes lots of people an apology and from what i have read ( i was not gonna watch the idiot on tv) he glossed over it.

The doping is the small part of this whole thing. It is the lies, the lives of people he set out to destroy, it is the charity that he used for personal financial gain and setting himself up as The Cancer jesus.

Doping pfft, that is the least of it.

 

[cineteq]

Yeah, and now they have a hard time admitting that, as it is not easy for clinic people to admit they're sometimes wrong as well.

Do you guys really think that Kimmage or Walsh would've got better answers? Armstrong is smart enough to tell only what he wants to tell, no matter what. An interview with Kimmage would only include totally pointless bickering, at least this time we know we at least get everything he wants to tell, whether that is satisfactory or not.

They all owe an apology to Oprah.

I can't think of anyone who could have gotten better answers (not that I'm saying he gave great answers).Totally agree about the Irish guys as interviewers.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Exactly my thoughts. Many people here underestimated Oprah.

If Walsh or Klimmage did it, I'd be the only person at my workplace who knew about it.

Everyone at my workplace is talking about it now.

They might have asked tougher questions, but the millions of yellow wrist-band folks would sitll be wearing yellow wrist-bands if they interviewed him. With Oprah doing it... that will be much more damaged because a lot more of that type of fan will actually see and hear his admission instead of getting a 1-line recap in a story on ESPN.

Lance had long ago lost the support of those who follow cycling. Hitting that angle with harder questions wouldn't have been as damaging as this will be.

This, I think he emphatically set himself up in flames with that interview.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

That Oprah let him get away with the level playing field argument, and that he didn't dope after 2005 is her greatest failing.

The level playing field argument is enough of a straw for the fanboys to cling to. The claim that he didn't cheat 2009 allows them to claim that he would have won anyway (finishing as he did behind a doped up Dertie) ie that he would have won anyway without the drugs.

 

[Benotti69]

Yeah, and now they have a hard time admitting that, as it is not easy for clinic people to admit they're sometimes wrong as well.

Do you guys really think that Kimmage or Walsh would've got better answers? Armstrong is smart enough to tell only what he wants to tell, no matter what. An interview with Kimmage would only include totally pointless bickering, at least this time we know we at least get everything he wants to tell, whether that is satisfactory or not.

If Armstrong sat down with Kimmage or Walsh to do a tell all, there would be no bickering. If he was truly contrite there would be no bickering. Using Oprah was a PR damage exercise to save as much his face as possible. Saying he was riding in a level playing field would not have washed with Kimmage/Walsh.

There would've been no way Armstrong could have avoided lying about not doping after 2005, his relationship with UCI, his relationship with Ferarri, his treatment of those who would not lie for him

 

[Briant_Gumble]

If Armstrong sat down with Kimmage or Walsh to do a tell all, there would be no bickering. If he was truly contrite there would be no bickering. Using Oprah was a PR damage exercise to save as much his face as possible. Saying he was riding in a level playing field would not have washed with Kimmage/Walsh.

There would've been no way Armstrong could have avoided lying about not doping after 2005, his relationship with UCI, his relationship with Ferarri, his treatment of those who would not lie for him

Your thinking in terms of his fierce fanboys, the bulk of the American public who don't really know the case will be disgusted by that interview.

 

[Arnout]

If Armstrong sat down with Kimmage or Walsh to do a tell all, there would be no bickering. If he was truly contrite there would be no bickering. Using Oprah was a PR damage exercise to save as much his face as possible. Saying he was riding in a level playing field would not have washed with Kimmage/Walsh.

There would've been no way Armstrong could have avoided lying about not doping after 2005, his relationship with UCI, his relationship with Ferarri, his treatment of those who would not lie for him

Yeah so the interviewer is not the problem, but Armstrong. We knew that all along. Of course Armstrong could lie, he would never talk about Ferrari, no matter what. The interview would just stop. Noone will extract that info from him if he doesn't want to. Remember this guy has lied for 15 years, he isn't going to tell things he doesn't want to just because Kimmage asks about it.

That is why it was best to have a relatively independent interviewer, so we at least got to hear everything.

 

[Benotti69]

Yeah so the interviewer is not the problem, but Armstrong. We knew that all along. Of course Armstrong could lie, he would never talk about Ferrari, no matter what. The interview would just stop. Noone will extract that info from him if he doesn't want to. Remember this guy has lied for 15 years, he isn't going to tell things he doesn't want to just because Kimmage asks about it.

That is why it was best to have a relatively independent interviewer, so we at least got to hear everything.

We didn't hear everything. He lied about stopping doping in 2005.

If he refused to answer any questions he would've looked like he wasn't sorry.

His BS about level playing field would never have got past Kimmage/Walsh.

With the 2nd part no doubt he will come out looking like a flawed character that doped in his sport because he had to and he did it for cancer. That wouldn't have washed with a Kimmage/Walsh.

 

[airstream]

If I had been sure that Lance played fair without considering doping (without derailing rivals by means of UCI), I would of supported him in his confession. As every talented person he got used to rely on his talent, but naturally one has its black stripes in life - it is a deserved retribution. But to damn and see only black one is way over. Honestly I liked the interview. It is a maxium of revelation I could expect.

I don't understand how it is possible to damn LA and watch any GTs. It is incompatible things, certainly if one doesn't blame the whole GT elite and watches just to find some changes for better.

 

[Arnout]

We didn't hear everything. He lied about stopping doping in 2005.

If he refused to answer any questions he would've looked like he wasn't sorry.

His BS about level playing field would never have got past Kimmage/Walsh.

With the 2nd part no doubt he will come out looking like a flawed character that doped in his sport because he had to and he did it for cancer. That wouldn't have washed with a Kimmage/Walsh.

He would just repeat his stuff. Like he did for 15 years. Kimmage and Walsh tried this for 15 years.

 

[xrayvision]

OW should stick to the house wife domestic stuff.

Shes surely not a critic interviewer or journo, and she let a lot pass, she even smoothed out some of his answers or directly gave him the answer when he got stuck, not very good questioning technique skills to be honest.

And she obviously didn´t had the necessary background knowledge to cross examine his answers. She had the right questions but not the full overview of the case.

 

[The Hitch]

Sheen on Piers Morgan about Lance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB4qwS68dGw

Oh the irony. Piers.morgan judging lance when he just had to go through the same.lying to protect himself from prison, process on phone tapping. Without the honesty.

 

[DominicDecoco]

Pretty random to talk with Sheen on Armstrong or is just me? I know Sheen is probably some kind of guest of the week to discuss different topics but Morgan seems to know his stuff (more than the majority at least) and then he waste it on a debate with Charlie Sheen. Random.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Oprah did her Homework

Your thinking in terms of his fierce fanboys, the bulk of the American public who don't really know the case will be disgusted by that interview.

I agree. It totally backfired on Armstrong. To begin with he was doing well....but he couldnt sustain the act.

The FAT joke about Betsy SEALED HIS FATE with Oprah. You dont joke about being fat with Oprah. I think at that answer she saw the 'real Lance Armstrong'...and the interview took on a different meaning.

 

[cineteq]

We didn't hear everything. He lied about stopping doping in 2005.

If he refused to answer any questions he would've looked like he wasn't sorry.

His BS about level playing field would never have got past Kimmage/Walsh.

He admitted more than I couldn't imagine. It doesn't matter. His lies will be exposed sooner or later, once the enablers (UCI for instance) are exposed and Ferrari is found to be the guy to provide the best stuff to Lance while cheating other riders with 'not-so-good stuff or advised' then the level playing field crap will come down.

With the 2nd part no doubt he will come out looking like a flawed character that doped in his sport because he had to and he did it for cancer. That wouldn't have washed with a Kimmage/Walsh.

At this point, only few will have him as cancer Jesus. People don't like to be in the minority with regards to their peers.

 

[DominicDecoco]

I like how he tried to justify the testosterone on the cancer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNTtzOOYqdI

 

[the asian]

You can't strive for perfection.

Lance Armstrong will never tell the whole truth to satisfy our demands and even if he admits the whole thing and admits he was a donkey who would have never won the Tour in a level playing field, there would still be some fanboys supporting him.

Even though Oprah didn't ask tough follow up questions and allowed Lance to blab out some lies I'm sure the vast majority of the General public view him in an even negative light than before.

That's enough for now.