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

[the asian]

Why did they have to feel more fear than US Postal? Banesto and Kelme are spanish teams and Spain was always the first country in terms of knowledge how to inject and cover its tracks. I'm sure we have minimal reasons to consider that they had a less sophisticated doping system than USPS.

We have zero info because no one is interested in other teams. I don't say Lance and other contenders were equally doped, but there's no doubt no one was clean. Allinall, that was doper and dopers.

The retrospective EPO tests tell otherwise.

Not saying other teams were clean in 99 and 00, but most people believe they toned down their doping in those two years, at least they didn't dope heavily during the Tour.

 

[thirteen]

Random thought - should we start calling him "disease Jesus" now?

10 characters

 

[the asian]

Bassons still remains classy.

http://www.bigpondsport.com/bassons-still-bitter-over-armstrong/tabid/91/newsid/101110/default.aspx

OFC spots the BS in lance's confession but is still willing to sit down with him and listen to him.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Basson thinks Armstrong is heading for a political career. I dont think it is possible. He has too many skeletons.

His name will forever be associated with cheating and not just in sport.

I think he will take infamous just as much as being famous. In 10 years will being infamous mean he will still be rich. I hope not.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/lance-armstrongs-oprah-apology-has-made-1543578

Here's one article:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/lance-armstrongs-oprah-apology-has-made-1543578

Much less popular after that.

It wasn't what he said it was the way he said it.

I don't know what your social circle looks like, if they don't care or are cycling fans but I know at least five people who up to this week still thought he was clean and the victim of a witch hunt.

 

[GJB123]

Why did they have to feel more fear than US Postal? Banesto and Kelme are spanish teams and Spain was always the first country in terms of knowledge how to inject and cover its tracks. I'm sure we have minimal reasons to consider that they had a less sophisticated doping system than USPS.

We have zero info because no one is interested in other teams. I don't say Lance and other contenders were equally doped, but there's no doubt no one was clean. Allinall, that was doper and dopers.

If you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about you are generally best served by keeping your mouth shut.

Most riders in '99 and 2000 were scared ****less because of the Festina-storm. People got arrested and spent several nights in jail. That is nothing to make fun about and most of them didn't have the ball (pun intended) to run that risk. This is quite well documented for example by Jörg Jaksche who stated that he had ****ty time trying to do the 99 Tour with hardly any PED's (and finishing 80th or something like that instead of top 20 that he was capable of with PED's).

 

[airstream]

Fact is he was nowhere as a Tour contender pre-cancer although he admitted he was already doing EPO, HGH and testosterone at that time. Then he returns from a, by all standards, grueling disease to suddenly being able to annihilate all his fellow-dopers. Level playing field, my @rse.

Hm, does it say about anything directly? There are no rules. Pellizzoti was for me a rider who eventually killed belief in an allegedly progressive development. Riders hit the picture very differently.

Whom do you consider other 1999 Tour contenders? Naive ninnies or guys who decided to ride clean all of a sudden. Entire GT super elite always live by one huge fear - fear of turning out behind in doping aspect. And in the 90's this tendency had only bigger distribution because 99% of the peloton rode at EPO.

If one reasons like you, one must hate anyone who appeared relatively surpisingly. Froome, Contador, Wiggins, etc.

 

[DominicDecoco]

Rick Reilly's interview. Watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5zDAi5yYcw

Rick Reilly's column. Read it.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8852974/lance-armstrong-history-lying

 

[Benotti69]

Why did they have to feel more fear than US Postal? Banesto and Kelme are spanish teams and Spain was always the first country in terms of knowledge how to inject and cover its tracks. I'm sure we have minimal reasons to consider that they had a less sophisticated doping system than USPS.

We have zero info because no one is interested in other teams. I don't say Lance and other contenders were equally doped, but there's no doubt no one was clean. Allinall, that was doper and dopers.

I think you are forgetting lots of information that is out in public about doping. The Eastern Block and Russia were doping long before the Spanish. The Italians developed EPO.

To call it a level playing field is blind.

 

[airstream]

I think you are forgetting lots of information that is out in public about doping. The Eastern Block and Russia were doping long before the Spanish. The Italians developed EPO.

To call it a level playing field is blind.

Tyler writes Spain paid huge attention to doping after unsuccessful 80's in sport. Ufe was called among the police as 'El Importante'. Why can't we believe him?

 

[hrotha]

Tyler writes Spain paid huge attention to doping after unsuccessful 80's in sport. Ufe was called among the police as 'El Importante'. Why can't we believe him?

Spain caught up in time for Barcelona 1992. EPO wasn't new by then. Hamilton is telling the truth, you're just ignoring some facts.

 

[johnsiviour]

“His admission that he doped throughout his career is a small step in the right direction. But if he is sincere in his desire to correct his past mistakes, he will testify under oath about the full extent of his doping activities,” Travis Tygart

TT may be right, but I doubt it. Even if Lance does testify, rather than reflect sincerity, I believe it will simply be part of Lance's self promotion "tour".

UCI President Pat McQuaid has moved quickly to comment on Lance Armstrong's partial confession to doping, opting to highlight the disgraced Texan's claims that the UCI did not cover up a positive test and that the Biological Passport programme has cleaned up the professional cycling, rather than the many unanswered questions about his years of doping.

Well I suggest Pat's credibility is on a par with Lance's. After all his "somersaults" and "about faces" Pat would be so dizzy/disorientated he wouldn't recognize the truth if it hit him in the face. As for telling the truth/being transparent, he (and Hein) have no such concept in their quivers. (Refrain)

Both Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis have confirmed that Armstrong confessed to them that the UCI helped cover up an alleged positive test for EPO at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. Armstrong flatly denied that was true during is interview with Oprah Winfrey, just as the UCI and former UCI President Hein Verbruggen have done in the past.

Repeat above refrain.

While the UCI statement reads:

“Finally, we note that Lance Armstrong expressed a wish to participate in a truth and reconciliation process, which we would welcome,” the UCI statement reads.

I note that none of the apparent caveats (that presently make T&R a pipedream) are canvassed by the UCI.

As Fahey notes:

"I think he's a very confused person," said Fahey. "When someone justifies all of the wrongs that he did on the basis that everyone else was doing it and when someone gives the impression as I distinctly got that the biggest mistake that he ever made in all of this was to come back in 2009 and 2010 and had he not made that comeback he might have got away with it. That tells me that he regrets all the occurred because he got caught. I don't see him as being anyone of character at all. I see him being as he now admits he is and that is a liar, a bully and a cheat."

Agree with Fahey, Lance is presently with no credibility (less than he had prior to OW interview) and a self confirmed LBC. Lance has much work to do before any of his assertions can be/should be taken as more than self interested possibilities.

 

[airstream]

The retrospective EPO tests tell otherwise.

Not saying other teams were clean in 99 and 00, but most people believe they toned down their doping in those two years, at least they didn't dope heavily during the Tour.

Retrospective tests are implemented only for LA's probes or not?

Sorry, but I think the last paragraph is a part of anti Armstrong propaganda. If it is your reasoning, sorry one more time.

 

[GJB123]

Hm, does it say about anything directly? There are no rules. Pellizzoti was for me a rider who eventually killed belief in an allegedly progressive development. Riders hit the picture very differently.

Whom do you consider other 1999 Tour contenders? Naive ninnies or guys who decided to ride clean all of a sudden. Entire GT super elite always live by one huge fear - fear of turning out behind in doping aspect. And in the 90's this tendency had only bigger distribution because 99% of the peloton rode at EPO.

If one reasons like you, one must hate anyone who appeared relatively surpisingly. Froome, Contador, Wiggins, etc.

Oh man, I give up. LA was never a GT-contender. Before his cancer he seemed to have the makings of a rider who could contend for the wins in one day races. Perhaps even some of the monuments, but a GT-contender, not in a million years. If you fail to see and understand that you are truly beyond rescue.

And yes, I question people like Froome and Wiggins and I am not alone in doing so, Mr. pretend to be rational. However calling Contador a relatively surprising appearance as a GT-contender is really showing you have little or no clue what you are talking about. I know you dislike Contador because he keeps beating your boybut, rightly or wrongly, Contador was always considered a huge talent long before he hit the pro-scene.

 

[Grandillusion]

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.

Hitch is referring to Morgan himself, not Sheen.

Piers Morgan is a guy universally loathed and reviled in the UK, who has reinvented himself for the Americans, who don't realise what a complete hypocritical nightmare he is.

 

[airstream]

You are not making any sense.

Top sport is inherently unfair because no matter how hard your work you will never beat a more talented person who works equally hard. There is no level playing field in sports because of the differences in talent. But isn't that what sports is all about to get the most gifted athletes together and see who is the best, the most gifted? Last time I checked it shouldn't be about who has the best doping doctor and the best PED's.

Sorry, you are not making more sense because you are evaluating talent according to your own invicible scale. As far as I understand, without doubt you declare Armstrong to be less talented GC rider than say top-level riders of the end of the 90's?

I don't understand how it is possible. US Postal sucked since 1995 to 1998. Then they hired Bruyneel who seemingly brought doping advantage. It is not very logical. Why do you think that Bruyneel had better doping levers than Unzue or Pino. Why did other teams have to be afraid more?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

You weren't watching cycling in the 1990s were you?

 

[GJB123]

Retrospective tests are implemented only for LA's probes or not?

Sorry, but I think the last paragraph is a part of anti Armstrong propaganda. If it is your reasoning, sorry one more time.

OMG, read up. For a scientific experiment a number of samples of the '99 Tour were retested for EPO. All samples were tested anonymously and not only LA's samples were tested. A journlaist of L'Equipe managed to link some of the tested samples to LA. 6 of LA's samples were positive for EPO.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Hitch is referring to Morgan himself, not Sheen.

Piers Morgan is a guy universally loathed and reviled in the UK, who has reinvented himself for the Americans, who don't realise what a complete hypocritical nightmare he is.

Agreed on the slimy character Piers Morgan.

 

[GJB123]

Sorry, you are not making more sense because you are evaluating talent according to your own invicible scale. As far as I understand, without doubt you declare Armstrong to be less talented GC rider than say top-level riders of the end of the 90's?

I don't understand how it is possible. US Postal sucked since 1995 to 1998. Then they hired Bruyneel who seemingly brought doping advantage. It is not very logical. Why do you think that Bruyneel had better doping levers than Unzue or Pino. Why did other teams have to be afraid more?

They had Michele Ferrari in '99. Geez, do I have to explain everything to you. Yes, it is difficult to assess ability and talent at the height of EPO-use. But we can be pretty certain that for example Riis and LA showed little or no promise of getting anywhere near a GT-victory before getting on the program seriously. Besides they didn't have UCI's next golden wonderboy. Do we really have to this song and dance all over again?

 

[hrotha]

Sorry, you are not making more sense because you are evaluating talent according to your own invicible scale. As far as I understand, without doubt you declare Armstrong to be less talented GC rider than say top-level riders of the end of the 90's?

I don't understand how it is possible. US Postal sucked since 1995 to 1998. Then they hired Bruyneel who seemingly brought doping advantage. It is not very logical. Why do you think that Bruyneel had better doping levers than Unzue or Pino. Why did other teams have to be afraid more?

Seriously? US Postal in 1995-1996 was a small domestic team. In 1997 they became a decent international team by signing good, veteran European cyclists who knew their way around doping and absorbing part of the remains of the defunct Motorola team. Bruyneel brought in the ONCE expertise. The rest was the doing of Armstrong, Ferrari and the complicit UCI.

 

[airstream]

Oh man, I give up. LA was never a GT-contender.

Why? Just because you dislikes Armstrong?

Before his cancer he seemed to have the makings of a rider who could contend for the wins in one day races.

Time changes and people changes, however ones reconcile with it and others do not.

If you fail to see and understand that you are truly beyond rescue.

Damn, you serve overly disputable categorical opinion as though it is a fact. Unbelievable.

And yes, I question people like Froome and Wiggins and I am not alone in doing so, Mr. pretend to be rational. However calling Contador a relatively surprising appearance as a GT-contender is really showing you have little or no clue what you are talking about. I know you dislike Contador because he keeps beating your boybut, rightly or wrongly, Contador was always considered a huge talent long before he hit the pro-scene.

Are you serious? To me, you simply justify riders you like and denigrate riders you dislike. You are simply trying to acquit your personal preferences in every way. That's it.

Yes, we agree on one thing, you are not alone among people who like Contador and don't look up to Sky.

 

[rhubroma]

Are you serious? To me, you simply justify riders you like and denigrate riders you dislike. You are simply trying to acquit your personal preferences in every way. That's it.

Yes, we agree on one thing, you are not alone among people who like Contador and don't look up to Sky.

And vice versa. With LA's natural numbers he was never going to win the Tour. Period. Now, let's move forward.

 

[airstream]

Seriously? US Postal in 1995-1996 was a small domestic team. In 1997 they became a decent international team by signing good, veteran European cyclists who knew their way around doping and absorbing part of the remains of the defunct Motorola team. Bruyneel brought in the ONCE expertise. The rest was the doing of Armstrong, Ferrari and the complicit UCI.

Bruyneel wasn't the best manager in terms of doping back then, I'm sure. I agree to admit, yes, extreme luck on the passage du gois helped Lance and very likely he was not clearly the strongest cyclist in the 1999 Tour if the rivals hadn't been eliminated because of crash. A natural situation — when the sport simply couldn't afford one more scandal after Festina affair and covered up him partially — helped him too. But as to lack of talent and doping edge, I'm disagree on these matters.

 

[GJB123]

Why? Just because you dislikes Armstrong?


Time changes and people changes, however ones reconcile with it and others do not.

Damn, you serve overly disputable categorical opinion as though it is a fact. Unbelievable.



Are you serious? To me, you simply justify riders you like and denigrate riders you dislike. You are simply trying to acquit your personal preferences in every way. That's it.

Yes, we agree on one thing, you are not alone among people who like Contador and don't look up to Sky.

Did you watch cycling in the nineties?

Just ask Paul Kimmage and David Walsh whether they felt it was logical that LA suddenly transformed into a GT-beast let alone contender.

And as far as your comments to AC. Yes, I think he doped and probablystill does. But he was already named as a possible GT-contender at a very young age. Now people may say he was already doing PED's at that time, truth is we don't know. And I have no problem whatsoever if he is caught again that he is banned again. Those are the rules and they also apply to AC.

So don't start this you are an AC-fanboi and that's why you tarnish Sky-nonsense. Anyone with half a working brain should ask questions on Sky's 2012 dominance as much as any sensible guy should have asked questions on LA in '99.

 

[Joachim]

Hmmmm.....

Just watched the first hour of the interview on youtube. I feel able to have a pretty dispassionate view on this, never having been a fan of the man, but equally not saddled with the bizarre burning hatred that some here have (It's just sport guys)

Some thoughts. Firstly, I think some people are hearing what they want to hear rather than what is being said, one of those being Lemond (of whom I am a massive admirer). He is reported as being outraged that LA said it isn't possible to win the Tour clean. Except that isn't what Armstrong said. Listen carefully and you'll hear the words 'at that time'.... and he is almost certainly right about that. I don't think he is referring to anything other than the 99-05 era.

I found the interview compelling. The man is compelling. I think his replies were a mixture of truth, but also a few more evasions and lies. I don't think he was telling the truth about coercing team mates to dope if they wanted to ride the tour. I think he is well aware of the reading between the lines that riders had to do, as he wrote the script. I'm also curious as to why he refused to openly admit the hospital scene, even though tacitly admitting to it by referring to his phonecall to the Andreus.

Above all, the feeling I'm left with is that once he undertook the path of cheating, lying and covering his tracks with lawsuits he set himself on the path that he had to follow and this is one of the two possible consequences of it. It is all quite logical, but it is the logic of the psychopath.

(apologies if I'm repeating what others have said)