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

Page 43 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 20, 2010
169
0
0
xrayvision said:
Damage control nothing else, he lost his income, and it´s the only reason he do this make no mistake.

I couldn´t care less about how bad he feels or how sorry he say he is, it´s just another fart in the wind from this xxxxup, only thing he regret is he have to sit there and the fact that he got caught.
Totally agree. He's confessing b/c he's ultra-competitive and wants his ban lifted to compete in tris? Give me a break!
 
Jun 26, 2012
253
0
0
Deagol said:
I think Oprah did provide "some" cover for lance. How much? not sure, but some people are believing him..
That's because of the "great work done by Livestrong"

Give me a bucket...
 
Carols said:
Geez as much as I dislike him I wouldn't wish that on anyone. There were glimmers that he is on a path of dealing with his psychological issues. Hopefully he follows through and becomes at least partially whole.
I don't think so. He couldn't stay away for 6 months. If he was in some sort of therapy, his recent tactics would not have been recommended.

Carols said:
Instead of PEDs I hope he is on drugs that will facilitate progress in that area.
I do wish a better situation for him, but he couldn't even see this disaster as a major contributor to his woes.
 
Jul 29, 2010
7
0
0
Perhaps the answer to those like Lance who have to compete is to let them race with jerseys that say DOPER on all available surfaces. And a dunce cap for a helmet. And make them carry 1000 pages of their court/arbitration proceedings with them at all times.
 

Joachim

BANNED
Dec 22, 2012
934
0
0
Anyone got a link for a stream to Part 2? Doesn't seem to be on YouTube yet.

Having slept on it, what really sticks in my mind today is the disconnect between the words coming out of Armstrong's mouth with regards to regret for his victims and his body language. Granted that he is in a pressurised situation which can't be easy, but this morning I'm left with the overwhelming feeling that he got out the words he had to get out to fulfil the narrative but underneath he really doesn't give a *** about the collateral damage.
 
Aug 30, 2012
8
0
0
Also hoping for a link for Part 2. I saw a TV interview with an AP journalist who spoke to Lance in the street just after the interview was recorded. He said Lance was in good spirits and was under the impression the Oprah interview had gone really well. Either the Lance is still totally deluded or just a pathological liar.
 
Aug 27, 2012
44
0
0
warrenfuk said:
Also hoping for a link for Part 2. I saw a TV interview with an AP journalist who spoke to Lance in the street just after the interview was recorded. He said Lance was in good spirits and was under the impression the Oprah interview had gone really well. Either the Lance is still totally deluded or just a pathological liar.
He is a sociopath. He does not think or feel like you and me. Its a waste of time trying to 'understand' him. Imho.
 
Microchip said:
This second part was a letdown.
Don't like the editing in this episode.
I was waiting to hear him say that he's willing to testify against the big guns!
Where did all that info go!?!
Did he say that in Oprah's interview, or to someone else?

He clearly lied alot and was very manipulative (but Rome wasn't built in a day, so changes will take yeaaaaars). "Absolutely" is a dead giveaway and he very closely resembled "that guy" when answering Oprah's questions compared with when he was lying through the teeth under oath. The vernacular was the same: "Absolutely!!!", "100 percent!!!"

Am wondering if there was a re-edit and a new Part 2 was done, based on public reaction to the first part.
Quoted for importance. I also want to know this. This is the only thing I really care about. Anyone konw anything?
 
once more....................

once more........thanks! again for everyone's thoughts...........that saves
me from EVER watching a second of oprah

may i deduce that the programme could have been wrapped up after
10 seconds of part 1 'did you dope................yes'?

BIG thanks to moose and blackcat who made me laugh the most through
thoughts on part 2
 
Sep 21, 2012
296
0
0
Oprah did OK

Fatclimber said:
...
I am satisfied with this interview. Sure, Oprah missed some opportunities, lance lied his nut off, and there were plenty of soft questions tonight. But most importantly his character and personality were revealed.

Any sane human being could spot what a phony he is from this interview. I think a lot of past supporters will think "I've been supporting this guy?"

He will not rise again and he will not be able to infect the sport much longer. Axe the UCI and maybe cycling will be worth watching.
I feel the same way. Oprah was being Oprah, of course.
But she did a lot better than I had expected she would.
I was especially pleased to see Oprah hang in there, and push back, when the subject of the donation to USADA came up.

Oprah: Last Wednesday night Travis Tygart of USADA told "60 Minutes (Sports)" someone offered a donation, which USADA did not accept. He said it was over $150,000. Were you trying to pay off USADA?

Lance: "No, that is not true."

Oprah: That's not true?

Lance: "That is not true. In the 1,000-page reasoned decision that they had issued, there was a lot of stuff in there, everything was in there, why wasn't that in there? Pretty big story. Oprah, it's not true."

Oprah: No-one representing you…

Lance: "Nobody, I had no knowledge of that but I asked around. Nobody, not true."

Oprah: And you are Lance Armstrong and you run your own show so if somebody was going to offer $150,000, you would know about it?

Lance: "I think the claim was $250,000, it was broad number but they narrowed it down. That's a lot of money. I would know."

Oprah: And you're saying that's not true?

Lance: "That's not true."



USADA spokeswoman Annie Skinner: "We stand by the facts both in the reasoned decision and in the '60 Minutes' interview.''

from Twitter: David Epstein ‏@SIDavidEpstein
there are quite a few people who can verify the attempted donation to USADA
 
Aug 27, 2012
44
0
0
ValleyFlowers said:
I feel the same way. Oprah was being Oprah, of course.
But she did a lot better than I had expected she would.
I was especially pleased to see Oprah hang in there, and push back, when the subject of the donation to USADA came up.

Oprah: Last Wednesday night Travis Tygart of USADA told "60 Minutes (Sports)" someone offered a donation, which USADA did not accept. He said it was over $150,000. Were you trying to pay off USADA?

Lance: "No, that is not true."

Oprah: That's not true?

Lance: "That is not true. In the 1,000-page reasoned decision that they had issued, there was a lot of stuff in there, everything was in there, why wasn't that in there? Pretty big story. Oprah, it's not true."

Oprah: No-one representing you…

Lance: "Nobody, I had no knowledge of that but I asked around. Nobody, not true."

Oprah: And you are Lance Armstrong and you run your own show so if somebody was going to offer $150,000, you would know about it?

Lance: "I think the claim was $250,000, it was broad number but they narrowed it down. That's a lot of money. I would know."

Oprah: And you're saying that's not true?

Lance: "That's not true."



USADA spokeswoman Annie Skinner: "We stand by the facts both in the reasoned decision and in the '60 Minutes' interview.''

from Twitter: David Epstein ‏@SIDavidEpstein
there are quite a few people who can verify the attempted donation to USADA
I was stunned when i heard Lance denying that. They asked in the CNN show afterwards who would believe Lance, and who would believe Tygart. They all including Betsy of course said: Tygart. In the live chat i was in all people were stunned as well. I agree Lance exposed himself more than ever in those 2 interviews.
 
Jul 8, 2010
1,366
0
0
Discovery is showing in my country the Oprah interview. I'm watching it, but "watching" this confession makes me to say, that this guy is disgusting. Hate his stupid well scripted trash talk...
 
Dec 23, 2012
1
0
0
Still searching for a link to Part 2 - Can anyone help?

I can only find small sections of the second half of the interview on Youtube. Can anyone supply a link to the entire second half? Thanks.
 
Sep 21, 2012
296
0
0
Vélocité said:
I can only find small sections of the second half of the interview on Youtube. Can anyone supply a link to the entire second half? Thanks.
Until the whole interview is available you can check out this transcript of the highlight put together by the BBC. It's pretty good.

Lance Armstrong & Oprah Winfrey: part two interview transcript
 
airstream said:
In my view, you hugely absolutize natural talent. A man is not born being a GT rider. He becomes a GT rider. All top level riders (I mean 15-20 main stars) are very talented. One is a bit more talented, other is a bit less. Why one has talent for something and other has talent in no way for the same thing is beyond me.

And then a rider often finds himself in cycling and progresses. That is all about hidden talents. For instance, Voeckler lost to Lance about 4 mins at Plateau de Beille in 2004. It characterized him, a 24 years old then rider, as a brilliant climber, considering he never practised climbing purposefully. But anyways he decided to remain a breakaway rider with good reason just because he felt it suited him more. However, he has developed in all aspects during those years and when Voeckler heroically survived in the Pyrenees in the 2011 Tour, I was shocked in no way. Sure, Lance's and Wiggins' cases are fraught with even more changes. But I don't get why you refuse riders in their right to improve and widen their skills?

Naturally we drop a doping factor. It's cycling and all the best on something, but even there you show up with yardstick of 'just doping' (Contador maybe Evans I dont' know) and 'extreme doping' (Wiggins, Froome, Armstrong). It is very difficult to understand.


Basso couldn't do that without Riis, Wiggins - without Vaughters, Contador - without Bruyneel and so on. How do you think Contador would have won the 2007 Tour if he had ridden say for Caisse d'Epargne?
History shows that the big GT-contenders were all really good at a very young age. Merckx, Hinault, Lemond, Fignon all did extremely well in their first couple of GT's. Hell even little Schleck showed immediate prowess in his first Giro.

As to AC, who knows where he would have ended if he had ridden with Caisse. Those are silly if-games. Mt guess he would have been there or thereabouts but that doesn't prove ****.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
1
0
GJB123 said:
History shows that the big GT-contenders were all really good at a very young age. Merckx, Hinault, Lemond, Fignon all did extremely well in their first couple of GT's. Hell even little Schleck showed immediate prowess in his first Giro.

As to AC, who knows where he would have ended if he had ridden with Caisse. Those are silly if-games. Mt guess he would have been there or thereabouts but that doesn't prove ****.
or ullrich and pantani. although for every rule is an exception
 
PED's or stupidity ?

After the interview my immediate thought was 'this guy is really not intelligent at all'.

You must be really thick not to be able to 'give' what the public needs to hear.

OR the PED's have really screwed with your brain and you have lost all rationale.

His PR gang must have had no say in that interview because that was a PR nitemare. No PR crew would have let that interview air.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
GJB123 said:
History shows that the big GT-contenders were all really good at a very young age. Merckx, Hinault, Lemond, Fignon all did extremely well in their first couple of GT's. Hell even little Schleck showed immediate prowess in his first Giro.

As to AC, who knows where he would have ended if he had ridden with Caisse. Those are silly if-games. Mt guess he would have been there or thereabouts but that doesn't prove ****.
In short as for GTs, you divide riders on normal dopers and extreme dopers just on the base of age factor right? It is a very shaky point. Tell me whyl are you entitled to accuse Armstrong. Wiggins, ( Froome, I don't know.. Frank Schleck, any rider who became a GC contender not at once) of doping when those 'who were really good at a very young age' were dopers too?
 
Jun 17, 2009
24
0
0
Thats hilarious...

Oprah: You were going around suing everybody left right and centre. What is that?

LA: That's a flaw.

A "flaw"!!! What a word to use. A flaw! Like it's a birthmark, or a slight imperfection, instead of the outcome of the state of mind of a megalomaniac.
 
airstream said:
In short as for GTs, you divide riders on normal dopers and extreme dopers just on the base of age factor right? It is a very shaky point. Tell me whyl are you entitled to accuse Armstrong. Wiggins, ( Froome, I don't know.. Frank Schleck, any rider who became a GC contender not at once) of doping when those 'who were really good at a very young age' were dopers too?
Another variation of the "everyone dopes in cycling" argument taken to ridiculous extreme as if EPO and later oxygen vector doping were always present. The references to Lemond, Hinault and others are correct. Grand Tour contenders tended to show themselves immediately. Once you cross into Riis/Armstrong-style doping, that historical reference doesn't work anymore. Edwig Van Hooydonk (sp?) is an example.

I know the possibility that the UCI is picking winners for grand tours is still a contentious subject for some, but that too is a modern feature of cycling that seems to begin with Armstrong.
 
ValleyFlowers said:
USADA spokeswoman Annie Skinner: "We stand by the facts both in the reasoned decision and in the '60 Minutes' interview.''

from Twitter: David Epstein ‏@SIDavidEpstein
there are quite a few people who can verify the attempted donation to USADA
Wonderboy can't stop lying because no rules apply to him. He knows he can lie with impunity to Oprah.

Note how that lie is carefully constructed so as to be functional even in a deposition. It's a variation of "not to my knowledge" or " I can't recall"

Expect nothing less from a lying liar who lies. No wonder Hein Verdruggen and Wiesel like him so much.
 
Apr 8, 2010
329
0
0
Oprah: Last Wednesday night Travis Tygart of USADA told "60 Minutes (Sports)" someone offered a donation, which USADA did not accept. He said it was over $150,000. Were you trying to pay off USADA?

Lance: "No, that is not true."

Oprah: That's not true?

Lance: "That is not true. In the 1,000-page reasoned decision that they had issued, there was a lot of stuff in there, everything was in there, why wasn't that in there? Pretty big story. Oprah, it's not true."

Oprah: No-one representing you…

Lance: "Nobody, I had no knowledge of that but I asked around. Nobody, not true."

Oprah: And you are Lance Armstrong and you run your own show so if somebody was going to offer $150,000, you would know about it?

Lance: "I think the claim was $250,000, it was broad number but they narrowed it down. That's a lot of money. I would know."

Oprah: And you're saying that's not true?

Lance: "That's not true."
The part in red is classic LA arguing a lie: "why would I put drugs in my body when I've had cancer".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts