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

Page 46 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
trailrunner said:
I'm skeptical of that story. It's just too neat. If I wanted to come up with a tear jerker story, I probably would have pulled the "my kid gets beat up defending me at school" story too. It wouldn't surprise me if he lied about that one too. I still don't believe the story about his ex-wife giving him an ultimatum about no doping before he made his comeback in 2009. Just doesn't make sense.
And you probably don't believe in the backpack of sorrow, or whatever was in there. Shame

;)
 
Apr 11, 2009
2,250
0
0
thehog said:
So now he has a little more room to negotiate.

However as I see it he'd still not want to testify in court. As he's still lying on the "conspiracy" and "corruption" elements of his story. At the moment he's presenting it as a "doping story" not one of organised and premeditated fraud.
+1. Okay, good clarity. Explains his interview/confession strategy (wow, his reaction to Van Velde was revealing in this respect).
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
trailrunner said:
I'm skeptical of that story. It's just too neat. If I wanted to come up with a tear jerker story, I probably would have pulled the "my kid gets beat up defending me at school" story too. It wouldn't surprise me if he lied about that one too. I still don't believe the story about his ex-wife giving him an ultimatum about no doping before he made his comeback in 2009. Just doesn't make sense.
Agreed, there was no mention of his current Girlfriend as well she had to be ****ed off.
 
Jun 26, 2012
253
0
0
frenchfry said:
Just watched the bit about his kids.

Maybe they defended their cheater bully father because they were worried about getting their a$$es sued off if they didn't.
Lol

Seriously they are still young and he is still their dad

When they grow up & move out of home however.....
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
trailrunner said:
. I still don't believe the story about his ex-wife giving him an ultimatum about no doping before he made his comeback in 2009. Just doesn't make sense.
Awe Come On! Everyone listens to their Ex-Wife. :D
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
ebandit said:
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
ebandit, you need to follow NYVelocity on twitter, I cant tie schmaltz' shoelaces,

and Chewbacca is money, the famous TFF from here and cycling forums. I think he may have been Vader off the Paceline, which was up there with NYVelocity twitter feed as my favourite trolls of all time internet championships. Oh, forearms van petegem, on twitter, he is ok. Folks should add forearms to twitter :D
 
Jun 11, 2011
473
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Seems very clear you know zilch on any law. Pathetic. Why not badmouth LeMond some more?
what are you talking about? doctor patient confidentiality isn't a law, and I know plenty about laws
I love LeMond, he was my hero when I was racing. when have I ever bad mouthed him?
 
Jul 15, 2010
464
0
0
CobbleStoner said:
what are you talking about? doctor patient confidentiality isn't a law, and I know plenty about laws
I love LeMond, he was my hero when I was racing. when have I ever bad mouthed him?
You're arguing with a troll.
 
trailrunner said:
... I still don't believe the story about his ex-wife giving him an ultimatum about no doping before he made his comeback in 2009. Just doesn't make sense.
Am I missing something here.

Is Lance admitting that Kristin knew about his doping all along?

If she didn't know about the doping, then why would she tell him not to dope for his comeback?

Dave.
 
Reading the interview while disregarding Armstrong's delivery of it gives a different impression than what we saw on video. He was well prepared, the language and message were good. For the most part he said the right things. The problem ultimately came down to him being unable to give an empathetic performance. I think a better actor or a someone with a warmer personality could have carried it off.
 

Joachim

BANNED
Dec 22, 2012
934
0
0
Of course he was well prepared. Who wouldn't be? He came on to deliver a message, not just for the hell of it. Part of the reason it is so stilted is because he is prepared.

He's an odd fellow, but you'd have to be to do what he did (on all levels)
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
D-Queued said:
Pathological liars always, always, always have good points. Most of them are false, like this one.

Unless the attempted bribe could be linked to a specific failed test or to corroborate another specific doping incident, then it is peripheral. Damning, but peripheral.

There was no particular reason to include this in the Reasoned Decision.

For all we know, it hit the cutting floor as it was on page 1,001 or something.

Now that he has lied about it, however, there is a reason to include it.

The other reason to not include it is due to the parallel with Lance's bribery of the UCI. To secure the ban and to wipe out all of his palmares, the decision had to go to the UCI. The UCI's decision could have been appealed, of course, but it was politically astute to focus more on Lance alone and not on the insidious corruption and offering and taking of bribes.

Dave.
Okay, good points, but I would rate this possible pay off to USADA at the same level as the 'donation' to wonderlance's friends at the UCI, who were 'short on cash' as he wanted folks to believe. A big joke of course.
CobbleStoner said:
what are you talking about? doctor patient confidentiality isn't a law, and I know plenty about laws
I love LeMond, he was my hero when I was racing. when have I ever bad mouthed him?
My apologies, there is a forummember Cobblestoned cracking up LeMond.
 
Lance on his Own

Joachim said:
Of course he was well prepared. Who wouldn't be? He came on to deliver a message, not just for the hell of it. Part of the reason it is so stilted is because he is prepared.

He's an odd fellow, but you'd have to be to do what he did (on all levels)
What message was that then ?

Did you watch the interview ? he came across as an unremorseful sociopath, as the world media has printed.

He couldnt have been more ill-prepared if he had tried. It seemed that he had 'must not say anything liable' in his thoughts SO MUCH that he forgot the 'sympathy and tears' act.

That interview put the nail in his coffin. He should have done a Tiger Woods - short apology and go into hiding for a year.
 

Joachim

BANNED
Dec 22, 2012
934
0
0
Cycle Chic said:
What message was that then ?
That he is very sorry

Did you watch the interview ? he came across as an unremorseful sociopath, as the world media has printed.
Yes I did watch it, thank you, otherwise I wouldn't be commenting on it. He came across to me exactly as he did to you.

He couldnt have been more ill-prepared if he had tried. It seemed that he had 'must not say anything liable' in his thoughts SO MUCH that he forgot the 'sympathy and tears' act.
He was extremely well prepared. What he said was not important. It is what he didnt say.

Besides, his schtick is to present himself as a guy just starting to have the glimmer of recognition of what a c0ck other people think he is. It's a process bla bla bla

That interview put the nail in his coffin. He should have done a Tiger Woods - short apology and go into hiding for a year.
I think you may be proved wrong about. If he followed your advice, where would that have got him?

He's still playing the game. This is a damage limitation exercise, and it doesn't necessarily matter what reaction you or I, or the media, have to it.

It's pragmatism at its most cynical.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
For me @festinagirl put it perfectly

That the monster turned out to be the very thing he so despises—a fùçking little troll—was the only pleasant surprise.
read more of some people who in their own important way fought the good fight

http://m.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/social-justice

Not Pat McQuaid
@UCI_Overlord
Time to Dig Deeper
The Oprah interview showed us how small of a man Armstrong truly is

Race Radio
@TheRaceRadio
Cycling’s Crazy Ex
Despite Armstrong’s painful wreckage, the sport will move on

SuzeCY
@festinagirl
The Yellow Troll
In the end, the monster turned out to be the very thing he despised most

Dave (Dim)
@dimspace
Flipping the Bird
This hasn’t really ended, and Armstrong hasn’t really changed

mmmaiko
@mmmaiko
The Next Step
The real surprises came after Doprah
 
Norcal Rider said:
Been lurking here for a while and after looking up the answer about Doctor Patient Confidentially Thought I'd post what I found here. The below is from http://www.enotes.com/healthcare-reference/doctor-patient-confidentiality


A privilege belongs to the patient, not the doctor. Generally, only a patient may waive the privilege. A patient's written consent is needed before a doctor can release any information about the patient. But there are other ways in which a patient may "waive" the privilege of confidentiality. For example, if a patient brings a friend into the examination or consultation with the doctor, the friend may be forced to TESTIFY as to what transpired and what was said. (On the other hand, nurses or medical assistants in the room are "extensions" of the doctor for purposes of confidentiality and are covered by the privilege.) The patient may also waive the privilege by testifying about his or her communications with the doctor or about his or her physical condition at the time.

Another common way in which a patient waives the confidentiality of the privilege is by filing a lawsuit or claim for PERSONAL INJURY. By doing so, the patient has put his or her physical condition "at issue" in the lawsuit. Therefore, the law presumes that the patient has waived all confidentiality regarding his or her medical condition, and there is an implied authorization to the patient's doctor for disclosure of all relevant information. If a patient fails to object to a doctor's TESTIMONY, the patient has waived the privilege as well.
Thanks for clarifying that!
 
Benotti69 said:
For me @festinagirl put it perfectly



read more of some people who in their own important way fought the good fight

http://m.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/social-justice

Not Pat McQuaid
@UCI_Overlord
Time to Dig Deeper
The Oprah interview showed us how small of a man Armstrong truly is

Race Radio
@TheRaceRadio
Cycling’s Crazy Ex
Despite Armstrong’s painful wreckage, the sport will move on

SuzeCY
@festinagirl
The Yellow Troll
In the end, the monster turned out to be the very thing he despised most

Dave (Dim)
@dimspace
Flipping the Bird
This hasn’t really ended, and Armstrong hasn’t really changed

mmmaiko
@mmmaiko
The Next Step
The real surprises came after Doprah
What about a quote from the Hog?

"I think he's a knobhead" !
 
Jul 23, 2010
1,695
0
0
D-Queued said:
Am I missing something here.

Is Lance admitting that Kristin knew about his doping all along?

If she didn't know about the doping, then why would she tell him not to dope for his comeback?

Dave.
Oprah did ask about Kristin's knowledge of the organized doping and he gave a very watery answer about it, trying his best not to actually say "she knew and participated".
 
Jul 23, 2010
1,695
0
0
Walkman said:
Quoted for importance. I also want to know this. This is the only thing I really care about. Anyone konw anything?

Microchip said:
...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?

...

Am wondering if there was a re-edit and a new Part 2 was done, based on public reaction to the first part.
I sacrificed sleep to hear that piece of info. I knew I'd read about it - it was edited out. I'd like to get my hands on that raw footage and make a different Part 2!

NBC Sports: Armstrong May Testify Against Cycling Officials

New York Times: Armstrong Admits ... Says He Will Testify

CBS News has also learned Armstrong has indicated he may be willing to testify against others involved in illegal doping.
 
Twenty-eight million viewers, though the peak in America was 3.2 million on Thursday:

Some 28 million viewers worldwide watched Oprah Winfrey's two-part interview last week in which cyclist Lance Armstrong finally admitted he had been taking performance-enhancing substances for years, Winfrey's OWN cable TV channel said on Tuesday.

OWN said that 12.2 million Americans and 15 million people overseas watched the encounter over two nights and various airings on OWN, with another 800,000 watching online on Oprah.com.

The two-part exclusive interview - totaling 2.5 hours - was seen in more than 190 nations in 30 languages, said the cable channel, a joint venture with Discovery Communications.
 
Jul 18, 2012
10
0
0
This has truly pervaded every level of the media. From a small town web newspaper here in the states:

Perhaps we can now coin a new verb:

to armstrong (v)--the act of strong-arming ones teammates, fellow athletes and officials in order to cover-up one’s every illegal, underhanded and immoral effort to win without accomplishing true athletic achievement based on ability, unenhanced strength or performance, or true grit.
patch article
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts