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

[CharacterFirst]

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.

Bingo!!!!!

 

[Benotti69]

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.

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.

Most people who tuned into this will have made a final decision on him after that.

They will decide he is a ****** or he did what all the other riders did.

Most will now ignore any other stories about Armstrong.

 

[airstream]

he was a donkey who would have never won the Tour in a level playing field

The 99 Tour?

 

[Cycle Chic]

Armstrong on Death Row

Surprising that he just couldnt do the 'poor little me' Tiger Woods style apology. His PR men must have been dying a thousand deaths.

Seriously..I suspect he's a sociopath.

 

[sars1981]

"phoned in"

This was the comment that amazed me a lot. Lance said his favorite part of the TdF was the "process leading up to it", because the result was more or less "phoned in".

Did the results seem to you guys to be that predictable? Does lances confidence on that point seem understandable to you?

 

[the asian]

The 99 Tour?

What about the 99 Tour?

He admitted he doped, but insists it was a level playing field?

 

[the asian]

]Surprising that he just couldnt do the 'poor little me' Tiger Woods style apology[/B]. His PR men must have been dying a thousand deaths.

Seriously..I suspect he's a sociopath.

it's not in his nature.

 

[ebandit]

really

really?.......why not in existing lance/oprah threads?

 

[airstream]

What about the 99 Tour?

He admitted he doped, but insists it was a level playing field?

My point is the first 2 Tours were won quite fairly. Zulle and Escartin were clean? Pfff, pardon me. Back then Lance only accumulated an administrative resource.

 

[Pazuzu]

... insists it was a level playing field?

That's going to be the new "never failed a doping test/most tested athlete in history" soundbite. Keep saying it and hope it worms its way into the public consciousness.

Except this time it won't work. The masses are no longer inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[sars1981]

Cause I thought of this question as being about how predictable Lance's wins were, more than than the interview per se. But if a mod wan't to move it OK.

 

[GJB123]

My point is the first 2 Tours were won quite fairly. Zulle and Escartin were clean? Pfff, pardon me. Back then Lance only accumulated an administrative resource.

FFS are dimwitted or what? There is no level palying filed with doping. Th fact that others may also have doped doesn't mean anything. Perhaps he could dope more because he was designated as Verbruggen's wonderboy, perhaps he was a far better responder. perhaps his baseline HCT-score is 38 and Zülle's was 48, etc., etc.

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.

 

[Arnout]

Most people who tuned into this will have made a final decision on him after that.

They will decide he is a ****** or he did what all the other riders did.

Most will now ignore any other stories about Armstrong.

Well what's the problem with that? Hostages died in Algeria today. There are more things in the world to worry about, not everyone is obliged to know everything about Armstrong, as long as it is common knowledge that he was a fraud and liar during his career.

I think it's great that the USADA report and Oprah settled this for the general public. The aftermath is for cycling fans and officials to deal with.

 

[the asian]

My point is the first 2 Tours were won quite fairly. Zulle and Escartin were clean? Pfff, pardon me. Back then Lance only accumulated an administrative resource.

If anything, in 99 and 2000 riders would have toned down their doping due to fear of the gendarmerie.
At least according to the info we have most of the teams avoided EPO during the Tour. Out of the very few samples retrospectively tested positive for EPO a majority was of Armstrongs'. (can't remeber the exact number, but it was mentioned in other threads)
It was from about 2002 that the others also got on the juice to the extent/or very close levels of Armstrong.

99 and 00 were probably the Tours with the most skewed field.

 

[airstream]

FFS are dimwitted or what? There is no level palying filed with doping. The fact that others may also have doped doesn't mean anything. Perhaps he could dope more because he was designated as Verbruggen's wonderboy, perhaps he was a far better responder. perhaps his baseline HCT-score is 38 and Zülle's was 48, etc., etc.

Then a level playing field never existed because winners always had a pharmacalogical edge. Do you admit that, ah? I doubt.

It means a lot considering how much doping gives. To belittle talent of the outstanding athlet just because one dislikes him is stupid.

HC is still treated very differently. On one hand, a larger number really allows one to be juiced up less. On the other hand, a man with 48 is more gifted by nature.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Most people who tuned into this will have made a final decision on him after that.

They will decide he is a ****** or he did what all the other riders did.

Most will now ignore any other stories about Armstrong.

I don't think he's fading away after that performance.

He's definitely going to be infamous.

 

[thehog]

Most people who tuned into this will have made a final decision on him after that.

They will decide he is a ****** or he did what all the other riders did.

Most will now ignore any other stories about Armstrong.

This I agree with. However for Armstrong it's step 1 of 72.

He has a large print article coming out in the next 2-3 weeks with a major magazine.

 

[Benotti69]

Well what's the problem with that? Hostages died in Algeria today. There are more things in the world to worry about, not everyone is obliged to know everything about Armstrong, as long as it is common knowledge that he was a fraud and liar during his career.

I think it's great that the USADA report and Oprah settled this for the general public. The aftermath is for cycling fans and officials to deal with.

There are things in the world more important than the OneBalledWonder, but that he wants to generate millions of $$$s for his LieStrong brand (and himself) makes it important that the whole truth and nothing but the truth from start to finish, top to bottom are know about his fraud. Not just the doping. What he did with Liestrong money, how he sold the brand more than the charity, how the charity used money to lobby policiticians etc etc.

The cycling part is almost complete, pretty much completed for cycling fans a long time ago, but the so called charity side is what he is tryin to save now and that needs to be exposed. His dealings with Wisel, OCh, Stapleton, Kanggs etc.....has to be exposed.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Why do people still trot out this "level playing field" canard?

There are a lot of very talented cyclists WHO NEVER DOPED. So, they never even made it to that level BECAUSE OF THE DOPERS.

The error people are making is that they're comparing Lance with other cheaters, not with honest people.

 

[frenchfry]

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)?

It appears that so far Armstrong has only apologised to those who defended him over the years. Screw those who told the truth.

Interesting that the interview was formulated in such a way that Armstrong didn't have to verbalise his "confession", he only had to answer a yes/no question.

 

[Benotti69]

I don't think he's fading away after that performance.

He's definitely going to be infamous.

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.

 

[airstream]

If anything, in 99 and 2000 riders would have toned down their doping due to fear of the gendarmerie.
At least according to the info we have most of the teams avoided EPO during the Tour. Out of the very few samples retrospectively tested positive for EPO a majority was of Armstrongs'. (can't remeber the exact number, but it was mentioned in other threads)
It was from about 2002 that the others also got on the juice to the extent/or very close levels of Armstrong.

99 and 00 were probably the Tours with the most skewed field.

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.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Interesting that the interview was formulated in such a way that Armstrong didn't have to verbalise his "confession", he only had to answer a yes/no question.

Excellent point. He had the chance to tell the truth about the hospital incident and about Ferrari, and he demurred.

The guy doesn't care about cycling. He doesn't care about the Andreus or anyone else. This is the guy who blew off his own daughter at some triathlon.

The guy has one singular purpose. To resurrect his brand value.

 

[frenchfry]

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

 

[GJB123]

Then a level playing field never existed because winners always had a pharmacalogical edge. Do you admit that, ah? I doubt.

It means a lot considering how much doping gives. To belittle talent of the outstanding athlet just because one dislikes him is stupid.

HC is still treated very differently. On one hand, a larger number really allows one to be juiced up less. On the other hand, a man with 48 is more gifted by nature.

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.