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

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The part in red is classic LA arguing a lie: "why would I put drugs in my body when I've had cancer".

But he does have a point in that one, why was that not in the reasoned decision?

Even liars, dopers etc etc sometimes have good points.

 

[veganrob]

I watched most of Part 1 and couple minutes of 2. Oprah did a fair, commendable job in interview. She didn't have to dig too deep though cause it was all the Lance show and he was digging his own hole fast enough without any help.
The look on her face sometimes was so funny. She looked agahast at some of his answers. She must have just left the set shaking her head in disbelief.
It is the USADA interview that I would pay for if it happens.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

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.

I thought it was funny when Oprah talked about the most humbling day and he immediately started talking about the $70 million dollar day, before correcting himself and going on to talk about Livestrong, that seemed rehearsed.

Watching the interview I had the impression that the **** has hit the fan for Lance more than he realises. It's apparent that racing again is his primary motivation whereas if I was in his shoes I would be more concerned with avoiding jail time, that would be the ultimate disgrace.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Nitemare Interview

I dont get it....why was that interview allowed to be shown by Lance's PR crew ??

 

[Briant_Gumble]

I dont get it....why was that interview allowed to be shown by Lance's PR crew ??

I have to think they rehearsed some stuff and didn't think he would come across as spectacularly bad as he did.

Once it was taped it was always going to make it onto the Internet and news of an about turn would have been extremely embarrassing.

He's spoken in public before and on those occasions usually he's been angry talking about doping accusations, most people seem to interpret that anger as indignation.

 

[Square-pedaller]

Originally Posted by Square-pedaller

Originally Posted by Square-pedaller
The part in red is classic LA arguing a lie: "why would I put drugs in my body when I've had cancer".

But he does have a point in that one, why was that not in the reasoned decision?

Even liars, dopers etc etc sometimes have good points.

Sometimes they have good points, sometimes they have clever ways of arguing their lies.

You could equally well make your point about LA's question "Why would I put drugs in my body when I've had cancer?"

I can also think of answers to the Reasoned Decision question. But that takes us into a different discussion and away from the question whether money was offered - which, I believe, is exactly the point of asking the question. It's a distraction.

 

[Descender]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMyIVAxLKAw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

No audio on the second part.

Second part here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qmfPpsYuJkE#!

 

[airstream]

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.

Do you consider anyone a relatively honest GT winner, but Lemond?

 

[Joachim]

No audio on the second part.

Second part here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qmfPpsYuJkE#!

There is. The first 50 minutes are the Part 2.

It caught me out too, at first.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin was baffled as to why his lawyers let him do this interview. Seemed like a very very bad idea from a legal standpoint. He's now going to get sued like crazy, and he deserves to be.

 

[Descender]

There is. The first 50 minutes are the Part 2.

It caught me out too, at first.

Oh ok. So it's the other way around? Weird. Thanks.

 

[cineteq]

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin was baffled as to why his lawyers let him do this interview. Seemed like a very very bad idea from a legal standpoint. He's now going to get sued like crazy, and he deserves to be.

He did it for his kids, remember?

 

[Descender]

BTW is it me or there is a surprising lack of Armstrong-Oprah memes?

Still I doubt any of them can top the best Armstrong meme of all time:

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I can also think of answers to the Reasoned Decision question. But that takes us into a different discussion and away from the question whether money was offered - which, I believe, is exactly the point of asking the question. It's a distraction.

That is a way of thinking, and it is possible you are right, is your mind open enough to the possibility you could be wrong?

Over the whole it was a dissapointing interview, the could have said 'CUT' after minute one. I don't want to know what Armstrongs' 'humble' moment was, I want to be made public what aholes like Hein Verbruggen, Bruyneel, Ferrari, del Moral and all of them were involved in the scam. Just like the other teams with their Cecchini's, Fuentes etc etc, this was just lame stuff. Why would I give a crap on how his son reacted when lancedad told him his father was a doper? Or that his mum is a mess? Get outta here. Or the part on his ex - wife, wasn't she involved in the dopestuff as well? The angel Kristin...

edit: but to be fair, that would have been unrealistic

 

[CobbleStoner]

Your statement is disgraceful and should earn you a ban from this forum.

please don't give the power hungry moderators on this forum any crazy ideas. nothing in his statement was offensive or vulgar, he just stated his viewpoint, easily as valid as yours.
the problem with Betsy is this thing called doctor-patient confidentiality, a very important concept in saving lives. she had no business telling anybody what she overheard a patient telling his doctor or vise versa. If she went to the doctor and was diagnosed with genital warts or syphilis, would she want a friend that overheard it calling the media to report it?
this being said does not give Lance the right to attack her like he did, that was dispicable, but it wouldn't have happened if Betsy would have know about doctor-patient confidentiality, and if she did know and choose to ignore it, well then she brought it on herself

 

[Parrot23]

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin was baffled as to why his lawyers let him do this interview. Seemed like a very very bad idea from a legal standpoint. He's now going to get sued like crazy, and he deserves to be.

Looks like he wants to get this off his chest and to compete, no matter the legal cost. Pretty revealing...and redeeming for him. I gotta admit that.

He was totally genuine about his son, Luke. +1 for him there. Genuine remorse, shame.

I really doubt he was telling the truth about Kiki and the no doping return. This looks contrived. I think no doping to many pros means minimal doping, to near absence compared with pre-biopassport (Frank Schleck right now, the clenbuterol guy, etc.) Also, the stuff about the Tour de Suisse test and UCI was hard to believe. Betsy stuff was legal jeopardy. He's going to confess, but only some wackos and clinicians expects him to commit complete legal suicide on air. Be reasonable, folks!

 

[Grandillusion]

please don't give the power hungry moderators on this forum any crazy ideas. nothing in his statement was offensive or vulgar, he just stated his viewpoint, easily as valid as yours.
the problem with Betsy is this thing called doctor-patient confidentiality, a very important concept in saving lives. she had no business telling anybody what she overheard a patient telling his doctor or vise versa. If she went to the doctor and was diagnosed with genital warts or syphilis, would she want a friend that overheard it calling the media to report it?
this being said does not give Lance the right to attack her like he did, that was dispicable, but it wouldn't have happened if Betsy would have know about doctor-patient confidentiality, and if she did know and choose to ignore it, well then she brought it on herself

Doctor-patient confidentiality is between the doctor and the patient! Anybody else privy to this conversation (like Betsy) by being allowed in the room to hear it is not a part of this understanding surely?

And the information was not about his illness per se but his doping and cheating.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

The Luke part was indeed touching. I wonder if that incident happened before or after he tweeted that picture of himself, alone, with his 7 jerseys.

When he first retired, the talked about wanting to be a dad. Now he talks about wanting to compete. He talks about losing 75 million.

 

[Square-pedaller]

Originally Posted by Square-pedaller
I can also think of answers to the Reasoned Decision question. But that takes us into a different discussion and away from the question whether money was offered - which, I believe, is exactly the point of asking the question. It's a distraction.

That is a way of thinking, and it is possible you are right, is your mind open enough to the possibility you could be wrong?

Yes.

The reason that I posted is that someone seemed to think the "Why wasn't it in the Reasoned Decision" argument was cogent.
I just wanted to point out that LA has used a similarly constructed argument to - whether deliberately or not - distract the questioner ("Why would I put drugs in my body after cancer?") when we now know that his denial (in that case having taken drugs) was false.

 

[CobbleStoner]

Do you consider anyone a relatively honest GT winner, but Lemond?

don't get me wrong, I love LeMond, the way he raced. he is the greatest American cyclist of all time, but how quickly people forget about the Tour the year before he won. he made a deal gifting the win to Hinault in exchange for Hinault's support the following year. that is CHEATING.
but this whole mess isn't really about cheating, because everyone cheats, blocking, drifting off your sprint line, drafting cars to get back after a flat. it is about bringing down someone because of their personality, nobody is going after Eddy Merckx's records or money because he is beloved

 

[xrayvision]

please don't give the power hungry moderators on this forum any crazy ideas. nothing in his statement was offensive or vulgar, he just stated his viewpoint, easily as valid as yours.
the problem with Betsy is this thing called doctor-patient confidentiality, a very important concept in saving lives. she had no business telling anybody what she overheard a patient telling his doctor or vise versa. If she went to the doctor and was diagnosed with genital warts or syphilis, would she want a friend that overheard it calling the media to report it?
this being said does not give Lance the right to attack her like he did, that was dispicable, but it wouldn't have happened if Betsy would have know about doctor-patient confidentiality, and if she did know and choose to ignore it, well then she brought it on herself

She was neither his Doctor or a patient, she was a bystander and she actully asked if they should leave the room, he said no.
I don´t think she have any confidentiality problems here when she is answering questions under oath, she did what anyone are exspected to do, telling the truth. It´s Lance´s problem if he allows the whole world to listen in to his confidental conversation with his doc.

 

[thehog]

Looks like he wants to get this off his chest and to compete, no matter the legal cost. Pretty revealing...and redeeming for him. I gotta admit that.

He was totally genuine about his son, Luke. +1 for him there. Genuine remorse, shame.

I really doubt he was telling the truth about Kiki and the no doping return. This looks contrived. I think no doping to many pros means minimal doping, to near absence compared with pre-biopassport (Frank Schleck right now, the clenbuterol guy, etc.) Also, the stuff about the Tour de Suisse test and UCI was hard to believe. Betsy stuff was legal jeopardy. He's going to confess, but only some wackos and clinicians expects him to commit complete legal suicide on air. Be reasonable.

The half-admission will help him legally not hinder.

Legaly speaking he has more room to maneuver now than he did before. In civil cases you have to give a little bit to reach settlement.

A judge will like to see that.

 

[Jalina]

He was totally genuine about his son, Luke. +1 for him there. Genuine remorse, shame.

I 100% disagree with this. As I watched it and listened to his rubbish about how hard it was to have his kids have to defend him blah blah blah, I wanted Oprah to ask one question.
If you knew what your kids were going through having to defend you, why did you continue to make them do it while you fought and fought against the truth and continued to lie?

If he genuinely gave a crap about those kids, he would have told them, and the world, the truth so they didn't have to go through what they did. He was happy to continue to let them suffer while he still thought he had a way out. Even if it has only been happening since the release of the RD, that is still a few months of pain he has chosen to sit back and let them endure.

Others may see it differently, but I didn't buy one second of it.

 

[Descender]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM3rnmDtMss

 

[neineinei]

please don't give the power hungry moderators on this forum any crazy ideas. nothing in his statement was offensive or vulgar, he just stated his viewpoint, easily as valid as yours.
the problem with Betsy is this thing called doctor-patient confidentiality, a very important concept in saving lives. she had no business telling anybody what she overheard a patient telling his doctor or vise versa. If she went to the doctor and was diagnosed with genital warts or syphilis, would she want a friend that overheard it calling the media to report it?
this being said does not give Lance the right to attack her like he did, that was dispicable, but it wouldn't have happened if Betsy would have know about doctor-patient confidentiality, and if she did know and choose to ignore it, well then she brought it on herself

There is a reason it is called doctor-patient confidentiality. Was Betsy the doctor? No. Was she the patient? No. Does the doctor-patient confidentiality apply to her. No.

And who the heck invites friends into the doctors office with them for groin era examinations?

Ignore next.