The World According to Lance - 4 Corners

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The one bit I felt the program missed was the fraud and the doping wasn’t just 1999-05. He actually came back and doped again in 2009-10. You can only do that with a complicit governing body. Then they should have brought in the Catlin doping program. It would also show this was not just a problem with “old cycling”.
 
Oct 8, 2012
237
1
0
I think there is some confusion when people are referring to 'Phil' here. There's Phil Anderson and Phil Liggett. Which one, or were they both on the show? And what were their positions about the Armstrong doping scandal?
 
Big Daddy said:
I think there is some confusion when people are referring to 'Phil' here. There's Phil Anderson and Phil Liggett. Which one, or were they both on the show? And what were their positions about the Armstrong doping scandal?
Both Phils were on the show. Surfdelux was talking about Phil Anderson in post #66.
 
Apr 11, 2010
3
0
0
They were both on the show. Ligget can no longer believe that Lance didn't dope. Anderson looked to be struggling with why he was asked to participate, and all the concepts put forward.
 
Aug 2, 2012
191
0
0
Race Radio said:
I doubt you will be able to find this on the internet. It will be heavily Geo restricted, but I expect they will do some kind of syndication so it will likely show up on broadcast TV across the world.
I was certain someone like you would know how to use a proxy server to get around the Geo restictrions.. ;)
 
Sep 22, 2012
542
0
0
In answer to an earlier question the show took about six weeks to make, it was started after Armstrong choose not to contest the charges and go to arbitration.

Having watched the show now it strikes me strong that the year of Armstrong's fall should have been 2006 not 2012. The show convincingly shows that Armstrong dopes, no other conclusion is possible. Most of the evidence in it, all apart from Hamilton, was available by the end of 2005. If the UCI had been a responsible governing body, a body willing to do its job and fight against doping. An proper investigation in 2005-6 could have come to no other conclusion than Armstrong was a doper but the UCI did not act. Instead in their corrupt way they stood back and let the doping culture continue. The UCI is a failure and a disgrace; Pat McQuaid must go.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Big Daddy said:
I think there is some confusion when people are referring to 'Phil' here. There's Phil Anderson and Phil Liggett. Which one, or were they both on the show? And what were their positions about the Armstrong doping scandal?
When I mentioned Anderson it was in the same paragraph as Ashenden. When I mentioned Liggett, it was in a separate context in another paragraph removed from the former.

Short story, both men were on the documentary. Liggett's words were the more telling for me. Anderson knows LA was doping. He was LA's room mate in 94 FFS. Four Corners when they mentioned 1995 and Motorola riders talked about getting flogged forgot to mention or didn't know that the reason Anderson and other older riders were removed from the team was because of their willingness to dope. I think Andy Hampsten was one of the riders as well...not sure though.

Who was the PR man for Motorola? Paul Sherwen.

el hipopotamo said:
Agreed. After seeing the documentary, Phil does look like he's been betrayed. Still, are we really to believe that all this time, he had no idea whatsoever. It's somewhat understandable if he wanted to believe his friend but there have been so many connections already made between Lance and doping. Does this mean Phil just assumed everyone but Lance was lying this whole time? Was it that easy for him to just dismiss all of the past allegations? As a "journalist", and I use that term very generously here, shouldn't he have at least entertained the possibility that Lance was dirty this whole time? That he claims never to have thought that simply beggars belief. And this is why the omertà works: because anyone who tries to defy the company line is immediately dismissed and ridiculed. This further proves that Phil is and always has been complicit the whole time.
No it doesn't. It doesn't prove that Liggett knew Lance was doping. He was simply the mouth piece for everything pro Lance. As I said about my take on Liggett I have never been 100% sure which side he fell on. It could always have been either. He really seems to be the gullible fool who believes what they are spoon fed. Just watch the SCA Promotions deposition. Lance is one hell of a liar. He is very convincing and you need a base knowledge of what has gone on to pick up on his deception and a considerable intellect. Liggett does not have either. Hence he goes with all the positives. Note he always claimed Lance loved France. Lance loathes the French. Hates them. Not what Phil has claimed.

Then there is the Paul part. I think Sherwen knew. For sure and he played his card that way. He had to know, he was the PR man for Motorola FFS. Hence why he wasn't in the documentary. Liggett is well known in Australia. It is telling he would appear and in such a distraught state and we don't get a peep from his comrade at arms. Liggetts reaction seems genuine, he truly is gutted and no doubt feeling his guilt. He knows he was complicit in the fabrication and being the voice of cycling he helped perpetuate the myth. He still has enough cognitive faculties to recognise his shame and feel remorse. Liggett is definitely not talented enough a performer to give that reaction and fudge it.

I think he was fed an amazing story, a fairy tale and he is the type of person who does not question. They believe. But he got to experience it in person, almost every day. He could touch these people. He's probably known most were doping for a while, but held out on Lance because of the way the PR game has been played. Now it's all crashed down. Paul on the other hand, when he talks I am banking on it mostly being BS. A good ruse. I am also waiting on him to come out of the closet, but that won't happen.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
DominicDecoco said:
You are. That article is from October 15. Probably just went up.

Man Phil really did go full genius...AGAIN!!! Based on his representation in the video on Four Corners, well I was prepared to cut him some slack. But he's still dropping the witch hunt BS as well. Repaints the old view of Phil. He needs to go. Really needs to go. He said if Lance ever was found doping/tested positive he'd quit. Time to fall on the sword.

I still think he is an unquestioning believer. No doubt about that. But he is also a stubborn old senile fool. Deflection 101 should be taught by all pro cycling teams implementing doping. Lesson 1, get a senile old journalist to spruik your cause. Heck it works. Man Phil give it up already, you had your out, your way to explain it all and you are justifying the BS...well attempting to. Armstrong is plutonium. He is radioactive. Touch that, you are tainted for life. He's making Sherwen look like a genius with his silence act.

If anyone wants to do a protest, or start a petition to send to every major network in English speaking nations that broadcasts cycling to get rid of this decrepit old relic, count me in.
 
Oct 8, 2012
237
1
0
Dang! Can't get it working either.

About the Motorola change in philosophy. The evidence of the encouragement of a "medical program" was due to one man only. Lance Armstrong. Stephen Swart has talked about the changing of the guard from the old Motorola to the new Motorola.

It was in the early 90s that Motorola were getting blown out of races and it was thought that it was just that the team was getting old. Their successful riders in years past were getting old. At least, that was what was driven by the media. Behind the scenes they were all speculating about other teams doping, and according to Stephen Swart it was Armstwrong was was really pushing them to get on a medical program. That ushered in the dark period for them. EPO took control.
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
Big Daddy said:
Dang! Can't get it working either.

About the Motorola change in philosophy. The evidence of the encouragement of a "medical program" was due to one man only. Lance Armstrong. Stephen Swart has talked about the changing of the guard from the old Motorola to the new Motorola.

It was in the early 90s that Motorola were getting blown out of races and it was thought that it was just that the team was getting old. Their successful riders in years past were getting old. At least, that was what was driven by the media. Behind the scenes they were all speculating about other teams doping, and according to Stephen Swart it was Armstwrong was was really pushing them to get on a medical program. That ushered in the dark period for them. EPO took control.
Have you tried this link?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q03sc8Aoyk0&feature=youtu.be
 
Sep 24, 2012
46
0
0
So cycling is a business, I can accept that with lump in throat and some discomfort. So let's use a business analogy to analyse what happened and what should happen now.

Pro cycling is a company lets say. The teams are business divisions, the UCI is the execurive management of the company (the board). It's been proven many of the divisions had corrupt managers and staff, both junior and senior. The board knew what was going on, problems in the company, evidenced by years of positive drug tests. The company then has a major corruption incident as the climax event - ie the curernt USADA revelations. The board failed to prevent it. Further the board's complicity in the scandal is evident, there's also evidence the board had knowledge of what was going on, evidence to suggest the CEO took bribes, and proof the board took improper payments (ie donations from Armstrong). In the business world the CEO would be in damage control over-drive, would have to explain himself at least, and would probably have to go (eg Tony hayward at BP after the Gulf of Mexico blowout), along with other implicated decision makers. Criminal charges might well be forthcoming.

The same needs to happen to the UCI. Armstrong is in a way just a highly corrupt and unforgiving, star performing, middle/senior manager. It's easy for us to club him because he was the star. But he didn't exisit in isolation, and the UCI perpetuated the environment in which Armstrong and the other corrupt staff in the "company" were able to flourish. They wouldn't have existed otherwise, in an environment of good "corporate governance" and ethical business culture strictly enforced by executive management, as it should be, but wasn't.

So friends the question becomes this i believe: for the sake of our dear sport how do we ensure McQuaid and those donkey's move along? Clean out the board? My only concern is that sports administrators can be the worst breed, and can hang aroung like stale farts, long after all public approval has dried up. Remember that fool Arthur Tunstall in Australia and his remarks on disabled people?

Still, we should never give up. As a super dedicated former fan, right now I couldn't care less about turning on the TdF until I know a sea change has taken place within the sport.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
the delgados The Clinic 19
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts