The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[Boris Bajic]

Surprised myself that Walsh would say these are the top 10 questions to ask him.

They strike me more as opening questions to gain an initial response to lead on to a more devastating second question

Even more surprised that one single question doesn't start with "You're a liar, a cheat, a drug taker, a bully and a con man who has dragged sporting reputation into the gutter ...."

I recently read the Walsh book "Seven Deadly Sins" and found it odd. very interesting in parts, but odd nonetheless.

True to form, Walsh likes to swim (up to a point) in the sweet syrup of family tragedy and use it to contextualise his Lancaphobia.

Certainly, the man was not well treated, but his joyful dancing on the grave of Armstrong's reputation is ugly.

David Walsh appears to have membership 001 for the David Walsh Fan Club and seems proud of his ownership of same.

He appears not to know what it takes to be a good winner. If indeed he did win, rather than just pick a winner.

I'm just saying....

 

[johnr]

It's still not clear what he's up to..

It's a fiendish, CIA-inspired plot to undermine the announcement of the routes of the 2014 Tour de France opening stages. Are there no lengths to which these people will not go?

 

[rich p]

but he never tested positive

True RD, and did we ever clear up if USADA has jurisdicion?

 

[Boris Bajic]

What about:

"It's been a difficult road and there's a lot that people simply don't know. I have some stories I just can't tell at the moment for legal reasons, but it's all going to be in my book, published later this year".

I think that (with enough 'smaller' stories to flesh it out would both satisfy Oprah Plc and keep the revenue stream potentially open.

It would also (if managed) allow for redemption through partial confession.

In terms of managed regaining of reputation, esstablishment of possible future income and satisfying the media beast, that might do it.

 

[rich p]

Lance Armstrong did not come clean in the manner I expected, says Oprah Winfrey.

BBC ticker - now.

Yeah, he came cleaner than she expected according to the Oprah interview linked to above.
She also says that it won't be cut from 2 1/2 hours and will be shown in full over 2 evenings.

 

[rich p]

To be honest, an hour and a quarter is probably enough each evening.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

He's going to come out of it all a feckin' hero by turning whistle-blower, according to the NY Times

"Armstrong, 41, is planning to testify against officials from the International Cycling Union, the worldwide governing body of cycling, about their involvement with doping in cycling, but he will not testify against other riders, according to the people familiar with his plans.
He is also in discussions with the United States Department of Justice to possibly testify in a federal whistle-blower case. That case involves the cycling team sponsored by the United States Postal Service, and Armstrong would testify against several of the team’s owners, including the investment banker Thom Weisel, and other officials, one person close to the situation said. That person did not want his name published because the case is still open."

More here on Mr Weasel sorry Weisel

As for me? Hell hath no fury like a fan-boy scorned.

 

[Herzog]

It'll be interesting if his next 'crusade' is against the doping 'facilitators'. He seems like the kind of bloke who needs to be trying to crush somebody/something at all times.

 

[User169]

He's going to come out of it all a feckin' hero by turning whistle-blower, according to the NY Times

.

Interesting. UCI put out a press-release today. No comment until it's seen the interview, but encourages Armstrong to appear before its review committee if the rumours are true.

 

[raindog]

To be honest, an hour and a quarter is probably enough each evening.

Just ten minutes of Lance and Oprah each evening would be too much for me.

 

[User169]

What about:

"It's been a difficult road and there's a lot that people simply don't know. I have some stories I just can't tell at the moment for legal reasons, but it's all going to be in my book, published later this year".

I think that (with enough 'smaller' stories to flesh it out would both satisfy Oprah Plc and keep the revenue stream potentially open.

It would also (if managed) allow for redemption through partial confession.

In terms of managed regaining of reputation, esstablishment of possible future income and satisfying the media beast, that might do it.

From what Winfrey said this morning, I got the impression this was what she expected, but he was actually more forthcoming. On the other hand, she has an obvious interest in talking up the interview...

 

[Aperitif]

Matt Seaton does a 'cost-benefit analysis' of the unfolding "confession". HERE.

In short, this now looks like a carefully choreographed, slow-release PR plan – likely managed by Armstrong's long-time agent Bill Stapleton – to perform a 180-degree turn on all previously held positions: belligerent denial, self-righteous indignation and bullying belittling of accusers. Instead, we have Lance Armstrong the penitent sinner: the weepy, choked-up prodigal son, who is finally coming clean and seeks redemption. As is well-established, an audience with Oprah achieves that almost instantaneously: I can see her right now, reaching out and taking his hand as he shakes with emotion and talks about the pain of living the false life we all made him lead.

 

[007fair]

I'm sure you've all had the opportunity to read this for yourselves but I thought I'd include it here to add to the discussion. The Sunday Times have placed an "open letter" in the Chicago Tribune, and David Walsh asks ten questions which he thinks Oprah should ask:


1. Did you tell doctors at the Indiana University Hospital on October 27, 1996 that you had taken EPO, human growth hormone, cortisone, steroids and testosterone?
2. After returning from cancer, how did you justify putting banned drugs in your body?
3. Did you have any sympathy for those rivals determined to race clean?
4. Do you regret how you treated Betsy Andreu, your former masseuse Emma O'Reilly and Greg LeMond?
5. Do you admit that your friend Dr Michele Ferrari fully supported your team's doping?
6. Is it your intention to return the prize money you earned from September 1998 to July 2010?
7. Did you sue The Sunday Times to shut us up?
8. Was your failure to understand Floyd Landis the key to your downfall?
9. Do you accept lying to the cancer community was the greatest deception of all?
10. Why have you chosen Oprah Winfrey for your first interview as a banned athlete?

I'm sure he could have thought of a better question 10 , but otherwise they all seem fairly straight forward and easy to answer. Perhaps too easy. BUt not bad as an opening gambit.

I would like the honest answer in his own words to 'Why own up now?'

It strikes me that his admission is unbelievably calculated and self serving just as his denial was before. Armstrong had got away with it is many ways, yet now seems to be unable to stay under his rock because he wants/needs to compete again is some form. What is he if he can't? There is no other reason for coming out now, especially not remorse. Any remorse now is purely an act and a ridiculously blatant one at.

 

[MacB]

If the system was corrupt and LA was the figurehead of this corrupt system, then surely it is the moral duty of the penitent man to tackle the rot in the system? Who better to do this than LA? Yes, the witch dunkers amongst you wont get to see him tar and feathered and yes, he is a survivalist of the first order.....

.....but what other choice does he have?

slink off and shut the fark up perhaps?

As it is I reckon the Americans will lap it up, he'll stay in the limelight and get to carry on bullying others

 

[GrumpyGregry]

To never even be given the chance to repent? We've grown up since the Middle Ages.

repent, slink off and shut the fark up. Is that post-modern enough?