Well I guess we'll see. A confession would be proof enough if one had already happened behind closed doors would it not? Cover-ups happen all the time in sports too, a few backhanders here and there.
Like I say it is only speculation but to take away his titles I'm sure proof was needed that would stand up in a court of law.
I never said he wasn't guilty of doping but the facts are the facts .. He never tested positive according to the Tour records.. And most of their case was from former team mates who where caught doping ...
I never said he wasn't guilty of doping but the facts are the facts .. He never tested positive according to the Tour records.. And most of their case was from former team mates who where caught doping ...
I never said he had tested positive for doping though, but I did say there must be some proof to be stripped of his titles which to me would have to be more than hearsay from former team mates.
I guess we'll find out when Oprah airs.
Video at link and a brief description of what was discussed rather than what he actually admitted to, but Oprah gives the impression that she got the answers the interview promised so - we'll see.
It's interesting he choose Oprah to 'confess' to. She loves a repentant sinner, does Oprah, as does her audience. PR at work for sure. Cynical PR at that..
I'm not defending the bloke hes a cheat
but read that they didnt give his titles to the 2nd guy is the of the 7 years he won apart from 1 guy all 21 people in 2nd and 3rd were all caught using drugs at some point in there careers
so he was "best" of the cheats unfortunately
That's probably because all the clean.riders had been forced to.retire or been sacked by their team for finishing in the bus, if finishing at all in the months or years proceeding.
The poster on here claiming Armstrong to be a vile, nasty piece of work is quite legitimate in doing so. The lives and careers of multiple innocent people were destroyed by him.
Video at link and a brief description of what was discussed rather than what he actually admitted to, but Oprah gives the impression that she got the answers the interview promised so - we'll see.
It's interesting he choose Oprah to 'confess' to. She loves a repentant sinner, does Oprah, as does her audience. PR at work for sure.
Probably paid him the most.. I don't personally like Armstrong for what he is alleged to of done ( without a real court case he isn't guilty of anything) as it has ruined the reputation of a race I enjoy.. I will be in Paris for this years final ... but to say he is he nastiest man alive is a bit much
That's probably because all the clean.riders had been forced to.retire or been sacked by their team for finishing in the bus, if finishing at all in the months or years proceeding.
The poster on here claiming Armstrong to be a vile, nasty piece of work is quite legitimate in doing so. The lives and careers of multiple innocent people were destroyed by him.
No most riders where caught doing drugs.. They destroyed their own careers?.had nothing to do with Lance Armstrong .. The history of cycling shows drugs where rife then
Probably paid him the most.. I don't personally like Armstrong for what he is alleged to of done ( without a real court case he isn't guilty of anything) as it has ruined the reputation of a race I enjoy.. I will be in Paris for this years final ... but to say he is he nastiest man alive is a bit much
There was no payment for the interview. It's pure PR, Oprah is the go-to for people like Armstrong who are looking to minimise damage and get a sympathetic ear.
That's probably because all the clean.riders had been forced to.retire or been sacked by their team for finishing in the bus, if finishing at all in the months or years proceeding.
The poster on here claiming Armstrong to be a vile, nasty piece of work is quite legitimate in doing so. The lives and careers of multiple innocent people were destroyed by him.
David Walsh reckons he was indeed quite nasty and a bully who regularly threatened anyone who got in his way.
Probably paid him the most.. I don't personally like Armstrong for what he is alleged to of done ( without a real court case he isn't guilty of anything) as it has ruined the reputation of a race I enjoy.. I will be in Paris for this years final ... but to say he is he nastiest man alive is a bit much
There was no payment for the interview. It's pure PR, Oprah is the go-to for people like Armstrong who are looking to minimise damage and get a sympathetic ear.
Yes its all about protecting his estimated 100 million fortune. Unfortunately for Armstrong he was by all accounts a nasty so and so on the way up so there will be a lot of people gunning for hom on the way down. A few crocodile tears on Oprah are not going to work, he is going to be restricted in what he can say to protect himself from legal actions.
That's probably because all the clean.riders had been forced to.retire or been sacked by their team for finishing in the bus, if finishing at all in the months or years proceeding.
The poster on here claiming Armstrong to be a vile, nasty piece of work is quite legitimate in doing so. The lives and careers of multiple innocent people were destroyed by him.
Don't know about him being vile and nasty but on This Morning they are saying that in his heyday his used lawyers to stamp on anybody that suggested he used drugs. Wonder if anyone in those lawsuits will have some way of recourse now?
To me the interview on Oprah is damage limitation for him and more wolrdwide publicity for her.
Yes its all about protecting his estimated 100 million fortune. Unfortunately for Armstrong he was by all accounts a nasty so and so on the way up so there will be a lot of people gunning for hom on the way down. A few crocodile tears on Oprah are not going to work, he is going to be restricted in what he can say to protect himself from legal actions.
Ha! The Guardian nails it. This is all about Lance Armstrong doing what's best for Lance Armstrong. As if there was any doubt! Oprah's already said that there were many pre-agreed restrictions over what could/would be discussed anyway so I doubt there will be much to see here, other than a self-serving Armstrong trying to present himself as a victim of circumstance in the hope of wriggling his way back into favour.
That's probably because all the clean.riders had been forced to.retire or been sacked by their team for finishing in the bus, if finishing at all in the months or years proceeding.
The poster on here claiming Armstrong to be a vile, nasty piece of work is quite legitimate in doing so. The lives and careers of multiple innocent people were destroyed by him.
Really? They may have been denied an opportunity to maybe receive a medal but I doubt lives were destroyed because of him doping.. I doubt their careers were destroyed either.
Lance has been punished by having his titles stripped from him and, he goes down in cycling history(?) as a cheat. Him appearing on Oprah "explaining things" means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Really? They may have been denied an opportunity to maybe receive a medal but I doubt lives were destroyed because of him doping.. I doubt their careers were destroyed either.
Lance has been punished by having his titles stripped from him and, he goes down in cycling history(?) as a cheat. Him appearing on Oprah "explaining things" means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Though there are reports he bullied other cyclists into taking drugs and fired anyone who stood in his way.
I find that a little difficult to believe; athletes who take performance enhancers take them for the best possilble chance to win, so why would lance bully other cyclists into taking them?!
If he generally has always been a dick it would be because be was enabled to do so.
Though there are reports he bullied other cyclists into taking drugs and fired anyone who stood in his way.
No one on this earth would make me take drugs for THEIR benefit.. I simply don't believe others did it because he told them to..they are using him to cover their on cheating? How can he make them take drugs they don't want to?? Did he hold a gun to their heads..
Don't know about him being vile and nasty but on This Morning they are saying that in his heyday his used lawyers to stamp on anybody that suggested he used drugs. Wonder if anyone in those lawsuits will have some way of recourse now?
To me the interview on Oprah is damage limitation for him and more wolrdwide publicity for her.
The Sunday Times was one of them, he sued them and they will be looking very carefully at this..What he did was perjury...
No one on this earth would make me take drugs for THEIR benefit.. I simply don't believe others did it because he told them to..they are using him to cover their on cheating? How can he make them take drugs they don't want to?? Did he hold a gun to their heads..
Well David Walsh says Armstrong was an intimidating person with a nasty streak. He described his former Irish masseuse as a "prostitute" and "alcoholic" after she turned whistleblower against him....not as a cheap jibe, but was actually claiming she was selling her body for money and had a drink problem.
Well David Walsh says Armstrong was an intimidating person with a nasty streak. He described his former Irish masseuse as a "prostitute" and "alcoholic" after she turned whistleblower against him....not as a cheap jibe, but was actually claiming she was selling her body for money and had a drink problem.
What as that to do with these stories he MADE others do drugs.
What as that to do with these stories he MADE others do drugs.
Everything : he was all powerful and quite intimidating within his team and very used to getting his own way. You couldn't be part of Lance's team without doing what Lance wanted.
Comments
Nor did Marion Jones, or about 500 other tour riders during the 90s and early 2000s.
Although strictly speaking, its common knowledge in some.quarters that he did fail a test.
I never said he wasn't guilty of doping but the facts are the facts .. He never tested positive according to the Tour records.. And most of their case was from former team mates who where caught doping ...
There is a whisper of one test being "lost"
I never said he had tested positive for doping though, but I did say there must be some proof to be stripped of his titles which to me would have to be more than hearsay from former team mates.
I guess we'll find out when Oprah airs.
Video at link and a brief description of what was discussed rather than what he actually admitted to, but Oprah gives the impression that she got the answers the interview promised so - we'll see.
It's interesting he choose Oprah to 'confess' to. She loves a repentant sinner, does Oprah, as does her audience. PR at work for sure. Cynical PR at that..
That's probably because all the clean.riders had been forced to.retire or been sacked by their team for finishing in the bus, if finishing at all in the months or years proceeding.
The poster on here claiming Armstrong to be a vile, nasty piece of work is quite legitimate in doing so. The lives and careers of multiple innocent people were destroyed by him.
Probably paid him the most.. I don't personally like Armstrong for what he is alleged to of done ( without a real court case he isn't guilty of anything) as it has ruined the reputation of a race I enjoy.. I will be in Paris for this years final ... but to say he is he nastiest man alive is a bit much
No most riders where caught doing drugs.. They destroyed their own careers?.had nothing to do with Lance Armstrong .. The history of cycling shows drugs where rife then
There was no payment for the interview. It's pure PR, Oprah is the go-to for people like Armstrong who are looking to minimise damage and get a sympathetic ear.
David Walsh reckons he was indeed quite nasty and a bully who regularly threatened anyone who got in his way.
One of.. and I stand by my assessment.
Yes its all about protecting his estimated 100 million fortune. Unfortunately for Armstrong he was by all accounts a nasty so and so on the way up so there will be a lot of people gunning for hom on the way down. A few crocodile tears on Oprah are not going to work, he is going to be restricted in what he can say to protect himself from legal actions.
Karma is a bitch:)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/15/lance-armstrong-whistleblower-doping
Don't know about him being vile and nasty but on This Morning they are saying that in his heyday his used lawyers to stamp on anybody that suggested he used drugs. Wonder if anyone in those lawsuits will have some way of recourse now?
To me the interview on Oprah is damage limitation for him and more wolrdwide publicity for her.
just cheat, steal and do whatever it takes to get ahead. worst comes to the worst you can always tell all on oprah later.
if there was any justice in life armstrong would be penniless now, but in fact he's a multi-millionare still adored by millions.
Ha! The Guardian nails it. This is all about Lance Armstrong doing what's best for Lance Armstrong. As if there was any doubt! Oprah's already said that there were many pre-agreed restrictions over what could/would be discussed anyway so I doubt there will be much to see here, other than a self-serving Armstrong trying to present himself as a victim of circumstance in the hope of wriggling his way back into favour.
Really? They may have been denied an opportunity to maybe receive a medal but I doubt lives were destroyed because of him doping.. I doubt their careers were destroyed either.
Lance has been punished by having his titles stripped from him and, he goes down in cycling history(?) as a cheat. Him appearing on Oprah "explaining things" means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Though there are reports he bullied other cyclists into taking drugs and fired anyone who stood in his way.
If he generally has always been a dick it would be because be was enabled to do so.
No one on this earth would make me take drugs for THEIR benefit.. I simply don't believe others did it because he told them to..they are using him to cover their on cheating? How can he make them take drugs they don't want to?? Did he hold a gun to their heads..
The Sunday Times was one of them, he sued them and they will be looking very carefully at this..What he did was perjury...
Well David Walsh says Armstrong was an intimidating person with a nasty streak. He described his former Irish masseuse as a "prostitute" and "alcoholic" after she turned whistleblower against him....not as a cheap jibe, but was actually claiming she was selling her body for money and had a drink problem.
What as that to do with these stories he MADE others do drugs.
Everything : he was all powerful and quite intimidating within his team and very used to getting his own way. You couldn't be part of Lance's team without doing what Lance wanted.