gsteinb

Timely comparison. What the heck?

Caretaker

"The best question"

Why now?

And he didn't answer it.

Does anyone believe he'd be admitting he took PEDs if he wasn't already facing irrefutable evidence and the old denials just didn't wash anymore?

He confirmed he beat the 1999 positive for Cortisone by faking a doctor's cert. so let's hear no more "he never tested positive".

roadwarrior

He did win a world champnship, however.

Homebrew01

I think last night's performance should be referred to as "Lance's partial confession".

kaliayev

Well USADA is not law enforcement and they have taken the moral high ground in all this. To pretend that doping stopped in 2005 lessens that high ground.

gsteinb

This is all about deflection and damage control. He's trying to will the story away but admitting to some of the smaller more obvious stuff so he can try and earn again, and not get nailed for the conspiracy and pay off stuff. I think he's miscalculated.

roadwarrior

Good grief...

merlinextraligh

McQuaid says that Armstrong made a $25,000 contribution in 2002. That's definitely before Armstrong retired, and a second one of $100,000 in 2005. Whether that was before retirement would depend on the time in 2005.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcqu...ons-to-the-uci

One of a number of things that Armstrong was less than candid about.

merlinextraligh

Some of the twitter takes are pretty good:

Former Armstrong mechanic and assistant Mike Anderson, who had to battle legal action after accusing the Texan of drug use

“I don't want to waste any more of my time with Lance Armstrong. He's an incredible actor and that's what you (saw) today on the Oprah Winfrey Show.”

Veteran sports writer Rick Reilly, via Twitter

“After years of lying to my face, Lance Armstrong apologizes in an email. He can keep it.”


“Sportscaster Jim Rome, via Twitter

“Lance Armstrong? Isn't this type of confession usually a tearful one? When does the guy start crying?”

canam73

I think plenty of you realize this, but Lance isn't done being Lance. He will go on doing whatever he thinks is best for Lance Armstrong at every opportunity. Everybody does that to a certain degree, but for some people it's their whole life and Lance falls into that category.

He'll loose money and fame for sure, but know matter what it says on paper he will never live like a poor person for the rest of his life. He'll have a big house, car and his children will grow up privileged. And even if he doesn't get around the competition ban, he will still get paid to travel for interviews, book deal and promotional appearances.

He is nothing if not motivated and determined, and while we watched and read the interview he literally got more done than most of us will all week. That's what people like him do. And if you aren't one than either look out or get on their coattails. Or hope that somebody else that they hurt has a cousin like the Slingblade guy who is fine with taking them out and suffering the consequences. Because there is usually no way actually stopping them that doesn't do at least as much damage to yourself.

Short of that, get away. Pay as little attention as possible. Nothing will happen here that will be worth the effort or the wait.

merlinextraligh

There's a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that Postal's (i.e. Ferrari's) doping program was better. Armstrong spent at least a million dollars on Ferrari. Not every rider or team has that kind of money.

Hamilton talks in his book about not having access to the same program when he left Postal. And the substitute for Ferrari ultimately cost Hamilton due to sloppy work in handling the blood.

Then you have all the riders testing positive because their programs weren't as good.

I think it's pretty clear that the entire peleton did not have access to a drug regime like Armstrong did. Thus that limits the field of potential competitors. And at the very top, there's anecdotal evidence that Postal did it as well as anybody, likely better.

All that said he had Armstrong still had tremendous talent, focus, drive, and I thik he would have been the best rider of his era. However, I think there would have been some losses along the way, and a larger group of riders obtaining top results without EPO.

RedHerring

Because LeMond is a nut and doped too.

RedHerring

Here is the intresting part. Lets say, for arugument sake, that LA is telling the truth about not doping in 2009-2010. What does that say about the biological passport?

Garfield Cat

Motivation for what ends? I think we have to look deeper. Motivational speakers do similar stuff. There's a big difference between mere motivation an emulation. Do you really want to be like Lance?

gsteinb

There are elements of truth in what you say. Armstrong is unlikely to ever be poor. But the government is apparently this whistle blower suit has potential to take a significant chunk. Reportedly he's in negotiations to settle it. It's also not unlikely he has to deal with lawsuits.

Paying attention, beating the drum, etc are all actions that can influence that happening. The longer is stays in the news cycle of flies around on facebook and other social networks the greater the likelihood folks go after him.

merlinextraligh

The specific premise in the OP's post that I was responding to is that Armstrong still would have won without using PED's because he was so much faster. And that's likely not true. Take away the PED's and he's going to lose more than 7 minutes over the other top contenders, who presumably were using EPO.

The OP's question wasn't who wins in a clean field, or whether Armstrong had an unfair advantage. The question was whether PED's can make that much time difference.

RedHerring

Are you asking did LA dope better than everybody else and that's the only reason he won? Nope, I don't think so. He won in 2003 by only 23 seconds. Did he dope? Sure. Did everbody else? Yep. Did he crack the code how to dope better than everybody else where a strong team and training had nothing to do with his wins? No way.

canam73

Make no mistake: Lance put himself in the news cycle.

He has done all math on how much money he stands to loose by the admissions he made, how much he can keep for what he didn't admit to and how much he has squirreled away that nobody can touch. He will live like a multi-millionaire for the rest of his life.

He also calculated what was out there to gain, who best to do the interview and where to have it. It may not have get him everything he wants, but that's ok. He'll be back at it again tomorrow.

gsteinb

I don't think I've made any mistakes.

canam73

That sounds kind of familiar. Just can't put my finger on it.

akeelor

I think the word is spelled schmuck. Anyway, I agree that his actions were despicable and he has tarnished cycling in a bad way. However, forgiveness would be the better route. To err is human.

merlinextraligh

I'm sure he, and his team of advisors have carefully run all the numbers.

However, it may not be panning out the way he hoped. The reapproachment with USADA appears to be a major fail at least according to the WSJ.

The Oprah interview also doesn't appear to be going as well as he likely hoped. The guarded nature of some of the responses, due to legal constraints, and the fact that he just can't keep himself from being a dick at times, may result in this backfiring on him.

And reportedly, some of the Armstrong camp were against this whole approach.

cchristanis

Not at all. I am simply asking if the ped's can make that much of a difference. It's funny though that some people say it's a level field (including Lance) since they "all" dope. All meaning probably 80-90 percent? What do you guys think is the percentage? I guess since ped's affect everybody differently, we will never know as someone already stated. We can see that he came in 3rd in the 09 tour (he says without doping?) , but why should we believe him? I feel he told the truth 90% of the interview. I watched the interview cause I thought it was interesting. I think he was sharp cause he stressed how many times he passed the tests (which is true). This took the focus off the question of did he use the drugs. I did look up to Lance because I know how hard the sport is. I think the TDF makes the superbowl look like a kids tea party. But, I never worshipped him or anyone else and never will. I am my own. I have friends that spend thousand$ on sports whether it's clothes, tickets, etc. I laugh my ass off cause they argue to almost the point of fighting over sports. Sorry, I don't mean to get off topic here. Excuse the somewhat ignorant thread starter. I just don't know anything about the drugs that he used. I don't even watch the TDF. Sometimes, I tune in just to see what is going on. But, I do have a trek madone 5.9 (and other bikes)and i do love riding.

Sixty Fiver

Since they have been cracking down on drug use the finishing times of the Tour and other events have been slower overall... Lance may have been one of the most gifted riders of all time and also had a really good pharmaceutical team.

canam73

Maybe.

But think about Lance 10 years from now. What's the worse scenario?

He could always have the cancer come back. Or somebody kills him.

Outside that, his day to day existence will be something most people might give up a nut for. And if he is that calculating animal I say he is, he'll look at everyone who thought he's been "taken down" and laugh. It will still all have been worth it.