|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 17, 2013 14:23:43 GMT -5
And he's doing what I call the Mea Coprah. Hiring the soft-focus, soft-ball Oprah "moral voice of America" Winfrey to interview him. Yeah, I said hiring. Defamed, disgraced, fallen celebrities seem to run to her to seek forgiveness and to regain public approval and earning potential. And she no doubt charges a pretty penny for her services. He won't tell the whole truth. Just enough to make people sorry for him and to rally around all the great work he's done for cancer. Which brings up another misconception. Very little, if any, of the Livestrong donations go to cancer research. Instead it goes to "awareness" programs and services for cancer survivors. Livestrong. Looking DeeperAlso...his corporate rides/public appearances fees have been in the multiple six-figures...and the money goes directly to Lance, while he's riding under the Livestrong banner. ArticleAnd in Norway, the newspaper VG reported a disagreement over whether $400,000 went to Livestrong or Armstrong for a 2009 visit to Oslo. When it was established that the appearance deal was to pay Armstrong, and not Livestrong directly, cyclist Dag Erik Peterson said he still thought the money was for the charity, saying that he saw Armstrong riding in Livestrong cycling gear and “mixed his roles. That’s not fair.”A $400,000 personal appearance fee! Why? Because of the fame he built on cheating, lies, coercion, threats....and using the Livestrong image to mislead people into thinking that the money goes to a worthy cause. Come on Oprah...ask him about that!  |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 17, 2013 15:41:22 GMT -5
Great column from ESPN's Rick Reilly, who received a terse, self-righteous, pretentious apology from Armstrong recently. Reilly, who had defended Lance for 14 years, ain't buyin' it any longer. ======================================================== Reilly, ESPNAmong my emails Wednesday morning, out of the blue, was one from Lance Armstrong.
Riles, I'm sorry.
All I can say for now but also the most heartfelt thing too. Two very important words.
L
And my first thought was ... "Two words? That's it?"
Two words? For 14 years of defending a man? And in the end, being made to look like a chump?
Wrote it, said it, tweeted it: "He's clean." Put it in columns, said it on radio, said it on TV. Staked my reputation on it.
"Never failed a drug test," I'd always point out. "Most tested athlete in the world. Tested maybe 500 times. Never flunked one."
Why? Because Armstrong always told me he was clean.
On the record. Off the record. Every kind of record. In Colorado. In Texas. In France. On team buses. In cars. On cell phones.
I'd sit there with him, in some Tour de France hotel room while he was getting his daily postrace massage. And we'd talk through the hole in the table about how he stared down this guy or that guy, how he'd fooled Jan Ullrich on the torturous Alpe d'Huez into thinking he was gassed and then suddenly sprinted away to win. How he ordered chase packs from the center of the peloton and reeled in all the pretenders.
And then I'd bring up whatever latest charge was levied against him. "There's this former teammate who says he heard you tell doctors you doped." "There's this former assistant back in Austin who says you cheated." "There's this assistant they say they caught disposing of your drug paraphernalia."
And every time -- every single time -- he'd push himself up on his elbows and his face would be red and he'd stare at me like I'd just shot his dog and give me some very well-delivered explanation involving a few dozen F words, a painting of the accuser as a wronged employee seeking revenge, and how lawsuits were forthcoming.
And when my own reporting would produce no proof, I'd be convinced. I'd go out there and continue polishing a legend that turned out to be plated in fool's gold.
Even after he retired, the hits just kept coming. A London Times report. A Daniel Coyne book. A U.S. federal investigation. All liars and thieves, he'd snarl.
I remember one time we talked on the phone for half an hour, all off the record, at his insistence, and I asked him three times, "Just tell me. Straight up. Did you do any of this stuff?"
"No! I didn't do s---!"
And the whole time he was lying. Right in my earpiece. Knowing that I'd hang up and go back out there and spread the fertilizer around some more.
And now, just like that, it's all flipped. Thursday and Friday night we'll see him look right into the face of Oprah Winfrey and tell her just the opposite. He'll tell her, she says, that he doped to win.
I get it. He's ruined. He's lost every single sponsor. Nearly every close teammate has turned on him. All seven Tour de France titles have been stripped. He could owe millions. He might be in a hot kettle with the feds. Even the future he planned for himself -- triathlons and mountain biking -- have been snatched away. He's banned from those for life.
So I get it. The road to redemption goes through Oprah, where he'll finally say those two very important words, "I'm sorry," and hope the USADA will cut the ban from lifetime to the minimum eight years.
But here's the thing. When he says he's sorry now, how do we know he's not still lying? How do we know it's not just another great performance by the all-time leader in them?
And I guess I should let it go, but I keep thinking how hard he used me. Made me look like a sap. Made me carry his dirty water and I didn't even know it.
Look, I've been fooled before. I believed Mark McGwire was hitting those home runs all on his own natural gifts. I believed Joe Paterno couldn't possibly cover up something so grisly as child molestation. I bought Manti Te'o's girlfriend story. But those people never looked me square in the pupils and spit.
It's partially my fault. I let myself admire him. Let myself admire what he'd done with his life, admire the way he'd not only beaten his own cancer but was trying to help others beat it. When my sister was diagnosed, she read his book and got inspired. And I felt some pride in that. I let it get personal. And now I know he was living a lie and I was helping him live it.
I didn't realize that behind those blues was a bully, a coercer, a man who threatened people who once worked for and with him. The Andreus. Emma O'Reilly. Tyler Hamilton. Armstrong was strong-arming people in the morning, and filing lawsuits and op-ed pieces in the afternoon. We'd talk and his voice would get furious. And I'd believe him.
And all along, the whole time, he was acting, just like he had with Ullrich that day. So now the chase pack has reeled in Lance Armstrong, and he is busted and he's apologizing to those he conned.
I guess I should forgive him. I guess I should give him credit for putting himself through worldwide shame. I guess I should thank him for finally admitting his whole magnificent castle was built on sand and syringes and suckers like me. But I'm not quite ready. Give me 14 years, maybe.
You're sorry, Lance? No, I'm the one who's sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 17, 2013 17:03:27 GMT -5
There is a principle in the law that a man can not be tried for the same crime twice and there is a statute of limitations. Armstrong cheated, there is little dispute. He was tested continually and passed. 1. It doesn't matter if he is a good guy or not. If he cheated, is caught and convicted, he is guilty. 2. The race is over. There is no do over. A winner was declared they can implement improvements in testing but they can't redo the race or award a new winner. 3. The concept of a three week race with teams, drafting, multiple winners in Various categories all supports cheating and questionable values. 4. I was at a gun show where they had WW II rifles. "French Army rifles, good condition, never fired, dropped once." Now that we know how he continually passed those tests (reports are now surfacing that he bribed the people conducting the tests), has your opinion changed? And from what I am reading, he is only coming clean now because the statue of limitations on purgery has passed, and he realizes that even if he loses all future lawsuits, he wont lose half of the 100 million he is worth. I saw a show a couple of days ago that added up all his possible legal loses that might come and they figured he could lose about 20 million, maximum. Not bad ... cheat, lie, threaten, bribe, coerse ... make 80 million and not spend a day in jail. A true American hero. I don't recall having said he didn't cheat, lie, threaten, bribe or coerse. I don't even recall having said he was a nice guy. He won a lot of races and stages where almost all of the players also cheated. While I can't say cheating was mandatory, it certainly was common and quite possibly necessary. My point is he competed and won. He was the best cyclist, the best strategist and the best cheater. To eliminate his victories years later seems wrong. Joe Paterno never cheated, engages in illicit activities, or took drugs. He even reported to his superiors when he suspected imoral conduct by a member of his staff. To punish the university, vacate wins by long gone players and punish innocent current students is similarly wrong. Likewise taking away my guns, a right guaranteed by the constitution because I may one day slip into a school and shoot children (highly unlikely) is also wrong. It's like arresting members or a minority because they might commit a future crime, wrong. Some people shoot deer, some shoot skeet, some shoot targets, some shoot eagles, birdies and bogeys and some bowl to shoot 300. Freedom of choice. Welcome back hockey!! |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 17, 2013 17:07:00 GMT -5
And he's doing what I call the Mea Coprah. Hiring the soft-focus, soft-ball Oprah "moral voice of America" Winfrey to interview him. Yeah, I said hiring. Defamed, disgraced, fallen celebrities seem to run to her to seek forgiveness and to regain public approval and earning potential. And she no doubt charges a pretty penny for her services. He won't tell the whole truth. Just enough to make people sorry for him and to rally around all the great work he's done for cancer. Which brings up another misconception. Very little, if any, of the Livestrong donations go to cancer research. Instead it goes to "awareness" programs and services for cancer survivors. Livestrong. Looking DeeperAlso...his corporate rides/public appearances fees have been in the multiple six-figures...and the money goes directly to Lance, while he's riding under the Livestrong banner. ArticleAnd in Norway, the newspaper VG reported a disagreement over whether $400,000 went to Livestrong or Armstrong for a 2009 visit to Oslo. When it was established that the appearance deal was to pay Armstrong, and not Livestrong directly, cyclist Dag Erik Peterson said he still thought the money was for the charity, saying that he saw Armstrong riding in Livestrong cycling gear and “mixed his roles. That’s not fair.”A $400,000 personal appearance fee! Why? Because of the fame he built on cheating, lies, coercion, threats....and using the Livestrong image to mislead people into thinking that the money goes to a worthy cause. Come on Oprah...ask him about that! I have a livestrong bracelet too. No six figure speaking engagements yet but I am holding out for McDunnough money. Go Habs. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 17, 2013 20:43:59 GMT -5
Now that we know how he continually passed those tests (reports are now surfacing that he bribed the people conducting the tests), has your opinion changed? And from what I am reading, he is only coming clean now because the statue of limitations on purgery has passed, and he realizes that even if he loses all future lawsuits, he wont lose half of the 100 million he is worth. I saw a show a couple of days ago that added up all his possible legal loses that might come and they figured he could lose about 20 million, maximum. Not bad ... cheat, lie, threaten, bribe, coerse ... make 80 million and not spend a day in jail. A true American hero. I don't recall having said he didn't cheat, lie, threaten, bribe or coerse. I don't even recall having said he was a nice guy. He won a lot of races and stages where almost all of the players also cheated. While I can't say cheating was mandatory, it certainly was common and quite possibly necessary. My point is he competed and won. He was the best cyclist, the best strategist and the best cheater. To eliminate his victories years later seems wrong. Joe Paterno never cheated, engages in illicit activities, or took drugs. He even reported to his superiors when he suspected imoral conduct by a member of his staff. To punish the university, vacate wins by long gone players and punish innocent current students is similarly wrong. Likewise taking away my guns, a right guaranteed by the constitution because I may one day slip into a school and shoot children (highly unlikely) is also wrong. It's like arresting members or a minority because they might commit a future crime, wrong. Some people shoot deer, some shoot skeet, some shoot targets, some shoot eagles, birdies and bogeys and some bowl to shoot 300. Freedom of choice. Welcome back hockey!! No but you repeated numerous times that he never failed a test ... Now we know why he never failed. Your premise, is you can't take away the victories because of cheating. But if he did not bribe the testers, he would have had those victories stripped immediately, and the second place winner would have been awarded the victory and he would have been tested. You can't take away victories? Tell that to Ben Johnson. That 1988 100m final is known to be the most doped up race ever. Seven of the eight finalist are associated with doping. Ben Johnson was the fall guy, but the IOC hates to revisit that race, cause the guy who finished sixth or seventh should be the only guy to get a medal. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 17, 2013 20:50:36 GMT -5
And he's doing what I call the Mea Coprah. Hiring the soft-focus, soft-ball Oprah "moral voice of America" Winfrey to interview him. Yeah, I said hiring. Defamed, disgraced, fallen celebrities seem to run to her to seek forgiveness and to regain public approval and earning potential. And she no doubt charges a pretty penny for her services. He won't tell the whole truth. Just enough to make people sorry for him and to rally around all the great work he's done for cancer. Which brings up another misconception. Very little, if any, of the Livestrong donations go to cancer research. Instead it goes to "awareness" programs and services for cancer survivors. Livestrong. Looking DeeperAlso...his corporate rides/public appearances fees have been in the multiple six-figures...and the money goes directly to Lance, while he's riding under the Livestrong banner. ArticleAnd in Norway, the newspaper VG reported a disagreement over whether $400,000 went to Livestrong or Armstrong for a 2009 visit to Oslo. When it was established that the appearance deal was to pay Armstrong, and not Livestrong directly, cyclist Dag Erik Peterson said he still thought the money was for the charity, saying that he saw Armstrong riding in Livestrong cycling gear and “mixed his roles. That’s not fair.”A $400,000 personal appearance fee! Why? Because of the fame he built on cheating, lies, coercion, threats....and using the Livestrong image to mislead people into thinking that the money goes to a worthy cause. Come on Oprah...ask him about that! I have a livestrong bracelet too. No six figure speaking engagements yet but I am holding out for McDunnough money. Go Habs. If only Lance could sweep it away as easily. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 17, 2013 21:12:26 GMT -5
You can't take away victories? Tell that to Ben Johnson. That 1988 100m final is known to be the most doped up race ever. Seven of the eight finalist are associated with doping. Ben Johnson was the fall guy, but the IOC hates to revisit that race, cause the guy who finished sixth or seventh should be the only guy to get a medal. the IOC is not changing the standings, just removing Lance from the record book.  with that thought, there would have been no gold and Lewis would have retained silver [thjough it should be stripped from him] |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 19, 2013 14:49:31 GMT -5
I'm so contemptuous of Armstrong, I don't even want to bother spitting on his "career" or character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 19, 2013 17:11:09 GMT -5
Holding onto the lie longer and making enormous only made things worse. I saw only a few minutes of the Winfrey interview (on a news show). I heard him admit to doping. That's all I needed to hear. Didn't care about the remainder of the humiliation trip, so I turned the channel.
Thing is, had he come clean on his own back at the beginning, he probably only would have had a suspension to deal with and then he'd have been back in the saddle, so to speak. The problem is Armstrong only came clean after he finally realized he was done like dinner.
He let a lot of people down along the way and he knows it.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 19, 2013 19:09:04 GMT -5
Holding onto the lie longer and making enormous only made things worse. I saw only a few minutes of the Winfrey interview (on a news show). I heard him admit to doping. That's all I needed to hear. Didn't care about the remainder of the humiliation trip, so I turned the channel. Thing is, had he come clean on his own back at the beginning, he probably only would have had a suspension to deal with and then he'd have been back in the saddle, so to speak. The problem is Armstrong only came clean after he finally realized he was done like dinner. He let a lot of people down along the way and he knows it. Cheers. During the interview, he only admitted to doping between 1999-2005. That's significant for two reasons. One it means he doped during ALL seven Tour titles, but also the statute of limitations on his purgery runs out after seven years. So he can't be prosecuted for that. He hasn't admitted to doping post-2005 because purgery still hangs over those infractions. So he admitted to cheating for the stuff he can't go to jail over, but not for the stuff he can go to jail over ..very self serving. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 20, 2013 11:37:53 GMT -5
I listened to a radio clip of the wife of one of Armstrong's teammates. She told her husband to not dope, that it wasn't worth it....and spoke out harshly against Armstrong. Lance bullied her, smeared her name, etc.
She said she was fuming watching that interview.
Cheating is only a fraction of what a complete cyclepath this guy is.
He's sorry ONLY because he finally got caught. See how he used his cancer as an excuse....he just HAD to do ANYTHING to win after that ordeal. (Can't you understand that and forgive me?) Ironically, it was likely the steroids he used in the 90s that caused his cancer. (That's what the woman above alluded to in her radio clip.)
I hope he's opened the door to a string of civil suits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 20, 2013 13:42:42 GMT -5
This sums up the whole premis for establishing the "Livestrong" concept. I'd like to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but on the surface the goal seemed to be fame and fortune rather than giving people life direction. If I remember correctly, didn't Saku ask his best friend, Craig Rivet, to bring him the book of Lance Armstrong? You know, when I think of something like this I really do see Armstrong in a different light. Too bad he chose a different route, though. Even if he had become known for his 'consistent top-5, top-10 finishes, just his personal fight with cancer would have been enough for him to be a roll model to a great many. He's paying the price for the lies he made over the years and that's just. However, he could have been a roll model without the lying. I think he can still make a difference that way, but his credibility is akin to a bag of wet cement now. It's not much of a positive, I know. But, after reading what CH posted about the comments a teammate's wife made, that's about the best I can do for the guy. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 20, 2013 13:52:27 GMT -5
John Kordic, a Hab I liked a lot, was a notorious user of Ped's. Should we reverse history and say that Tie Domi of the leafs won the fights on YouTube?
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 20, 2013 14:55:52 GMT -5
Tons of people cheat to get ahead then lie about it. PEDs in sports, conflicts-of-interest, payola, illegal business schemes, money laundering, etc. If you get away with it...it doesn't mean it's right. When you get caught, you pay the price in one way or another.
Armstrong cheated, lied, coerced, and bullied his way to 7 Tour championships and all the fame and money that resulted.
He continued to lie when 10 of his teammates brought out the truth....he continued to lie when he was stripped of his victories. He admitted it ONLY after his sponsorships and endorsements dried up. Interesting, eh? Now, all of a sudden, it's time to come "clean" for one reason...to salvage some of his earning potential.
His actions cannot be defended, dismissed, rationalized, or minimized via hockey fight analogy or any other device, IMO. It stands alone.
There isn't a perfect watchdog system in place...lots of holes and cracks...and many in power are paid to look the other way....but when a rat like this one gets caught, it's a good day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 20, 2013 16:33:57 GMT -5
This sums up the whole premis for establishing the "Livestrong" concept. I'd like to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but on the surface the goal seemed to be fame and fortune rather than giving people life direction. If I remember correctly, didn't Saku ask his best friend, Craig Rivet, to bring him the book of Lance Armstrong? You know, when I think of something like this I really do see Armstrong in a different light. Too bad he chose a different route, though. Even if he had become known for his 'consistent top-5, top-10 finishes, just his personal fight with cancer would have been enough for him to be a roll model to a great many. He's paying the price for the lies he made over the years and that's just. However, he could have been a roll model without the lying. I think he can still make a difference that way, but his credibility is akin to a bag of wet cement now. It's not much of a positive, I know. But, after reading what CH posted about the comments a teammate's wife made, that's about the best I can do for the guy. Cheers. I heard an interesting story the other day on TV, and I hope to find it by googling ..... One sports announcer was telling a story that came to light recently. Armstrong was to do a charity bike ride for the Livestrong Foundation in Europe I believe. The town where it was to be held was told it was going to cost $400,000 to be paid to the Livestrong Foundation. The event went off, Armstrong rode with his yellow bracelet, Livestrong clothes, Livestrong banners ....when it was over, the Armstrong camp wanted the money. They were handed the money made out to the Livestrong Foundation; nope ... It had to be made out to Lance Armstrong, he wanted to be paid for the appearance, not a cent went to the Foundation even though the advertising was displayed everywhere and the town was under the assumption this was all for charity. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 20, 2013 16:47:52 GMT -5
Brief synopsis of that story is in my post at the top of this page, Skilly. The article link is just above it...but it doesn't go any deeper than this......
And in Norway, the newspaper VG reported a disagreement over whether $400,000 went to Livestrong or Armstrong for a 2009 visit to Oslo. When it was established that the appearance deal was to pay Armstrong, and not Livestrong directly, cyclist Dag Erik Peterson said he still thought the money was for the charity, saying that he saw Armstrong riding in Livestrong cycling gear and “mixed his roles. That’s not fair.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 20, 2013 17:32:33 GMT -5
Brief synopsis of that story is in my post at the top of this page, Skilly. The article link is just above it...but it doesn't go any deeper than this...... And in Norway, the newspaper VG reported a disagreement over whether $400,000 went to Livestrong or Armstrong for a 2009 visit to Oslo. When it was established that the appearance deal was to pay Armstrong, and not Livestrong directly, cyclist Dag Erik Peterson said he still thought the money was for the charity, saying that he saw Armstrong riding in Livestrong cycling gear and “mixed his roles. That’s not fair.”Thanks CH In my efforts to locate the article I found many instances where Armstrong profited from Livestrong. And he also sent Livestrong to Washington to lobby on his behalf against USADA |
|
