Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

fatdudeonabike wrote:

ColinOldnCranky wrote:Oprah, if you had any sense of the greater good you would refuse Lance the opportunity to give a sanistised persona and push him towards a session with a serious journalist. Say, David Walsh.

Because Armstrong would obviously jump at that...
Walsh is every bit as much a sycophant as Armstrong is. For gods sake, he just wrote book that, to me, looks as though its barely about Armstrong - its about himself, and how he spent 13 years being right. What a tool...

I am curious. Have you read the book?

norbs wrote:

fatdudeonabike wrote:

ColinOldnCranky wrote:Oprah, if you had any sense of the greater good you would refuse Lance the opportunity to give a sanistised persona and push him towards a session with a serious journalist. Say, David Walsh.

Because Armstrong would obviously jump at that...
Walsh is every bit as much a sycophant as Armstrong is. For gods sake, he just wrote book that, to me, looks as though its barely about Armstrong - its about himself, and how he spent 13 years being right. What a tool...

I am curious. Have you read the book?

"Looks to be" makes it sound like he hasn't. Like I said earlier, if you're interested in the whole doping scandal thing it's not a bad read.

norbs wrote:

fatdudeonabike wrote:

ColinOldnCranky wrote:Oprah, if you had any sense of the greater good you would refuse Lance the opportunity to give a sanistised persona and push him towards a session with a serious journalist. Say, David Walsh.

Because Armstrong would obviously jump at that...
Walsh is every bit as much a sycophant as Armstrong is. For gods sake, he just wrote book that, to me, looks as though its barely about Armstrong - its about himself, and how he spent 13 years being right. What a tool...

I am curious. Have you read the book?

Not the recent one, no. I have From Lance to Landis on my bookshelf, but I only ever got half way through it.

fatdudeonabike wrote:
Not the recent one, no. I have From Lance to Landis on my bookshelf, but I only ever got half way through it.

Ok.

grantw wrote:

Apparently he is going to be on Oprah on Jan 17 - details here

A FREE BIKE, A FREE BIKE, A FREE BIKE, A FREE BIKE....

Chuck wrote:

grantw wrote:

Apparently he is going to be on Oprah on Jan 17 - details here

A FREE BIKE, A FREE BIKE, A FREE BIKE, A FREE BIKE....

First 7 people through the door get a yellow jersey.

Under everyone's seat, a showbag containing a vial of EPO, blood bag, and a pack of syringes.


If anyone is still having doubts as to how "in-depth" and "grilling" this interview is, check out the blurb on Oprah's own page:

oprah wrote:Los Angeles, CA – Oprah Winfrey will speak exclusively with Lance Armstrong in his first no-holds-barred interview. Armstrong will address the alleged doping scandal, years of accusations of cheating, and charges of lying about the use of performance-enhancing drugs throughout his storied cycling career.

Read more: http://www.oprah.com/pressroom/Lance-Ar ... z2HTcc0VRd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alleged? It's not alleged. It happened, he's been found guilty.

Expect more of the same rubbish from camp armstrong, "never tested positive" "witch hunt" "everyone was cheating (apart from me)" "everyone but me is lying" "those french hate americans, U.S.A!! U.S.A!!"

I wouldn't be surprised if he's written all the questions and they've spent time rehearsing the answers (and the "tears") and/or recording and re-recording him giving the answers until they get it "right".

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so disgusting.

The only thing we can assume is that it is that Lance is not doing this to his disadvantage.

roller wrote: It would be hilarious if it wasn't so disgusting.

Allegedly - yep she's already preparing his path to
exoneration. Don't be surprised to see her start a
campaign for his beatification: Saint Lance of Livestrong.

There'll be a portrait of Saint Lance on every
seat, with the obligatory halo and wings (feathered kind,
not the EPO kind), and no devils advocate within cooee
of the studio.

I've never watched an episode of Oprah, and I'm not
about to start.

AUbicycles wrote:The only thing we can be sure of is that it is that Lance is not doing this to his disadvantage.

Edited for clarity

So we have some bloggers who are Lance fanboys and some bloggers who are anti-Lance fanboys.

Both arguing with each other ad infinitum = $Traffic$

I very much doubt he will ever admit to anything. Ignore him and move on. Or push ya barrow till the cows come home

Unless you think a stinging rebuke on a bike forum is going to make him have a change of heart, I don't see the point.

Baldy wrote:So we have some bloggers who are Lance fanboys and some bloggers who are anti-Lance fanboys.

Both arguing with each other ad infinitum = $Traffic$

I very much doubt he will ever admit to anything. Ignore him and move on. Or push ya barrow till the cows come home

Unless you think a stinging rebuke on a bike forum is going to make him have a change of heart, I don't see the point.

Don't you understand the interwebs Baldy?

Baldy wrote:Unless you think a stinging rebuke on a bike forum is going to make him have a change of heart, I don't see the point.

Just picturing this now

Larmstrong wrote:Allan44 on the BNA forum said I should just come clean, and then everyone else jumped in and agreed, Randyrollin, bikerbob and SpeedMaster, so here I am its all true..... thanks BNA forums

Baldy wrote: Unless you think a stinging rebuke on a bike forum is going to make him have a change of heart, I don't see the point.

To the fans. Those people still wearing their Livestrong bands ...

Just my 2 cents...but just because Lance has been caught out does not mean that the LAF is not still a worthwhile cause to support, does it ?

khendar wrote:

To the fans. Those people still wearing their Livestrong bands ...

Just my 2 cents...but just because Lance has been caught out does not mean that the LAF is not still a worthwhile cause to support, does it ?

I'd probably assert there are many, many, many, many other worthwhile causes that spend their money far more efficiently than LAF / Livestrong.

Having said that, I have some Trek kit that has subtle Livestrong logos and I still wear it as a part of my rotation. While I am not a Lance supporter (at all) my dislike of washing clothes is more than my dislike of Lance Armstrong. And by wearing that kit with the little Livestrongs, I get to put off washing for one more day. Just keeping it real over here.

boss wrote:

khendar wrote:

To the fans. Those people still wearing their Livestrong bands ...

Just my 2 cents...but just because Lance has been caught out does not mean that the LAF is not still a worthwhile cause to support, does it ?

I'd probably assert there are many, many, many, many other worthwhile causes that spend their money far more efficiently than LAF / Livestrong.

+1 but with a few more many's.

Hi
Just wondering as everyone is against doping in cycling etc, has anyone gotten on board with this group and what are peoples thoughts about them?

http://www.bikepure.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

, cheers



Sent from my GT-P5110 using Tapatalk 2

Via SMH: Schleck thinks Armstrong will confess to doping

Bit hard to know what Andy Schleck is thinking on this one.

Andy Schleck wrote:I don't think he [Armstrong] goes there to say that he's innocent and that he didn't do anything," Schleck said as he arrived in Adelaide on Thursday to prepare for the Tour Down Under.

Andy Schleck wrote:But if he confesses? We don't know.

More interesting is the closing paragraph

SMH wrote:Nicole Nichols of Winfrey's OWN cable TV network told AFP in Washington via an e-mail: "Armstrong has no editorial control and no question is off-limits." She added the cyclist is getting no payment for the interview.

That is pretty unexpected.

khendar wrote:

To the fans. Those people still wearing their Livestrong bands ...

Just my 2 cents...but just because Lance has been caught out does not mean that the LAF is not still a worthwhile cause to support, does it ?

It does a few things that are worthwhile, but not what most people assume that it does (ie, it doesn't fund any research, instead it provides support services to cancer patients). But it's an organization with very high overheads for what it relatively little it actually does. You also need to understand that it's been run in a way that's designed to make a lot of money for LA personally. For example, it paid him appearance money for a lot of what he did. It sold the rights to "livestrong.com" to Demand Media, which runs it as a for-profit site. Demand Media then gave LA a big chunk of its shares, right before its IPO. And of course, there's the relationship with Nike. Nike makes millions off Livestrong branded merchandise. Of course, it pays Livestrong a licensing fee. But it also paid LA millions of dollars a year through the same period. In short, it's really hard to separate out the good work that it does with the graft that has made LA millions.

gbh wrote:

khendar wrote:

To the fans. Those people still wearing their Livestrong bands ...

Just my 2 cents...but just because Lance has been caught out does not mean that the LAF is not still a worthwhile cause to support, does it ?

It does a few things that are worthwhile, but not what most people assume that it does (ie, it doesn't fund any research, instead it provides support services to cancer patients). But it's an organization with very high overheads for what it relatively little it actually does. You also need to understand that it's been run in a way that's designed to make a lot of money for LA personally. For example, it paid him appearance money for a lot of what he did. It sold the rights to "livestrong.com" to Demand Media, which runs it as a for-profit site. Demand Media then gave LA a big chunk of its shares, right before its IPO. And of course, there's the relationship with Nike. Nike makes millions off Livestrong branded merchandise. Of course, it pays Livestrong a licensing fee. But it also paid LA millions of dollars a year through the same period. In short, it's really hard to separate out the good work that it does with the graft that has made LA millions.

livestrong.org is the charity (though as people are becoming aware it doesn't do near as much as donors would expect). livestrong.com is a pure profit driven thing.

Confusion and obfuscation built in right from the start. Without knowing exactly what either do it can seem that it was all done that way cynically.

It has been suggested (David Walsh among others) that since livestrong (org) ceased the relatively small contribution to research it has largely become an avenue for promotion and defence of Lance. Sorta useful but also extremely useful to one particular persion.

booge wrote:If all the top contenders are doping, in a twisted way it's a level playing field for the top GC riders and he won. It's not right, but when you read some of the books by guys who have been caught, it was common place.

The top contenders wouldn't have been top contenders if they weren't doping. They would have been beaten by clean riders and they would have been losers.*


*Still are.

AUbicycles wrote: More interesting is the closing paragraph

SMH wrote:Nicole Nichols of Winfrey's OWN cable TV network told AFP in Washington via an e-mail: "Armstrong has no editorial control and no question is off-limits." She added the cyclist is getting no payment for the interview.

That is pretty unexpected.

I find it impossible to believe. I've read previously that Oprahs tv station is not going well at all, this will be a huge ratings and money earner for her, seems rather generous that Lance is doing this out of the goodness of his heart.

danny the boy wrote:

AUbicycles wrote: More interesting is the closing paragraph

SMH wrote:Nicole Nichols of Winfrey's OWN cable TV network told AFP in Washington via an e-mail: "Armstrong has no editorial control and no question is off-limits." She added the cyclist is getting no payment for the interview.

That is pretty unexpected.

I find it impossible to believe. I've read previously that Oprahs tv station is not going well at all, this will be a huge ratings and money earner for her, seems rather generous that Lance is doing this out of the goodness of his heart.

He is doing it because he believes that he will have something to gain from it.

And he is not accepting money because his PR people have said that will dilute the message.

danny the boy wrote:I find it impossible to believe. I've read previously that Oprahs tv station is not going well at all, this will be a huge ratings and money earner for her, seems rather generous that Lance is doing this out of the goodness of his heart.

Lance. The saint that just keeps giving.

i don't remember whether there are rules relating to gambling on this site, so I won't mention the bookie - suffice to say, one bookie is going to town with this!

23:00 | Will Lance Armstrong admit to doping
No 2.50
Yes 1.50
Applies to actual interview only. Bets void should he not say any of these words. Dead heat may apply.

Most used saying by Lance Armstrong
Innocent/Innocence 2.00
Guilty/Guilt 2.00
No Comment 7.00
Applies to actual interview only

Lance Armstrong Interview Specials
Lance's partner to partake in the interview 1.33
Lance's children to partake in the interview 1.33
Lance to greet Oprah with a kiss 1.40
Lance to cry during the interview 2.00
Lance to jump up and down on a couch 21.00
Lance to wear a yellow cycling jersey during the interview 51.00
Oprah to find a secret blood bank in Lance’s house 101.00

I like the disclaimer about the possibility of dead heat rules applying on the question of whether he'll admit doping...
Not quite sure how that can end in a dead heat...

I really think "I cant really comment on that" will be the buzzphrase. I dont see him denying anything. Why? He never does! He runs the (untrue) line about no positive tests, and then attacks the messenger. He wont do that to Opera.
But with perjury charges hanging over his head (for now), he's not going to say he did it.

"Did you dope"
"I cant really comment on that."
"Did you commit perjury by lying under oath"
"I cant really comment on that.