Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

For those interested in the Lance Armstrong saga, the ABC Four Corners program returns in 2013 on February 4, 2013 with a story on Lance Armstrong, "Lance and the Truth."

Next on Four Corners reporter Quentin McDermott lifts the lid on the stories Armstrong didn't tell in his recent interview with Oprah Winfrey, including his efforts to discredit a three-time Tour de France winner. It also examines allegations of his involvement in bribing and race fixing, as well as drug taking. Travelling across the United States, Four Corners talks to the people who know Armstrong well, dissecting the cyclist's so called "confession" and seeking answers to the questions that remain.

Why did Lance Armstrong challenge much of the evidence gathered by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)? Why did he choose to defend a doping mastermind? Why has he stood by cycling's world governing body, the UCI? And how will cycling recover from the devastation caused by Lance Armstrong?

"Lance and the Truth", reported by Quentin McDermott and presented by Kerry O'Brien, goes to air on Monday 4th February 2013 at 8.30pm on ABC1. It is replayed on Tuesday 5th February at 11.35pm. It can also be seen on Saturday at 8.00pm on ABC News 24, ABC iview (abc.net.au/iview) or at abc.net.au/4corners.

Andrew

Sounds juicy.

This is a follow up to The World According to Lance, which was aired on Monday 15th October 2012. That turned out to be quite a big week for Lance.

The title is an oxymoron.

I think this will be worth an alert on my smartphone. the whole Oprah thing was a disappointment (as it was always going to be anyway).

I think a better title would be "Lance vs the Truth"

Yes, I head about it a little while back as someone I know was interviewed by the 4 Corners team.

lifts the lid on the stories Armstrong didn't tell in his recent interview with Oprah

They might need more than one episode for that

[quote="ColinOldnCranky"]The title is an oxymoron.

+1
That was my first thought when I saw the topic heading, you beat me to it.
Might be interesting. At least it won't be the fluff we saw on Oprah.

Well, media needs controversial figures like LA. How many high rating TV reports/interviews/documentaries have there been made of him? It's just good business.

The more the merrier sogood The World According to Lance was a great piece of investigative journalism.

Andrew, you missed out the opening paragraph:

He's a drug cheat, a bully and a liar who abused his best friends to keep a terrible secret, but has Lance Armstrong finally told the truth? The answer - almost certainly - is no.

I had a good laugh while in Bright for the Audax Alpine Classic. One of the book shops had a Lance Armstrong book in the window, classified as "True Crime".

AT LEAST its out now, only good will be come of this, for pro cycling, in the log run.

Thanks for the post - I saw an ad for this watching ABC Breakfast this morning and thought it was just an ad for an opportunistic replay on News 24.

Setting to record now...

On now.

DaveOZ wrote:On now.

For you eastern staters, maybe

HappyHumber wrote:

DaveOZ wrote:On now.

For you eastern staters, maybe

Make that non Queensland eastern staters...

Venus62 wrote:
Make that non Queensland eastern staters...

In which case you'll get it on 1 hour and 20 years

Venus62 wrote:

HappyHumber wrote:

DaveOZ wrote:On now.

For you eastern staters, maybe

Make that non Queensland eastern staters...

Sorry.. make that "for you Eastern Staters who think you're the centre of the universe"

I'll cut QLD some slack. They've got lousier neighbours than us

Phil Anderson came off looking credible.....

So tell me. Did they boil that Lance?

Excellent piece, but they suffered from an overabundance of material it seems, and could only touch on a few of the areas lightly in the alotted 45 minutes.

Takeaways:
Lance almost certainly doped in 2009 and 2010 but can't admit it without facing criminal charges
Can't openly admit Betsy Andreiu is right without dropping his doctors and the hospital in it
Phil Anderson is a terrible liar
End-game for cycling if UCI doesn't man up and look at the reality, is to end up looking like WWF
The vultures are circling.

My thought is that jail time could be a real possibility.

The_Eggman wrote:Phil Anderson came off looking credible.....

Yes, it was a bit cringe-worthy to watch his (non)-answers.

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/30629" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hadn't heard about the $50,000 dealie before. Disgusting.

Thanks for sharing the link. I only got the tailend of the live broadcast - so will haev to watch again.

If the $50,000 was the UCI payment, it was relatively well known though the Lance scandal is still being presented to the masses, many who don't follow cycling.

With the hospital admission around Betsy Andreui, I am not certain what the deal is there and why he wont confess. The doctors/hospital have patient confidentiality so wouldn't think there are any issues there. That said, am wondering about the specific implications on an admission to this - is it because of testimony that Armstrong gave and consequences as it is past the statue of limitations.

AUbicycles wrote:Thanks for sharing the link. I only got the tailend of the live broadcast - so will haev to watch again.

If the $50,000 was the UCI payment, it was relatively well known though the Lance scandal is still being presented to the masses, many who don't follow cycling.

With the hospital admission around Betsy Andreui, I am not certain what the deal is there and why he wont confess. The doctors/hospital have patient confidentiality so wouldn't think there are any issues there. That said, am wondering about the specific implications on an admission to this - is it because of testimony that Armstrong gave and consequences as it is past the statue of limitations.

The $50,000 is a (alleged) bribe that was paid to riders in team/s other than Armstrongs (Motorola)to essentially not derail Armstrongs attempt to win a big million dollar bonus for winning three (I think all) the races in a highly publicised series of races in North America. It predated by years Armstrong and the Americans assault on the European tours. It is also the part of the Lance story that embroils Phil Anderson in allegations of corruption. One of many significant parts of the Lance story that gently-gently-Oprah never had on her rather foggy radar. (Did she even know?)

For the record Lance went on to win the million and, apparently, paid the bribe in a shoe-box to others according to witness.

Colin summed it up pretty well. I'm not sure if I got the numbers correct, but paying off several riders, $150,000 is not a bad trade off against a million. It seemed like Lance was the winner that cycling wanted in that Tour, but definitely didn't deserve.

Philly Anderson was shocking too. Looks like that question really caught him either off guard or he's just not as good a liar as lance.