Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

forum

Armstrong - "I'd do it again"

New interview with the BBC...

"I'd do it again"... words fail me...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/30981609

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

22 comments

Avatar
hsiaolc | 9 years ago
0 likes

If you take cash out of the sport or any then you won't have much excitement left. Sad but that is reality. For all of them its all about the cash. Don't make it sound as if he is the only one out there to get cash.

Avatar
ianrobo replied to hsiaolc | 9 years ago
0 likes
hsiaolc wrote:

If you take cash out of the sport or any then you won't have much excitement left. Sad but that is reality. For all of them its all about the cash. Don't make it sound as if he is the only one out there to get cash.

thats fine but then he just goes on about unable to raise cash for charity when Nike gave him 7M because he took a cut out of Livestrong ...

My point is that there is never any true sign of contrition from him, it is all about cash. I watch those questions at the start of Oprah and there was no emotion there, no sign of wrong doing. It was like he was doing what he though he could do to get the min sentence and still it continues.

Avatar
ianrobo | 9 years ago
0 likes

Those people above defending simply never get it. Contrast his interview with Oprah where he refused to answer a question about Betsy to the Frost/Nixon interview.

In their own spheres they both did the same but one of them knew he had done wrong, he accepted he had and looked a broken man at the end. The other one still tries to justify his actions by saying 'everyone was doing it' when they were not.

If for one minute he showed some proper contrition and humility then maybe he can redeem himself. However by claiming all he wants to do is come back to race for charity in case his Mum gets ill is just sick.

The real big question is why that hospital room remains the big question for him. It is like he links his previous drug use to the cancer I think (some evidence to suggest that is true). Therefore it makes what he did afterwards even worse because he actually suffered the consequences of drug use and yet still carried own even more professionally and what for, at the end all he talks about is cash.

Avatar
hsiaolc | 9 years ago
0 likes

I never stopped liking him. He was just playing the same game everyone was playing despite what others say that they didn't cheat. He covered up what a normal human being would when they lie and cheat. If 90% of them were cheating then I don't see whats is the fuss.
Sure he is overly ambitious but that makes him what he is.
Many people at the top wreck lives of other people such as when they overspend at the top the company suffers and had to lay off thousands of people but we don't go out and judge them the way we do to him.
I will watch him race again and I would like to see him win Tour de France and I will watch the race with more enthusiasm.

Avatar
Quince | 9 years ago
0 likes

To be fair, he only gets battered with distain whenever he chooses to stick his head back into the public domain again. There is no correct number of times he has to say sorry before he is forgiven and has everything handed back to him. He's lost that for good.

I don't think he minds people hitting out at him all that much, to be honest. Most publicity is profitable publicity - kind or harsh - and I imagine he's got a few bills to pay with the resulting cheques.

This way he can make a few people feel sorry for him, make some money, and still have some control over the public perception of him. Which must feel a lot more significant than aimlessly knocking a golf ball around.

He doesn't need to bring his puppy-dog eyes back into the public spotlight; that's his choice. So whatever reaction that brings, in my opinion, falls largely on his shoulders. If he's willingly submitting himself to the words of others, he can't really expect restraint.

Avatar
manmachine | 9 years ago
0 likes

Lance is/was "evil"  24
Sure! Like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Jong Il, oh yeah...so evil!
Man, the statist mentality at work...  41

Avatar
andyp | 9 years ago
0 likes

'It's really easy for people who weren't in his position to claim the moral high ground and pretend they'd never do what he did'

it certainly is.

Avatar
LinusLarrabee | 9 years ago
0 likes

It's really easy for people who weren't in his position to claim the moral high ground and pretend they'd never do what he did. And it doesn't make what he did right, but given all that was at stake it's completely understandable that a small number of people, relative to those benefitting from the lie, were thrown under the bus to protect everything he'd built up. In some ways, he was forced to do it once backed in to a corner by his accusers. Show me somebody who honestly thinks he should have responded with "shucks, you pesky journalists have found me out - it's a fair cop - I did it" and I'll show you a fool.

This BBC journalist is a dick. The really disappointing thing now is how anybody interviewing him seems to take a position of superiority and incredulity whilst asking the questions - which backs him in to a corner and results in very defence answers. Every question seems to be a judgement seeking more humiliation rather than search for answers. I'd like to see him interviewed by somebody who drops this attitude and asks questions that allow him to open up and explain his thoughts without the interviewer using his answers as an opportunity to stick the boot in. We won't learn much about how he really feels about things - let alone the truth - until that happens.

Avatar
Leviathan | 9 years ago
0 likes

He actually said he 'wouldn't have to' cheat today, but would still do it back in 95. Today he would be good enough to be a clean elite athlete who is tested regularly. So he still would not have to make an active choice to be clean when given the choice.
Unlike some, the more I hear him speak the less I like him. he is a dissembler. His main reason to comeback from a competition ban is to raise money for charity, but he said what if I was raising money for my mother, if she got MS. You can say you don't want for this to happen, but to use such a specific example is perverse, normal people just don't mention such things let alone practice what to say.
He keeps throwing his family at us, or his charity work, or other riders. He still can't understand why he was the biggest cheat, the biggest liar, the biggest bully and has the biggest punishment.
It was better when he was just a unrepentant liar.

And he looked unwell. He is either sick or they forgot to make him up for the studio lights.

Avatar
HalfWheeler | 9 years ago
0 likes

I do tire of the 'Lance is evil' bandwagon but...

His whole tone speaks of someone who is fairly high up on the psychopathy spectrum; referring to himself in the third person, seeing himself as a victim, trying to absolve himself with shared guilt, not really appreciating how his actions affected others.

As for agreeing to the interview in the first place, that can be summed up thus; "notice me! notice me!

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to HalfWheeler | 9 years ago
0 likes
HalfWheeler wrote:

I do tire of the 'Lance is evil' bandwagon but...

His whole tone speaks of someone who is fairly high up on the psychopathy spectrum; referring to himself in the third person, seeing himself as a victim, trying to absolve himself with shared guilt, not really appreciating how his actions affected others.

As for agreeing to the interview in the first place, that can be summed up thus; "notice me! notice me!

+1 - Hitler and the other Nazi war criminals were evil. LA may be a psychopath and he did ruin the lives and careers of others, but he didn't actually murder anyone. Ignore him long enough and eventually he'll go away.

Avatar
Kadinkski replied to HalfWheeler | 9 years ago
0 likes
HalfWheeler wrote:

I do tire of the 'Lance is evil' bandwagon but...

His whole tone speaks of someone who is fairly high up on the psychopathy spectrum; referring to himself in the third person, seeing himself as a victim, trying to absolve himself with shared guilt, not really appreciating how his actions affected others.

As for agreeing to the interview in the first place, that can be summed up thus; "notice me! notice me!

Yawn, the old 'he's a psychopath because he refers to himself in the third person etc' is an opinion that's been popular for a while now. I've heard it regurgitated so many times that it's just meaningless. I didn't hear him refer to himself in the 3rd person once. The other stuff is just populist conjecture - for example, how can anyone say he doesn't appreciate how his actions have affected others? I think the exact opposite is true and I think it's patently obvious.

Avatar
HalfWheeler replied to Kadinkski | 9 years ago
0 likes
Kadinkski wrote:
HalfWheeler wrote:

I do tire of the 'Lance is evil' bandwagon but...

His whole tone speaks of someone who is fairly high up on the psychopathy spectrum; referring to himself in the third person, seeing himself as a victim, trying to absolve himself with shared guilt, not really appreciating how his actions affected others.

As for agreeing to the interview in the first place, that can be summed up thus; "notice me! notice me!

Yawn, the old 'he's a psychopath because he refers to himself in the third person etc' is an opinion that's been popular for a while now. I've heard it regurgitated so many times that it's just meaningless. I didn't hear him refer to himself in the 3rd person once. The other stuff is just populist conjecture - for example, how can anyone say he doesn't appreciate how his actions have affected others? I think the exact opposite is true and I think it's patently obvious.

First of all he does refer to himself in the third person. Re-watch the interview, you must have missed it.

As for calling him a psychopath what I actually said was that he is fairly high on that spectrum (a spectrum that we are all on) but I'm not suggesting he's Hannibal Lector.

As for not appreciating how he affected others, well...15 years of trashing other peoples reputations, 2 years of glib apologies and confessions and only when it became necessary. No wonder people think he's dissembling, calculating and untrustworthy.

On the plus side I bet he's never drowned one kitten.

Avatar
Kadinkski replied to HalfWheeler | 9 years ago
0 likes
HalfWheeler wrote:

First of all he does refer to himself in the third person. Re-watch the interview, you must have missed it.

As for calling him a psychopath what I actually said was that he is fairly high on that spectrum (a spectrum that we are all on) but I'm not suggesting he's Hannibal Lector.

As for not appreciating how he affected others, well...15 years of trashing other peoples reputations, 2 years of glib apologies and confessions and only when it became necessary. No wonder people think he's dissembling, calculating and untrustworthy.

On the plus side I bet he's never drowned one kitten.

I admit I'm kind of a fan boy of his once more, but not so much that I'd watch it again. If you say he referred to himself in the third person, I'll believe you - but it must have only been once or twice out of the hundreds of times he referred to himself in the first person.

I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for the bloke. It appears that literally whatever he says is 'wrong'. It must be exasperating for him.

Avatar
Russell Orgazoid | 9 years ago
0 likes

You can't help but like the bloke.

Avatar
ianrobo | 9 years ago
0 likes

yes as you say a lot were BUT he had a backstory with cancer that did make him special and he could have been the good guy to out them all. Instead for his own personal greed he went further than any of them.

Avatar
pablo | 9 years ago
0 likes

He has a point the only way he thought he could win was to cheat because most pro's at the time were doing the same. But Lance was Evil and wrecked many peoples Lives to keep his secret he can say what he want's in anyway he wants but it just never sounds sincere.

Avatar
climber | 9 years ago
0 likes

He also said he wouldn't do it again......just saying.....and that's MY selective quote from the interview.

Avatar
andyp | 9 years ago
0 likes

what a c*nt.

Avatar
Kadinkski | 9 years ago
0 likes

I thought he came across really well actually. My attitude to him has definitely mellowed out over the last few months.

The new BBC documentary about him is broadcast on Thursday, really looking forward to it.

Avatar
Cyclist replied to Kadinkski | 9 years ago
0 likes
Kadinkski wrote:

I thought he came across really well actually. My attitude to him has definitely mellowed out over the last few months.

The new BBC documentary about him is broadcast on Thursday, really looking forward to it.

Agreed.. Good interview, certainly came across considerably more sincere than the Oprah interview.
He is also right about the profits made on the back of doping, trek etc, I don't see the big corporations putting integrity before profits.
He should be allowed to do charitable stuff.

For me as a lifelong cycling fan, being taken to France & Belgium by my dad throughout the 70 & 80s, spending long weekends in Paris during the TdF every year since 1993. LA is in my eyes, and that of thousands of others, still 7 times TdF winner.

Avatar
ianrobo replied to Kadinkski | 9 years ago
0 likes
Kadinkski wrote:

I thought he came across really well actually. My attitude to him has definitely mellowed out over the last few months.

The new BBC documentary about him is broadcast on Thursday, really looking forward to it.

Came across well ? He claimed everyone was doping we know that to be false. Walsh on Radio 5 ripped into him and rightly so. He knew exactly what he was doing. Conning cancer survivors and families to give him money so he can take a cut from Nike.

The snivelling usual tone of his was pathetic and Dan Roan failed to ask key questions like - Who else helped out ....

Latest Comments