Update: Lance Armstrong to admit doping on Oprah

[CS85]

I'd say an UNofficial POTD, but not the real deal. These are precious title belts we're talking about here, people.

[Saintsfan]

So in a sport that is infested by steroids and PEDs, where EVERYONE is doing them, people were surprised the the best racer winning the biggest race seven straight times was does steroids and PEDs?

That's my thinking as well. While it doesn't excuse what Armstrong did, I wonder how far back you have to go to find a clean champion.

The last 2 Tour de France champions were almost certainly clean, in my view. Before that, it's hard to say. The last TdeF winner untouched by allegations of drug before that is probably Miguel Indurain, but amphetamines have been widely used in pro cycling for generations. But amphetamines have tended to be used for pain relief, rather than direct performance enhancement.

[Gothamite]

It's saying something that even in a sport with rampant doping, Armstrong took it to a whole new level.

But it's his strategy of destroying those who criticized him (legitimately, as it turns out), suing newspapers for libel and running critics out of the sport, that's what makes him a true scumbag.

[Saintsfan]

It's saying something that even in a sport with rampant doping, Armstrong took it to a whole new level.

But it's his strategy of destroying those who criticized him (legitimately, as it turns out), suing newspapers for libel and running critics out of the sport, that's what makes him a true scumbag.

Absolutely. The key to the Oprah interview is not the drugs admission, but how he deals with that side of it, the bullying, the lawsuits, the treatment of those who accused him, and how that sat alongside the cancer work.

[Billy B]

It's saying something that even in a sport with rampant doping, Armstrong took it to a whole new level.

But it's his strategy of destroying those who criticized him (legitimately, as it turns out), suing newspapers for libel and running critics out of the sport, that's what makes him a true scumbag.

Yeah, forcing people on your team to dope and getting rid of the guys that don't is a really scummy move.

[Nyk33]

I think this quote from George Carlin said it best.

"I'd like to begin by saying fuck Lance Armstrong. fuck him and his balls and his bicycles and his steroids and his yellow shirts and the dumb empty expression on his face. I'm tired of that asshole."

[ESTONES6]

I think this quote from George Carlin said it best.

"I'd like to begin by saying fuck Lance Armstrong. fuck him and his balls and his bicycles and his steroids and his yellow shirts and the dumb empty expression on his face. I'm tired of that asshole."

Fixed.

[bosrs1]

So in a sport that is infested by steroids and PEDs, where EVERYONE is doing them, people were surprised the the best racer winning the biggest race seven straight times was does steroids and PEDs?

No, not at all actually. We're just pissed and :censored:ty that he went around for upwards of ten years praising how clean he was and this and that for it to be the reality.

What the hell does the Livestrong charity even do anyways?

Bingo. That's why I'm pissed. Not that he was dirty per se, because there was always that nagging doubt as every finisher behind him down to like 10th place year after year was being outed as time went on. What irks me is that Armstrong kept insisting he was clean to the point of filing and winning lawsuits against people who dared insinuate he wasn't. He created this cult of personality around him about how "clean and great" he was when the reality is he was the worst doper of them all. Kind of the PED equivalent of what happened with Tiger Woods when his "good guy" image was shattered with the revelation he was a sex crazed lunatic guilty of infidelity.

That's why I said I think Lance is even worse scum than say Barry Bonds. At least Bonds wasn't really vocal on how "clean" he was and was generally an ass anyway. Not a nice guy who militantly defended his cleanliness.

[crashcarson15]

So in a sport that is infested by steroids and PEDs, where EVERYONE is doing them, people were surprised the the best racer winning the biggest race seven straight times was does steroids and PEDs?

No, not at all actually. We're just pissed and :censored:ty that he went around for upwards of ten years praising how clean he was and this and that for it to be the reality.

What the hell does the Livestrong charity even do anyways?

Bingo. That's why I'm pissed. Not that he was dirty per se, because there was always that nagging doubt as every finisher behind him down to like 10th place year after year was being outed as time went on. What irks me is that Armstrong kept insisting he was clean to the point of filing and winning lawsuits against people who dared insinuate he wasn't. He created this cult of personality around him about how "clean and great" he was when the reality is he was the worst doper of them all. Kind of the PED equivalent of what happened with Tiger Woods when his "good guy" image was shattered with the revelation he was a sex crazed lunatic guilty of infidelity.

That's why I said I think Lance is even worse scum than say Barry Bonds. At least Bonds wasn't really vocal on how "clean" he was and was generally an ass anyway. Not a nice guy who militantly defended his cleanliness.

But even Tiger doesn't approach Lance level. Like, nobody really ever thought Tiger was this great saint and he never came out and praised how he was abstinent until marriage or whatever he could've.

[Kevin W.]

Plus, there's a difference between committing adultery and taking PEDs and potentially defrauding the US government.

[Saintsfan]

Yeah, really the EPO stuff is only scratching the surface with Armstrong. I actually agree that Woods is less deserving of redemption than many, mainly because there is a reason that he could have a stream of women around the world to hook up with when his wife was not around, and it not come out sooner, but Armstrong's bullying and intimidating of other riders is, was and will always be a disgrace, no matter what he said to Oprah. The intimidation of those willing to testify against him, the use of the legal system to do that, and the trail of lies and deception to keep up his image is way beyond contemptible.

[jkrdevil]

I keep popping in on this and have to keep changing the channel because it is very obvious Oprah is a terrible interviewer and doesn't really know what she is asking about in this case. It is painful to listen to her try and ask question. It is obvious why Armstrong chose her over say 60 minutes or Costas.

[Saintsfan]

I keep popping in on this and have to keep changing the channel because it is very obvious Oprah is a terrible interviewer and doesn't really know what she is asking about in this case. It is painful to listen to her try and ask question. It is obvious why Armstrong chose her over say 60 minutes or Costas.

My guess is part of the deal Oprah did to get this interview is no follow up questions. I wonder if she had to give Armstrong advance notice of her questions even. It's certainly not a journalistic interview, even, never mind a legalistic one!

[dfwabel]

I keep popping in on this and have to keep changing the channel because it is very obvious Oprah is a terrible interviewer and doesn't really know what she is asking about in this case. It is painful to listen to her try and ask question. It is obvious why Armstrong chose her over say 60 minutes or Costas.

Wow, even again when Lance illustrates that he is a prick, misogynistic comments still come here. Lance would look at the floor and would have given the same $hit if the late Mike Wallace or Tim Russert were asking the questions.

And remember that OWN is a partnership between Winfery and Discovery Communications, the parent company of Lance's sponsor The Discovery Channel. She is a partner and Discovery's biggest name personality and by granting Disocvery the rights, he is trying not to have ANOTHER litigant.

Otherwise, Lisa Ling would have been the interviewer as "the next name host/anchor up" and her interview with Paul Watson really illustrates a puff piece.

[max]

Armstrong is a new breed of champion. He can win in secret knowing he is cheating and then "beat" the villain he created by denouncing him on his own terms in an interview in which there is no winner and no loser. Armstrong gets to create the hero and bring him down by himself (think about USC Football holding the press conference to say that they had cheated and that they are taking away all of their championships). Oprah should force Lance to do more than apologize and Lance should really provide an argument for why "losing" is better than "winning." Haven't seen the interview yet.

As a sports fan I'm actually really excited to see two people so evenly-paired in a situation in which neither can win or lose.

Either Oprah should be the one to decide whether he gets the 8-year ban or the lifetime ban or Armstrong should not have been allowed to admit that his Tour wins were from cheating.

Armstrong surely has a different idea about winning/losing than the rest of us. I think Armstrong is getting the opportunity to make another comeback, but that all depends on how much the public "forgives him” in this interview. If this is about the public's forgiveness, Armstrong has already "beaten" his fans by creating opportunities for his fans to better themselves. Armstrong's charity is what Oprah should be able to investigate (if he lies about PEDs, he could be lying about his cancer, his charity, or even his reason for admitting to lying about PEDs).

Armstrong and Oprah, I can't think of a more evenly-matched interview. Cannot wait to see it, but I think that if fans are hung up on getting his admission to doping they are just setting Armstrong up for another comeback (and those same fans could also be potentially subject to Armstrong's generosity).

[Nyk33]

Armstrong is a new breed of champion. He can win in secret knowing he is cheating and then "beat" the villain he created by denouncing him on his own terms in an interview in which there is no winner and no loser. Armstrong gets to create the hero and bring him down by himself (think about USC Football holding the press conference to say that they had cheated and that they are taking away all of their championships). Oprah should force Lance to do more than apologize and Lance should really provide an argument for why "losing" is better than "winning." Haven't seen the interview yet.

As a sports fan I'm actually really excited to see two people so evenly-paired in a situation in which neither can win or lose.

Either Oprah should be the one to decide whether he gets the 8-year ban or the lifetime ban or Armstrong should not have been allowed to admit that his Tour wins were from cheating.

Armstrong surely has a different idea about winning/losing than the rest of us. I think Armstrong is getting the opportunity to make another comeback, but that all depends on how much the public "forgives him” in this interview. If this is about the public's forgiveness, Armstrong has already "beaten" his fans by creating opportunities for his fans to better themselves. Armstrong's charity is what Oprah should be able to investigate (if he lies about PEDs, he could be lying about his CANCER, his charity, or even his reason for admitting to lying about PEDs).

Armstrong and Oprah, I can't think of a more evenly-matched interview. Cannot wait to see it, but I think that if fans are hung up on getting his admission to doping they are just setting Armstrong up for another comeback (and those same fans could also be potentially subject to Armstrong's generosity).

Dude he lost a testicle due to cancer. I do not think any man would sacrifice one of his balls for a lie.

[max]

Dude he lost a testicle due to cancer. I do not think any man would sacrifice one of his balls for a lie.

The most important thing Armstrong admits is that it takes PEDs to win the Tour de France. He also said that "smashing his balls against a bike seat" causes cancer. I don't think we know the timeline, but he also admits that he has no qualms about sacrificing his body to win. He says that HGH could have caused his cancer, if there were a tumor forming, to develop faster, so we know that he took HGH while in the beginning stages of cancer. I believe him when he says that he had no choice but to enhance his body to leave his situation in Plano.

[max]

ARMSTRONG: Few other riders would have had such a close relationship with their bike supplier, so I guess that was cheating too?

The truth is that if I knew I wouldn’t get caught, I’d do it all over again. Because, again, the life that my professional success bought me was a much better alternative to the one I faced as a non-pro. Do you really expect me to sit here and say sorry for taking the performance-enhancing drugs that allowed me to become financially secure and date rock stars and beauty queens?

Without my success as a competitive cyclist, there would be no Livestrong Foundation. All the support we’ve given to cancer victims over the years…it’s all well and good to claim I’ve disgraced Livestrong, but the reality is, no EPO, no success, no Livestrong. Folks like David Walsh accuse me of ‘conning’ cancer victims, but where’s the con? I had cancer, and I survived it. Trust me, that was real. Has Walsh ever beaten cancer? What’s he ever done to help cancer sufferers?

OPRAH: But couldn’t you still have won without drugs?

Oprah needs to ask about the charity here.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, the follow-up question should have been "Where did the money go?" That's the actual con.

Whatta scumbag.

[Nyk33]

Dude he lost a testicle due to cancer. I do not think any man would sacrifice one of his balls for a lie.

The most important thing Armstrong admits is that it takes PEDs to win the Tour de France. He also said that "smashing his balls against a bike seat" causes cancer. I don't think we know the timeline, but he also admits that he has no qualms about sacrificing his body to win. He says that HGH could have caused his cancer, if there were a tumor forming, to develop faster, so we know that he took HGH while in the beginning stages of cancer. I believe him when he says that he had no choice but to enhance his body to leave his situation in Plano.

Losing a testicle does not increase his chances of winning the Tour de France.

Just because a person lies about something major does not automatically mean he lied on every single facet of his life.