Lance Armstrong... greatest doper there was or ever will be

I went to the press screening of Alex Gibney's The Armstrong lie at Sony last night.

It's part standard cycling doc giving a background of Lance and the usual explanation of cycling to the layman.

Gibney was given exclusive access Lance during the 09 comeback tour and I could see that they had to make something of all the footage that was shot. So the bulk of the doc is the story of the 09 tour and there's some cracking footage of that and also some brilliant moments when Bertie is attacking Lance much to the massive annoyance of Johan B. But it all carries the theme of "he doped, he lied, he cheated" through it.

There's more interviews with Lance, one only 3 hours after the Oprah interview, as well as some good contributions from interested others like Hincapie, Betsy and Frankie Andrue as well as a very rare interview with Michele Ferrari.

There's no big revelations. I mean there's not much more to reveal really is there.. Lance still comes across as if he's being hard done by as all he was doing was what everybody else was doing. But I doubt he'll ever change that stance.

Over all it's a balanced and well made film. I was sat between two non cyclists and they told me after that they felt it was "compelling" and "gripping" so it's far from just a film for the buffs. And I have to agree with them.

Love or hate him it's well made and well worth seeing.

Did it give you a Gibney punch?

Chortle

I don't know what to think of it and one might call it yet another PR stunt, but after saying 'sorry Emma O'Reilly' in November, last Friday he even went over to Christophe Bassons in France to apologise

There's a good blog from Betsy Andreu calling bullshit on all his apologies, saying they are purely for PR and so he can say he's spoken to and apologised to x and y in interviews. He suddenly gets very contrite just before some media exposure. He's trying to, not control the marrative, that boat has sailed, but influence it at least. He hasn't changed his spots at all.

http://crankpunk.com/2013/12/03/tell-me-lies-lance-sweet-little-lies/

^ In other news, water discovered to be wet.

Jimmy Fingers, yesterday.

http://www.imfdb.org/images/d/d5/003_UNFORGIARP%7EUnforgiven-Posters.jpg

NB I do agree that he isn't a reformed character; the problem for him (as he sees it) is that they won't allow him to compete. That's basically what's behind his 'reformation', as it's something that really works on him.

http://crankpunk.com/2013/12/03/tell-me-lies-lance-sweet-little-lies/

Nice piece on a decent little blog.

It keeps getting better:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-bought-million-dollar-triple-crown-victory-claims-gaggioli

^ standard pro cycling practice

Oh, I know, it's just how it's all coming out now.

There are still a few people that go 'ah, but he won so much and the others were all doped, too'.

OT but in the same vein (...) I'm still wondering if Vino will ever have to return his Olympic gold medal

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-to-rule-on-re-opening-armstrong-sca-promotions-case

Juliet Macur's book looks to have a shitload of new sources who've never spoken before
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/sports/cycling/end-of-the-ride-for-lance-armstrong.html?hpw&rref=sports&_r=1

She's one hell of a journalist, so I'd imagine the book will be very, very good.

From that excerpt, it sounds as though you're right.

Macur book was sitting in my Kindle app this morning.

On recovering from cancer LA immediately starting hassling his dying friend JT Neal to share the EPO he was receiving as part of his cancer treatment as he was having problems sourcing it domestically to start his doping regime again.

Everything in the article above is from only the first 5 chapters or so so christ knows what else she's dug up.

Armstrong throwing bodies under the bus;

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-names-names-under-oath

If nothing else he should be vilified for referring to himself in the 3rd person.

Armstrong throwing bodies under the bus;
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-names-names-under-oath

RaceRadio twitter echo

When asked to name every person or entity he has paid to keep his doping secret, Armstrong denied to answers and stated:

"Armstrong has not paid or offered to pay someone to keep his or others' doping a secret," he stated.

"However, Armstrong has, on occasion, provided benefits or made contributions to many people and institutions, some of whom may have been aware of, or suspected Armstrong's use of performance-enhancing drugs and banned methods. Armstrong never provided any such benefits or contributions with the intent for it to be a payoff to keep doping a secret."

if they weren't payoffs why mention them then?

if they weren't payoffs why mention them then?

Because if you don't mention which payments you have made, the prosecutor brings them up during cross examination and you have to defend them from the dock. Much easier to get out in front of any questions if you can.

Just as a lawyer should never to ask a question to which he doesn't already know the answer, a defendant or witness should never to let a lawyer ask a question which wasn't answered in his affidavit.

bringing these "contributions" up in this context seems more foolish than waiting to be asked.