CountArach wrote:
Reading David Walsh's new book (which is magnificent and should be read by everyone who wants a close look at the way Armstrong was able to control the media and anyone who would come forward against him) that is essentially the conclusion I reached. It seems that this is how the team initially justified it to themselves and all he has to do is say that and his disciples will ensure he has some sort of legacy.

ShortsNL wrote:
I don't know the guardian very well, is it a tabloid paper? cause it seems so.

The questions in both linked articles are terribly loaded and truly unworthy for sports journalism. The first article from CountArach I can see as possibly satirical but even in the second article from cactus-jack, that states which questions should be asked, is just horribly horribly loaded. Nearly every question is completely biased and undermines the entire point of the interview.

It would have been much more valuable if the two journalists who wrote this did some actual research to see if they could actually find the real questions in the interview, and then seriously predict the answers Lance is gonna give based on proper analysis of all the history by a senior sports journalist.

Honestly, I can see that it's a blog and all, but even as a journalist writing a blog you can at least uphold your profession and do a proper analysis instead of just trying to be a clown.

Aquarius wrote:
Wait, do you mean you actually have cycling journalists in the UK ?

ShortsNL wrote:
I understood it's satire. That's my problem with it, they shouldn't spend their time on useless satire. They're journalists ffs. Not comedians. Like Crommy confirmed, the second article especially shows detailed knowledge about the Armstrong case. If they are going to spend their working hours talking about cycling, they should at least put their talents and professional training to good use and write something meaningful. This just makes them look unprofessional.

ShortsNL wrote:
I understood it's satire. That's my problem with it, they shouldn't spend their time on useless satire. They're journalists ffs. Not comedians. Like Crommy confirmed, the second article especially shows detailed knowledge about the Armstrong case. If they are going to spend their working hours talking about cycling, they should at least put their talents and professional training to good use and write something meaningful. This just makes them look unprofessional.

Deadpool wrote:


Didn't see this earlier. I agree that Lance would never, ever, admit what he's done if he was making the decision on his own...but there is a very good reason why he pays Bart Knaggs and Ogilvy a shit-ton of money to advise him. They're going to push him towards doing at least a partial admittance. I was adamant that this was going to happen, and that was before today's fire-bombing of Lance's legacy. I'm dead certain it'll happen in the next few weeks here.

Hell, I've already called it. Jeremy Schapp, Sunday Conversation on SportsCenter. Won't be this weekend, but I'd said before Thanksgiving (the 22nd of November) at the latest.

cactus-jack wrote:
Just some snippets of comments in some of the Norwegian newspapers regarding Armstrongs appology;

"It takes a real man to owe up what he did! He has my support!"

"Only a true champion like Armstrong could come out of this with his head held high"

"Not many people would appologise, but Armstrong did!"

"Everybody has made mistakes once or twice during their lifes, it's only human."