Lance Armstrong Interviewed by Evan Smith on TribLive

Lance Armstrong recently went on the Texas Tribune’s “TribLive” with Evan Smith. Below is the You Tube video for the first portion of that interview.

Here is a semi-transcript of the full interview.

Here is a primer on body language.

— touching nose, while speaking — hands / nose — lying or exaggeration — This is said to hide the reddening of the nose caused by increased blood flow. Can also indicate mild embellishment or fabrication. The children’s story about Pinocchio (the wooden puppet boy whose nose grew when he told lies) reflects long-standing associations between the nose and telling lies.

The first time Lance makes this gesture indicating his dishonesty is when he’s wondering about questions during a post-race press conference for a runner of the Boston Marathon (Geoffrey Mutai of Kenya set the new record of 2:03:02).

The post-race interview is a situation that Armstrong has been in many times. Was the indication of embellishment linked to memories of his own press conferences and questions about doping?

— looking right and up eyes — visual imagining, fabrication, lying — Related to imagination and creative (right-side) parts of the brain, this upwards right eye-movement can be a warning sign of fabrication if a person is supposed to be recalling and stating facts.

Lance did this when being asked about the status and reality of the FDA investigation against him, specifically if there’d been a letter informing him that he is in fact the “target” of a federal investigation.

— looking left down — eyes — self-talking, rationalizing — Thinking things through by self-talk – concerning an outward view, rather than the inward feelings view indicated by downward right looking.

Lance does this when he’s telling us that “I think we know who’s leaking.” And of course he’s accused Jeff Novitsky of leaking.

What exactly is he convincing himself of, here?

— A lot of people are saying that interview was full of “softball questions”, but I disagree. It didn’t even reach that level, because it was set up from start to finish.

Evan Smith makes Bill Strickland and John Wilcockson look like Lance bashers.

Here’s my bet on the “interview”: Smith fed Lance the topic list ahead of time, then Lance got back to him with a list of no-nos and must-haves and things like the “target letter” were discussed.

Lance pretty much got to dictate the interview.

Then Smith stroked Lance’s lone testicle with comments about the building with Lance’s name on it and “the “F” in FDA doesn’t mean France?”.

It wasn’t an interview at all. Smith went in with the intent of sympathizing with Lance Armstrong, having already decided what story he was going to tell, what answers he needed to sell his angle and how best to ingratiate himself to Armstrong.

Another “real journalist” terrified of Lance and willing to kick his grandmother in front of a speeding semi if it means making Lance happy. Smith plopped himself at Armstrong’s feet, wagging his tail and drooling, hoping that Armstrong would find him worthy of a pat on the head and maybe a scratch behind the ear.

You’d be wrong to call this a “fluff” piece. It was less than that. It was straight-up PR work, with no intention beyond that of portraying Lance Armstrong in the most positive light.

Cycling Journalism

Here are two articles by Joshua Hunt (JH), aka Autofact, about,”The Problem of Media in Professional Cycling”.

Part 1

Part 2

I link to them because they address an issue that’s been swirling around in my teensy brain for the past couple of weeks pretty steadily, and for a year or more before that occasionally. Also, because Joshua is an authority on this issue and what he says is more relevant than what I say.

Reading them is not required to follow this article, but I enthusiastically recommend it.

—-

I have a perpetual gripe vs cycling journalism: too much of it is empty and weak.

You get story after story that is straight facts, but less than that.

I say, “less than that” because cycling journalism typically plays to those it is meant to report on, and to the money.

You’ll read an article that any schmo will clearly find obvious points requiring, even demanding follow up and investigation, yet there is nothing of either present, nor coming

For instance, inconsistencies, or seeming inconsistencies and changes to the explanations in the Jonathan Vaughters accounts of the Matt White / Trent Lowe stories.

Or what about JV’s lack of direct answers about his own history and association with doping?

The vast majority of cycling’s “real journalists” make no attempt to investigate and follow up. JV said X, ok, X it is; JV was vague, ok a vague answer is all that there is.

Time after time after time this has left me frustrated and saying, “Are you fookin’ kidding me?”

Or what of John Wilcockson (VeloNews) and Bill Strickland (Bicycling Magazine)? What if they had each taken Lance Armstrong’s testicle out of their mouths and actually reported on him? What if they had pushed for real answers? What if they hadn’t pretended that they had no knowledge of his history and his teams’ histories with organized, systemic doping? What if they didn’t allow their fear of not being allowed to shelter beneath the umbrella of his majesty to form their judgements?

Cycling’s “real journalists” don’t so much as mention areas where they have concerns about the truth. They pose no questions, offer no explanations, dig no deeper than what the subject gives them.

To do that may be good journalism, but it’s bad business.

Because of their greed and their fear, they have made themselves complicit in professional cycling’s mafioso culture of doping.

A quote from the above JH articles (henceforth marked simply, “JH”):

“However, the refusal of cycling media to fulfill its role as a critical ‘fourth estate’ not only abetted the doping problem, but helped it to achieve new heights.”

AND:

“Even in sports journalism, with its strong emphasis on entertainment, a broadcaster should be expected to show some level of reserve and a modicum of critical thinking.”

But why do Wilcockson and Strickland knowingly promote the myth of Lance Armstrong as truth? Why do “real journalists” shy away from pursuing inconsistencies, alterations and innuendo from Jonathan Vaughters? Why do they refuse to go after guys like Jim Ochowicz, John LeLangue, Bjarne Riis, Johan Bruyneel, Bill Stapleton and Pat McQuaid? Why?

Well, damn, what if they lost access to JV and Garmin? Or what if Lance retaliated against them by shutting them out? What if UCI suddenly cut off their access to this race or that race? What if Ochowicz and the others didn’t return their calls within fifteen minutes?

This wouldn’t even be a factor if the current system wasn’t so ethically bankrupt and completely void of journalistic integrity from top to bottom at media outlet after media outlet.

And is it not utter insanity that cycling’s “real journalists” live in fear of Lance Armstrong and others? Shouldn’t it be exactly the other way around? Shouldn’t it be Lance and Johan Bruyneel and UCI and Bjarne Riis and Jim Ochowicz and John LeLangue and Bill Stapleton and guys like that, living in fear of the journalists and their drive to find, expose and present the truth?

Instead we have journalists, or those pretending to be journalists, terrified that they’ll lose access and connections to their cash cows.

Or, in the case of Lance Armstrong, simply scared shitless that if they dare say so much as a single word that he does not approve of, that he’ll come after them, that he’ll hurt them in some way.

That HE will come after THEM? Again, are you fookin’ kidding me?

Is that seriously to be left up to schlubs on Twitter and to pissant bloggers ::raising hand::? Shouldn’t that fact alone embarrass and even humiliate every “real journalist” out there?

JH:

“When the media are not critical, and base their reporting on anything other than hard facts, attributable statements and investigative research, they fall into the loathsome category that H.L. Mencken said were responsible for making newspapers “a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy crazier.””

Is that not a spot on statement of Wilcockson, Strickland and the media in general and how they’ve coddled, shielded and promoted Lance Armstrong until almost every “fact” you think you know about him and his career must now be subjected to a complete reevaluation?

But, money, access and fear always trump truth, ethics and integrity.

So instead we have guys like Wilcockson and Strickland posing as journalists for years, greedily sucking in all the cash that their connections with Lance and his myth provided them, yet neither was ever more than a storyteller, selling fiction they falsely presented as biography.

I have nothing against storytellers. I have a great deal against storytellers posing as journalists, knowingly presenting falsehoods as truth, willfully deceiving readers and fans, in an effort to enrich themselves.

JH:

“. . . ethically suspect journalism during the critical era of EPO, and years of myth-making have conspired to create a new faux-journalism.

The lesson in this is clear: in the world of professional cycling, we must be as critical and demanding of our media as we are of our favorite athletes. One should not support ethically suspect media anymore than one would support ethically suspect athletes.”

Cycling News, VeloNews and all the others need to be held responsible for what they write, for what they refuse to write, and for their involvement in promoting and endorsing professional cycling’s mafioso culture of doping.

When Lance Armstrong Burns: Part 2

UPDATE*

Part 1

I’ve added an extra layer to my tinfoil hat for this one, just because I think it’s pretty.

——
First, here are a couple alternate perspectives on Strickland’s piece:

Back of the Peloton: The difference between PR, facts, and fluff.

Ciclirati: On Strickland, Zirbel, History and What it Means.

——

Bill Strickland, editor of Bicycling Magazine, has long been accused of being a Lance Armstrong sycophant and enabler. He’s willfully and intentionally covered up and denied any wrongdoing on Lance’s part for years.

He’s finally presented the evidence (or rather some of the evidence) proving that Lance Armstrong is a liar and a doping cheat, in two parts.

The first part is a longish article outlining what we’re supposed to believe is the journey that took Strickland from enthusiastic Lance Armstrong supporter, to doubter, to saddened and disillusioned fan who is finally and at long last convinced of Lance’s evil ways. It’s good stuff. Seriously.

The second is a ten point pictorial presentation of largely anecdotal and circumstantial evidence vs Armstrong. Again, good stuff. A primer for those not familiar with the history, a refresher for those who are.

It’s all very interesting, especially gathered together and summarized in one convenient location.

But, I call bullshit.

Strickland is a smart guy and a trained, longtime investigative reporter.

In his career he’s actually taken up residence in LanceLand, to the point that Johan Bruyneel allowed, acknowledged and justified his (Strickland’s) presence in the most private Armstrong settings with the assertion that “He’s (Strickland) one of us.”.

Meaning that Strickland is an insider, that he’s in the know, that he’s privy to secrets, and that he’s safe and can be trusted.

There was a reason that Bruyneel picked Strickland to first leak news of Lance’s comeback, and a reason that it was Strickland chosen as the journalist who’d spend a year living with Lance on the road during that comeback.

Wasn’t it in the resulting book, “Tour de Lance”, that Strickland said that he knew things about Lance, dark things, but that he would not reveal them?

*UPDATE:

Here’s the relevant passage, taken from pages 10 & 11 of “Tour de Lance”:

“And I’d sat on some more serious revelations, things Bruyneel told me about the inner workings of the sport but also things I’d heard from team directors, riders, coaches, and other people who assumed that because I was close to Bruyneel I must have already known what they were talking about. I was surprised to find out that this information was even easier to keep to myself.

I knew things to be true that I wished I’d never been told. I knew many more things that could never be proved true or false, and I wanted even more to never have been told those. I didn’t want to talk to anyone about such matters, and so it was that Bruyneel trusted me.”

“. . . I was starting to become just a fan again. I hadn’t ever wanted to know which racer all the racers figured was doping and had only to get caught before everyone could talk about what a shame it was, what a crime. I hadn’t wanted to know which rider paid off which other rider to help secure a win in the great one-day cobblestoned race Paris-Roubaix.”

I knew when I read that, that he WOULD eventually reveal them. It was only a matter of when.

And this article is not that “when”. Not really. He only hints at a few juicy details. The rest has all been presented before.

No, the real revelations will come in another book, something more highly profitable than a lowly magazine and internet article.

Bill has had unequivocal knowledge of Armstrong’s doping for many years. Yet, it’s been to Strickland’s advantage, a matter of personal gain both financially and professionally, to lie and obfuscate on Armstrong’s behalf.

So why come out against Armstrong now?

Was it:

1. A falling out with Armstrong, so that Strickland no longer felt obligated to protect Lance?

2. Realization that Armstrong’s world is crumbling and now is the opportune (and opportunistic) moment?

3. Realization that Armstrong’s power is no longer all encompassing and that Lance’s ability to cause harm or exact retribution is waning, and so now is the opportune (and opportunistic) moment?

Is Strickland one of those I predicted would flee Armstrong’s side, charging into the light in hopes that the flames growing around Armstrong will not consume them as well?

4. Another chance to collude with Lance, yet gain maximum profit and professional recognition?

To that you likely said, “Huh?”.

With the publication of this article comes a rumor that Lance has agreed to an exclusive interview with Bicycling Magazine.

Lance Armstrong has tried damned near everything to protect himself from the ongoing investigation of Jeff Novitzky and the FDA.

He’s even bought himself a United States Congressman, Georgia Representative Jack Kingston, who (unsuccessfully) attempted to derail Novitzky’s investigation on Armstrong’s behalf.

So what is Lance left with?

Coming clean to Novitzky? Except Novitzky isn’t interested in a plea bargain with Lance. Lance has nothing bigger to offer, because he IS the investigation’s big fish.

What can Lance save? Maybe his public image if he gets out in front of things?

And who would he choose to talk to if he was going to “come clean” in an effort to manage the damage to his stature, his power, his influence, his earnings, his freedom, if the conclusion of this case (which actually extends well beyond Novitzky and the FDA) should find him guilty?

Well, of course it’d be his long time buddy, enabler, conspirator and protector, Bill Strickland.

Or maybe the rumor is false. Maybe there is no exclusive interview with Lance Armstrong about to be released by Bill Strickland and Bicycling Magazine.

Or maybe the interview will just be a total ambush of Lance, though if you know Armstrong’s history with questions that he doesn’t like, this notion seems utterly ludicrous. If Lance gives a tell-all, it’s because he WANTS the information out there (though he’ll pick and choose what he tells, what he comes clean on and what he’s honest about). Then he can act all contrite and remorseful.

But for me, the abhorrence of Lance Armstrong is only partially rooted in the belief that he’s a doper, a liar and a cheat.

What I really detest Lance Armstrong for is the malicious manner in which he goes about destroying or attempting to destroy anyone who so much as disagrees with him.

It doesn’t matter if you’re a professional cyclist, a news outlet or a lowly blogger. If you question or doubt Lance in any way, he’ll do everything within the vast possibilities of his wealth, power and influence to crush you into nothingness.

I’ll make a little confession, here.

All my suppositions, in their specifics, could be wrong about Bill Strickland. It’s possible that there’s nothing unethical or dishonest in what’s going on. But there’s more to his “coming out” against Lance than what he’s letting us know.

I don’t like feeling like I’m being taken for a sucker, and that’s what it seems like Strickland is doing. He’s playing me, us, his readers, the public. We just need to sit back and wait to discover exactly why and how.

Thoughts on Stuff

I keep saving links for articles I want to read, and I keep getting further and further behind on my writing.

So here are a few I think you’ll benefit from, or at least enjoy.

— How does the geometry of your bike affect the way it handles?

Here’s another great article from Cycling Tips to help you figure that out.

When you start looking at bikes, going through the steps of sizing and fitting, you’ll want to have at least a basic understanding of this stuff. You’ll be a lot happier with the bike you choose.

Here are a couple of Bikezilla articles on bike fitting and sizing that might help you understand the above linked article better.

Bike Fit and Sizing: Road Bikes

Bike Fit and Sizing: CX and MTB

—The difficulties of doping controls, and possible solutions, from The Science of Sport.

Jonathan Vaughters proposed a system internal to teams where ALL available drug tests are used, even those short of 100% reliability.

But for failures of the “unreliable” tests, riders are not suspended, but merely removed from competition until blood levels are normalized.

I’d suggest a similar program enacted by UCI, but with a standard 30 day removal prior to re-evaluation, even in the case of drugs that are out of one’s system in just a few days, with no possibility to stall via appeal.

Vaughters if freakin’ brilliant.

— Bike Radar found a blog for a local bike shop (LBS) that is easily the coolest use of a blog for marketing ever.

21st Avenue Bicycles, in Portland, Oregon

Here is their direct link.

— For those of you seeking uber cool professional cycling secrets, here’s why they sometimes ride the tips of their saddles.

— And one more from Cycling Tips.

Rain Riding.

Read on down to the comments for some interesting tips.

Riccardo Riccò, Floyd Landis, and Auto-Tranfusions

In his interview with Paul Kimmage, Floyd Landis discussed storing his blood on ice in his fridge and giving himself transfusions.

Riccardo Ricco has confessed, then denied confessing, the same thing, after nearly killing himself by transfusing blood that had gone bad.

What does the trend in auto-transfusions mean?

Does it mean that transfusions are so common and so simple that riders routinely blow off using professional help and do the deed on their own, in the privacy of their own homes / rooms?

Or does it mean that guys like Landis and Ricco were on genuinely clean teams and were forced to do transfusions on the sly?

But who draws the blood from these guys prior to them transfusing it back into themselves?

Is THAT something they can handle on their own? It seems very unlikely.

Do they rely on professional medical help? If so, who? How is it arranged?

With over 400 riders just in the mens elite professional peloton, all spread out around the globe for various camps, races and personal reasons, it would seem to require a medical force of considerable size and diversity to keep up with it all.

How could such a massive workforce be kept under wraps without the collusion of teams and the UCI at a very minimum?

What about medical supplies? You can’t just walk into your friendly neighborhood Walgreen’s and buy a case of transfusion supplies.

Is this where guys like Dr del Moral come in? And even if del Moral is guilty of helping riders dope, he’s just one guy. No matter how successful his practice is, there’s just no way that he alone could meet the logistical demands.

Garmin’s Jonathan Vaughters Admits Doping

In an article for Le Figaro, Garmin – Cervelo’s Jonathan Vaughters admits to his doping history as a rider.

He does it in an almost offhand, casual kind of way that will have you nearly miss it, so I’ll post the quote:

Question: (Sport24.com / Le Figaro): “One of the problems of cycling is it that most team managers’ current runners who were steeped in years of doping?” (restated, Isn’t the problem in cycling that most current team managers, themselves, have a history of doping?)

Answer (Jonathan Vaughters): “Yes, obviously.

Myself, I was part of this generation “doped.” (I think it should have read (“this ‘doped’ generation”, but this is a translated text — Bikezilla)

But if we have the right mindset, good ethics, we are the right people. Because we made these mistakes, we know the inner pain of living with this lie.

I do not want the new generation do the same thing. It is our responsibility to present a sport where there is no need to make these bad choices.

I have a ten year old boy. I do not know if he will make the bike but if it becomes cyclist, I will pass on my knowledge because I do not want him to enter the sport as it was before.

Instead, the best asset in cycling today is to have these people with that experience, because they have good intentions, they can prevent errors.

Let everyone realizes he must take a new direction. It is a battle he must win.”

Thank you, Jonathan! Sincerely.

But I still don’t understand why you don’t line up behind Floyd Landis and tell what you know.

YOU are the guy who can take down the mafioso culture of doping in cycling. You’re the guy who can destroy the Made Men of that culture; from Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel, to the people running USA Cycling and UCI. You’re the guy who could burn it all down and let the phoenix rise up, new and whole and beautiful, from the ashes.

Does that require more courage than you possess?

And when Lance Armstrong reads your interview, will he get so nervous that he gives you a call and tell you to “chill out”, “calm down”, “don’t do anything that’s gonna hurt yourself and a lot of other people. Don’t do anything that’s gonna hurt cycling more than it could ever help it.”? Because that’s his style and his view.

Will Johan and Bill Stapleton and maybe Pat “Dick” McQuaid give you ever so casual calls to find out how you’re doing and offer their own (self-serving) sage advice? I suspect that they will.

If Jeff Novitzky comes to you, will you be open and honest? Or will you, like so many others, perjure yourself and perpetuate the poisonous status quo?

Alberto Contador: Dope Fiend?

Here’s the VeloNews story on Alberto Contador’s doping timeline.

Go ahead, look.

To put it simply, there has not been a single year since Alberto turned pro that he has not had a brush with or been associated with doping. Not one.

A lot of people ridicule Greg Lemond for his high profile stance vs doping at the highest levels of professional cycling. The problem is that he has a gift for being right.

So when he analyzes Alberto’s 2009 climb up Verbier and says that Bert’s VO2 Max would have to be superhuman, and then Alberto refuses to touch any question regarding the climb or his VO2 Max, I kind of have to pay attention.

Alberto Contador, I don’t think you’re really such a good guy. I think you’ve been a doper since day one and that you’ve had a lot of people, including Pat “Dick” McQuaid and his merry band of doping enablers at UCI, fudging things in your favor for way too long.

Yeah, absolutely, getting busted for an almost immeasurably small amount of clenbuterol bites. Maybe you even did get screwed by ingesting tainted meat. I’ll even agree that there should be thresholds and that the system is in desperate need of overhaul.

But, dude, you look and sound way too much like a duck for me to say, “nope, porcupine”.

If you’re the best we can do for a champion of the Tour de France, then cycling is in a world of hurt.

And Andy Schleck, what are the chances that the only guy who can hang with Alberto over the past two TdFs is any cleaner than he is?

I’d say they’re pretty damned close to nothing.

No, no, let me say it for you, “I’ve never failed a doping control in or out of competition”.

And since UCI makes a point of not testing the most suspicious high profile riders, it looks like you’ll get to keep claiming that.

More Thoughts on Stuff

— This is something that’s bugged me since almost as soon as I started following cycling.

The marketing and sponsorship model that professional cycling is built on is not one that allows for longterm viability of any team.

It makes the sport unstable and that lack of stability hurts the raw numbers of the fan base and helps dampen media interest.

— Danilo Diluca had his doping suspension reduced because he helped out with other investigations, so is immediately eligible to ride again.

Dude, he’s a two time loser. I don’t care what he helped out with, he should never be allowed to ride again.

Please God, let him be like a leper. Make him race for some lowly Continental team..

Is this rash of leniency toward some bigger names intended to lay the ground work for giving Alberto Contador a ridiculously light suspension (or none at all)?

And still no one (at least no one at UCI) gives a damn about an identical case with Radioskank’s Fuyu Li.

Ummmmmm, helllllllllllooooooooo, someone wanna pick this up?

— Mark Cavendish (HTC) wants us to know that next year when he quits on his team again at Worlds, we shouldn’t be surprised.

Thoughts on Stuff

— 29ers vs 26 inch.

To me, an admittedly horrible mountain-biker, the 26″ wheeled bike seems the not only the lighter, but more nimble.

But the 29er seems the more . . . secure, less jarring and less terrifying when your feet are locked into your clipless pedals and you’re heading down an ugly stretch of downhill.

— Looking at Eric’s updated list of the greatest 100 professional cyclists of the modern era, doesn’t it seem that the Belgians are the pelotons anti-French?

— So, UCI anti-doping gurus worked their azzes off during the Tour, but seemed to actively avoid testing the most suspicious riders.

— Even though Bikezilla on Blogspot and Bikezilla on WordPress have the same material (except for older posts on Blogger and the Ride Journal on WordPress) the two blogs have entirely different readership.

Makes me say, “Huh”.

Alberto and the Plasticizer

UPDATE*

When I first heard the story of the plastisizer found in Alberto Contador’s blood, almost immediately following the news of his doping pos for clenbuterol, I felt incredibly sad and let down and sickened.

I originally mentioned this HERE.

But then it came out that this particular plastic or plasticizer is extremely common, being found in water bottles, saline bags and the bags used for sugar drips. Those are all pretty common in the world of sports.

If you totally ignore the other medical drip bags you still have to wonder, “How many bottled waters does the average cyclist drink in a week?”

So then I have to think, “Hmmmmmmmm, there are not only more, but more common uses for this plasticizer.”

Add to that that the test to find it has not been validated (gee, maybe exactly because there are so many sources of this chemical?) and so holds no legal weight.

Now I’m thinking, well, it’s a lot more likely that this particular finding indicates something other than blood transfusion than that it indicates transfusion.

Apparently that puts me in the minority, because it seems like that fact, the actual FACT, that clenbuterol WAS found in his blood and that it in fact IS a banned substance which actually DOES need explanation and investigation and was found by use of a highly sensitive and totally validated test which DOES hold legal weight, has been utterly forgotten.

For every mention of clenbuterol on Twitter there are at least twenty about the plasticsizer.

Here’s just a few I cut and pasted directly:

“Contador Tour blood sample indicates IV use”

“Meat from a plastic cow? “Contador showed abnormally high levels of plastic residues””

“Contador may have received transfusion”

“new evidence”

“Contador may have received transfusion during Tour”

“More damning evidence”

“More evidence for Contador’s blood transfusion”

And it’s amazing that even though the story about the plastisizer is nearly a week old, people, including NY Times journalists, present it a few hundred times per day as “new evidence” and “more evidence”.

They seem to willfully miss 1. That it isn’t “new” and 2. It isn’t evidence.

So why does this one bit of information so mesmerize so many people while the actual failed test for clenbuterol goes ignored?

I’m not sure, but every time I see some retard jump up and down clapping and drooling while they scream “plasticizer!” I wanna trip’em into a mud puddle.

* Dueling experts. The way they contradict each other almost makes this seem like a joke.