The full transcript of Phils amazing interview with South African radio

Last week, the news broke about Lance Armstrong, the acussations and claims, people like Tyler Hamilton going on tv, ten of his teammates, and Lance has come back and said, “this is no different to what was investigated beforehand”, how different is it exactly? How close are USADA and the people who are trying to nail him getting to some kind of case going here?

The answer is I really dont know, ive got the 15 page notification document here in England with me, and Ive read through it, believe me, its complicated, but I so far have seen nothing new in the enquiry whatsoever, and I think Armstrong, and Johan Bruyneel, and the doctors, one doctor they have named has never been even remotely concerned with any controversy about drugs, and of course hes kicking like mad because hes feeling rather insulted.

But, what didnt go through with the feds in the United States, the legal people who did a two year investigation to take it right down, the FBI, said there was no case to answer,[1] The United States Doping Agency have asked for all of those papers now, whether they get them is another matter, but its not the same level of prosecution if its only a sporting prosecution so they may feel they have a case against Armstrong.

But at the moment, from whats in the letter, and Armstrong has repeatedly requested fuller details which I think he has every right to do, its saying nothing new. Now, all of these cyclists who are saying they have seen Lance taking drugs, most of them have been discredited since and are in disgrace, and some of them have received money to make such statements.[2]

If I say I dont like you, and get nine other guys to say I dont like you, is that evidence that we dont like you?[3] Its circumstantial, youve got to have the proof, and I dont think they have any proof.

Lance has said, im not defending these claims anymore, im not fighting them, and Im moving on. Clearly he cant just stand by and let these things happen, so clearly sounds like by some of the requests coming through that he is going to stand up and fight the latest wave of allegations.

Well I think he must, I get accused of defending Lance, im not defending Lance[4], even though I do know him but I havnt seen him in over a year[5], but the fact is, you are innocent until proven guilty. Everybody who has gone for Lance has failed, and theyve all withdrawn their cases[6]. I dont know what the backing is for USADA, the United States Anti Doping Agency, but they seem intent on nailing their own countryman, which is an American, this is an American agency. I dont even know if they can bring to justice people like Johan Bruyneel whos a Belgian and accused of no offence within the United States territory, I dont even know if they can do that. But you know, although this fifteen page letter of notification has gone out it still has to go to USADA's review board before they even charge you. If they say you havnt got a case, it will fall at that point. If it goes on, it will be heard, and it will be sorted before November this year.

Speaking in terms of finally putting this to rest one way or the other, lets look at it from Lances side first of all, hes claimed his innocence, would it not be better to say “right, one more time, bring whatever your accusations are, bring whatever evidence you say you have, bring it out now, I havnt done any of this stuff (doping) but lets bring it out and when its done its done” I can get back on with my life, I can keep my seven Tour de France, and obviously some people would be in for some serious repurcussions if it comes out he is clean, and theyve gone on record saying they witnessed him doing it. Would it not be in his best intrests to put pay to it by finally going through the process

Well it would be, and I think at the end of the day it will happen, Johan Bruyneel, his manager who is also cited in the notification letter has also said “Bring it on, I am happy to co-operate with you and I will help all I can to prove my innocence, ive never been involved in drugs”. And we dont know the answer, you see the trouble is, Armstrong came back from cancer and he was on his death bed, he is the first to tell you that, and his surgeons are, and never looking like a winner of the Tour de France. When he comes back from cancer, his body shape has changed[7], his mind, he now appreciates life because he says “ive been to my death bed and im not going back”, and he wins the Tour, seven times in a row which nobodies ever done, so of course the rumours have started, but youve got to prove if he has taken drugs. Hes passed over 500 doping controls[8], and not just regular ones where you know youre going to be tested, but out of competition where, on one occasion three different controlling authorities turned up at his house to test him in the same day, and all of those were clean. Theyve got to really give concrete evidence, its no good a disgruntled teammate saying “yeah he was taking EPO, ive seen him take it”thats no proof, twenty five guys can say that, its still no proof.[9]

1.	To be fair, one person made the decision that there was no case to answer, not the Feds
2.	Most of the ten? Some of them have received money to make such statements, wow, thats a bit of news
3.	If 10 guys say they dont like you, I think thats fairly good evidence that they done like you
4.	well you are defending Lance
5.	So if you havnt seen him for a year how do you explain being at a cancer conference with him in September? Thats definately you Phil, and well under a year, and thats not even the last time you met
6.	Who has tried and failed, who has withdrawn their cases, Frank and Betsy?
7.	Right, so its all down to the change in shape of his body, and all the rest of it, oh gawd
8.	Oligatory 500 doping controls mention
9.	I would say that 25 guys saying he took EPO was pretty good proof

Its an absolute mess, and what does it mean for an event as big as the Tour de France. If it does come out that he is guilty, on that hypothetical scenario, the Tour de France has taken so many blows, its a massive event, its one of the best sports in the world, but how many blows can it take and can it survive a blow like this if it comes out that, even with the rumours that are going around?

I think it will. I dont know if youve noticed but two weeks before the Tour de France every year, there is a major drugs scandal starts somewhere, its usually an old one re-incarnated but, I dont know why it is but the agencies, the people, all seem to want to hit the Tour de France. This is not related to any particular Tour de France its related to Armstrong, but thats what happens every year just before the Tour starts. The same with the Contador situation last year,  when it was dragged on from his clenbuterol charges.[1]

It makes a farce of everything. The Tour will always go on, the Tour de France is loved by the people, and they turn out in their tens of thousands, millions indeed, to watch it on a daily basis. Its still very popular and its still very transparent[2]. But theres no doubt again, that the organisation always find themselves having to explain even if they are just being blackened by connection to Lance Armstrong and not for any other reason. For example, Bradley Wiggins who is, the first time weve ever had a British favourite to win the Tour de France this year, he is now, his team is being called on to make reports to the Tour de France organisers[3]simply because Wiggins goes away and doesnt race for three weeks then he comes back and wins the race then he goes away again, this is exactly how Armstrong won his tour, they dont overrace, they just, for example just now hes training at altitude in Mallorca in Spain, and they are demanding to say “what are you doing in this training” because they want to make sure hes not building up with a little bit of a back charge of EPO, because thats when you do it, weeks before the race starts, and then suddenly come out and win the Tour de France. You bet your life, the testers will be in Spain and will be checking Bradley Wiggins.

But the inferance is always there, nobody believes in a clean athlete anymore and yet Wiggins has never even been remotely involved in drugs, Cavendish hasnt, and neither has last years winner Cadel Evans. They are the cleanest people in the sport.

Paul its been great to catch up, yakka, yakka, yakka.

1.	The Contador thing actually blew up a few months after the Tour, not shortly before
2.	So its transparent, hang on, you said it was dirty and now its clean, then you say its always been transparent, is it more transparent than before or less? Confused
3.	Factually incorrect. The ASO Did not call Sky to report to them, Sky had one of their regular meetings with the ASO and chose to take data with them, they were in no way forced by the ASO

And another wonderful video from back along

And if thats still too much, heres the abridged version

The witchunt with no evidence, the feds failed, most of the witnesses have been discredited, they are all liars, circumstantial, 500 tests, never tested positive, EPO doesnt count because when Lance was taking EPO it wasnt on the banned list, they have no proof, innocent till proven guilty, Lance beat a bunch of dopers anyway, his body changed after cancer, another 500 tests, twenty five guys saying they saw you dope is just speculation and isnt proof, i havnt seen Lance in years apart from a couple of paid speaking jobs I did for him, cycling was dirty, cycling is now clean, cycling is as transparent as it ever was. USADA are doing it out of spite, its been time to co-incide with the Tour, Lance is still the best, it would be silly to have to rewrite all those record books, and reprint them all, and we shouldnt re-incarnate urine.

wow.

I dont think I have words    :o

Truly astounding level of BS.


“The USADA letter is complicated” No, Phil. It is quite straightforward.

“Nothing new ‘whatsoever’” I’ll take that as proof that Phil hasn’t actually read the USADA letter.

“What didn’t go through with the feds...the FBI said there was no case to answer” Complete fallacy, Phil.

“Most of the witnesses have been discredited and are in disgrace” Really, Phil? Please, tell us who the witnesses are.

“Some of them have received money to make such statements.” Gotta link, Phil?

“Marion Jones’ tests weren’t as sophisticated as Lance’s.” So Phil is now an expert in testing methods?

Phil admits to Basso, Ullrich, etc being dopers, but doesn’t connect the dots to LA?

Phil knows what is good for cycling. I respect him 100 percent. For cyclings' sake, Phil, Aleluia!!!! Tote that bale!!! Leave Armstrong alone, he has accomplished much good.

a serious question flicker

what good has Armstrong accomplished

1 he is an inspiration to some Cancer suffers and survives

2. ummmmm you can go on

The list of harm that he has done and will continue to do is very long but I will start with this

1. take money that would be better spent researching into cancer treatments and cures.



So if you wanted you could say that Armstrong livestrong foundation may cause more deaths from Cancer than preventing or helping

but it was a question to you what good apart form being an inspiration to some ? 

Ligget the paid shil.

I remember watching him try to ride with Sean Kelly and interview him at the same time when Kelly was at his peak. that was funny watching Kelly doing enough to make Ligget hurt while trying to keep up to interview him.

Never a fan of any commentator. It was about the sport and not the voice of the sport that interested and still interests me.

Very interesting reading Ligget, saying "Armstrong was clean but i have not had anything to do with him in a long time!" Does Ligget think Armstrong is going down at last and while not jumping ship just yet he is putting on his life jacket and edging closer to the side of the boat?

Well no, hes lying out of his back teeth about not having seen him. Theres photo from September proving wrong his "over a year" theory, and im told they met as recently as February, just trying to get my hands on the photos

a serious question flicker

what good has Armstrong accomplished

1 he is an inspiration to some Cancer suffers and survives

2. ummmmm you can go on

The list of harm that he has done and will continue to do is very long but I will start with this

1. take money that would be better spent researching into cancer treatments and cures.



So if you wanted you could say that Armstrong livestrong foundation may cause more deaths from Cancer than preventing or helping

but it was a question to you what good apart form being an inspiration to some ?

I care about cycling and cycling fans.
When a top guy goes down in cycling it makes the sport look stupid.
Cycling during Armstrongs' era was rife with doping. Personally, some of the doping made the riding easier for the riders. I can't think of to many riders who have made an issue of doping, outside of Millar, Simeoni, Bassons, etc. I can only come to the conclusion that they chose to dope, even if they were provided with white lunch bags, and told to partake or hit the road. The riders knew the deal, and they chose, to dope. The caricatures of doping, (Botero, Di Lucca,Ricco,Vino,etc.) to me are just clowns.
Livestrong, if it makes people feel good, or helps them, great. The thoughts given towards recovery from cancer, like prayers, do help individuals.
I don't buy into the premise, that Armstrong is hiding from cheating by promoting
Livestrong, whatsoever.
Reading the other site, when a German cycling fan quotes, that he hates being German because of the hypocrisy of hating cycling because of doping, I agree. We fans watched all those tours, we watched all the doping in soccer, the Olympics, NFL, baseball etc. We cheered our heroes.
  I don't hate the athletes. Sports are cleaning up. They will never be clean though. That is sport, people cheat. I accept that. Even if Armstrong cheated, for the good of the sport, move on, the anti-doping agencies need to go after the current dopers.

Well no, hes lying out of his back teeth about not having seen him. Theres photo from September proving wrong his "over a year" theory, and im told they met as recently as February, just trying to get my hands on the photos

I have no problem with someone having September last year down, on the cuff, as "over a year". He's being interviewed, and is not in court of law here. Words like that come out easy in conversation. It doesn't add up to wilful hiding or lying about something.

Also -but not sure if it is the case here-, if people ask me when I last saw someone, I would probably mention the last time I had a 'proper' conversation with them, which isn't always the last time I 'saw' them. I am fairly sure that this is a statement he believes to be true at some level, wrong as it may be.

I think the other 'asides' you inserted are much more to-the-point Dim. His own story doesn't add up on the "Lance did never dope"-side. If you want to floor him, that's where the weak knee is. Not whether it was a year or not. Looking for needles makes sense if you are in a haystack or find a TdF bus broken down on a parking bay en-route. Not if someone is smuggling an ocean tanker full of bad crack through customs (wittingly or unwittingly). 

Phil has undoubtedly been at the generous receiving end of Lance's popularity, albeit -arguably- indirectly. Which does explain his coloured look to a large degree and especially if he attributes it all to Lance. Which he seems to do.

In my eyes Phil has been one of those lucky people at 'the right place, right time', without having had much to do with that.

I can't see any evidence he's ever been the sharpest tool on the block (the logic flaws in this piece alone speak volumes, but they somehow sound utterly in line with what we have come to expect from Phil). What he adds up, to me, is a popular, gullible, salesman who happens to have the voice and surface-attitude that does well with a key demographic. He (they) either has a good agent, or he has just been lucky that the one-trick pony that they deliver still suits the format demands in 2012.

I have P&P down as an accidental (near) monopoly for the new (mainly English-speaking) territories. With demand for coverage outstripping genuine low-cost options, "they will do nicely" and "let's go the whole hog and get the authentic TdF experience" seemed to have been the mantra. To their credit, Phil and Paul certainly have made the most out of the opportunity that came their way, by packaging their product well for the 'new' demands.

Format-wise, their buy-in product is still a perfect product, two decades on. Even more so, if anything.

At the moment it is them two, as commentators, who are the weakest part of the product, as they are flying far too much on auto-pilot these days. And the insight laziness is becoming increasingly transparent, just as it is obvious that their infatuation with a few (popular) riders from yonderyears has meant they have failed to keep up with the new cycling circles arrivals. So with Retirement Wave 2.0 in full swing, their usual auto-banter is hopelessly outdated, and somehow they find it hard to bridge the generation gap to get pally with, and name-drop, these new riders, in quite the same authoritative-sounding way. Their banter is not covering the reality of the new peloton well, something that even July-watchers are starting to pick up on, and normally they would have been retired already, if their format (and cost) wasn't so ideal, if they hadn't become "mister and mister TdF". Their 'old glory' has bought them a few extra years. Lazy product meet lazy programmers...       

As for Phil's 'honesty', I still give him the benefit if the doubt. I do believe that he doesn't want to trick us into "2+2=4+cancer=5". The guy still believes it. He can't commentate in a straight line, therefore he probably cannot think in a straight line. I am very comfortable with the idea that Phil is exactly the sort of person who is star-struck with an 'extra-ordinary' athlete, and just can't see it is 2+2 even by his own logic....

In that context, I also believe he simply cannot understand why "they" would go after Lance either. He, like few others, has been at the receiving end of the rise of Lance. He totally attributes that to Lance by the sound of it (overplaying Lance, underplaying a changing satellite+media reality that let all sports reach audiences that never were reachable). So within all his flawed premises, from his pov, demolishing the Lance-story will demolish "what he build". It's an argument we here often, and I think a lot of folk genuinely see it that way. That even trying to expose Lance (rightly or wrongly) will hurt the sport.

Sure, some people will be affected and might well switch off the TV. Especially in the generation for whom he become "the voice" of the era.

But just as Phil hasn't really grasped that the peloton is no longer stuffed with riders from 2004 (or better put: kinda knows this but has settled for cashing as many cheques for as long as it lasts without doing the actual work required to keep up to date), I think he also misjudges where the cycling audience is right now: they are no longer where he is at. They no longer share his perspective on the sport, nor do all share the same "memories".

It has moved on well beyond Lance. We already have "new" fans who never have seen Lance (v.1) race live. Lance, to some degree, for many, is already what Lemond, Roche, Indurain, Hinault, Fignon, et al, already were to most of us: names they know from youtube clips and TdF-trip-down-memory-lanes, and because they are the awesome ones who used to compare the current riders with.

I have seen all of those come up, and I have seen all of those come down. In grace and (rumoured or proven) disgrace. Lance is already quickly becoming a footnote, a raw and recent one, and a new-media era one. It will cause some ripples. But a ripple in mainly 'history' footnotes.

Cycling is already well beyond Lance. Time for Phil and a few others to catch up, I think.

Heck, I am sure there are even some cycling territories where a public dethroning of Lance might actually help with the popularity of cycling.

As an old-territory guy in a new(ish) territory, I find it very interesting so see that my telling of 'how cycling got here' is so different from the story-strands I get to hear at this side of the pond. I actually quite like that, as I find 'what got you into cycling and who has you jumping on the couch, screaming at the tv' one of the most interesting things to hear from any fan.

I signed on when Merckx started to sign off. I have long accepted that people have utterly different readings of "what matters", depending on what part they look back on through experience, and what part is through "cycling lore". I probably underplay some newcomers, just like recent arrivals tend to overplay the impact of recent riders. First love, first band.... formative impressions tend to have a disproportionate impact, and those memories linger stronger.

But the idea that cycling would be in real trouble if one of the already retired flagships is trouble, a past-its-sell-by-date an English-speaking one at that...? I just don't buy it. It has comfortably survived upsets that were much closer to the heartland's core without blinking much. Looking back at transgressions from retired riders is always easier than having current flagships under the loupe. It will do the same for the new territories, one way or the other. Even when its the 'extra-ordinary' Lance.

Thankfully, cycling is indeed bigger than Lance, or anyone else. Always is, always was.

If Lance is going to bring down any 'additional extras' -history has taught me to wait and see without much hope- it will certainly include some rotten bits, whatever they are. To be honest, rather than wishing it away like Phil does, for the good of the sport... if there is muck to be scraped off that is still sticking one way or the other: bring it on!

As a viewing spectator: I like my tv, and I am willing to stand by it... as long is the balance between cycling and medical soap opera drops firmly (and firmer) on the sporting side. 

In the USA, he increased cycling as a sport, by a factor of ten. He probably has sold to the cycling industry, by a factor of 20. Look at the big brands here in the USA, Lance factor + marketing. Participants, by a factor of 20. That is in the USA, I can't speak for any other countries. I may be exagerating, but it is very big. Same with LeMond, increased cycling awareness by many factors got people out riding, great stuff by both of them!

Ok fair enough - he has done that. But that seems to be it, the bad far outweights the good.

And not bringing out the truth only makes it worse as this is far far worse than just PEDS.

Ok fair enough - he has done that. But that seems to be it, the bad far outweights the good.

And not bringing out the truth only makes it worse as this is far far worse than just PEDS.

Anticipating what you are thinking about as far as the bad things Armstrong has done, in NFL and other US sports, the bad things are happening everyday, even at this very minute, in the off season. Cheating is the standard, systematic, medical PEDs. But, why dwell on the negative? Outside of these message boards, in the USA I don't really see Joe citizen thinking bad, talking about, or even thinking about Armstrong. He is a retired athlete, and spokesperson for Livestrong as far as I can gather. Tri, and his investments mean nothing to us out here.
As far as talking heads, Paul and Phil, I know cycling, they know cycling and they give a palpable patter, to a sport, which 99 percent of the time is pretty boring to watch. I like hearing about the medieval towns, nature parks, and ornithological viewing possibilities. I actually think their job must be pretty repetitious. The fine food and wine are great perks though.

Agree, however, i have information that he has been a guest at Armstrongs bequest since then as well, up to three meetings between the two in the last 9 months.

I think he is trying to distance himself

There are better ways to do that if that is what he is aiming for. This is the route that would actually make him complicit. He would be better off to be open about any meetings and bury it under "yes I do have high-profile-rider contacts, as to be expected from a high-profile commentator, and I know noooaaathing first-hand about his alledged dope use".

But yeah, if he has actually been rubbing backs, it looks indeed as if he is selective with the truth on that front. Still, going after associative guilt is probably not the clincher with Phil. The guy's real flaw is the dodgy card house he built to create 'his' Lance story. Dodgy facts + improbable speculation.

In the USA, he increased cycling as a sport, by a factor of ten. He probably has sold to the cycling industry, by a factor of 20. Look at the big brands here in the USA, Lance factor + marketing. Participants, by a factor of 20. That is in the USA, I can't speak for any other countries. I may be exagerating, but it is very big. Same with LeMond, increased cycling awareness by many factors got people out riding, great stuff by both of them!

I am not going to bother to go to CN and find the links but this myth has been debunked.

In 1999 x amount of bikes were sold.
In 2005 less than x amount of bikes were sold.

No Armstrong cannot point to himself as increasing the sport. People stopped pounding their bodies by jogging and started cycling.

Nice vid Flicker.