on the opening day of an offensive to recapture the western half of the city of mosul from the islamic state group. their first objective appears to be mosul‘s airport. government forces secured the eastern part of the city last month. the white house has attempted to clarify remarks by president trump in which he appeared to suggest there'd been an immigration—related security incident in sweden on friday. mr trump himself has tweeted that he based his comments on a fox news television report about rising crime in the country. colombia's president has condemned an explosion near the bullring in the capital, bogota. around thirty people, mostly police, were injured in while preparing for protests by animal rights groups against sunday's bullfight. officials said they had no evidence the attack was related to bullfighting. let's have a quick look at this morning's front pages: the ft leads with the news that kraft heinz is abandoning its 100 and fifteen billion pound takeover offer for unilever.

" $115 billion. the is front cover focuses on this week's brexit debate in the house of lords, where some of the new labour grandees could resist the government's plans for withdrawing form the eu. the express also picks up the story, urging the lords not to weaken or delay the government's brexit approach. the nhs has cut 15,000 beds in six years — according to the mail. the guardian reports that eu leaders are telling theresa may that, what they call, "blackmail tactics" will backfire on the uk. the times says no ten is on a collision course with small businesses over its reforms to business rates. a warning from the defence secretary makes the telegraph's front page. sir michael fallon says britain must maintain a military presence in afghanistan to avoid millions of afghans migrating to europe. meanwhile the mirror is leading with the story that former boxer michael watson has vowed to find the people who attacked him as they tried to steal his car. now it's time for hardtalk.

welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. it's the job of the journalist to speak truth to power but it can be a lonely place, defying conventional wisdom and the powers that be forced up my guest today has known that loneliness. irish journalist david walsh was convinced that cycling's untouchable champion lance armstrong was a drugs cheat long before the sport revealed the scale of his deceit. armstrong is now history of course but doping continues to devalue elite sport. maybe it's a problem that no amount of truth telling journalism can fix. david walsh, welcome to hardtalk.

thank you. wonder if you could cast your mind back to starting as a young journalist in ireland, working on sports. you regularly described yourself as a sickly afghan with a typewriter. the still regard yourself as a fan? —— as a fan. typewriter. the still regard yourself as a fan? -- as a fan. in a general sense, yourself as a fan? -- as a fan. in a general sense, no. yourself as a fan? -- as a fan. in a general sense, no. i yourself as a fan? -- as a fan. in a generalsense, no. ithink yourself as a fan? -- as a fan. in a general sense, no. i think a journalist has to leave out behind. i think the predominant reason why people want to be sports were —— sports writers is because they love sport. in my case, i knew from a very early stage wanted to be a sportswriter and it's because i liked writing essays when i was in

english class as a kid and i loved sport and i put the two together and it equalled sport presenter —— reporter. we must talk about lance armstrong and your pursuit, and i think that's the right word, used it as the subtitle of your book, hume and the seven deadly sins. he talked about your pursuit. —— him. why did you turn it into a crusade, omission, you against him? well, thatis omission, you against him? well, that is how it turned out. i don't know if i consciously decided, i'm going to dedicate all this time to pursuing one guy. i mean, the sport was dirty at the time. lance was one of many riders who joked that they all didn't, there were plenty of quys all didn't, there were plenty of guys who were clean and they got com pletely guys who were clean and they got completely betrayed by their sport. the reason why lance became such an important figure is because he was an emblem on what we were told was to change sport. he was this fa ntastically to change sport. he was this fantastically feelgood story. the quy fantastically feelgood story. the

guy that came back from cancer. young, he almost died from testicular cancer. then in 1999, he rode again in 1999, he went into seven victories. it was perhaps the most heroic victory in sport that anybody of my generation can ever remember. yes. and you, more than anyone else, burst that bubble. greg lemond, an american man who had won seven times, said to me at the very early stage of this investigation i was conducting into armstrong, he said that if this comeback from cancer is true, it is the greatest comeback in the history of sport and it is not true, it's the greatest fraud. as a journalist, you are thinking that if this is the greatest fraud and you believe it is so, you have an absolute responsibility to go after it and reveal it to be so. you came up againstan reveal it to be so. you came up against an extremely powerful set of interests who did not want that story, your story, to be written. i

don'tjust talk story, your story, to be written. i don't just talk about lance armstrong and his entourage but am also thinking about the authorities in the sport because lance armstrong brought to cycling a sort of profile, standing in the world of sport which they couldn't find anywhere else so to trash his reputation was too trashed the sport asa reputation was too trashed the sport as a whole. yes, it was. it was too trashed at global icon as well. this isa trashed at global icon as well. this is a guy he went on mountain bike rides with president george w bush. this is a guy who was best friends with matthew mcconaghy, the hollywood actor. this is a man who went way beyond his sport. people around the world looked up to him as some kind of saviour. he had come back from cancer, life—threatening cancer, and people, every single person, no matter where you live, you knew somebody with cancer, family, a relative, you are going out and you are buying lance's book and saying, with this and find inspiration. howl apprehensive for

you about, and let's use this word again, pursuit. the lawyers representing armstrong were consistently on your case and the case of your newspaper, the sunday times. that went for about three yea rs, times. that went for about three years, 2004, 2005, 2006. they were dominated by meetings with lawyers and discussing the case. a case that we we re and discussing the case. a case that we were always going to lose because of the uk's draconian libel laws. he could never sue us in america, he could never sue us in america, he could never sue us in france is in those countries, the burden of truth would have been on armstrong to prove that i was lying and i was never lying. but in this country, we had to prove that armstrong was doping and that was close to impossible. you got other cyclists to talk and we now know that as you said, the systematic doping was rife in many different teams, many top cyclist were doing it. how did you break down the sort of wall of silence, that there was at the top

of elite cycling? because i tried and when you try to... i believed it was the right thing. i exposed one key bit of information that armstrong worked with a doping doctor. a simple question, why would a so—called clean rider work with a doping doctor? armstrong believed he was ina doping doctor? armstrong believed he was in a honest man and people accepted that. the doctor was due to stand trial two months after armstrong was convicted of doping. when people see you trying to do the right thing, you come forward —— they come forward. i had lance's long—time teammate, i had emma 0'reilly who had been a personal masseuse to lance when he won his first tour de france. they came to me and told their story. a man from new zealand who rode with him. he said that lance was the biggest advocate of doping in his team. three witnesses with evidence of lance's doping. i put it all in a

book and i thought that was it that armstrong was too powerful, even with all the evidence in the world, you couldn't bring him down. and it wasn't until five years ago that actually, the us cycling authorities, and then it moved on to the world doping authorities, but they finally revealed the truth of they finally revealed the truth of the scale of the doping that armstrong had been involved in and in the end he was banned from cycling. in fact, in the end he was banned from cycling. infact, banned in the end he was banned from cycling. in fact, banned from all professional sport. he is finished and now he is way beyond the age where he could be a cyclist that if you were to meet lance armstrong today, what would you say to him? —— but if you were to meet. it's a question i have often considered. i think i would want the conversation to be incredibly private. i wouldn't wa nt to be incredibly private. i wouldn't want it to be in any way used by la ncelot want it to be in any way used by lancelot anyone else for a kind of pr purpose. —— lance, oranyone else. the people who have never been

revealed as can spirit river in what was the relationship between you and him and goodness knows, it is even a hollywood movie, the relationship between you and him is fascinating. when did you actually last see him and swap words with him? the 2004 tour de france at a press co nfe re nce him? the 2004 tour de france at a press conference at the book had just come out. i am sitting in the front row. he asked about the book and looks down at me and says, "seeing as the esteemed author was here, i will answer him". these extraordinary allegations must be followed with extraordinary proof. the answer is why should it be extraordinary proof from lance armstrong? he was right. 0rdinary proof didn't touch him. in the end, the united states anti— doping

agency got 11 witnesses. they all had first—hand accounts of lance's doping. in a sense, it made your career ina doping. in a sense, it made your career in a journalist, long to have that piece that made hollywood movies and you have that. you found your life consumed by this and at one point, your daughter made a comment when she saw he won the b about lance and she said, i'm watching you on tv while the rest of the family are having dinner, same old, same old. —— she saw you on a tv. was it worth it? i never saw it asa tv. was it worth it? i never saw it as a sacrifice. this was the most funi as a sacrifice. this was the most fun i was ever going to have as a journalist. people are always astounded. you were sued? he cost your newspaper million. and your family? and i said actually, it

wasn't horrible. i had a good time. i never felt more journalistically alive as i was during those years. i know it is a preposterous kind of comparison because what happened with bob woodward and watergate was violently bigger than armstrong but if you look at that movie, all the president's men, what she sees to journalists on the case, having the time of their lives, knowing they will be another story like this. on a much smaller scale, had that feeling with armstrong. a much smaller scale, had that feeling with armstronglj a much smaller scale, had that feeling with armstrong. i can see the excitement shining in your eyes right now. it forces me then to move the clock forward and talk about how you have conducted some of your journalism in more recent years. you haven't left sport and certainly you haven't left sport and certainly you haven't left sport and certainly you haven't left a cycling. you are still a very influential cycling journalist. why, having learnt the lessons learned from the armstrong case, did you decide in more recent yea rs case, did you decide in more recent years to vouch for, in a really

significant way, the honesty, the credibility, of the dominant cycling tea m credibility, of the dominant cycling team of recent years team sky when other journalists are saying team of recent years team sky when otherjournalists are saying that you can't be sure they are cleaned when the industry is still full of drugs. why did you do that?” when the industry is still full of drugs. why did you do that? i had the opportunity to spend 13 weeks with team sky. almost like a military journalists go with team sky. almost like a militaryjournalists go with the soldiers in the war. you ate with them and you stayed with them but they were using them as a tool because they wanted to convince people they were the new clean team. i think it is right that they used to be that i believe that i think about 70 or 80 people are working in the team. i believe if you took four people out of that team and one of them is already gone that you would

have very clean team. i was to go into that team and there is no question i was duped. duped? duped. he was knighted. if he had told me at the time he invited me into the team, by the way, we gave a therapeutic exemption to bradley before the 2011 tour de france. we will have two hold up a little bit and explains of this for our audience because it is quite consecrated to the therapeutic exemption is important in the world of cyclist because substance is who are banned for riders can be given as long as there is proof for a medical need and now we are talking about bradley wiggins who won the tour de france in 2012 but it turns out and we didn't know at the time and you didn't know when you are embedded with team sky, but it turns out that in three of his most significant lifetime races, just before those races, he got those

therapeutic exemptions and he took a drug which could, in theory, have significantly enhanced his performance. yes. the thing about it is you can say oh, you were duped, you weren't told that he actually duped lots of people inside his own team. chris broome who finished second —— christopher. he had no idea that bradley wigan ‘s was given these. because he got the exemption, it was not illegal or contrary to the sport. i think it is more correct to say it may not have been illegal. if you get an exemption by exaggerating your symptoms, that is not legal. we do not know that. it may be that bradley wiggins was entitled. would it have been different if a bradley wiggins and the team had been transparent at the time? he took it

before the race because i had a problem. of course, that would have been much better but they would have drawn criticism. people would say, why did he needed four days before the race? they did not tell chris froome on any of the other riders, they did not tell some of the doctors. we touched this earlier in the conversation, the degree to which you as a journalist have the right without it the most powerful evidence to trash the careers of elite sports people. in the last six months, and very consciously trashed bradley wiggins. you said you do not wa nt to bradley wiggins. you said you do not want to hear any more about the tour de france victory because it has been devalued, that as far as you are concerned his reputation has

been lost and yet, i come back to the point, the man has done nothing wrong in terms of the rule of his sport. in terms of the rule of the sport, he certainly has not in sanction. i do not accept the point that it sanction. i do not accept the point thatitis sanction. i do not accept the point that it is not absolute that it not commita that it is not absolute that it not commit a doping in fraction. there is an investigation about a mysterious package that was delivered to him in 2011. sky have failed to say what was in that package. that could have been something it was not legal. if not why didn't they tell us what was in the package. it took them so long. the point is, you can say i trashing him but team sky leading writer, three—time win of the tour de france has said that in his view what happened with bradley wiggins was unethical and immoral. you are talking about chris froome. in a

way, this ethical and moral area is your decision to be so harsh on what we know about bradley wiggins but still to maintain that as far as you can on and your personal knowledge of the man that chris froome in your view is a man you will always vouch for. you completely believe in his credibility and you will not countenance any question of the legitimacy of his race victories. everybody has the right to question. that is what i do for a living... but you co—authored his book, hugh have shaken hands with the man, you have shaken hands with the man, you have said to him i believe in you. what would you like me to do? would you like me to say i believe in chris froome but it would be prudent to sit on the fence? that is not my nature. it is exactly what some of

the most experienced people in the business said you should have done. 0ne business said you should have done. one said you have been naive. why did you not stay neutral? why sa and out for the fact he is clean when at some future point you may look stupid it turns out that he was not. ido stupid it turns out that he was not. i do not see my reputation as being that relevant. if i believe somebody is clean i am going to lie and sit on the fans. you look to that person to say it. if i did not leave he was clea n to say it. if i did not leave he was clean i would say the opposite top for me the idea of sitting off the fenceis for me the idea of sitting off the fence is totally... i understand what you are saying but to pick away at chris froome stop he is the same clause during a race. he got an exemption to take a drug on the land

leased only say it was fundamentally different from bradley wiggins and you are different from bradley wiggins and you a re partly different from bradley wiggins and you are partly convinced by the chris froome because you had a very private one—on—one talk with him when he explained lots of things. what did he say to you that convinced you so much of his integrity? it was notjust convinced you so much of his integrity? it was not just that convinced you so much of his integrity? it was notjust that but that was a moment and by the way, i have never gone... let me put that conversation first into the complex. iina conversation first into the complex. i in a hotel booking up the fire escape and he is coming down. it is one of those staircases where nobody is going to come and he said to me, i want to tell you one thing, i am telling you now that as long as i live what i have achieved in this race, the perception of it, will never be changed by anything that comes out. lance armstrong would

have looked you in the eye and said exactly the same thing. he did not. i met lance and spoke to him and i said to him, what about doping, this sport has got so much bad press and he your winning the first tour de france, and he said, iwill address this question once and once only and i was saying, you have to fall in love with cycling again. he never actually said, i will never do, he saidi actually said, i will never do, he said i have tested positive and passed all the controls. if you are covering the sport and you see lots of this stuff you actually know how to read what people are saying and saying i have passed all the tests is not the same as saying i do not dope. i want to broaden the conversation because cycling has been one of your key focus is but

you are also look at wider sport and drugs and professional athletes, how can it be that after decades of focus on stamping out the illegal su bsta nces focus on stamping out the illegal substances in sport, performance enhancing drugs, that he had to date we probably can say there is more systematic use of performance enhancing drugs in athletics, sites links and other sports than ever before. i do not think you can say that. look at what we learnt about the russians? systematic doping in russia, the russian systematic doping has been going on for at least 40 years according to the report... you worked in the recent past with the former russian anti— doping executive who blew the whistle plus his partner who did dope for a while, you have worked with them and they have told you

that it was on an industrial scale? but going back for decades. in the very recent past, industrial scale. the world anti— doping agency, the rate double a f, —— iaaf, have spent yea rs rate double a f, —— iaaf, have spent years telling us they act cleaning it out. the reason why russia were able to get away with it was that it was state supported. if you have the ministry of sport, the antique doping agency all conspiring to cheat, that gives the advantages... men who claimed to be on the side of the good guys like sebastian coe, andindeed the good guys like sebastian coe, and indeed the world anti— doping agency, you are saying they do not have the will capacity to take on state programmes devoted to doping?

yes... and they definitely did not have the resources... do they have the will? i not sure. if they were better resourced that would have eager staff they probably would have better people and better protocols but the format director—general david holman once said, our annual budget is less than an annual wage. the entire agency budget for one year is less than one footballer, not even the highest, then his annual wages. that is what we think of doping. in other words, we are not concerned enough about doping to make a real impact. we are almost at the end, i want to start at the beginning again, about being a fan. 0ne beginning again, about being a fan. one person said when i watch cycling isimply one person said when i watch cycling

i simply cannot bear to watch it any more, i cannot take it seriously, you certainly cannot be a fan. how can you still be a fan knowing what you know? that is my definition of cynicism. he called on realism. he can andi cynicism. he called on realism. he can and i call that cynicism stop what happens if somebody who is clea n what happens if somebody who is clean wins the tour de france and you brand him a cheap without having any evidence, knowledge or inside or anything — that to me is that cynicism stop i would fight against cynicism stop i would fight against cynicism as i would against people who dope. david walsh, fascinating stuff, thank you for being on hardtalk. thank you.

hello there, good morning. 12 or 13 degrees quite widely on sunday. the north—east of scotland reached 14 degrees, air has come in from the middle of the atlantic and will continue to do so although we will see temperatures drop away from the north as we get to the latter part of the week. a lot of cloud out there. 0vernight tonight it will spill its way in from the west. some of the cloud will be quite low across western areas and there will be at least some rain to be had in the far north and west first thing in the morning. it will be a mild night. nine or 10 degrees, fairly typical for most major towns and cities. those sort of temperatures we should see in the daytime at this time of year. a grey start for many. the weather front is not particularly intense in terms of rainfall but there is wetter weather to be had and windy

conditions in the far north—west. in the far south—west there will be low cloud, hill fog quite extensive and coastal fog as well but it is a mild start to the day. dry for the most part, the odd spot of drizzle under this low cloud out west. not so much cloud for east anglia and lincolnshire but down towards the south—east around the coast it is a grey but mild start to the day. few breaks in the cloud for the north—east of england but most places are starting off rather grey. not much rain until you get to get to the north—west of northern ireland and the west of scotland as well. cloudy and breezy as well. some parts of eastern scotland getting away with a dry start to the day but it will be a blustery start on the eastern side of scotland and the north—east of england for a time through the morning. winds gusting to around 50 miles an hour, bear that in mind if you are travelling up and down the pennines, for example. into the afternoon we will see some reasonable temperatures in the south—east given a few cloud breaks. up to 16 degrees, may be higher in a couple of places, not quite as warm as it was on sunday in scotland.

into the evening, showers in the north of scotland in the area of rain affecting some parts of wales in southern england. in between it is largely dry and not overly chilly but we are into single figures. dawn on tuesday, there may even be a touch of frost in northern scotland. not so further south, another mild night, nine or ten degrees. another grey start to the day on tuesday for wales and southern counties of england. low cloud and patchy rain through the morning. wetter weather getting into western scotland and northern ireland through the afternoon. temperatures through the afternoon will be well into double figures for many of us. through wednesday and thursday temperatures just dropping back into single figures across the northern parts of the uk. still hanging on to double figures further south with a fair bit of cloud and rain at times. still less mild by the end of this week. some places doing quite well but still quite windy later this week. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is lebo diseko. our top stories:

iraqi government forces advance on the western half of the city of mosul — we have a report from the front line. they're now above the village, which is their main target. they're laying down fire, and they're about to call in some artillery strikes. sweden requests an explanation after president trump apparently invents an immigration—related security incident there. a bomb explosion outside a bullfighting ring in colombia — were animal rights activists to blame? and angelina jolie speaks to us exclusively about her new film — and her hopes it will help a new generation understand cambodia's genocide. this war that happened 40 years ago, and what happened to these people, was not properly understood. and notjust for the world, but for the people of the country.