Saddest thing about Lance Armstrong

seanorawe

The thing that really upsets me about all this LA controversy is he has damaged and brought shame to the true underdog sport..... Dodgeball.

ddraver

I did smirk!

lakesluddite

All that rubber going to landfill as millions throw away yellow wristbands.

ben@31

Do they test for EPO in dodgeball competitions?

alihisgreat

ben@31 wrote:

Do they test for EPO in dodgeball competitions?

no:

Akirasho

... if it helps anyone to cope, just remember that he's an American from Texas and that's how we roll...

navrig

Thye saddest things are:

1. He probably got paid a lot of money to appear on Oprah. He doesn't deserve this.

2. He has a (not so) hidden agenda and this is just the start of his next round of manipulations and bullying, well at least in my opinion.

It ain't dead yet.

danlikesbikes

Navrig wrote:

Thye saddest things are:

1. He probably got paid a lot of money to appear on Oprah. He doesn't deserve this.

Oprah people stated that he was paid $0 to appear on their show.

alihisgreat

Navrig wrote:

Thye saddest things are:

1. He probably got paid a lot of money to appear on Oprah. He doesn't deserve this.

2. He has a (not so) hidden agenda and this is just the start of his next round of manipulations and bullying, well at least in my opinion.

It ain't dead yet.

the funny thing is that he mentioned 'controlling the narrative' as part of his process to discredit his critics and not be found out...

.. on Oprah he was doing just that.. 'controlling the narrative' again :roll: there's a good article slagging him off for it on espn somewhere.

vinnymarsden

What I don't get is the guy is "trying" in his own way to open up....albeit I accept in a limited way..and yes I would agree he wants control of how it happens, but remember he probably stands to lose a lot more than he can potentially ever hope to regain if the rumble becomes an uncontrollable avalanche.
I think Oprah did okay...she is NOT an investigative journo...anyone expecting that level of scrutiny or that LA would allow that level of scrutiny is missing the point...it was the start of a process for not only him, but maybe for the entire cycling community, like the UCI to be washed clean from the top down, and if it takes some back scratching to get the "BIG CHEESE" to open up, then really, I for one would be happy to rub his tummy and facilitate him spilling the beans on the whole lot of them, because you're not telling me the UCI and its hierarchy did NOT KNOW what was going on in this era?
Of course they did, but they had a king atop the castle and they were enjoying the accolades he was bringing them, now the crows are coming home to roost, and if they need to be led by LA then so be it, I for one wont lose any sleep if the entire house of cards that is the UCI is brought down and replaced by a new, transparent World Cycling Union or something similar, because the UCI in it's current form has lost it's credibility, it's honour and it is no longer fit for purpose.
Just my 2 pennorth!!!

Manc33

Seriously I am not trolling here but no one else beat him and well... are we really going to assume no one else in the top 10 or 20 or whatever, for those 7 years, were doping? Its well known those were the main doping years. I am not defending him, HE IS A TOTAL CHEAT, but I am just pointing out that he was the best. Why? Because everyone else that came anywhere near him must have been doping to even get anywhere near this guy, he was that good.

Maybe they should just have two Tours... one in summer for the clean cyclists and one in winter for the dopers.

Crispyapp

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Navrig wrote:

Thye saddest things are:

1. He probably got paid a lot of money to appear on Oprah. He doesn't deserve this.

Oprah people stated that he was paid $0 to appear on their show.

I honestly believe he hasn't been paid a dollar to do the interview. Why would Oprah show lie about that....? Wouldn't make any sense at all. I actually think the only reason he's come fwd now and confessed is in the hope the uci will now overturn his life time ban to compete at elite level...

bornagaincycler

Both Armstrong & the UCI should be banned for life..!!

Monty Dog

Manc33 wrote:

but I am just pointing out that he was the best. Why? Because everyone else that came anywhere near him must have been doping to even get anywhere near this guy

Dunno if you're for real, but you're one stop from being a doping apologist because that's the argument fanboys insist that somehow justifies his doping. Where your argument crashes is the point that not everyone responds to drugs the same - because Armstrong was not as naturally gifted as others, the drugs gave him a 9-10% performance boost whereas for others in would be a lot, lot less. You're also ignoring the fact that he had exclusive access to treatments from Ferrari because he could afford them.

Manc33

Monty Dog wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

but I am just pointing out that he was the best. Why? Because everyone else that came anywhere near him must have been doping to even get anywhere near this guy

Dunno if you're for real, but you're one stop from being a doping apologist because that's the argument fanboys insist that somehow justifies his doping. Where your argument crashes is the point that not everyone responds to drugs the same - because Armstrong was not as naturally gifted as others, the drugs gave him a 9-10% performance boost whereas for others in would be a lot, lot less. You're also ignoring the fact that he had exclusive access to treatments from Ferrari because he could afford them.

One stop maybe but I am not there. :P

The fact that he doped means he cheated and of course he should have his titles removed, I agree with that, beyond the doping itself - he broke the rules in order to win. Thats the sickening part, breaking the rules in order to win, however its done. Strapping a secret motor to the bike would be just the same level of cheating, it is a disgrace because it is cheating, not necessarily because it is doping, or how they cheat.

With that in mind though I still regard him as "the best" because he was the doper that won all the time. Others had dope and could not beat him. This lends some credibility to the fact that he was unbeatable - dope or no dope.

Saying others doped and didn't beat him is NOT excusing doping.

We might as well argue all day long about how bodybuilders get the way they are and all claim to be natural, like with the Tour, we all know they are on something. Sorry but it is part of the sport, I hate it, you hate it, we all hate the doping but it is too prevalent.

has anyone ever suggested to just allow doping? After all it would solve everything, apart from the "image" of cycling would be trashed, but why are we all pretending like that anyway? I guess its the kids that suffer most, what they thought was a hero is a nothing, a nobody now.

wiwaxy

is that he failed to ask Oprah when was the last time she had to cycle up a mountain!

TakeTurns

I still don't believe he doped.

Manc33

wiwaxy wrote:

is that he failed to ask Oprah when was the last time she had to cycle up a mountain!

LOL.

No one "has to". Lance never had to... he probably knew he could win, is all.

I saw a video once of an overweight old woman riding a mountain bike up a mountain in the lowest gear doing about 3 MPH. What was that video... it was about a fit female cyclist training up the mountain, she zoomed past the old lady like she was standing still.

Now I am thinking about fit girls in those all in one jumpsuit lycra costumes. :oops:

lemon63

Monty Dog wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

but I am just pointing out that he was the best. Why? Because everyone else that came anywhere near him must have been doping to even get anywhere near this guy

Dunno if you're for real, but you're one stop from being a doping apologist because that's the argument fanboys insist that somehow justifies his doping. Where your argument crashes is the point that not everyone responds to drugs the same - because Armstrong was not as naturally gifted as others, the drugs gave him a 9-10% performance boost whereas for others in would be a lot, lot less. You're also ignoring the fact that he had exclusive access to treatments from Ferrari because he could afford them.

What Monty said ^ - also with every Tour he won the richer, more influential he got - which in turn meant he (and his team) had access to the best docs, the best PEDs and control over the peloton. He has said that he knew he was going to win even before the Tour started.
It's pretty amazing that he never crashed out on any of his 7 wins, not sure how he would have coped with that.

Manc33

Now you mention the influence and the snowball effect of his success, yes it is more annoying to me now I think into it a bit more. Then again this was just a guy that rode a bike. Is it worth getting this worked up about, I mean there are war criminals in the world no one bats an eyelid to, half of them are called allies.

It will all pass I guess.

Who is the greatest now then Eddy Merckx? :twisted:

gavintc

Manc33 wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

has anyone ever suggested to just allow doping? After all it would solve everything, apart from the "image" of cycling would be trashed, but why are we all pretending like that anyway?

I spent a couple of years in Italy and for my first year, I raced in a few races. Note; I was a 53 yr old amateur. It became quickly apparent that you needed EPO to win at amateur level and it was available if you asked for it. Indeed, as I found out, my club provided it. I left the club shortly after. The rot which doping brings quickly cascades down the racing scene to the pure amateur level.

Thankfully, to my knowledge, it was not apparent in the Cat 4 racing scene in UK.

Personally, I want nothing to do with a racing circuit that encourages the 18 year old aspiring athlete to dope to beat his chums. Sick - completely. You cannot put a nice little medical ring around the top end of the professional racing scene and ignore the aspiring, up and coming athlete.

nunowoolmez

If he hadn't of been backed into a corner by USADA & his old peloton chums then he would still be getting away with it. This interview is just a continuation of the Lance show. Even in disgrace he is still finding ways to manipulate & control. I wish he could of just made a statement which said "I cheated, but i don't give a t*ss" & then just disappear. He does not deserve any more publicity, but i do get that it is a good story & has most people, non cyclists included, interested. I just don't get how people were sucked into his lie for so long. Come on, 7 tours in a row? Better late than never, now we have Cav, Froomey & Brad as the clean face of cycling which is who the kids will be looking up to from here on in. Long may it continue & may the memory of Lance be banished for good. Cancer or no cancer, he showed himself for what he is, a cheat & manipulative nasty peice of work. The man is a sham.

Manc33

If all his titles are removed, are we to assume the 7 tour winners from those years will be all the 2nd placed guys?

Or, are they going to start investigating all those cyclists now as well to make sure its not the 3rd placed guy? Or 4th, 5th... 50th... 60th. I don't know how many are doping out of say 200 riders but I guess well over half? Too many variables to know.

confused@BR

This is simple Trolling. You claim to have an opinion about professional cycle racing but don't know about the U C I decision on the 7 Tours????????

LankyDJ

Is that he wasn't interviewed by Paxman.

bahzob

LankyDJ wrote:

Is that he wasn't interviewed by Paxman.

Excellent,spot on.

navrig

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Oprah people stated that he was paid $0 to appear on their show.

I didn't hear that.

ben@31

Manc33 wrote:

If all his titles are removed, are we to assume the 7 tour winners from those years will be all the 2nd placed guys?

Or, are they going to start investigating all those cyclists now as well to make sure its not the 3rd placed guy? Or 4th, 5th... 50th... 60th. I don't know how many are doping out of say 200 riders but I guess well over half? Too many variables to know.

To answer your question. For them 7 tours there is officially no winner and Lance has every result post 1999 removed from record, null and void.

ben@31

Even if Lance did get paid to appear on Oprah. I imagine he won't be keeping any money for that long now he has to pay out to so many people. From the Sunday times to Floyd Landis to paying back race winning fees.

meesterbond

Manc33 wrote:

Who is the greatest now then Eddy Merckx? :twisted:

Eddy was always the best. Even with his 7 tours, Armstrong wasn't in the top 5 Grand Tour riders. Take into consideration the classics and he drops even further.

Cycling didn't start in 1999 and there's rather more to it than the TdF.

smoggysteve

I just think that of all the doping he has been found guilty of, there are the doctors, trainers, suppliers, team staff - riders and backroom, and anyone else who knew about it, who will get away with it even though they are just as guilty for damaging the sport.