Cheatin' Lyin' Dopestrong on BBC World Service

John Clark1

Have only heard parts of it so far (haven't had time to tune in & chill out to it) but why oh why oh why oh why can't he just naff off and leave us alone?

daviesee

Will be book's to sell.

John Clark1

Books. No apostrophe.

izza

He didn't say anything of note.

The two most interesting points I thought were:

1) The truth is less juicy than most people think when it comes to Hein and Pat. If anything that would hurt book sales not help.

2) He hasn't found it cathartic as a process. He still sees his hunting by USADA/Tygart, etc. as not a good process and knows his credibility is poor. Well, if you have no appreciation for the ability to tell the truth then your credibility will never be improved.

Financially, if he loses every law suit going then he can be viewed as someone who was 'lent' an enormous amount of money. He invested well and when giving it back has much more wealth than the loan and interest accumulated. As such, he has enough to be independently wealthy. Not a bad business proposition - who wants to give me $120m to try the same ploy?

GiantMike

John Clark1 wrote:

Books. No apostrophe.

I'm lovin' your work. Ask a question then pedantically humiliate the responder to death.

I think you should have started your post with 'I' to conform to the correct use of English.

And my apostrophe is correct, by the way.

Mikey23

That was part of the evidence against him, right at the very bottom of page 165.. Crap use of apostrophe

daviesee

GiantMike wrote:

John Clark1 wrote:

Books. No apostrophe.

I'm lovin' your work. Ask a question then pedantically humiliate the responder to death.

I think you should have started your post with 'I' to conform to the correct use of English.

And my apostrophe is correct, by the way.

So it would have been - "ibooks. No apostrophe."?
Still not very good grammer and Apple may have something to say on the matter.

GiantMike

No, I meant your first post:

John Clark1 wrote:

I have only heard parts of it so.....

navrig

izza wrote:

Financially, if he loses every law suit going then he can be viewed as someone who was 'lent' an enormous amount of money. He invested well and when giving it back has much more wealth than the loan and interest accumulated. As such, he has enough to be independently wealthy. Not a bad business proposition - who wants to give me $120m to try the same ploy?

Even taking into account legal costs?

This is one instance where I would be happy to see the lawyers making a buck but if he still ends up independently wealthy then something is wrong, or even more wrong.

John Clark1

GiantMike wrote:

John Clark1 wrote:

Books. No apostrophe.

I'm lovin' your work. Ask a question then pedantically humiliate the responder to death.

I think you should have started your post with 'I' to conform to the correct use of English.

And my apostrophe is correct, by the way.

Eh?

Ernest

RDW

Today in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/n ... doping-uci

"It's been tough," he said. "It's been real tough. I've paid a high price in terms of my standing within the sport, my reputation, certainly financially because the lawsuits have continued to pile up...I have experienced massive personal loss, massive loss of wealth while others have truly capitalised on this story."

daviesee

RDW wrote:

Today in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/n ... doping-uci

"It's been tough," he said. "It's been real tough. I've paid a high price in terms of my standing within the sport, my reputation, certainly financially because the lawsuits have continued to pile up...I have experienced massive personal loss, massive loss of wealth while others have truly capitalised on this story."

Awwww.
Didumms.

Reminds me of the phrase - Be nice to people on the way up because you might meet them on the way down.

John Clark1

Reminds me of the phrase: don't be a cheatin' lyin' bullyin' douchebag because people will hate you.


Ernest

pinno

Indemnity: I do not conform and I am too stupid to conform to the correct use of English.

If a doctor was to say to you "You will never race again because you have had chemotherapy". I had that. I would have taken something to try to get back tot he level I was - not much of a level I may add. I would not have hesitated but I was not to know then that I had an awful lot more treatment and was in my early thirties before there was light at the end of the tunnel. Lance had won the World's in Norway, he was an improving cyclist and then got hit with the whammy.

I am not justifying his actions. It is fine to lambast Lance but aren't we/haven't we blown the opportunity to blow the lid of the whole network that existed to support the doping? That is where the fingers must point too.
My hero's of the past from Moser to Museeuw were all possibly taking something. God knows where you have to go back to before you had 'clean' cycling. Tom Simpson died as a direct result of some form of doping. No body said "Oh yes, Tom Simpson - the guy who died because of drugs". Everybody sais "Oh yes, Tom Simpson - the guy who died on Mont Ventoux".

In this modern world where the demands on a sportstar from sponsorship to over-expectation put enormous pressure on individuals it is any wonder some 'cheat'? Coupled to that, the over adulation of joe public.
Lance had the 'will he come back from cancer?' media hype. It went to his head, he cheated. He isn't the first and he won't be the last.

John Clark1

pinarello001 wrote:

Indemnity: I do not conform and I am too stupid to conform to the correct use of English.

If a doctor was to say to you "You will never race again because you have had chemotherapy". I had that. I would have taken something to try to get back tot he level I was - not much of a level I may add. I would not have hesitated but I was not to know then that I had an awful lot more treatment and was in my early thirties before there was light at the end of the tunnel. Lance had won the World's in Norway, he was an improving cyclist and then got hit with the whammy.

I am not justifying his actions. It is fine to lambast Lance but aren't we/haven't we blown the opportunity to blow the lid of the whole network that existed to support the doping? That is where the fingers must point too.
My hero's of the past from Moser to Museeuw were all possibly taking something. God knows where you have to go back to before you had 'clean' cycling. Tom Simpson died as a direct result of some form of doping. No body said "Oh yes, Tom Simpson - the guy who died because of drugs". Everybody sais "Oh yes, Tom Simpson - the guy who died on Mont Ventoux".

In this modern world where the demands on a sportstar from sponsorship to over-expectation put enormous pressure on individuals it is any wonder some 'cheat'? Coupled to that, the over adulation of joe public.
Lance had the 'will he come back from cancer?' media hype. It went to his head, he cheated. He isn't the first and he won't be the last.

This.

John Clark1

Dopestrong is still a douchebag though.

random man

pinarello001 wrote:

Indemnity: I do not conform and I am too stupid to conform to the correct use of English.

If a doctor was to say to you "You will never race again because you have had chemotherapy". I had that. I would have taken something to try to get back tot he level I was - not much of a level I may add. I would not have hesitated but I was not to know then that I had an awful lot more treatment and was in my early thirties before there was light at the end of the tunnel. Lance had won the World's in Norway, he was an improving cyclist and then got hit with the whammy.

In this modern world where the demands on a sportstar from sponsorship to over-expectation put enormous pressure on individuals it is any wonder some 'cheat'? Coupled to that, the over adulation of joe public.
Lance had the 'will he come back from cancer?' media hype. It went to his head, he cheated. He isn't the first and he won't be the last.

Unfortunately, he was doping before he was diagnosed with cancer. I know this is going over old ground but he started doping so that he could compete with the Europeans who were doping.
He didn't have to, that's the point.

daviesee

pinarello001 wrote:

Indemnity: I do not conform and I am too stupid to conform to the correct use of English.

If a doctor was to say to you "You will never race again because you have had chemotherapy". I had that. I would have taken something to try to get back tot he level I was - not much of a level I may add. I would not have hesitated but I was not to know then that I had an awful lot more treatment and was in my early thirties before there was light at the end of the tunnel. Lance had won the World's in Norway, he was an improving cyclist and then got hit with the whammy.

I am not justifying his actions. It is fine to lambast Lance but aren't we/haven't we blown the opportunity to blow the lid of the whole network that existed to support the doping? That is where the fingers must point too.
My hero's of the past from Moser to Museeuw were all possibly taking something. God knows where you have to go back to before you had 'clean' cycling. Tom Simpson died as a direct result of some form of doping. No body said "Oh yes, Tom Simpson - the guy who died because of drugs". Everybody sais "Oh yes, Tom Simpson - the guy who died on Mont Ventoux".

In this modern world where the demands on a sportstar from sponsorship to over-expectation put enormous pressure on individuals it is any wonder some 'cheat'? Coupled to that, the over adulation of joe public.
Lance had the 'will he come back from cancer?' media hype. It went to his head, he cheated. He isn't the first and he won't be the last.

My problem isnt the drug use. You can go as far back as you want and wont find a clean era.
My problem is the extent too which he went to destroy those who tried too out him.

mm1

he started doping so that he could compete with the Europeans who were doping.
[/quote] Really? So his "coach" (the 'Merican one, not Ferarri) never injected him with 'roids (allegedly transmitting a herpatic virus, which may be linked with his cancer). I'd be surprised if he wasn't already on the gear as a hot shot junior triantelope.

random man

mm1 wrote:

he started doping so that he could compete with the Europeans who were doping.

Really? So his "coach" (the 'Merican one, not Ferarri) never injected him with 'roids (allegedly transmitting a herpatic virus, which may be linked with his cancer). I'd be surprised if he wasn't already on the gear as a hot shot junior triantelope.[/quote]

You could well be right, there's a book called Wheelmen which tells the story of how US Postal owner Thom Weisman controlled US cycling and gave Armstrong the freedom to 'achieve' his wins. It looks a good read.

Mikey23

... I don't think Armstrong doped

daviesee

Mikey23 wrote:

... I don't think Armstrong doped

This isnt the bullshit thread.

Mikey23

Oops, sorry

daviesee

Mikey23 wrote:

Oops, sorry

crumbschief

Livestrong and prosper.

pinno

Jim453.2 wrote:

Really good thread.

Is that sarcasm?

navrig

For me it isn't just the doping, it's his overall behaviour in relation to denying it, destroying, threatening and generally bullying others into not challenging him, his control of the media, his (alleged) overt influence on the cycling authorities, his arrogant attitude and the money he made from the sport.

Anyone of them on their own and most people would just say, he's a cheat, or he's a nasty piece of work, or he's an arrogant twat, or he's a control freak, or he doesn't deserve the accolade BUT in combination he just comes across as a real sleazeball who does not deserve the money nor the media attention. If they stop reporting on him and let the courts crucify him he will gradually fade into history.

secretsam

Navrig wrote:

For me it isn't just the doping, it's his overall behaviour in relation to denying it, destroying, threatening and generally bullying others into not challenging him, his control of the media, his (alleged) overt influence on the cycling authorities, his arrogant attitude and the money he made from the sport.

Anyone of them on their own and most people would just say, he's a cheat, or he's a nasty piece of work, or he's an arrogant fool, or he's a control freak, or he doesn't deserve the accolade BUT in combination he just comes across as a real sleazeball who does not deserve the money nor the media attention. If they stop reporting on him and let the courts crucify him he will gradually fade into history.

^This. Let's hope the crucifixion is soon. Slow. Merciless.

brianonyx

GiantMike wrote:

John Clark1 wrote:

Books. No apostrophe.

I'm lovin' your work. Ask a question then pedantically humiliate the responder to death.

I think you should have started your post with 'I' to conform to the correct use of English.

And my apostrophe is correct, by the way.

I've only just seen this thread around the correct use of English.

Sentences shouldn't really be started with a conjunction. Your apostrophe wasn't correct.

daviesee

brianonyx wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

John Clark1 wrote:

Books. No apostrophe.

I'm lovin' your work. Ask a question then pedantically humiliate the responder to death.

I think you should have started your post with 'I' to conform to the correct use of English.

And my apostrophe is correct, by the way.

I've only just seen this thread around the correct use of English.

Sentences shouldn't really be started with a conjunction. Your apostrophe wasn't correct.

Can sentence's be falsely started with a conjunction?
The apostrophe looked correct to me. It may have been used incorrectly, but it looked to be correct.