Lance Armstrong Lie

ugo.santalucia

Old_Timer wrote:

Yes, Ugo, I know the cases you referred me to, I agree with you, and I am probably an idealist, as you said. Its just Armstrong's attitude and his actions now that make me angry. Cycling has a long and pretty well documented history of doping, PEDS, alcohol and other things like this, I'd never deny it, LA just infuriates me too easily.

I wouldn't put any of the past "heroes" on a pedestal, maybe my statement you quoted was too much, it was in my rant phase, which is usually a mistaken way to post. Someone like yourself will always point out my error, anyway, so others see how much I need to improve myself (a whole lot. ) I will admit errors and not try and cover them over, though.

Thanks for your references on the history, they were educational for me, much appreciated.And, I am pretty knowledgeable about cycle racing history, not as much as you by any means, but I'm not ignorant, either :roll: . As you said, its not too late, hopefully

The thing is you confuse the athlete with the man: you are enraged with the man, not the athlete. The athlete did what all the others did, probably did it better, I can't blame him for doping better than others.
The man was very outspoken and a bully, others like his rivals Basso and Ullrich were timid and preferred to live a more modest life. Basically he was a cyclist with a rockstar entourage. People loved him and made a god of him... any of it is his fault? Can you blame him for being the man he is?
I would blame the bunch of idiots who idolised him... I never liked him as an athlete, as an Italian i was all for Pantani and then Basso. I never supported Armstrong, but I like him now, not because of the revelations, but because he is a hell of a fighter and the last word has not been said yet. I have the feeling something good will come out of this scandal and he will end up sitting on the laurels again... wait and see...

dennisn

seanoconn wrote:

How have Armstrong, Bruyneel and the other players escaped prison for such a massive fraud and the damage they caused to innocent people who stood in their way?

YOU may want to see them with their heads on a pike but your opinion doesn't count for squat.
You don't matter.

seanoconn

dennisn wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

How have Armstrong, Bruyneel and the other players escaped prison for such a massive fraud and the damage they caused to innocent people who stood in their way?

YOU may want to see them with their heads on a pike but your opinion doesn't count for squat.
You don't matter.

True I don't

dennisn, as a US citizen, how is Armstrong viewed by the American public now?

arran77

seanoconn wrote:

dennisn wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

How have Armstrong, Bruyneel and the other players escaped prison for such a massive fraud and the damage they caused to innocent people who stood in their way?

YOU may want to see them with their heads on a pike but your opinion doesn't count for squat.
You don't matter.

True I don't

dennisn, as a US citizen, how is Armstrong viewed by the American public now?

Old_Timer

seanoconn wrote:

Old timer, as a US citizen, how is Arnstrong viewed by the American public now?

Sean, its strange here, most cyclist dislike him, but for duping them with his schtick. As Ugo, said, his athletic accomplishments are substantial. For the non-cyclist he pretty much is a late night talk show punch line, something to laugh about from the recent past. Most don't even think about him, unless asked and then its moral outrage, followed by the standard line about him being great for cancer victims. My mom is a 3 time cancer survivor and nothing he or Livestrong ever mad a whit of difference to us.

A large group still feels he is a whipping boy and being framed, really different take from the majority, though. As Ugo points out, I am angry at the man and confusing things, That may well pass, time will tell. I am willing to read and to listen about anything. "Its not too Late..." said a wise man once before.

Edit, I'll stay back and just read, thanks for putting up with a daft old yank, everyone. Nice thread and food for thought.

Ouija

Old_Timer wrote:

I want to find a way to watch the program this thread started on.

The BBC4 Storyville doc can be seen here. Not sure if you'll need to use a proxy if your viewing from outside the UK...

The one they showed on Channel 4 was just "The Armstrong Lie" docu/film that was shown in the cinema a few months back.

seanoconn

Old_Timer wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

Old timer, as a US citizen, how is Arnstrong viewed by the American public now?

Sean, its strange here, most cyclist dislike him, but for duping them with his schtick. As Ugo, said, his athletic accomplishments are substantial. For the non-cyclist he pretty much is a late night talk show punch line, something to laugh about from the recent past. Most don't even think about him, unless asked and then its moral outrage, followed by the standard line about him being great for cancer victims. My mom is a 3 time cancer survivor and nothing he or Livestrong ever mad a whit of difference to us.

A large group still feels he is a whipping boy and being framed, really different take from the majority, though. As Ugo points out, I am angry at the man and confusing things, That may well pass, time will tell. I am willing to read and to listen about anything. "Its not too Late..." said a wise man once before.

Thanks for your reply and I enjoyed reading your posts on this thread.

seanoconn

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Old_Timer wrote:

Yes, Ugo, I know the cases you referred me to, I agree with you, and I am probably an idealist, as you said. Its just Armstrong's attitude and his actions now that make me angry. Cycling has a long and pretty well documented history of doping, PEDS, alcohol and other things like this, I'd never deny it, LA just infuriates me too easily.

I wouldn't put any of the past "heroes" on a pedestal, maybe my statement you quoted was too much, it was in my rant phase, which is usually a mistaken way to post. Someone like yourself will always point out my error, anyway, so others see how much I need to improve myself (a whole lot. ) I will admit errors and not try and cover them over, though.

Thanks for your references on the history, they were educational for me, much appreciated.And, I am pretty knowledgeable about cycle racing history, not as much as you by any means, but I'm not ignorant, either :roll: . As you said, its not too late, hopefully

The thing is you confuse the athlete with the man: you are enraged with the man, not the athlete. The athlete did what all the others did, probably did it better, I can't blame him for doping better than others.
The man was very outspoken and a bully, others like his rivals Basso and Ullrich were timid and preferred to live a more modest life. Basically he was a cyclist with a rockstar entourage. People loved him and made a god of him... any of it is his fault? Can you blame him for being the man he is?
I would blame the bunch of idiots who idolised him... I never liked him as an athlete, as an Italian i was all for Pantani and then Basso. I never supported Armstrong, but I like him now, not because of the revelations, but because he is a hell of a fighter and the last word has not been said yet. I have the feeling something good will come out of this scandal and he will end up sitting on the laurels again... wait and see...

I too am enraged by the man rather than the athlete (enraged is a bit strong as I'm not that bothered)

Armstrong is a hell of a fighter? Would you want him on your side if you went into battle? Armstrong would shoot you in the back and hide behind your corpse till the fighting was done only to be rewarded with a medal for his made up strory of valour. The man is reptilian, he doesn't deserve anyone's respect.

timestar

To an extent Armstrong - being so high profile - in my opinion has been used by the sport as a scapegoat to try and send a message to the world, i.e. look we are cleaning up as we got Lance Armstrong, almost as if catching LA puts a full stop on the drug problem in cycling. But, it's not just LA. There is no way he could have cheated for so long without people in positions of power within the sport covering up and even helping LA to cheat. It is only thanks to people like David Walsh and Paul Kimmage hammering away with their concerns - and a small handful of riders who blew the whistle - that eventually he was caught. Other sports where high profile people have been caught also have/had the same problem. It's very simple really - it is now possible in a lot of sports for a star performer to make a lot of money so there will perhaps always be someone willing to win at at all costs.

dennisn

seanoconn wrote:

dennisn wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

How have Armstrong, Bruyneel and the other players escaped prison for such a massive fraud and the damage they caused to innocent people who stood in their way?

YOU may want to see them with their heads on a pike but your opinion doesn't count for squat.
You don't matter.

True I don't

dennisn, as a US citizen, how is Armstrong viewed by the American public now?

FWIW I very rarely hear people talking about him. I'm around cyclists a lot and hardly ever hear his name mentioned. My opinion? I'm thinking that most people never cared about LA and "the scandal". I'm betting most are sort of like me in that "lifes to short for Lance to worry me".

il sole

Unfortunately, I missed the BBC4 docu on sunday night, so will watch on iplayer, but did watch the armstrong lie last night on channel four - surprisingly with my wife! She normally doesn't pass much attention to cycling other than to moan at how long I go out for! She was utterly transfixed by the film, by him and by the whole 'LA show'... Of course not caring one jot about sport, she looked at it from a different perspective and picked up on 3 things - 1 - he is an angry man with severe issues - probably related to not having had a father figure, 2- if he had survived cancer with pioneering surgery/chemo/drug use, then he probably became detached from his body and would have been unconcerned about pumping it full of chemicals, or going through blood doping / transfusions and 3 - he was astute enough to realise the power of using his cancer to manipulate people for his personal gain.

Is it too much to ask that current top cyclists are clean? Am I being naive at wanting this, or believing in this? Where do you draw the line at what is fair/unfair, clean/unclean???

chris_bass

il sole wrote:

Unfortunately, I missed the BBC4 docu on sunday night, so will watch on iplayer, but did watch the armstrong lie last night on channel four - surprisingly with my wife! She normally doesn't pass much attention to cycling other than to moan at how long I go out for! She was utterly transfixed by the film, by him and by the whole 'LA show'... Of course not caring one jot about sport, she looked at it from a different perspective and picked up on 3 things - 1 - he is an angry man with severe issues - probably related to not having had a father figure, 2- if he had survived cancer with pioneering surgery/chemo/drug use, then he probably became detached from his body and would have been unconcerned about pumping it full of chemicals, or going through blood doping / transfusions and 3 - he was astute enough to realise the power of using his cancer to manipulate people for his personal gain.

Is it too much to ask that current top cyclists are clean? Am I being naive at wanting this, or believing in this? Where do you draw the line at what is fair/unfair, clean/unclean???

I agree, but i wouldnt have put it so well, i tend to just say he is one of life's b3llends, but in fairness to him, its not like he just doped and then won, he still had to train and go out there and ride, i'm not saying that makes it right but he was driven to win and did whatever it took. There was one bit were he was saying how he didnt have any money and he needed to keep winning to give money to his mum (it was before he got famous) and i think that might have initially led him to do pretty much anything to win.

I too would like to think that the modern day athletes (not just cycling) are not doping, i think the drug testing is a lot better these days, Andy Murray even had to give a urine sample when he was getting his MBE (or OBE I dont know what the difference is)

dennisn

il sole wrote:

Is it too much to ask that current top cyclists are clean? Am I being naive at wanting this, or believing in this?

Hate to say it you're being very, very, very, naive. Where did you ever get the idea that sports(any sports or games) were all clean, warm, and fuzzy? Always someone looking for some edge, legal or not. Kids cheat(or at least try) at games when they are old enough to know how.
And you expect this to change when they get older??? :roll:

Bozman

Cycling is probably one of the cleaner sports now, I'd like to see them pull Tennis apart next or anything that Spain has excelled in over the past 20 years.

ugo.santalucia

il sole wrote:

1 - he is an angry man with severe issues - probably related to not having had a father figure, 2- if he had survived cancer with pioneering surgery/chemo/drug use, then he probably became detached from his body and would have been unconcerned about pumping it full of chemicals, or going through blood doping / transfusions and 3 - he was astute enough to realise the power of using his cancer to manipulate people for his personal gain.

Spot on

Monty Dog

Ugo, you're off-beam on Lemond - Armstrong allegedly put $300k out-there for 'dirt' on Lemond - none was forthcoming, the 'evidence' is purely a figment of people's imagination.

As for Livestrong, only a fraction of donations went to support research and cancer victims - the majority was spent on administration (e.g. jet fuel and lawyer's bills) and 'programs' which were primarily involved in 'cancer awareness' like no-one had heard of cancer before 1999?

sloppyschleckonds

Bozman wrote:

I'd like to see them pull Tennis apart next or anything that Spain has excelled in over the past 20 years.

Gotta agree

ugo.santalucia

Monty Dog wrote:

As for Livestrong, only a fraction of donations went to support research and cancer victims - the majority was spent on administration (e.g. jet fuel and lawyer's bills) and 'programs' which were primarily involved in 'cancer awareness' like no-one had heard of cancer before 1999?

Sadly that's not uncommon among charities... up to 90% of the revenue is spent in running the machine

itboffin

ugo.santalucia wrote:

cougie wrote:

I always thought Lemond was clean ? Wasnt he outspoken about Armstrong ?

Nobody was clean. At no stage in the Tour de France history there was a clean winner... it is debateable how clean they are in the modern days (from Cadel's victory onwards).
Doping has been symbiotic with the sport since the very start... the real problem began with blood doping, which was a completely different matter, at least morally (needle Vs pill debate) and it started sometime in the 1980s with transfusions and then EPO later.
I don't know whether Lemond was ever blood doping, but his rival admitted to and he certainly wasn't racing clean

^^ exactly ^^

Dandelionclock30

It wont be clean now no way its easy to get round those tests even if you have to do a urine test when someone is there. Theres window periods and a lot of the drugs are out of your system within hours.Theres too much money at stake and people desperatley want to win.
They keep on catching the odd one, but the majority of them will be at it if not them all. I know people dont want to believe this.
Does anyone know what Lance is doing for a living now? is he just living off his previous money or has he got another job?

cougie

Obviously there are a lot of cheats in sport - but I don't think lemond is one.
Sure people were doping in those days - but not the EPO that massively boosts your performance.
Unless you have proof - just saying that they beat others who have been busted for drugs isn't enough.

If Armstrong couldn't find the proof - there isn't any. As far as I can see the only evidence is from anonymous posters on boards like this.

FWIW - the BBC Storyville Prog on Lance is interesting.

ugo.santalucia

If we leave the man aside and we concentrate on the cyclist, who is the biggest fraud?

The 1990s have produced a number of frauds: most notable of all is Bjarne Riis, but I think the most subtle is Miguel Indurain. He was a good time triallist and was never going to be a climber... yet blood doping made him into a top climber despite weighing 82 Kg... that is unheard of. With a Power to weight ration of 7.3 Watt/Kg he excedeed the best Armstrong and in my books he is the biggest fraud the Tour has ever seen.
However, he was an incredibly gracious man and he got away with that. Had he been an assxole like Armstrong, he would have been persecuted and eventually caught.

arran77

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If we leave the man aside and we concentrate on the cyclist, who is the biggest fraud?

The 1990s have produced a number of frauds: most notable of all is Bjarne Riis, but I think the most subtle is Miguel Indurain. He was a good time triallist and was never going to be a climber... yet blood doping made him into a top climber despite weighing 82 Kg... that is unheard of. With a Power to weight ration of 7.3 Watt/Kg he excedeed the best Armstrong and in my books he is the biggest fraud the Tour has ever seen.
However, he was an incredibly gracious man and he got away with that. Had he been an assxole like Armstrong, he would have been persecuted and eventually caught.

Nail, head

Armstrong was / is an arrogant arsehole, others such as Indurain had a very different attitude despite what they may or may not have been doing.

If you take a very aggressive hard line approach people will go for you so the American tw@t deserves all he gets.

ugo.santalucia

arran77 wrote:

Armstrong was / is an arrogant arsehole, others such as Indurain had a very different attitude despite what they may or may not have been doing.

If you take a very aggressive hard line approach people will go for you so the American tw@t deserves all he gets.

Fine, as long as you agree it is retaliation and not justice. If it is justice, it has to be justice for all (quote from Metallica). What's Ullrich still doing as the 1997 winner? And Basso's podiums? Or Pantiani? Or Virenque? Why have they not been erased from the books?

arran77

ugo.santalucia wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Armstrong was / is an arrogant arsehole, others such as Indurain had a very different attitude despite what they may or may not have been doing.

If you take a very aggressive hard line approach people will go for you so the American tw@t deserves all he gets.

Fine, as long as you agree it is retaliation and not justice. If it is justice, it has to be justice for all (quote from Metallica). What's Ullrich still doing as the 1997 winner? And Basso's podiums? Or Pantiani? Or Virenque? Why have they not been erased from the books?

I'm not really getting into the do you / don't you agree it's retaliation and not justice thing.

For me it just boils down to the things he's said in relation to surviving cancer and how all his Tour victories were in honor of those people, save us the shite Armstrong, there are people affected by cancer who couldn't care less about you and your bullshit :evil:

ugo.santalucia

arran77 wrote:

For me it just boils down to the things he's said in relation to surviving cancer and how all his Tour victories were in honor of those people, save us the shite Armstrong, there are people affected by cancer who couldn't care less about you and your bullshit :evil:

I suppose that's nothing compared to what they told us about Iraq hiding weapons of mass distruction and I am pretty sure the families of those soldiers who died in Iraq would like to put things in perspective.
Yet, nobody has spent a penny to put Blair & co. on trial yet...

The moral is that Armstrong was like Marmite, except those who loved him, did so for the wrong reasons and those who didn't are not particularly bothered to see the all personal thing going on now...

He was a dpoer, he was an assxole, he will never be the president of the USA, get over it now...

seanoconn

Jail for perjury, multiple lawsuits from the people whose names he ruthlessly smeared and bankruptcy, would be justice, not retaliation.

arran77

seanoconn wrote:

Jail for perjury, multiple lawsuits from the people whose names he ruthlessly smeared and bankruptcy, would be justice, not retaliation.

Well said Sean.

dennisn

seanoconn wrote:

Jail for perjury, multiple lawsuits from the people whose names he ruthlessly smeared and bankruptcy, would be justice, not retaliation.

Justice? I understand that, but I'm thinking that more than a few on this topic have revenge in mind instead of the more noble "justice" or the very much alike concepts of "retaliation" and revenge. If it was me I would most likely want to seek revenge or retaliation against someone who did something to me personally(i.e. you shot my dog). Makes me wonder, because I doubt any of you are interested in justice, what LA did to you personally to generate this revenge thing in you? Or are you all just looking for something to be angry about? Not much happening in your life so let's get up in arms about something? :roll:

mamba80

seanoconn wrote:

Jail for perjury, multiple lawsuits from the people whose names he ruthlessly smeared and bankruptcy, would be justice, not retaliation.

ridiculous statement.
he cheated in a sport and was the very best at doing it...that is all - do you think that for one minute he did this on his own???
People make statements about LA as if he was a kiddie fiddler :idea:
as Ugo has said, the whole sport of pro cycling from the earliest days of the TDF to the modern era is littered with cheating and manipulation of the media/public.
Again as said, what about all the other tour "winners" why have they still kept their tdf victories or been thrown in jail :?: No, LA annoyed the authorities because he denied his guilt (and "seemingly" hoodwinked them all for so long) no doubt being a brash American in what is a traditional European sport didn't help him either.