Lance Armstrong Story, BBC4 - 22:00

2»

Comments

  • simon_e
    simon_e Posts: 1,706
    RichN95 wrote:
    This isn't an event that happened last week. It happened 18 years ago. That's a hell of a long time to stay ignorant. It almost looks like willful and purposeful ignorance.
    Was she not describing her reaction at the time?

    Or are you seeing what you want to see?
    Aspire not to have more, but to be more.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,150
    Simon E wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    This isn't an event that happened last week. It happened 18 years ago. That's a hell of a long time to stay ignorant. It almost looks like willful and purposeful ignorance.
    Was she not describing her reaction at the time?

    Or are you seeing what you want to see?
    So you are suggesting that she was ignorant but now she knows better. So why is she repeating this crap now? That just makes it worse.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Stridor
    Stridor Posts: 48
    I rewatched it last night, and I don't think that the scene was anywhere near as bad as RichN95 is making it to be. I'm just not seeing it the same way.

    It does seem that Betsy is really getting it in the neck at the moment and being attacked on a few forums, and I'm not quite sure of why that's happening either.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,150
    Stridor wrote:
    It does seem that Betsy is really getting it in the neck at the moment and being attacked on a few forums, and I'm not quite sure of why that's happening either.
    For the record, I really have no major problem with her on any other level. Just that comment.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • simon_e
    simon_e Posts: 1,706
    "It was awful and I thought: how in the hell does a guy who is in such good shape so young get cancer?"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... at-nothing at 14:12

    Sounds like past tense to me. There is no any indication that she still thinks that way now. Hopefully she's since learnt that lots of young people that don't smoke 50 fags a day / take EPO, HGH etc get cancer.

    But even if she still held that view it wouldn't be worth getting offended about and calling her names. :roll:
    Aspire not to have more, but to be more.
  • Holeysocks
    Holeysocks Posts: 10
    True, but the potential link between young Athletes regularly taking steroid, hormone PEDs and testicular cancer was also mentioned in LA Confidential.

    I think Betsy's a hero in the story
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,150
    edited October 2014
    Holeysocks wrote:
    True, but the potential link between young Athletes regularly taking steroid, hormone PEDs and testicular cancer was also mentioned in LA Confidential.
    That's not my point though is it. It's the voicing of the idea that young people don't get cancer unless they have done something to encourage it that I object to. It's irresponsible crap.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 51,331
    mr_poll wrote:
    Enjoyed it as a good summary, and until the last couple of minutes didn't learn anything new. Until Betsy revealed how even in LA's confessional interview he still twisted the "hospital scene" - guess he couldn't bring himself to allow the link between PED use and cancer to be made as he still feels he has some mileage in the cancer survivor story. As always his truth isn't the actual truth

    I spent some time looking up the apparent link between cancer and PED's. Almost all steroids have an effect on Testosterone production however, I struggled to find any dedicated material on this subject - any links?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    Can undestand it's a sensitive topic but this is reading WAY too much into Betsy's comment. A very common equivalent is saying young, fit people shouldn't get blood clots and cardiac arrests. They do. But we all know the reason as to why they probably shouldn't.

    Lifestyle has its reasons as to why you might not develop cell changes that leads to cancer and age has its reasons regarding cell growth as well. I genuinely think it's quite a normal thing to say. "He's too young and fit. He shouldn't get ill". I'm sure the statistics backs this up.
  • mr_poll
    mr_poll Posts: 1,547
    pinarello001 wrote:
    mr_poll wrote:
    Enjoyed it as a good summary, and until the last couple of minutes didn't learn anything new. Until Betsy revealed how even in LA's confessional interview he still twisted the "hospital scene" - guess he couldn't bring himself to allow the link between PED use and cancer to be made as he still feels he has some mileage in the cancer survivor story. As always his truth isn't the actual truth

    I spent some time looking up the apparent link between cancer and PED's. Almost all steroids have an effect on Testosterone production however, I struggled to find any dedicated material on this subject - any links?

    I remember reading when the the Armstrong scandal was I full flow that trials were difficult as people who use PED's don't admit to it so hard to find a sample nor will people actively take something as a trial that might give them cancer. However I quick search threw this up, ironically on livestrongs website that mentions some studies

    http://www.livestrong.com/article/180497-what-are-the-dangers-of-performance-enhancing-drugs/
  • shipley
    shipley Posts: 549
    Holeysocks wrote:
    I think Betsy's a hero in the story

    I agree. She was wronged, her husband was wronged and they were both bullied. In my opinion it was a dirty sport at the time and Armstrong et al were competing with both riders and drugs and they won by 'getting it right'.

    Betsy and Frankie got caught in the crossfire, but I admire the way she stuck to her guns and was proved right in the end. I admire people like that, no matter how much shite is thrown at them, they stick to their principles.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,615
    The main thing Betsy is is good TV.

    Punchy, full of soundbites, opinionated. It's a well rehearsed story so it comes across well and polished.

    She's ironed out the creases, and has the fortune of having a more consistent position than most people in the story, so it's easy to follow and a useful thread for the wider story to hang on to.
    _
  • deejay
    deejay Posts: 3,138
    RichN95 wrote:
    This isn't an event that happened last week. It happened 18 years ago. That's a hell of a long time to stay ignorant. It almost looks like willful and purposeful ignorance.
    !8 years ago, she overheard a conversation to the Doctors questions as she must have been there in the corridor while giving her support to a very worried man who had lost his "Form" and needed help and assistance.
    What she (they) heard was later denied by him when he was on his post op recovery and training program.
    So all the bullying he did in an attempt to make her Lie and that is how he treats a former helpful friend who then became an enemy of his making because of Greed.
    She didn't do anything except refuse to Lie.
    I also admire her tenacity to stand up to the scumbag and all she is doing is repeating what she heard him say.
    After 18 years it will sound rehearsed and a polished performance but good luck to her.
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 51,331
    I have just sat through the documentary and I am quite stunned at the duplicity of the b4stard. Having had cancer myself, I once wrote a 'letter of the month' in Cycle Sport supporting Lance as a 'supreme athlete'. I now see the fabricated web that he actively created to protect himself and his success. Someone I once looked up to.
    Erasing Armstrong's records doesn't however and rather sadly, erase the EPO era.

    On the subject of steroidal PED's, if the link between these drugs and cancer was clear and categorical, then wouldn't more athletes be diagnosed? Statistically, 1 in 8 suffer cancer and that means that cyclists would be diagnosed with cancer at a rate higher than 1 in 8.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • Bo Duke
    Bo Duke Posts: 1,058
    edited October 2014
    Double post. :mrgreen:
    'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP
  • Bo Duke
    Bo Duke Posts: 1,058
    So, 2 years+ after all the ancrimonious slanging, has he engineered a different ending to the story yet where he comes out smelling of roses?
    'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP
  • deejay
    deejay Posts: 3,138
    Bo Duke wrote:
    So, 2 years+ after all the ancrimonious slanging, has he engineered a different ending to the story yet where he comes out smelling of roses?
    Nah, you just have to show that film to any remaining FanBoi who would be a bit retarded to remain so.

    There is only one Lance Armstrong who went to a lot of trouble to be great and achieved the status as the "Greatest Low Life of the Cycling World".
    That includes the "Deutsche Telekom Low Life" who are getting away with their Frauds to this day.
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • mr_poll
    mr_poll Posts: 1,547
    pinarello001 wrote:

    On the subject of steroidal PED's, if the link between these drugs and cancer was clear and categorical, then wouldn't more athletes be diagnosed? Statistically, 1 in 8 suffer cancer and that means that cyclists would be diagnosed with cancer at a rate higher than 1 in 8.

    Not necessarily - 1 in 8 is the general population - this includes people whose diet is mainly Maccie D's and their idea of exercise is moving off the sofa to find the remote. I dont have the stats but would presume that those who eat well and exercise more should have a lower incidence and it those who you would need to use as a control group.

Categories