Lance Armstrong
Comments
-
Shortfall wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:Shortfall wrote:The way I'm interpreting your line of reasoning is that YOU would do the same as Lance. Am I right to think that?
Hard to say, but I would certainly fight allegations, if they mean the end for me
Would you fight allegations against you that you knew to be true and see good people ruined in the process? Cos that's what he did. Over and over. I hope you wouldn't.
I think he was in a difficult position... when you fall from grace, you fall heavy... you can't compare him with others who simply had to accept a little ban and some even turned the ban into profitleft the forum March 20230 -
Irrelevant. If you are on the lower rung with a family then £1000 can mean as much as £10 million to someone on the upper tier. No excuse.ugo.santalucia wrote:Shortfall wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:Shortfall wrote:The way I'm interpreting your line of reasoning is that YOU would do the same as Lance. Am I right to think that?
Hard to say, but I would certainly fight allegations, if they mean the end for me
Would you fight allegations against you that you knew to be true and see good people ruined in the process? Cos that's what he did. Over and over. I hope you wouldn't.
I think he was in a difficult position... when you fall from grace, you fall heavy... you can't compare him with others who simply had to accept a little ban and some even turned the ban into profitThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
if you only own a grand, nobody is going to take you to court... there are some pros in being poor and they become handy when things turn sour.
I think most lawsuits were unnecessary vendettas... US Postal and others got a good ROI out of Armstrong, not sure why they wanted compensation... compensation for what? like others they just jumped on a boat... when someone starts throwing stones, it's quite easy to join in.left the forum March 20230 -
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I still haven’t seen anything to convince me that he is anything but a self serving **** without guilt or remorse who did unforgivable thing to those who called him out.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I still haven’t seen anything to convince me that he is anything but a self serving **** without guilt or remorse who did unforgivable thing to those who called him out.
We can agree that he is an unpleasant individual... looking at the way he grew up, without a father, the fact that he had to fight for survival with cancer, it's not hard to see why he was constantly in survival mode...
I guess my point is that it is very easy to blame without having a full understanding of the immense pressure somebody finds himself in...
Let's say you lied on the application form for a job, let's say that you ticked a particular box because you know it helps to get there. Let's say they catch you and want to sack you, because the position is conditional on that box... but you believe that everybody does it, just some get away with it and a few don't... your mortgage and livelihood are at risk, would you just say "sorry, yes it was my falut" or would you try to defend yourself even if that means discrediting those who accuse you, maybe lying, maybe putting their livelihood at risk in the process?
I guess in the black to white spectrum, we are all some shades of grey, some darker than othersleft the forum March 20230 -
^^^^
I simply wouldn’t in the first place, but that’s just me. Moving on....The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:^^^^
Moving on....
Moving on from what? It's a thread about LA, we might end up talking about him...
As for the "I wouldn't"... again, easy to say when you have a choice.
Say Armstrong decided not to pursue a career in cycling, because doping is a requirement (IT IS)... what was the alternative? With no formal education, maybe he could have got an apprenticeship somewhere or maybe simply stack shelves at the local Walmart, or maybe cut his losses and get into crime, since there was a good attitude in that respect...
Are you really saying that a kid should make the moral choice of not following his dream, because that involves breaking some rules that allegedly everybody breaks?
It's a world of hypocrisy, that of professional sport... but it's also a way out of poverty and a miserable existence for many... it'd be great if sport was clean, it isn't...left the forum March 20230 -
Ok - so on the drug dealer analogy, Lance could be seen as the guy murdered all the informants, bribed the lawmakers, murdered his opposition, vs the guy who sold some drugs, made a little money, did some time then came out clean.0
-
Everyone has choices.ugo.santalucia wrote:As for the "I wouldn't"... again, easy to say when you have a choice...
Everyone makes choices.
Everyone has to live with the consequences of those choices.
Not everyone tries to rewrite history.
“I was begging to get caught.” Really? :roll: :roll: :roll:
The subject has been done to death. Minds are made up. Move on.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:The subject has been done to death. Minds are made up. Move on.
There is still the option of cycling related revisionismleft the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:PBlakeney wrote:^^^^
Moving on....
Moving on from what? It's a thread about LA, we might end up talking about him...
As for the "I wouldn't"... again, easy to say when you have a choice.
Say Armstrong decided not to pursue a career in cycling, because doping is a requirement (IT IS)... what was the alternative? With no formal education, maybe he could have got an apprenticeship somewhere or maybe simply stack shelves at the local Walmart, or maybe cut his losses and get into crime, since there was a good attitude in that respect...
Are you really saying that a kid should make the moral choice of not following his dream, because that involves breaking some rules that allegedly everybody breaks?
It's a world of hypocrisy, that of professional sport... but it's also a way out of poverty and a miserable existence for many... it'd be great if sport was clean, it isn't...
If only that's where it ended then most of us would've given him the benefit of the doubt. But you're still being wilfully myopic about his evil side and willingness to corrupt other people and destroy lives. Are you familiar with Breaking Bad? If you're not it's the story of an everyday good guy akin to a Mr Chips character who discovers he's got terminal lung cancer. Because he doesn't want to leave his family in penury when he dies he decides to cross a line and starts manufacturing crystal meth, justifying it to himself with the reasoning that the people he's going to sell it to are punks and low lifes who will only get it off someone else if he doesn't supply them.
The thing is, once he's in, he's in deep and he ends up doing more and more morally bankrupt things to cover up his lie, up to and including murder. When you watch it you find yourself putting yourself in the shoes of Walter White and justifying killing some rival drug dealer, then another, or selling more drugs to desperate people who can ill afford them and who will steal to fund their habit and ruin the lives of their families and other people. Walter White is a good guy who starts off doing bad things but for good reasons. The thing is that bit by bit he becomes an absolute psychopathic monster without even realising it, until at the end of the final episode he's become so evil, unremorseful and corrupt the viewer has no sympathy for him. Sound familiar?
I'm all for redemption and giving people a second chance. Nobody was more pleased than I was when Tiger Woods pulled off his last incredible major against all the odds. But Tiger was full of remorse for the bad things he'd done in in his personal life and has paid his dues. His comeback was all the more special for that. Lance on the other hand is just a piece of sh1t who would do it all again. But hey, he was good TV so let's all give him a break? No thanks.0 -
Yes, I am familiar and yes, there is an analogy... as you say he starts as a good guy and I suspect Lance Armstrong was just the same. As the empire grows bigger, he becomes a monster, I completely agree... hence my point, you have to be in his shoes... would I behave differently from Lance or Walter once I got myself in deep shht? Probably not too differently.
People here say you shouldn't get there in the first place... easy to say, but when the money starts rolling in, it's pretty hard to pull the plug.
We can't judge him using the same metrics we use for other (less succesful) dopersleft the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:Yes, I am familiar and yes, there is an analogy... as you say he starts as a good guy and I suspect Lance Armstrong was just the same. As the empire grows bigger, he becomes a monster, I completely agree... hence my point, you have to be in his shoes... would I behave differently from Lance or Walter once I got myself in deep shht? Probably not too differently.
People here say you shouldn't get there in the first place... easy to say, but when the money starts rolling in, it's pretty hard to pull the plug.
We can't judge him using the same metrics we use for other (less succesful) dopers
and then ... after it all "ends" ... if they still say they'd do the same again .. despite everything that's happened?
All LA cares about is himself - and being in the media spotlight - perhaps he thinks a repentant LA would cause less column inches - therefore to carry on as he was he stays at the forefront and still gets the headlines - when was the last time you saw another doper on the headlines - post punishment that is ...
LA isn't going to stop spouting whatever he can to get publicity - publicity sells and keeps him as a brand. Ask anyone to mention a famous cyclist - LA will be there in the top 10 - ask anyone to mention a famous doping cyclist and he'll be at the top of the list... and that'll be from people who didn't even see him.
TBH, it doesn't matter if you want to forgive him or not - he'll carry on doing whatever it takes to keep getting the headlines.0 -
Slowbike wrote:
and then ... after it all "ends" ... if they still say they'd do the same again .. despite everything that's happened?
From what I read, my understanding is that what he meant was that he would dope again given the same circumstances... of course he would, they all would if it's the ojnly way to the top...
Not sure he meant he would attempt to destroy enemies againleft the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:Slowbike wrote:
and then ... after it all "ends" ... if they still say they'd do the same again .. despite everything that's happened?
From what I read, my understanding is that what he meant was that he would dope again given the same circumstances... of course he would, they all would if it's the ojnly way to the top...
Not sure he meant he would attempt to destroy enemies again
Oh that's ok then ... every other doper has said sorry and wouldn't want to go through it again - but LA is ok t o say he'd do it all again, because ?!
Doping made him very successful, rich and (probably the most important bit) famous ... even being caught hasn't done him much harm. As the important boxes have been ticked - why wouldn't he do exactly the same again?0 -
Slowbike wrote:Oh that's ok then ... every other doper has said sorry and wouldn't want to go through it again - but LA is ok t o say he'd do it all again, because ?!
They were all lying, hypocrits trying to get some form of forgiveness and possibly a book deal, in reality they would all do it again, given the option. I appreciate someone saying it as it isleft the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:Slowbike wrote:Oh that's ok then ... every other doper has said sorry and wouldn't want to go through it again - but LA is ok t o say he'd do it all again, because ?!
They were all lying, hypocrits trying to get some form of forgiveness and possibly a book deal, in reality they would all do it again, given the option. I appreciate someone saying it as it is
you ASSUME - may be they felt they had no choice - but would rather not, given the option ... ? After all, how many really want to take illegal drugs just so they can go a bit faster for longer? Wouldn't they prefer NOT to (feel they have to) take them in the first place?
No, I don't applaud or appreciate anyone who cannot publicly show they've seen the error of their ways - even if they would be tempted to do the same if they could wind back the clock.0 -
Slowbike wrote:
you ASSUME - may be they felt they had no choice - but would rather not, given the option ... ? After all, how many really want to take illegal drugs just so they can go a bit faster for longer? Wouldn't they prefer NOT to (feel they have to) take them in the first place?
.
The choice was between entering a doping program and making the team or not entering the doping program and not making the team. It wasn't even a case of losing Vs winning, but more a case of being there at all.
That was between 1992 and 2008, before and after maybe there were a few clean-ish riders, by that I mean riders who didn't do blood doping... maybe a few sprinters
If they say that looking back maybe they shouldn't have doped, that means they should have been prepared to pack their stuff and find another job... I don't believe themleft the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:Slowbike wrote:
you ASSUME - may be they felt they had no choice - but would rather not, given the option ... ? After all, how many really want to take illegal drugs just so they can go a bit faster for longer? Wouldn't they prefer NOT to (feel they have to) take them in the first place?
.
The choice was between entering a doping program and making the team or not entering the doping program and not making the team. It wasn't even a case of losing Vs winning, but more a case of being there at all.
That was between 1992 and 2008, before and after maybe there were a few clean-ish riders, by that I mean riders who didn't do blood doping... maybe a few sprinters
If they say that looking back maybe they shouldn't have doped, that means they should have been prepared to pack their stuff and find another job... I don't believe them
He wouldn't change a thing - not a single thing .... the language he uses suggests no remorse, no regrets ... and here we are 9 years after his final pro season - still talking about him ....0 -
Again, my understanding is that he was talking about doping specifically... why would he change a thing? The way he did it worked very wellleft the forum March 20230
-
My interpretation...
At the time the UCI ran by Verbruggen was a big cover up, teams were advised on when riders would be tested so that they could provide clean samples. That in essence is why nobody got caught, if by rider's error.
After his career ended, there was a lot of obsession around Armstrong, but strangely not around who came before him, like Indurain, for instance. USADA decided to fight an expensive crusade against the man and in doing so, they probably forgot to chase other fish, who were/are still competing, like our friend Justin Gatlin, who managed to rack up some medals and even a gold at the last Worlds, which was incredibly embarrassing... but of course USADA was busy chasing a ghost of the past, who no longer competed, so that they could finally ban him from the local Granfondo circuit among everybody's satisfaction... result!
In doing so, they opened a can of worms and the net result is that sport has lost even more credibility and nobody has gained anything in the process. Nobody can claim those Tours (1999-2005) because all his opponents down to God knows who were also doped and got caught at some stage or if not caught, was under heavy suspicion.
In the end they managed to bring the man down and seeing him humiliating himself on the TV must have been worth spending millions of dollars that could be spent elsewhere (including on Gatlin).
A massive coxxup, a waste of everybody's timeleft the forum March 20230 -
In the main a agree with Ugo. My interpretation is that he was referring to doping again rather than his campaign to destroy anyone who got in his way.
I think given the same circumstances, most dopers would make the same choices again. And that their main regret is getting caught. In fact I don’t even think it was a real choice back then. It was dope or don’t be a pro cyclist.
Banning Armstrong for life will have done very little to put off potential dopers. But I’m not sure it was a waste of time Ugo. And I’ve never read anywhere that it effected their ability to go after other people? If it did effect the funding of other cases surely that’s an argument for a need for more funding rather than giving anyone a free pass. Armstrong has to be held to account.Cannondale caad7 ultegra
S-works Tarmac sl5 etap
Colnago c64 etap wifli
Brother Swift0 -
TurboTommy wrote:If it did effect the funding of other cases surely that’s an argument for a need for more funding rather than giving anyone a free pass. Armstrong has to be held to account.
Whichever walk of life, resources are always finite. The crusade against Armstrong was long and costly. Personally, I would have rather not seen Gatlin winning gold in 2017, than having Armstrong humiliated and banned from Granfondos... but that's my opinion, of course.
It might also be that he is not the chief loser after all, not sure how much his cancer charity shrunk as a result and how many jobs were lost in the process and how much the all saga has affected the cycling scene in the US in terms of funding for grassroot and sponsorship for teams.
In my opinion, when someone's career is over, it is over for the good or the bad. Digging to find dirt doesn't help anybody... they should have nailed him when he was racing... he raced at the Tour of California, surely under USADA jurisdiction...left the forum March 20230 -
While not giving him a free pass for his behaviour like Ugo I don't really care if he refuses to regret doping - I mean who would believe he regretted something that even after all that has happened has left him very wealthy and with a good number of people who admire him or parts of what he has done.
I don't see many owning up to doping and making amends for doing so without being caught - they regret being found out, they may regret that they had to dope to compete but the idea that they would do it differently given the same choices seems doubtful.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I don't care if he doesn't regret what he did - I just don't see why he has to be constantly in the news ... he's gone ... banned ... he's not a reformed doper so his views have no worth to me - let's just ignore him ...
but that's not what he's after is it - he's after the attention ...0 -
Slowbike wrote:but that's not what he's after is it - he's after the attention ...
Aren't they all? An army of former celebrities trying to grab the headlines by eating spiders in the jungle or making fool of themselves by dancing very badly on TV... at least he hasn't done that yet...
Blame the media, not the man...left the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:Blame the media, not the man...
So it's the media's fault that Armstrong cheated? ffs...0 -
Slowbike wrote:I don't care if he doesn't regret what he did - I just don't see why he has to be constantly in the news ... he's gone ... banned ... he's not a reformed doper so his views have no worth to me - let's just ignore him ...
but that's not what he's after is it - he's after the attention ...
So you do care that he doesn't regret doping... "he's not a reformed doper so his views have no worth to me - let's just ignore him ... "[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Imposter wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:Blame the media, not the man...
So it's the media's fault that Armstrong cheated? ffs...
blame the media for his constant presence on the headlines... follow the thread ffsleft the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:Slowbike wrote:but that's not what he's after is it - he's after the attention ...
Aren't they all? An army of former celebrities trying to grab the headlines by eating spiders in the jungle or making fool of themselves by dancing very badly on TV... at least he hasn't done that yet...
Blame the media, not the man...
The media only do what the consumers are willing to consume.
If Armstrong decided to do "An Evening with Lance Armstrong" tour around the US and the UK it would sell out. Not so sure about mainland Europe. There would be hecklers but I bet most would sit and listen hoping for those awkward questions.0
