Lance Armstrong

13»

Comments

  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    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

    Yes he lied and ruined people to punish them, to impose omerta , he chased people down and spat at them. The guy was a cnt he fought allegations not with fact or reason but with corruption and callous violence. He ruined lives and livelihoods and broke the law to do it.

    Nothing wrong with fighting allegations but know the man by how he behaves. He’s scum.
  • svetty
    svetty Posts: 1,904
    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
    Blimey I 100% agree with you Ugo :shock: :shock: :lol:
    FFS! Harden up and grow a pair :D
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    Armstrong has a fan in wiggins. MR Jiffy bag is “innocent “ though obviously.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    I always find entertaining to see how people with no talent, no experience of racing at a level above their parish race, who never had the dilemma of whether to go one way or the other, take the moral high ground on these issues
    left the forum March 2023
  • surfercyclist
    surfercyclist Posts: 894
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    I always find entertaining to see how people with no talent, no experience of racing at a level above their parish race, who never had the dilemma of whether to go one way or the other, take the moral high ground on these issues

    Yep maybe it's because we know right from wrong and have the morals to act on it? Just a thought.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    edited June 2019
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    I always find entertaining to see how people with no talent, no experience of racing at a level above their parish race, who never had the dilemma of whether to go one way or the other, take the moral high ground on these issues

    Ugo there's something in what you say but you could extend your line of reasoning to support some truly terrible things. I'm sure you don't need me to spell it out but everyone who ever gets caught for anything can plead some kind of mitigation. My sympathies are with the cheated not the cheat. What's that they say about a Liberal being a Conservative who just got mugged? Would your empathy extend to someone who had cheated your son or daughter out of their future and crushed their dream of being successful in sport? I think we know where your sympathies would lie in those circumstances. I understand the pressures on people to dope, but it's precisely because of weak attitudes that it became normalised and accepted in cycling. The powers that be covered it up because it was easier than ruthlessly pursuing the cheats and the cheats saw this as a green light to cheat even more. Do we hold the line at some point or just give in? There lies anarchy I'm afraid.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    Shortfall wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    I always find entertaining to see how people with no talent, no experience of racing at a level above their parish race, who never had the dilemma of whether to go one way or the other, take the moral high ground on these issues

    Ugo there's something in what you say but you could extend your line of reasoning to support some truly terrible things. I'm sure you don't need me to spell it out but everyone who ever gets caught for anything can plead some kind of mitigation. My sympathies are with the cheated not the cheat. What's that they say about a Liberal being a Conservative who just got mugged? Would your empathy extend to someone who had cheated your son or daughter out of their future and crushed their dream of being successful in sport? I think we know where your sympathies would then lie in those circumstances. Whilst I understand the pressures on people to dope, but it's precisely because of weak attitudes that it became normalised and accepted in cycling. The powers that be covered it up because it was easier than ruthlessly pursuing the cheats and the cheats saw this as a green light to cheat even more. Do we hold the line at some point or just give in? There lies anarchy I'm afraid.


    At the time it was anarchy... the only way into professional cycling was doping, there was no other way. It wasn't a case of dopers Vs non dopers... they were all doping, so it was a choice between going that route or not going the sport route. I am not quite sure why we have to judge someone who made one choice over another. When the illegal is covered up by the very body who runs the races, in a way it is endorsed, isn't it? So what's the value of the rule?

    It is different from say someone who decides to dope to win in a largely clean field. I have the feeling that despite all it has been said over the years, people still think that a number of cyclists doped to win and cheated others... they didn't cheat anybody, because all the losers were also dopers.
    The system that allowed that to happen is to be blamed, rather than individuals.
    left the forum March 2023
  • Captain Fagor
    Captain Fagor Posts: 739
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    I always find entertaining to see how people with no talent, no experience of racing at a level above their parish race, who never had the dilemma of whether to go one way or the other, take the moral high ground on these issues.

    I completely agree with this.
  • surfercyclist
    surfercyclist Posts: 894
    Captain Fagor wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    I always find entertaining to see how people with no talent, no experience of racing at a level above their parish race, who never had the dilemma of whether to go one way or the other, take the moral high ground on these issues.

    I completely agree with this.

    And I say (again)

    Yep maybe it's because we know right from wrong and have the morals to act on it? Just a thought.
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Shortfall wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    I always find entertaining to see how people with no talent, no experience of racing at a level above their parish race, who never had the dilemma of whether to go one way or the other, take the moral high ground on these issues

    Ugo there's something in what you say but you could extend your line of reasoning to support some truly terrible things. I'm sure you don't need me to spell it out but everyone who ever gets caught for anything can plead some kind of mitigation. My sympathies are with the cheated not the cheat. What's that they say about a Liberal being a Conservative who just got mugged? Would your empathy extend to someone who had cheated your son or daughter out of their future and crushed their dream of being successful in sport? I think we know where your sympathies would then lie in those circumstances. Whilst I understand the pressures on people to dope, but it's precisely because of weak attitudes that it became normalised and accepted in cycling. The powers that be covered it up because it was easier than ruthlessly pursuing the cheats and the cheats saw this as a green light to cheat even more. Do we hold the line at some point or just give in? There lies anarchy I'm afraid.


    At the time it was anarchy... the only way into professional cycling was doping, there was no other way. It wasn't a case of dopers Vs non dopers... they were all doping, so it was a choice between going that route or not going the sport route. I am not quite sure why we have to judge someone who made one choice over another. When the illegal is covered up by the very body who runs the races, in a way it is endorsed, isn't it? So what's the value of the rule?

    It is different from say someone who decides to dope to win in a largely clean field. I have the feeling that despite all it has been said over the years, people still think that a number of cyclists doped to win and cheated others... they didn't cheat anybody, because all the losers were also dopers.
    The system that allowed that to happen is to be blamed, rather than individuals.

    Every one of those guys who took the decision to dope made it impossible for the next generation of promising young amateurs to break through without cheating. The governing body are equally as culpable but people have to take responsibility for their actions. They had a choice. To make an anology with the police, the Met was riddled with corruption from top to bottom in the 60s and 70s. Would you have told the aspiring new recruits to start taking bungs and fitting people up because everyone else was doing it? Would your sympathies be with those police officers who allowed themselves to be inculcated into the crimminality or with the honest citizens who were wrongly convicted or whose crimes weren't properly investigated?
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    I am not interested in making comparisons with the police because the way I see it doping is not a crime. In some countries they have introduced legislation to make it into a crime, but I believe it was a mistake.
    A crime where everyone is better off as a result is not a crime.
    The next generation? Professional sport has been plagued by doping since the dawn of time, 1990s were particularly bad but it's not to say that 1960s or 70s were clean. There is no such thing as the next generation was screwed by Armstrong... I don't think there ever was a clean generation... maybe a clean-er, but not a clean one, including the current one. If you want to blame all the athletes that ever succeeded in cycling for doping, be my guest, but you are probably better off giving up on following the sport altogether

    Where there is competition and money, there will be a way to cheat... you either accept that for what it is, or you can continue advocating for clean professional sport.. it will never happen, just as you will never get rid of crime... you can manage it, but not erase it. Right now doping is managed better than it was back then, it's still there and you still need it if you want to succeed, maybe it comes as an inhaler rather than as a bag of blood
    left the forum March 2023
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    you are probably better off giving up on following the sport altogether

    I have.
    A crime where everyone is better off as a result is not a crime.

    Well yes it is, but putting that to one side, how does doping make everyone better off? What damage are people doing to their long term physical and mental health when they take these drugs? Take a look at the world of bodybuilding if you want an idea what a drugs "free for all" looks like.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    We can't prosecute people for the damage they do to themselves, otherwise people who self harm would be in jail...
    What I mean is that Armstrong and Co. brought a lot of revenue, which everyone benefited from... I can't think of anyone who was damaged by doping in cycling, other than athletes who didn't dope, but hopefully we now agree there weren't any at that level...
    left the forum March 2023
  • surfercyclist
    surfercyclist Posts: 894
    Regardless of how many were doping(by all accounts alot/most), it doesn't alter the fact it is CHEATING. And in my book cheating is wrong or am I mistaken here?
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,108
    There were people who didn't dope, Christophe Bassons is generally considered to be clean and I'm sure he wasn't the only one - Obree maybe another? There were also young riders who would have made it had they decided to dope, not all did decide to.

    I'm not suggesting I'd have done any differently to Armstrong or that in doping he is any more morally culpable than hundreds of others but there were victims - maybe not many amongst the pro peloton but many that might have been.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    Regardless of how many were doping(by all accounts alot/most), it doesn't alter the fact it is CHEATING. And in my book cheating is wrong or am I mistaken here?

    You are not mistaken. I think the question is whether finding a scapegoat actually achieves anything other than some vendetta.
    They have erased a name from the history books, they have made him pay some money... BUT in the process they have damaged his charity, which was a good thing and overall society has not gained anything from the all saga.
    left the forum March 2023
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    Regardless of how many were doping(by all accounts alot/most), it doesn't alter the fact it is CHEATING. And in my book cheating is wrong or am I mistaken here?

    You are not mistaken. I think the question is whether finding a scapegoat actually achieves anything other than some vendetta.
    They have erased a name from the history books, they have made him pay some money... BUT in the process they have damaged his charity, which was a good thing and overall society has not gained anything from the all saga.

    So doping is ok, because charity...ffs...
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    It does teach a moral lesson that regardless of who you bribe, intimidate, corrupt and what have you, there is a very good chance you will always get caught.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    DeVlaeminck wrote:
    There were people who didn't dope, Christophe Bassons is generally considered to be clean and I'm sure he wasn't the only one - Obree maybe another? There were also young riders who would have made it had they decided to dope, not all did decide to.

    I'm not suggesting I'd have done any differently to Armstrong or that in doping he is any more morally culpable than hundreds of others but there were victims - maybe not many amongst the pro peloton but many that might have been.

    We have to come to a definition of what "considered to be clean" actually means... up to a few years back WIggins was considered to be the only clean rider in the peloton, now we can probably conclude that maybe he wasn't 100% clean, let's say he was better than most. I've heard it about others... Cadel Evans for instance, Gregg Lemond was considered to be clean, apparently Philippe Gilbert... are they really really clean like we would love them to be or they are clean-er?
    left the forum March 2023
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    It does teach a moral lesson that regardless of who you bribe, intimidate, corrupt and what have you, there is a very good chance you will always get caught.

    That's a different story, one that has nothing to do with doping and I might even agree with you there... the thread started about LA not wanting to repent about his doping...
    left the forum March 2023
  • shortfall
    shortfall Posts: 3,288
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    We can't prosecute people for the damage they do to themselves, otherwise people who self harm would be in jail...
    What I mean is that Armstrong and Co. brought a lot of revenue, which everyone benefited from... I can't think of anyone who was damaged by doping in cycling, other than athletes who didn't dope, but hopefully we now agree there weren't any at that level...

    So you're saying to every aspiring young cyclist that if he wants to make a living at it then he's going to have to dope, at god knows what cost to his mental and physical well being, but that's ok with you because everyone's making money and self harm isn't a criminal offence. Is that a fair synopsis?
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    Shortfall wrote:

    So you're saying to every aspiring young cyclist that if he wants to make a living at it then he's going to have to dope, at god knows what cost to his mental and physical well being, but that's ok with you because everyone's making money and self harm isn't a criminal offence. Is that a fair synopsis?

    I had a young guy in the club I was 10 years ago in that position... I advised him to try the track, because it is for the most a clean world (no money)... he is now National Champion in the team pursuit... :wink:

    Realistically, I would tell a young cyclist that if he wants to pursue a career on the road, he will have to make that choice at some point... maybe these days you can get away with doping very little
    left the forum March 2023
  • navrig2
    navrig2 Posts: 1,851
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    Regardless of how many were doping(by all accounts alot/most), it doesn't alter the fact it is CHEATING. And in my book cheating is wrong or am I mistaken here?

    You are not mistaken. I think the question is whether finding a scapegoat actually achieves anything other than some vendetta.
    They have erased a name from the history books, they have made him pay some money... BUT in the process they have damaged his charity, which was a good thing and overall society has not gained anything from the all saga.

    Not sure that LA was a scapegoat in the real sense of a scapegoat taking your view that everyone was doing it.
    a person who is blamed for something that someone else has done

    To have made his exposure and punishment work for the rest of sport, not just cycling, he should have been pursued until he was almost penniless even if it mean the lawyers benefited more than the courts' coffers. That would have given out the right message.

Categories