Anyone who can come back from cancer that's CANCER
And steal money given to cancer, that's CANCER sufferers who desperately needed it.
He would charge an extraordinary fee to turn up at LIVESTRONG events. Not just the one time but every single time.
I don't see him as any worse than any other drug cheat. Most get 2 year bans, of 4 years, rarely life bans. Some, like Contador, get their past brushed under the carpet and continue to rack up titles.
That's what annoys me, the total hypocrisy and inconsistency of it all. Virenque cheated his way to 7 KOM Jerseys and he seems to have a primetime job of commentating for French TV on the TdF...
Lemond is no better to be honest, he's been banging on about being anti-doping but then he's in a car swanning up the Champs Elysees with Indurain and Hinault. Combine that with his comments last year that Pantani was one of the greatest ever cyclists... Hmm, bit two-faced of him there - is he anti-doping or just anti-Lance?
He lied under oath.
So did pretty much every rider, doctor, team manager caught in the last decade.
He got people sacked.
So did every team manager or doctor who told young riders that if they weren't willing to dope, if they didn't toe the team line then they'd be on the next plane home. How many promising careers ruined, how many young riders' dreams shattered but that no-one will ever hear about?
He tried to insinuate that Greg Lemond was an alcoholic and had also cheated.
I seem to recall that Trek had a fair hand in that too...
He took/stole A LOT of money from sponsors and backers. His whole 'Livestrong' schtick was self-aggrandizing and self-promoting.
So did every cheating rider - if one cheat is "stealing" money from sponsors then surely a peloton of cheats is exactly the same? The cancer charity is an interesting one, most UK people don't get it due to the different ways that healthcare works in the US to the UK but actually most Americans still see LiveStrong as a really positive thing although I don't doubt for a second that LA was benefitting from it too, whether directly or through related sponsorship/media exposure.
I don't really care one way or another - the whole story is like a soap opera and it genuinely has some fascinating moments but don't for one second believe that Lance = all bad and everyone else = all good cos it's not that clear cut at all. Everyone knew to some extent what was going on - the sponsors, the media, the peloton, the team staff, even the US Cycling Federation and the UCI and everyone benefitted nicely from it at some point even if it came back to bite them later.
The documentary on Thursday should be interesting anyway! To me, one of the most interesting things in the BBC interview was the switch between first and third person when he was talking about himself. Classic dissociation technique, a way of absolving oneself from blame. Sociopathic. He's an interesting character, give him that much.
Damage was done to the sport of cycling............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
here's the line to be drawn under it
LA should foxtrot oscar really
Mike Tyson
Micheal Shumacher
Muhammad Ali
Dago Maradona
Steve Jobs
Walt Disney
Henry Ford
Tony Blair
A little list of liars, cheats, racist, bullying ****s, all winners though and depending on the book you read hero's or villains. Some of my favourite people are ****s.
I wasn't trying to excuse anyone else, and I definitely wasn't saying LA = bad, everyone else = good. My opinion is that if you're caught doping in sport that you are out, life-time ban, bye-bye.
This year was the first year in quite a while that I've watched the Tour, as events of the last few (quite a few!) years had tainted my enjoyment of it.
I have a sister who competed professionally (2 Olympics, 10 year of WC racing) in a sport where many of the athletes knew there was doping going on and pretty much who was doing it. But people are clever, and if you're a clean athlete, but sponsorship and prize money pay your bills, you don't rock the boat.
I know for a fact my sister enjoyed her time, but is very much of the opinion that she would have won more WC events if it had been a level playing field.
Why are people so offended and shocked by his personality ie he is high flying d1ckh3ad.
Selfishness, huge ego, willing to do anything to win, manipulative, etc etc All traits found in plenty of the top 1% in sport/finance/Music/TV.
Clearly he isn't a top bloke and not someone who you would have a care free pint with. However he has been made a scapegoat by the UCI, WADA, the peloton. Plenty of riders happy to slip away, who undoubtedly will have benefited in a round about way via the lance effect.
And as someone has said already his ability to wind up the people who view the world as black and white and who love to be offended is slightly endearing, much like clarksons persona.
And anyone who thinks doping isn't going on, I am sorry to tell you that Santa isn't real either.
[quote=saynotobasemiles ]And as someone has said already his ability to wind up the people who view the world as black and white and who love to be offended is slightly endearing, much like clarksons persona.
If being a cock is slightly endearing, what do you have to do to be totally lovable?
If being a cock is slightly endearing, what do you have to do to be totally lovable?
Stand up for LA?
aracer- Some hyperbole on my part of course. I just find it says more about them, when people are surprised/offended at someone who is clearly a cock or in the process of being a cock, than the person they are taking offense at. (this is whilst the person is not in the immediate vicinity) ie Katie Hopkins, clarkson essentially professional trolls and people still bite. AS for Lance/other not so nice folk, it's obvious they are so why be offended, particularly if he has never personally wronged you.
After reading that, I've gained a little more respect for him. At least he has the courage to say that while he's sorry for ruining peoples lives, he's not sorry for doping and would do it again.
I think that in that respect at least he's been far more honest than many other dopers.
You're falling into the trap of believing a single word he says.
Of course I am following the standard STW line of not having read what he said, but in this case I doubt it would provide much enlightenment.
After reading that, I've gained a little more respect for him. At least he has the courage to say that while he's sorry for ruining peoples lives, he's not sorry for doping and would do it again.I think that in that respect at least he's been far more honest than many other dopers.
Thing is, I doubt he's really sorry. He's only saying it as he thinks it might get him some sort of rehabilitation in the public eye.
Fair point.
I can appreciate why he thinks he now [i]deserves[/i] forgiveness, because all the other cheats that got caught, got off relatively lightly...
The fact that he's back in the press, pushing his case and his version of events yet again, coupled with his apparent lack of humility or willingness to accept any real responsibility. Constantly justifying his previous actions/conduct by "context".
That just proves to me that he's not a reformed character, it's still all about self interest... that he's still using the charity angle as a flimsy justification, claiming that keeping him out of sport is hurting charity and the needy, that makes it that bit more distasteful IMO...
The most telling point for me was that he regrets his 2009 "Comeback".
Reading between the lines it's because it put him back on USADA/WADA's Radar, He got greedy for the limelight and for the money that goes with it and that was his undoing... And deep down He knows it.
The other thing I noted was how much older he's looking, two years of being the main "villain" in cycling's little purge of the past has clearly taken it's toll, maybe it's time Lance moved on rather than the rest of the world, it's not a fight he's going to win...
Didn't think the revisionist view would start so soon TBH.
I thought it was interesting that he countered that he hardly knows anyone with integrity. He must have a fine group of friends!
At least he admitted to being a bumhole for fifteen years.
Get it into perspective perhaps...Mercks,Roche,Vino (former cheat that managed Nibali to TDF last year ) and others were all at it to survive,win,call it what you want....dark times and bad habits were rife in this sport,as well as others in that era.....main question is how clean is it now? No denying the levels that Armstrong went to with his solicitors (they can cause people pain without concience) and advisors, perhaps aiding this...maybe his mistake was winning 7 Tours and making it obvious,not to mention annoying the French....might have got away with one or two? Just a thought...It seems as though we give sportsmen who cheat and lie a harder time than politicians who do it for a living with much greater consequences and suffering.
I've yet to read the full transcript and am wondering if anyone has asked him:
In the light of your experience, what measures, procedures, systems would you put in place to ensure that doping is as limited as it can be?
Still a great rider in my eyes, massive 'C' but a splendid cheat among cheats.
So if he cheated his way to all his victories but was a nicer guy would that be easier to swallow?
Possibly yes like Merckx another famous bully and cheat. Or a failed cheat like Millar or one that takes his life like Pantani, all cheats but all adored.
iolo - MemberSo who here would cheat to win a race?
Of course. If I were racing and it was the difference between 4th and 1st for me to cheat.. then yes, I'm afraid I would cheat. I have the desire to win, the desire to be the best (I know I know, prove it... but life gets in the way) if there was an easy fix... I'd take it in a heartbeat.
Even more so when it was my job, my wage, my bonus, contract, would I take the drugs that gave my family 100% more money to live on... hell yes... without a seconds thought.
Cheat, no never. Winning has to matter to me and no one else.
Lebowski ..er.. dude, his ability to bother plonkers like you makes me admire him even more. You need to get over yourself and read some different books.
I've read plenty of books about LA & plenty about cycling.
You want to put a man on a pedestal who most think is a complete @rsehole of the lowest possible kind?
Says a lot about you..
Like he can think for himself, don't think anyone want's to put him on a pedestal.
I am (slightly) looking forward to the first race he commentates. I'd much rather he did that than become a DS.
The 'everyone was doing it' argument doesn't wash. Especially today.
Spin - MemberThe 'everyone was doing it' argument doesn't wash. Especially today.
Why doesn't it ? Were they not then ?
The part of the "story" I'd really like to see exposed is how a promising young sportsperson gets into drugs in the first place. Is it whispers in the dressing rooms of "anyone got any gear" or unscrupulous coaches/team doctors giving "vitamin shots".
Take a hyper competitive personality, put them on a hard training regime and pump them full of drugs with known mood altering side effects, then chuck in a pinch of paranoia, and stir until cooked - you're not going to get the most balanced and rational person at the end.
Not trying to excuse LA's behaviour but there's always another side and I suspect there's more than a few shady characters who'll never face any comeback for their role in sports doping who are the real wrong'uns in all this.
Aren't the same haematocrit and testosterone levels achieved today by using oxygen tents, altitude training and diet?
@hilldodger - have a read of David Millar's book "Racing Through the Dark". Another would be the book about Tommy Simpson - "Put me back on my Bike".
As for LA, it's not so much the drug taking that has led to his current situation but his attitude to others both in the past and present. If he had simply taken PEDs, got caught, served the ban then he should be allowed back but he went out of his way to twist the system both to ensure that his own cheating wasn't found out and to denigrate others.
In a way he's backed himself in to a corner: he more than likely lied before a Grand Jury and that carries a pretty hefty prison sentence so he's obviously trying to avoid that. Yes, others were doping during that period but using that as an excuse is like claiming that because others were shoplifting you thought it was OK to do it.
@hilldodger - have a read of David Millar's book "Racing Through the Dark".
would rather hear it from someone who's not a cheat - but I guess that'll never happen
As has been pointed out by others, the doping IMHO has become almost incidental, when compared to the rest of the vile, sociopathic shit he got up to. The bloke is an unmitigated * of the highest order. An obnoxious, vainglorious bully, who didn't give a flying * about who's careers he destroyed, or the damage he did to peoples lives, as long as he came out on top. As long as he 'won'. The *er is completely devoid of empathy or even the slightest shred of or humanity or decency.
Everything and anything, or indeed everyone and anyone was sacrificed on the alter of his *ing enormous, all-pervasive ego! And this latest chapter is no different. Is this contrition? Do me a *ing favour! Its all still about ME, ME, ME, and * everyone else!
He's an utter and complete ****! They should punish him in a way that would really hit him. By completely depriving him of what he craves the most. Publicity. Let him rot without giving him any more air-time
@hilldodger, surely its best to hear the story from someone who has been through it ?
Athletes in all sports take supplements, there is a cross over from legal to banned. Remember the British skier who failed a drug test losing an Olympic Bronze medal as the vics inhailer he used contained a banned substance. The one sold in the UK in legal the one he bought (in Sweden ?) was not. He is now a drugs "cheat". There is of course a world of difference between that and the industrial scale operations we've seen in cycling or Eastern European athletics. My point is getting started is easy and a subtle switch.
I'm just watching Auschwitz anniversary.
The awful things that happened there by so many Nazi soldiers.
Soldiers who probably had wives and kids at home.
They killed and tortured these poor Jews including women, children, even shooting babies in front of their mother.
According to some views on this thread it must have been alright because "at that time everyone was doing it"
im sensing a little bit of hostility towards LA from Binners 😆
so What are you trying to say ??? 😉 Lol
iolo - MemberI'm just watching Auschwitz anniversary.
The awful things that happened there by so many Nazi soldiers.
Soldiers who probably had wives and kids at home.
They killed and tortured these poor Jews including women, children, even shooting babies in front of their mother.
According to some views on this thread it must have been alright because "at that time everyone was doing it"
Yeah, talking about someone and verbally abusing them is only 1 step away from slaughtering children.
Well a cheat is the only person who can explain why they took the course of action that they did. If they spill the beans naming others then they don't have any threat of exposure in retaliation whereas someone who is "clean" may well do or at least they have the threat of "dirt by association".
Not an easy subject to get to the heart of in an objective manner.
I'm just watching Auschwitz anniversary.
The awful things that happened there by so many Nazi soldiers.
Soldiers who probably had wives and kids at home.
They killed and tortured these poor British/Polish/Russian/French And Jews including women, children, even shooting babies in front of their mother.
According to some views on this thread it must have been alright because "at that time everyone was doing it"
.
.
FTFY 😉
Well a cheat is the only person who can explain why they took the course of action that they did.
Yes, but are they telling the "truth" or just contriving a public apology to make a nice litle earner from a book 😕
^^ strange link there lolo.. Comparing Auschwitz with Lance, what exactly are you implying there? I do wonder.
Perhaps you are linking that most of todays Drugs were at the impliment stage during WW2, being designed and tested on Jews you know, just to see if they worked.
Is that your point, if so I think you have a good one.
I see Lance as the figurehead for a sport that pushed it's own boundaries in the name of Entertainment. The infrastructure, the people who designed courses, the Management, the TV, the Press, the Athletes, the Support Crews, the Teams. All complicit, all knew and understood what the boundaries were, all pushed them. Pushed them in the name of entertainment.
And yet today it still happens all be it without the Drugs (or so we are told and hope) The TdF is still massively hard, ridiculous climbs, terribly long stages, climbs that most wouldn't walk up let along ride a bike at pace, the Athletes are supposed to perform for the cameras, for the press, for the "glory" for the fight. Continuous pressure, ribbons of winding roads, eating both calories and mind numbing rumble. Races continue to fight for being the "hardest" the longest, the fastest, the most extreme and yet we all love it, we love the fight and the desperate faces of failed knackered riders who cross the line 30mins behind the winner.
I suggest we're all complicit in watching, supporting and setting lofty goals for our favourite riders. But in that what can we do? Should we make stages of the TdF shorter say max 150k? 2 mountain top finishes in the whole 3 weeks? sprint stages that are only 50k's long? 2 days off a week during the 3 weeks tour?
Of course not, that would belittle the fact that we all still crave the desperation of the riders, the glory of the winners and the courses continue to get longer, get harder, finish higher, and test the riders to the absolute limits.
I'm surprised that in todays era Drugs are not used more or allowed even to help and support riders in their quest to keep us entertained.
Is he still KOM on buttertubs? That's his crowning glory.
Armstrong to Auschwitz - a bit of a leap?
Not an LA fan and think he is a limelight craving somewhat twisted individual but I do almost have a grudging respect for saying that back in 1995 he would dope again.
I'm just saying people try to justify all kinds of wrong doings by using the sentence "everyone else was doing it so it must have been ok".
It might have been too strong an analogy but that's the point I was trying to make.
I'm all for ignoring the bloke, really don't think that any more air time should be given to him. It's not like we're learning anything new any more. Same old same old.
Two things I don't with this though:
How come it's just LA that's been scrubbed out from the TdF winners list? For example, Pantani won it the year before according to WIKI but he's not been scrubbed out even though he's also a well known drugs cheat. Surely there's more?
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tour_de_France_general_classification_winners ]Winners list[/url]
If he didn't win it who did? Who was the next clean rider and how could they prove it? Or are we just ignoring that aspect as they were all assumed dirty?
The awful things that happened there by so many Nazi soldiers.
I hate the nullification of guilt the term "Nazi" is used for in those kinds of statements. Were all the soldiers at Auschwitz fully paid up and active members of the Nazi party or is there a better descriptive term we could use ?
Armstrong to Auschwitz - a bit of a leap?
Possibly one of the most distastful comparisons I've ever read....