IMO he played the game well and won.
He won the world road race championship in 1993, but there's not a lot else on his Palmares.
You must have a different view on what "playing the ghame well" means.
[i]I see Lance as the figurehead for a sport that pushed it's own boundaries in the name of Entertainment.[/i]
Hmmm, not sure. This would be true if they said "hey, public these guys are juiced like you wouldn't believe, we've let them take everything they can, and now we're going to see what they can do!!"
But the UCI and teams and riders didn't say that at all...
What about the people in the UCI who let him backdate a prescription when he got tested positive,they let him cheat and they knew he was cheating.
What about the people in the UCI who let him backdate a prescription when he got tested positive,they let him cheat and they knew he was cheating.
This. The whole system was (still is?) broken. How Astana are still in the pro tour is a joke.
Armstrong ruined many careers with his arrogance but in many ways he was just the tip of the needle so to speak, when backed into the corner he tried to force his way out.
I reckon any dedicated sportsman who was facing losing it all (and quite possibly thought the system would continue to protect him as it had done) would have done the same.
BTW in no way does that make it right...
Lance isn't going to disappear anytime soon. Not whilst he and others ( not all supporters by any means ) feel his lifetime ban is unfair. At least in comparison to the penalties other cheats received. Personaly I'd have given him a ten year ban. Not really sure why anyone would be bothered about a 50yr old man competing in triathlons.
I suspect that he's partly victim of the turf wars between WADA and USADA.
His lifetime ban is a consequence of [b]how[/b] he went about cheating rather than the cheating itself. To some extent he is being made an example of but he really doesn't help his own cause - a case of "he doth protest too much", if I was on his legal team I'd be telling him to keep his mouth shut.
Most legal punishments (prison, etc) have a means to reduce the sentence served for good behaviour, LA needs to understand this rather than moan about things being unfair. He's not going to be a (major) player on the UCI pro-circuit any more but he does need a carrot rather than more stick.
Get off the fence, binners, tell us whether you're for or against him FFS!
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.
In the name of entertainment? Let's not deceive ourselves: entertainment is a business, and the viewers are customers.
The cogs in that business (e.g. Armstrong, Ferrari, the UCI apparat, ...) generally do what they do to further their careers and increase their salaries, not to "push the boundaries of entertainment".
If Armstrong had done what he did all for the sake of entertainment, why did he so viciously attack and bully his sceptics while off the bike? Is it worth ruining people's careers just to keep providing entertainment?
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.
We would be complicit if it were admitted publicly that doping is the done thing. But it's hushed up and the cycling establishment pretends that it's not happening, and many people are taken in by the facade. The only ones who are complicit are those who [b]know[/b] that doping is a reality but pretend that it isn't a problem.
You're also suggesting that doping is required in order for the Tour in its current form even to be possible. That's not true – take away the drugs and you'll get a slower race, but it would still be just as entertaining.
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.
How would that help? Look at how many (athletics) sprinters fail drugs tests, the 100m is over in 10 seconds, making races shorter wouldn't make a jot of difference!
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/premieres/lance-armstrong-future-user-mountain-lion-video-20150127
His publicity agent is working treble time at the minute.
Nice to see how serious he takes his apologies.
I know, I know. Just making an option out of what is a seriously hard event that's all. You know that.
However each story plays out it's his sheer arrogance that get right up peoples chuffs. That and his political manoeuvrings, and his ability to play both press and organising bodies that were/are in place to this day.
I'd agree with he's just a pawn between USADA and WADA and UCI and US Presidents, but add in US Postal/Trek/UPS/Nissan/Nike and all the other sponsors that supported him throughout his very successful career.
I've recently read an interview in Rouleur about him and enjoyed it no end. I await P2.
I actually thought this thread was going to be about Gary Glitter , with quite a clever title . I was obviously wrong , he would attract far less hate .
Though LA is a thoroughly objectionable person and he did despicable things to anyone who went against him I still think he's being treated unfairly by the UCI. If he gets a lifetime ban then really so should everyone else who have doped. You can't have one standard for one and not the other.
I'm a terrible ****..
I've done all sorts of of insidious and heinous things throughout the course of my life if I look back at it and am honest with myself.. Some of you wouldn't agree if you knew me, others would..
I wonder how many of us have led a blame free life, could have led a blame free life if our circumstances had been different..
I've read some stuff that made me think LA was a ****, but I don't tend to believe everything I read and I know that there's always three sides to every story..
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..
FWIW - My other half knew nothing of bicycle racing or Lance Armstrong but she knows about cancer and Lance Armstrong gave her courage and inspiration when she needed it...
I can't judge him... It's not my place to
He took everyone for a ride*, so everyone can judge him. I don't think many people have caused as much hurt to others as he has – I'd be surprised if you have.
*pun intended
[quote=Roter Stern ]If he gets a lifetime ban then really so should everyone else who have doped.
Even the ones who owned up as soon as they were caught rather than spending years denying it and attempting to destroy their accusers - and still denying it and attempting to find legal loopholes after they'd been found guilty due to a mountain of evidence? Are they all equal?
Is it possible that he has calmed down and learned his lesson? Genuine question - I didn't watch the interview, I don't know. But surely it's possible?
[quote=molgrips ]Is it possible that he has calmed down and learned his lesson? Genuine question - I didn't watch the interview, I don't know. But surely it's possible?
How could you possibly tell?
I've not even read the transcript, but from the descriptions people are giving it seems unlikely he's changed at all.
How could I tell what?
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 ?
Humans.
[img] 
[/img]
Is it possible that he has calmed down and learned his lesson? Genuine question - I didn't watch the interview, I don't know. But surely it's possible?
Not heard the whole interview, but I chuckled when he was on the radio. He said, and I paraphrase, "You know what, there was a period of time, for about 15 years or so, when I was a real asshole". A noble thing to say, I thought! Maybe he gets it. Maybe he's turned a corner. Then he finishes it off with '...to about a dozen people'. Only a dozen Lance? Are we sure? 🙄
And Pat Mcquaid thinks he's been hard done by [url= http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/31012367 ]oh good grief [/url]. To quote mumsnet **** the ****ing **** off to the ****ing far ****ing side of ****ing **** and when you ****ing get there ****ing **** off some ****ing more the pair of you.
[quote=molgrips ]How could I tell what?
How could you tell if he's changed, or is still lying.
How about we introduce 2 classes into sports where one lot take the peds and the others don't. Fiver says the class that did would become the most popular of the two.
[i]Even the ones who owned up as soon as they were caught rather than spending years denying it and attempting to destroy their accusers - and still denying it and attempting to find legal loopholes after they'd been found guilty due to a mountain of evidence? Are they all equal?[/i]
They banned him for doping,not being a ****. So on those terms he didn't do anything different to all the other dopers. So I would answer yes to your question. How many unapologetic ex dopers are still earning money from the sport?
And Pat Mcquaid thinks he's been hard done by oh good grief . To quote mums net * the * * off to the * far * side of * * and when you * get there * * off some **** more the pair of you.
F* Mcquaid - with that comment he's proved he's just as culpable as LA!
Are they all equal?
Yes and no. They are all equally guilty of cheating. Just because Lance was better at racing and cheating shouldn't mean he should be singled out for being a bit of a wab too.
Option 1: Anyone who cheats and is caught should be banned - for life. Doesn't matter if you only cheated a tiny itty, bitty bit or did/do a whole heap of cheating. Get caught - get banned. Forever. Make the consequences for cheating so severe no one would risk it*. If whoever is behind this sport really wants it to be clean that's one obvious way to do it. Punish those who cheat (equally) and send a message out to anyone thinking about it.
Option 2: A drug fueled free-for-all. Let's see what the human body can really do!
*They'd end up in a rival race series, sponsored by Redbull, where drugs aren't simply allowed, but encouraged - along with synthetic implants, robotic upgrades and weapons - a death race/roadrash on bicycles 8) .
p.s.
[img] 
[/img]
He's a deceitful lying cock wad, one of the worst among many.
None of which are deserving of reward.
The only reason LA continues to gain so much negative response is because he continues to seek publicity. If he wants forgiveness he should try ****ing off, or does he want forgiveness as a press release.
Option 2: A drug fueled free-for-all. Let's see what the human body can really do!
American Football or Bodybuilding?
Amazed at the hate that Armstrong still provokes.
It's over, move on.
piemonster - Member
Option 2: A drug fueled free-for-all. Let's see what the human body can really do!
Football Rugby Cricket Athletics swimming Darts Snooker And Bodybuilding?
FTFY 😉
Just looked on the USADA site about sanctions. There appear to be several articles (rules) where a lifetime ban is to be considered. The sanctions also include provision for extending bans in the case of multiple cases and/or complicity and/or administering to others or encouraging others to cheat.
USADA have also (in the last week) issued a lifetime ban to Dr Leinders for multiple doping violations. So LA certainly isn't a unique case.
If he gets a lifetime ban then really so should everyone else who have doped. You can't have one standard for one and not the other.
Why not? It's not a binary thing - taking drugs or not. There are aggravating factors such as how much, how long for, forcing others to do your bidding, not admitting to it, bullying and suing others for trying to tell the truth, etc, etc.
71mph on a motorway and 60 mph outside a school gate is the same offence, no?
This: [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/30986137 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/30986137[/url] was more interesting than the headline.
LA is, indeed, a complete boy-chicken however, UCI/USADA/WADA can't actually ban him for that - it's not against their rules.
I assume that he's back in the public eye in view of the CIRC report out next month from which we're supposed to find out the true extent of what went on in that era. I have a feeling many will end up wishing we didn't know.
Maybe a more old fashioned style of justice would work.. like in the old days when the a despotic ruler could invent punishment for amusement..
I think he should be allowed back into international competition, but only unicycle racing.
No more wheels
Bog Snorkling gets my vote
I am with Ransos. All those calling for life bans for everyone who gets caught "doping" are just wrong.
Athlete buys cough medicine in foreign country day before race, banned ingredient inside, gets tested and is +ve for said substance. Hardly performance enhancing and simply a mistake by them.
several teams knowingly systematically dope for years, with several banned substances and get huge performance gains.
Both get a lifetime ban?
the reason he's doing this is all about the money as usual
he wants the ban reduced so that he can take part in competitions/organised rides to raise money for cancer charity because he knows that no-one was able to ever criticise him for this, and he would get 'expenses' for raising this money
Here's an [url= http://www.theinertia.com/surf/heroes-and-villains/ ]article [/url]I wrote for Inertia on why we shouldn't give drugs users in sport a hard time.
Armstrong and Pantani are the reason a lot of people started to watch stage racing, if it wasn't for these "characters" the sport would not be where it is now.
It says a lot that the 7 TDF's that he won have not been reassigned to the 2nd/3rd placed etc.- as non of them were clean.
Give him a break, he's lost a lot but also given a lot.
[quote=johnny_met ]Here's an article I wrote for Inertia on why we shouldn't give drugs users in sport a hard time.
Not bad in places, but;
"Therefore, if the athlete’s dilemma is taken to its logical conclusion, the only way that an athlete can have a fair chance of winning is to take performance enhancing drugs simply because the other athlete will be taking them for exactly the same reasons. Those who follow sport will be familiar with oft-cited mitigation from the accused that everyone else is also on drugs. While this excuse is little better than the playground drug pusher’s excuse that if he didn’t do it someone else would, it is somewhat ironic that this intra-sport ethic does actually make for a level playing field."
is a load of bollocks, not only because not everybody is on drugs, but also because some people respond better to drugs than others. There is no drug taking level playing field.
some people respond better to drugs than others.
Some people respond to training, diet, supplements, pressure, competition, danger, and etc better than others. That's what makes them better. There is no level playing field at all, a tremendous amount of genetic luck is the primary factor in being successful in the vast majority of sports.
Luck (not just genetic) is the most influential determinant in sport.
[i]Option 1: Anyone who cheats and is caught should be banned - for life.[/i]
Nah, if we'll happily try to rehabilitate real drug offenders in real life, then sports should be no different.
The public are fickle bunch, Hillary and Tenzing are lauded as heroes, yet they used bottled oxygen (artificially increasing the blood's ability to carry oxygen) to improve their performance and summit Everest. And in doing so effectively robbed Messner of the (clean) first ascent. If a cyclist artificially increases his blood's ability to carry oxygen the same public brandish him a cheat. Go figure.