Lance Armstrong

[OH10]

Armstrong made me a fan of the sport to the extent that the Tour is now one of my favorite events of the year. I will always consider him one of the greatest athletes and greatest cyclists of all time. His use of performance enhancing drugs largely leveled the playing field with other leading cyclists of the time.

The problem with Lance is that he took his deceit to a level that surpassed even his achievements on the pavement. He was a leader - with considerable help - in his ability to beat the tests (an accomplishment which can be argued took him beyond that level the playing field). He was able to look in the eye of a lens and lie with unprecedented sincerity. He bullied and intimidated his accusers in a fashion that seems impossible to defend. He sued accusers for libel. He tarnished reputations and altered careers, all in his own self interest.

He built an empire from his ability to cycle and his efforts to do good through the Livestrong name. Then he abused it all. Whether for personal gain or to preserve the empire and all the good it was doing is not completely clear. As MaxBuck has said - it is anything but black and white. A fascinating story of human strength and weakness.

Damn good post.

 

[matcar]

Evidence.

You couldnt have supplied me with any more arsenal for my argument. Evidence is EVERYTHING. He went to a court battle against Armstrong without any evidence in his favor or any written documentation to back himself up with.

The guy whined through an entire article on how he was scammed out of a business venture, but takes zero responsibility for not printing out the only evidence he had, the email confirming their business arraignments. Quit giving the guy the "halo effect" based of his public perception.

What are you talking about? Evidence is irrellevant between the two (or more) parties that openly knew he was cheating.

This isn't about why you were naive to believe Lance before...this is about Armstrong actively working to harm people's livelyhoods because they both KNEW he was in the wrong. You act like this guy was in a bubble....heck no...he was one of many that Armstrong took down. If this was one isolated incident, I could give Armstrong a pass, but it's not...he systematically tore down those who knew the truth and might expose it. It's really not complicated - he went out to pulverize guys to protect his lies. It's not like Armstrong didn't know that he/himself was lying and that these other guys knew it. That makes him a pretty bad guy....real lousy. POS. You name it. So, if you as a casual fan wanted evidence - yeah I get that, but Armstrong didn't have to file lawsuits and everthing else in attempts to force people out of livelihoods. It was just WAY out of line.

 

[BayBuck]

Still an ass.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Evidence.
You couldnt have supplied me with any more arsenal for my argument. Evidence is EVERYTHING. He went to a court battle against Armstrong without any evidence in his favor or any written documentation to back himself up with.

So, if somebody gets raped by somebody else and reports it to the police, but the police are not able to prosecute the rapist because of a lack of evidence, the rapist would be justified in suing the victim for libel? Even though the rapist did commit the crime?

And later on, when new evidence comes to light that proves that he did commit the crime, he was still justified in the original lawsuit against the victim because she didn't have evidence at the time?

 

[OH10]

So, if somebody gets raped by somebody else and reports it to the police, but the police are not able to prosecute the rapist because of a lack of evidence, the rapist would be justified in suing the victim for libel? Even though the rapist did commit the crime?

And later on, when new evidence comes to light that proves that he did commit the crime, he was still justified in the original lawsuit against the victim because she didn't have evidence at the time?

EVIDENTS!

 

[BayBuck]

So, if somebody gets raped by somebody else and reports it to the police, but the police are not able to prosecute the rapist because of a lack of evidence, the rapist would be justified in suing the victim for libel? Even though the rapist did commit the crime?

And later on, when new evidence comes to light that proves that he did commit the crime, he was still justified in the original lawsuit against the victim because she didn't have evidence at the time?

Depends. Did the rapist cure cancer? Was he an inspiration to millions?

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Name a "worse" offender.

Anyone who dopes at the pro level is just as bad an offender...and if they called out LA for it, they're worse.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

I f@ckin' hate Bikeys.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

So, if somebody gets raped by somebody else and reports it to the police, but the police are not able to prosecute the rapist because of a lack of evidence, the rapist would be justified in suing the victim for libel? Even though the rapist did commit the crime?

You never heard of "false accusation"?

 

[BayBuck]

You never heard of "false accusation"?

The hypothetical assumes that the rapist did in fact commit the crime and is eventually proven to have done so.

 

[matcar]

You never heard of "false accusation"?

But this wasn't false. And obviously Armstrong knew that.

 

[BB73]

This thread was a little different, at least Lance Armstrong was compared to Al Capone instead of Hitler, because that Hitler stuff gets old. :tongue2:

I've been a fan of the Tour de France since the 80s, and I watched most of Armstrong's TDF stages on live TV. I've been pretty sure for years that he was using PEDs, so this news isn't a surprise to me. I'm not sure why he decided to finally admit publicly to it.

He obviously did a huge amount of good with the LIVESTRONG foundation, but it's sad that he threw his weight around in order to discredit and damage those who spoke the truth about him. Quoting what Lance said to his doctors about PEDs while being treated for cancer in the mid-90s, by somebody who was in the room and heard him say it, was enough for me to believe years ago that he was cheating.

He's a seriously flawed character who managed to do a lot of good because of the fame brought about by his PED-enhanced performances.

The obvious lesson to be learned is that athletes shouldn't be placed on such high pedestals because of their sporting achievements.

And cycling as a sport has been a mess for most of the last 20 years due to its inability to police itself effectively. I'll still watch the TDF, since it's an entertaining and interesting event with athletes testing their limits over a 3-week period, but I'm sure ratings will be down in the USA going forward as many casual fans become disillusioned.

 

[OH10]

Anyone who dopes at the pro level is just as bad an offender...and if they called out LA for it, they're worse.

Snitches get stitches, right?

Or at least that sounds like what you're saying.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Joe Paterno dontated millions of dollars to Penn State's library and had an 85% grad rate......none of which makes his transgressions any less disgusting.

Armstrong isn't Capone, but neither is he simply a guy who doped to win. He's a pretty despicable character, and after all this time and all the things he said and did in response to the doping allegations, no amount of crocodile tears on Opah's couch is going to change that.

 

[zincfinger]

The problem with Lance is that he took his deceit to a level that surpassed even his achievements on the pavement. He was a leader - with considerable help - in his ability to beat the tests (an accomplishment which can be argued took him beyond that level the playing field). He was able to look in the eye of a lens and lie with unprecedented sincerity. He bullied and intimidated his accusers in a fashion that seems impossible to defend. He sued accusers for libel. He tarnished reputations and altered careers, all in his own self interest.

None of this is meant as a defense of Armstrong - as far as I know he may well deserve every bit of opprobrium headed his way.

But it seems to me a given that if a guy is going to intentionally break the rules of his sport, he is also going to lie about having done so, to whatever extent he thinks he successfully can. Taking PEDs essentially requires, as part of the process, lying about having taken PEDs. And part of lying about PED use, is attacking the credibility of anyone who accuses you. Again, I'm not saying that, to whatever extent Armstrong harmed other people lives out of personal interest, it's okay. Just that it seems like the default position of any athlete who puts himself in that position of having success due to PEDs, to i) lie about it to the best of his ability, and ii) try to undermine any and all accusers. Otherwise, why bother taking the things in the first place?