Kik Confesses, Sort Of...

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
trailrunner said:
Not everyone is perfect, but not everyone writes a column in a leading national magazine.

And when it comes to cheating in sports, I have indeed "been morally upright throughout every instance of [my life]."
Sure, and that's great for you. But here's the or a point as indicated in the article: her role in the cheating--to the extent that it's known--was not merely in sport. Because she wasn't in the sport. It was part of her life, something she did as a spouse or a partner. Sure, it's collateral and contributes to the end result, but in terms of life decisions that she made at the time it's a little more complicated than that.

That doesn't make them right, good, or even wholly justified, but it is in her case more interconnected than just cheating in sport. And by that measure, and this is part of what I take to be Chew D's argument, it's a little to easy for people to jump around on a message board and demand that she come clean strictly for the "sake of the sport," when there are other factors in play.

No one is perfect, but many do write for national magazines. But if you're making demands on her from that perspective--as if the magazine owed any thing to some fictional public norm--when it's nothing but a commercial activity, than I think that's ridiculous.

She'll potentially come clean (or stop writing for them) when just as with Nike, etc. she or her employer decide that it's financially expedient to do so.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
aphronesis said:
Just because the filter hits it, I don't consider w*nker profanity. Describes a type, not just or always the activity.
"I say they're just f*cking *****rs. I cannot be doing with people like that.
'It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can't ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives.
'It's easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of ****, rather than get off their ars*s in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something.
'And that's ultimately it. C*nts."

Seems Wigans used a couple of more words than "w@nkers," right...I think "C*nts" is more than a word filter profanity...
 
ChewbaccaD said:
"I say they're just f*cking *****rs. I cannot be doing with people like that.
'It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can't ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives.
'It's easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of ****, rather than get off their ars*s in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something.
'And that's ultimately it. C*nts."

Seems Wigans used a couple of more words than "w@nkers," right...I think "C*nts" is more than a word filter profanity...

Yeah, he was a little heated that day. In that regard, it's a little lazy although there's only two pieces of profanity in there.

bone-idle w*nker though seems apt enough on its own.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
aphronesis said:
Yeah, he was a little heated that day. In that regard, it's a little lazy although there's only two pieces of profanity in there.

bone-idle w*nker though seems apt enough on its own.
Yea, not really apt in my case, but maybe there are some I guess...Actually, his description was complete ****ing bull****, and I'll take profane lazy over a coward unwilling to express his real inner thoughts any day... because really, some people (like Wigans) are really ****ing *******s, I think we can all agree on that, right?

Not to mention that stereotyping like Wigans did in that presser was the worst form of laziness in existence, much more lazy than using profanity. Surely you can see that, right?
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Yea, not really apt in my case, but maybe there are some I guess...Actually, his description was complete ****ing bull****, and I'll take profane lazy over a coward unwilling to express his real inner thoughts any day... because really, some people (like Wigans) are really ****ing *******s, I think we can all agree on that, right?

Not to mention that stereotyping like Wigans did in that presser was the worst form of laziness in existence, much more lazy than using profanity. Surely you can see that, right?
Sure.

I think it was said at the time that he could have taken it a little less personally and offered a more measured response in light of the last couple of decades.
 
May 9, 2009
283
1
0
aphronesis said:
That doesn't make them right, good, or even wholly justified, but it is in her case more interconnected than just cheating in sport. And by that measure, and this is part of what I take to be Chew D's argument, it's a little to easy for people to jump around on a message board and demand that she come clean strictly for the "sake of the sport," when there are other factors in play.
The only demands that I've made are 1) RW should drop her as a columnist; 2) She should be sanctioned and prohibited from participating from USATF races for a period of time. Both of those are out of her control.

I personally don't care if she fesses up or not. I already have a fair idea of what she did.

As far as the protecting the kids arguments goes, two thoughts: 1) Do you think they can't read the news and see what's happening to their dad? Bringing their mom in to it would be a small thing at this point. 2) Hiding behind the kids is like Lance hiding behind the cancer shield.

aphronesis said:
No one is perfect, but many do write for national magazines. But if you're making demands on her from that perspective--as if the magazine owed any thing to some fictional public norm--when it's nothing but a commercial activity, than I think that's ridiculous.

She'll potentially come clean (or stop writing for them) when just as with Nike, etc. she or her employer decide that it's financially expedient to do so.
Even as cynical as I am, I know that not ALL business decisions are based on the bottom line. Sometimes decisions are made because they are the right thing to do. Yeah, altruism and all that, but it is what we should strive for.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
aphronesis said:
Sure.

I think it was said at the time that he could have taken it a little less personally and offered a more measured response in light of the last couple of decades.
He certainly could have. Let me also reiterate that I wasn't one who piled on at that time. The accusations against Wigans are all guesswork right now. I'm not prepared to smear the guy based on that. The evidence against Lance was always much more than guesswork for anyone willing to look, and I don't believe the same can be said for Wigans at this point. I hope there will never be any evidence even though I can't stand the guy.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
trailrunner said:
As far as the protecting the kids arguments goes, two thoughts: 1) Do you think they can't read the news and see what's happening to their dad? Bringing their mom in to it would be a small thing at this point. 2) Hiding behind the kids is like Lance hiding behind the cancer shield.
This is wrong. The reasons for not engaging in the denouncement of your former spouse have NOTHING to do with what your kids do or will know about that spouse. It is about the fact that she has a real relationship with her children, and those children have a father that, despite who he is and what they know about it, will still want to love their father. The relationship between parent and child is not easily destroyed regardless of what a father or mother does to the child and it especially doesn't matter when what they did was to people outside of the family. Those kids will deal with what their father did to others in their own way. Having their mother disparage him in the press would hurt her relationship with them. It could also hurt their relationship with their father.

Don't believe me? Seek out a psychologist and ask them. Buy a book on the subject. Do something other than couch situation as something it isn't. And it isn't about what you suggest. I has nothing to do with that at all.
 
May 9, 2009
283
1
0
ChewbaccaD said:
This is wrong. The reasons for not engaging in the denouncement of your former spouse have NOTHING to do with what your kids do or will know about that spouse. It is about the fact that she has a real relationship with her children, and those children have a father that, despite who he is and what they know about it, will still want to love their father. The relationship between parent and child is not easily destroyed regardless of what a father or mother does to the child and it especially doesn't matter when what they did was to people outside of the family. Those kids will deal with what their father did to others in their own way. Having their mother disparage him in the press would hurt her relationship with them. It could also hurt their relationship with their father.

Don't believe me? Seek out a psychologist and ask them. Buy a book on the subject. Do something other than couch situation as something it isn't. And it isn't about what you suggest. I has nothing to do with that at all.
Read my post a bit more carefully. I never said that she should disparage him. In fact, I even said I don't care if she talks. And this about her - not him.

I know this is an important issue to you, but don't put words in my mouth just so you can get up on your soapbox.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
trailrunner said:
Read my post a bit more carefully. I never said that she should disparage him. In fact, I even said I don't care if she talks. And this about her - not him.

I know this is an important issue to you, but don't put words in my mouth just so you can get up on your soapbox.
You incorrectly stated the point of my argument. It isn't about them finding out from their mother what their father did. If she made statements in public regarding this, it would logically be seen by those children as disparaging their father. No other way to read it actually. Read more carefully yourself.
 
trailrunner said:
The only demands that I've made are 1) RW should drop her as a columnist; 2) She should be sanctioned and prohibited from participating from USATF races for a period of time. Both of those are out of her control.

I personally don't care if she fesses up or not. I already have a fair idea of what she did.

As far as the protecting the kids arguments goes, two thoughts: 1) Do you think they can't read the news and see what's happening to their dad? Bringing their mom in to it would be a small thing at this point. 2) Hiding behind the kids is like Lance hiding behind the cancer shield.


Even as cynical as I am, I know that not ALL business decisions are based on the bottom line. Sometimes decisions are made because they are the right thing to do. Yeah, altruism and all that, but it is what we should strive for.

I've not been the one making the argument about the kids. But, since you bring it up, it's not about what they find out about, it's if they're forced to take a position on the matter in relation to their parents and how the parents represent each other for the kids.


On the shield, as it relates to your last comments: are you saying then that parents who've done questionable things should not make any decisions with their childrens' mindset and emotional state as criteria.

I don't see why writing for RW is a problem if a: she hasn't been cheating for several years and b: isn't acting as if she never did anything.

Not all decisions are bottom line in a quantitative sense, no, but I think in this instance it will be a matter of what each party perceives is in their best interests. What if RW decides the right thing to do in this instance is to accept that that was the past and leave her in the situation she has to deal with?
 
She's clearly not a woman worthy of any admiration, but the vitriol in this thread is kind of uncalled for imo. If we're hating on every minor enabler and profiteer like that, it's a long list of people.

I'd rather focus on the people who were involved in the sport directly that were complicit in doping than people like her.
 
Oct 8, 2012
237
1
0
spalco said:
She's clearly not a woman worthy of any admiration, but the vitriol in this thread is kind of uncalled for imo. If we're hating on every minor enabler and profiteer like that, it's a long list of people.

I'd rather focus on the people who were involved in the sport directly that were complicit in doping than people like her.

Minor enabling? What she did was hardly minor. I think the harsh criticism that she has received over these last 15+ pages from multiple people is completely deserved.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Big Daddy said:
Minor enabling? What she did was hardly minor. I think the harsh criticism that she has received over these last 15+ pages from multiple people is completely deserved.
And who the **** are you?

You roll in here and in one month have 200 posts basically nothing but **** talking and calling people names. Like old hat.....whose sock puppet are you? I've seen this act before, Mr. Wheat. ;)

We can all agree or disagree about how she is going about things. You need a valium.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Clearly.

To your point about her not writing the article, that is a valid point. My point of posting wasn't to address that point, it was to address the suggestion that she should write a tell-all about all of this. My opinion is that she is the last person who should because of how it might affect her children and their relationship with her and their father. As I said, regardless of the place they hold in the eyes of others, they are still just two people with children in the real world of their daily lives...well, I think Ms. Armstrong is a parent anyway.
Agreed. I see buckwheat is back so there is enough BS flying around to completely cover the wall.

And it is "clearly", absence makes the heart grow fonder. After your meltdown the other week that caused that thread to get locked, I felt we needed to rekindle our relationship. I knew you wouldn't do the right thing, so I decided to slow down my posting to make you realize what you have with me. :cool:

Moving on, people crack me up. She feels the 'need' apparently to be in the spotlight, a spotlight only because she was LA's wife, who profitted handsomely from doping in cycling. It somewhat reminds me of LA coming back in 2009, which if he hadn't we probably would not be having these discussions. Attention *****s.

Take your money and STFU. I am sure she has enough stashed away for several lifetimes. Go raise your children in silence, or you welcome the wrath of 'big daddy' lol.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
ChrisE said:
Agreed. I see buckwheat is back so there is enough BS flying around to completely cover the wall.

And it is "clearly", absence makes the heart grow fonder. After your meltdown the other week that caused that thread to get locked, I felt we needed to rekindle our relationship. I knew you wouldn't do the right thing, so I decided to slow down my posting to make you realize what you have with me. :cool:

Moving on, people crack me up. She feels the 'need' apparently to be in the spotlight, a spotlight only because she was LA's wife, who profitted handsomely from doping in cycling. It somewhat reminds me of LA coming back in 2009, which if he hadn't we probably would not be having these discussions. Attention *****s.

Take your money and STFU. I am sure she has enough stashed away for several lifetimes. Go raise your children in silence, or you welcome the wrath of 'big daddy' lol.
Put up your fishing pole ChrisE. If you're real objective was to do the right thing, there would be no need to now put a worm on a hook and throw it into the water behind your boat, would there?

So are we the Odd Couple now? Or more like Batman and the Joker, each needing the yin or yang of the other as the case may be? And how do we differentiate the dark from the light force as there is clearly a small circle of each in the both of us. And is that small circle really just another agent of the making of gray once the larger circle is spun fast enough to create the optical illusion?

These questions and many more will be answered on the next episode of Soap.

And if that is genuinely Buckwheat, I hope he will be banned forthwith as that guy was a 0 on the value meter regardless of the position he chose on any given topic.
 
Oct 8, 2012
237
1
0
ChrisE said:
I'm the same guy I have always been. You are buckwheat. Thanks for playing.

I don't know, online or personally, who this buckwheat is you self-serving, accusatory ****.
 
Jul 24, 2012
112
0
0
Back on topic.....

I agree with Chewy on this one. It is not as simple as some people on here are suggesting. I think she's a vile woman, but she is still the mother of those three kids. If we are going to talk about victims in this saga, his kids are on top of the list. What has been done to them, and will continue to be done to them, makes all of the other hateful acts against innocent parties pale into insignificance.

My son is of similar age to their eldest and it's a pretty tough time to navigate even when things go well. My kid has endured considerably trauma recently (obviously a completely different context to the Armstrongs) and I doubt many parents, no mater how vile, will do anything to further damage a child that is already fractured. Your instinct, for want of a better word, is to protect them from any futher pain. I can't imagine the Armstrong kids have been fully shielded at this point, they'd know in some way what is going on. Enough people are kicking their father while he is down (and rightly so, but that may not be how they see it). They do not need to see their mother lace up and lay her boots in.

Apart from all the arguments Chewy has put forward, there is the issue of Lance himself. We have no idea of his real relationship with his kids. He charismatically fooled millions of people, intelligent people. Who knows what kind of pull he has over those kids? Kristin may choose her words very carefully for fear of losing them, and I don't mean in a custodial sense. He is the master of spin, imagine how he could "spin" Kristin's behaviour to the kids. If it was me, I would be terrified.... terrified of the damage he could do to my relationship with my own children.

I'm not excusing her, I'm not apologising for her. She's nothing more than a common drug pusher. And I have no doubt that a lot of her behaviour is self-serving. She, like Lance, will be looking to reposition herself going forward. But I don't necessarily think laying the boot in is the best course of action for her children. Her best course of action would be to remain silent publicly, but I guess she probably felt she had to address things in some way.

My heart breaks for all of his kids. They had no choice, no say in this. Perhaps they truly will take after Lance, and like him, reject their biological father in name and in every other way. I hope for their sake they do.
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
aphronesis said:
..., it's a little to easy for people to jump around on a message board and demand that she come clean strictly for the "sake of the sport," when there are other factors in play.
How about she does it for herself, and leads by example to show her children how to conduct themselves.
 
Neworld said:
How about she does it for herself, and leads by example to show her children how to conduct themselves.
Then it's not for you or anyone else to say what's best for "herself". Nor to impose your value system onto how she should inform her children's value system. Certainly not with the sort of vehemence expressed upthread.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY