Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[Archibald]

poor ol's lance - his lackey gets more discussion time than him in his own thread.
he must be fuming
how far the mighty have fallen... sucker

don't get me wrong, I'm happy with the current discussion - just find it funny that it's more about Ms Macca and Floyd than the man himself...

 

[ggusta]

I prolly didn't go back enough pages, but this is a review from the ny daily news on stop at nothing.

I dvr'd it, so far the best deconstruction of this psychopath, and the lawyer from sca more or less labeled him as such if you haven't already seen it.

http://nydn.us/1GmgnMt

"If you harbor any residual sympathy for Lance Armstrong, the world-beating cyclist who lost all his medals when he ’fessed up to major doping, this documentary will pedal it right out of you."

Not a lot new here for participants in these parts, but the fact that these types of documentaries are becoming mainstream and embedded into the cultural consciousness and replacing the lie has always been the best possible outcome. It's just good to see the truth finally make its way into the light.

I wonder how many livestrong fans/ people/defenders out there still are trying to reconcile with reality?

 

[ggusta]

Oh don't get me wrong, I think Landis is /was very entertaining. Ballsy, nonconformist, unpredictable, refreshing. I appreciate a guy who is willing to ride balls-to-the-wall, call Hein out as being full of sh@t, etc...

But the two aren't mutually exclusive. Someone can be very entertaining, but also have a crooked moral compass.

Thanks, btw.

How many ppl in pro cycling who started out decent in the last 20-25 years haven't had their compass bent or broken? There is something likable about Floyd to me as well.

Then a guy came along at just the perfect time who never had any compass....BOOM...perfect storm.

 

[Benotti69]

i dont see anyone in the sport who has a compass never mind a moral one!

 

[ebandit]

i dont see anyone in the sport who has a compass never mind a moral one!

Problem is Benotti you can't tell by looking at somebody whether they are clean or dirty........and at the same time this sport is all about heroes......we all want to have heroes......but we know in this sport there are few certainties.....

Mark L

 

[ChewbaccaD]

What I find amusing are people like MarkvW, who hammers people like Landis and Frankie, but comes in here and defends someone who hasn't shown the slightest sign that she in contrite about what she did, or is even willing to admit a lie we all know is a lie...to be lectured by someone that blind to his hypocrisy would generally be infuriating, but considering the source, it isn't in the least surprising.

 

[mrhender]

i dont see anyone in the sport who has a compass never mind a moral one!

Sincere questions...

Since no moral compass is available in pro-cycling.

Do you think it was this way when they entered the sport?

Does the sport only attract the morally challenged?
Or could it be that this compass get's disturbed by environmental circumstances etc.?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

As for a moral compasses, we all have one, it is the direction it points that is the issue. That being said, I've yet to meet anyone in my life that didn't have a compass that pointed somewhere off target, so when I look at my foibles, I feel like I'm in okay company not having lived perfectly, and having had to walk back and admit my errors to those I've hurt.

My issue is and always has been less about the direction of compass at any given point, and more about the harm done others by the unrepentant...that, and I have a really hard time not feeling much of any sympathy for someone like Armstrong, who set himself up as untouchable, and then found out that even Mike Tyson can get his a$$ kicked.

 

[mrhender]

As for a moral compasses, we all have one, it is the direction it points that is the issue. That being said, I've yet to meet anyone in my life that didn't have a compass that pointed somewhere off target, so when I look at my foibles, I feel like I'm in okay company not having lived perfectly, and having had to walk back and admit my errors to those I've hurt.

My issue is and always has been less about the direction of compass at any given point, and more about the harm done others by the unrepentant...that, and I have a really hard time not feeling much of any sympathy for someone like Armstrong, who set himself up as untouchable, and then found out that even Mike Tyson can get his a$$ kicked.

The problem is not so much Armstrong being the Al Capone of cycling..
Dictators comes along once in a while..

The problem (in cycling) is that he raised the bar of what is perceieved despicable and worthy of same scrutiny..

By doing so he set's a precedence in which important issues in cycling today get's ignored, and a lot of ******bags get's a free pass...

Effectively he worked and still does as a deflector of underlying issues...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The problem is not so much Armstrong being the Al Capone of cycling..
Dictators comes along once in a while..

The problem (in cycling) is that he raised the bar of what is perceieved despicable and worthy of same scrutiny..

By doing so he set's a precedence in which important issues in cycling today get's ignored, and a lot of ******bags get's a free pass...

Effectively he worked and still does as a deflector of underlying issues...

He doesn't deflect me, so my statement was purely one of personal observation. I understand what you're writing, and that may have a wider context, but it wasn't the context in which I was writing.

 

[mrhender]

He doesn't deflect me, so my statement was purely one of personal observation. I understand what you're writing, and that may have a wider context, but it wasn't the context in which I was writing.

Not trying to twist your post.

Only offering my opinion....

This is the Armstrong thread, and there is a discussion of moral compasses..
I think my post has very much to do with both...

But sorry for "widening context" then...

Let's keep discussion in a narrow one

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Not trying to twist your post.

Only offering my opinion....

This is the Armstrong thread, and there is a discussion of moral compasses..
I think my post has very much to do with both...

But sorry for "widening context" then...

Let's keep discussion in a narrow one

I started my point with "My...," you started your point with "The..." They are two different contexts, and I have no issue with either and can engage in both, though I try to limit my assessments to personal opinion rather than submitting opinions of a wider audience.

Keep the discussion wherever you want.

 

[Bluenote]

Sincere questions...

Since no moral compass is available in pro-cycling...

I do think there are moral people in pro-cycling. But it is a pretty dirty sport.

Do you think it was this way when they entered the sport?

Does the sport only attract the morally challenged?
Or could it be that this compass get's disturbed by environmental circumstances etc.?

Probably some of both. Sports in general attract athletes, coaches, owners, promoters who are willing to do whatever it takes to win or to put on a good show. But others adapt to their environment. Particularly if they start in sports at an early age.

But not everyone is corrupt / corruptible.

I think there are people who are drawn to endurance type sports because of the purity of them. You ride (or run, or swim), you suffer. You train, you live a disciplined life.

The competitive trappings of the sport are different from the purity of the sport, where you do it because you love it.

Of course, not every purist becomes a pro and certainly not all pros are purists. Purists can be corrupted, too. But there are a few pros who seem to keep this purist thing. Andy Hampsten always struck me as one.

 

[mrhender]

I started my point with "My...,"

Since you insist on this being about you...

No you did not..

you started your point with "The..."

And? I thought the content of your post was worthy of a debate..
I'am not here to discuss you..

They are two different contexts, and I have no issue with either and can engage in both,

Why not do so then?

though I try to limit my assessments to personal opinion rather than submitting opinions of a wider audience.

All assessments are personal opinion.

And please tell me more about the bolded part...?

Are you saying I'am slave to conformity..
If so, then back it up????

Keep the discussion wherever you want.

So now I get to decide... Thank you for being so kind

 

[mrhender]

I do think there are moral people in pro-cycling. But it is a pretty dirty sport.



Probably some of both. Sports in general attract athletes, coaches, owners, promoters who are willing to do whatever it takes to win or to put on a good show. But others adapt to their environment. Particularly if they start in sports at an early age.

But not everyone is corrupt / corruptible.

I think there are people who are drawn to endurance type sports because of the purity of them. You ride (or run, or swim), you suffer. You train, you live a disciplined life.

The competitive trappings of the sport are different from the purity of the sport, where you do it because you love it.

Of course, not every purist becomes a pro and certainly not all pros are purists. Purists can be corrupted, too. But there are a few pros who seem to keep this purist thing. Andy Hampsten always struck me as one.

It just seems as when you step in the door of pro-cycling you have to leave your moral compass in the door, or you won't get access..

I'am not so interested in locating the few moral bastions inside the sport.
(not saying you are either)

I'am much more interested in locating the underlying and seemingly very strong incentives to leave said compass at the door (or at least after some time)..

We need to understand this from bottom to top, before we can perform efficient anti-doping measures..

We have the CIRC and other various investigations/organazations looking backwards. As if Armstrong et al are gonna learn them how to stop dopers and change the culture... I think this is below par..

Educating young riders is good, but what are they to do when they meet the real world... Even the best of the best (morally) can sometimes end up throwing in the moral towel. And some of them when finding themselves again are pretty screwed-up inside.. That is a problem, as well as those getting cheated by the dopers...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Since you insist on this being about you...

No you did not..



And? I thought the content of your post was worthy of a debate..
I'am not here to discuss you..



Why not do so then?



All assessments are personal opinion.

And please tell me more about the bolded part...?

Are you saying I'am slave to conformity..
If so, then back it up????



So now I get to decide... Thank you for being so kind

Try decaf...

 

[D-Queued]

...

Sincere questions...

Since no moral compass is available in pro-cycling.

Do you think it was this way when they entered the sport?

Does the sport only attract the morally challenged?
Or could it be that this compass get's disturbed by environmental circumstances etc.?

Probably some of both. Sports in general attract athletes, coaches, owners, promoters who are willing to do whatever it takes to win or to put on a good show. But others adapt to their environment. Particularly if they start in sports at an early age.
...

Hi mrhender,

Like you, I have often wondered about this with someone like Lance.

But, if you think about the motivation it still needs to be the other way around.

It isn't logical to come to cycling because you can dope.

It is logical to come to cycling because you can, or at least could, make a bunch of dough if you knew how to dope really well and didn't mind cutting corners and paying people off.

In other words, if your moral compass were faulty you would find cycling attractive because you could employ your devious capacity and be rewarded for it.

Lance's ongoing put-downs of his fellow competitors ("Choads", "They are all doing it") goes well beyond competitiveness. He didn't want to beat the other guys. He wanted to scr*w them. And he could. And he did. And the sport (i.e. the UCI) embraced him for it.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

Hi mrhender,

Like you, I have often wondered about this with someone like Lance.

But, if you think about the motivation it still needs to be the other way around.

It isn't logical to come to cycling because you can dope.

It is logical to come to cycling because you can, or at least could, make a bunch of dough if you knew how to dope really well and didn't mind cutting corners and paying people off.

In other words, if your moral compass were faulty you would find cycling attractive because you could employ your devious capacity and be rewarded for it.

Lance's ongoing put-downs of his fellow competitors ("Choads", "They are all doing it") goes well beyond competitiveness. He didn't want to beat the other guys. He wanted to scr*w them. And he could. And he did. And the sport (i.e. the UCI) embraced him for it.

Dave.

I don't think that Lance wanted to screw the competition. I think he wanted to utterly and completely dominate the competition. Very many professional athletes are like that. They'll do everything and will stop at nothing to win. I don't think that Lance is unique in that regard.

McBruggen's love did give Lance a great edge though.

 

[9000ft]

I don't think that Lance wanted to screw the competition. I think he wanted to utterly and completely dominate the competition. Very many professional athletes are like that. They'll do everything and will stop at nothing to win. I don't think that Lance is unique in that regard.

McBruggen's love did give Lance a great edge though.

Personally, I think LA's having the killer instinct like few others have ever had have more to do with his tour wins than him being a better doper than anyone else of his era. The guy was totally focused on crushing anyone in his way. All successful athletes at the elite level need that to win to some extent, but LA took it to a level several clicks beyond the competition.

 

[Archibald]

... the fact that these types of documentaries are becoming mainstream and embedded into the cultural consciousness and replacing the lie has always been the best possible outcome. It's just good to see the truth finally make its way into the light.

I just hope he's not getting any royalties or similar from them

 

[Granville57]

He didn't want to beat the other guys. He wanted to scr*w them.

Or as Floyd described Lance:
"It wasn't about winning, it was about making the other guy lose."

 

[MarkvW]

Personally, I think LA's having the killer instinct like few others have ever had have more to do with his tour wins than him being a better doper than anyone else of his era. The guy was totally focused on crushing anyone in his way. All successful athletes at the elite level need that to win to some extent, but LA took it to a level several clicks beyond the competition.

I think that Ferrari was a game-changer for Lance. Ferrari was the best dope-coach, and Lance was his super-hardworking subject. Not only that, but Lance must have been a super-responder to dope. In the twisted doped-up world of pro cycling, Lance was the most talented because his natural talent and work ethic were exceptionally synergistic with his doping.

I think we can be absolutely certain that any one of Lance's real challengers (the other doped up guys) would have eagerly stepped into Lance's shoes if they'd been given the chance.

I think the whole "killer instinct" thing is overrated. If a guy has the physical ability to dominate, then the commentators need to come up with an explanation. "Killer instinct" is often that explanation. It doesn't explain very much.

 

[D-Queued]

I think that Ferrari was a game-changer for Lance. Ferrari was the best dope-coach, and Lance was his super-hardworking subject. Not only that, but Lance must have been a super-responder to dope. In the twisted doped-up world of pro cycling, Lance was the most talented because his natural talent and work ethic were exceptionally synergistic with his doping.

I think we can be absolutely certain that any one of Lance's real challengers (the other doped up guys) would have eagerly stepped into Lance's shoes if they'd been given the chance.

I think the whole "killer instinct" thing is overrated. If a guy has the physical ability to dominate, then the commentators need to come up with an explanation. "Killer instinct" is often that explanation. It doesn't explain very much.

You are discounting how much of an impact having no inhibitions about the dark side helped.

Not only doesn't he have a nice angel on his shoulder to suggest a nicer, kinder approach, he had absolutely no remorse about what he did or what he was doing. He wasn't the perfect Ferrari pupil because he was a hard worker and a good responder. He was the perfect pupil because he would do anything.

It is always impressive when a great athlete like a Michael Jordan or a Wayne Gretzky commends someone else for their performance. They know that winning big means you have to be big.

Lance? He is so small that he cannot even let the little kid pass him.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

You are discounting how much of an impact having no inhibitions about the dark side helped.

Not only doesn't he have a nice angel on his shoulder to suggest a nicer, kinder approach, he had absolutely no remorse about what he did or what he was doing. He wasn't the perfect Ferrari pupil because he was a hard worker and a good responder. He was the perfect pupil because he would do anything.

It is always impressive when a great athlete like a Michael Jordan or a Wayne Gretzky commends someone else for their performance. They know that winning big means you have to be big.

Lance? He is so small that he cannot even let the little kid pass him.

Dave.

Yes, Lance is a bad person. Very bad.

 

[Bluenote]

It just seems as when you step in the door of pro-cycling you have to leave your moral compass in the door, or you won't get access..

I'am not so interested in locating the few moral bastions inside the sport.
(not saying you are either)

I'am much more interested in locating the underlying and seemingly very strong incentives to leave said compass at the door (or at least after some time)..

We need to understand this from bottom to top, before we can perform efficient anti-doping measures..

We have the CIRC and other various investigations/organazations looking backwards. As if Armstrong et al are gonna learn them how to stop dopers and change the culture... I think this is below par..

Educating young riders is good, but what are they to do when they meet the real world... Even the best of the best (morally) can sometimes end up throwing in the moral towel. And some of them when finding themselves again are pretty screwed-up inside.. That is a problem, as well as those getting cheated by the dopers...

I believe there have been a variety of studies about this. Basically, things like deterents and education don't work well, as most believe 'it won't happen to them' (they won't get sick, they won't get caught, etc...) Some people say, 'OK, doping is bad,' but a lot just blow it off.

This isn't exclusive to athletes, or elite athletes. It seems to be part of human nature to discount or minimize risk.

Look at how many in the US use illegal drugs, even with the risk of ODing, addiction, various health problems, arrest, long prison terms.

The same issue with education and deterents touches the top. If you put severe penalties in place for teams whose riders dope - well, the team owners / managers just think 'our guys won't get caught.'

I don't know what the solution is. I do think you can't have the agency that is trying to promote the sport, also policing the sport. And I do think that dirty coaches, Doctors and owners have no place in the sport.

But I think some of the incentives are cultural and much larger than cycling. Athletes can gain money, fame, lots of sexual partners, travel, etc... I mean, people are doping at local races, just for the thrill of being Big Man On Campus, and maybe a small prize.

We (as a society), fall all over ourselves worshipping athletes, then act surprised when people go to great lengths to become athletes. And are somehow even more surprised when athletes do whatever they want (Aaron Hernandez, Michael Vick, etc...)