• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

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

Page 553 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Being on TV doesn't make one a celebrity! Kimmage is a well known journalist and outspoken. Of course he is going to be on TV and radio, part of the job and i repeat, he talks sport, not bollix!

Agree and it's great listening to, not when he goes on about himself though and him interviewing Lance. Darcy ended it last week, "we would all love to see that interview". I repeat it's not about the interviewer and a journalist should never allow that to happen prior to any potential interview. Kimmage can go on radio, TV and talk about sport all he likes. I never said he should stop that.

This about the interviewer stuff was the theme of the last few weeks with MacKenna, Gilroy and Kimmage. They were all trying to use it for their own benefit and angle.

Thankfully, the whole thing is over with.

As for ego, none bigger than Armstrong!

Yes.
 
Jun 17, 2009
24
0
0
Visit site
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

Kimmage puts himself front and centre of any article he writes. Every crusade or the latest shiny thing that catches his attention will always come back to himself: either inserting himself into the story or giving his opinion which he considers non-refutable.

It's not a surprise that this got out of hand when he came into view
 
Jun 17, 2009
24
0
0
Visit site
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

So for example his recent take down of Walsh was so personalised, bring in their relationship so much that it almost negated his whole argument
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

Wicklow200 said:
So for example his recent take down of Walsh was so personalised, bring in their relationship so much that it almost negated his whole argument

Agree, I said the same in the Walsh thread.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
Visit site
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

aquote="gooner"]
Wicklow200 said:
So for example his recent take down of Walsh was so personalised, bring in their relationship so much that it almost negated his whole argument

Agree, I said the same in the Walsh thread.[/quote]

Can we says that after all this unpleasantness, Armstrong emerges as his true self, Kimmage as a crusader no longer with an authentic crusade, and Walsh as entirely self-serving?
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

Why anyone would want to invite Armstrong to speak at a conference or interview him is completely unfathomable and incomprehensible. LA is simply irrelevant to cycling. He clearly established a reputation for himself as a serial liar, so any interview is moot.

As to whether LA is a sociopath, a psychopath or suffers from Antisocial Personality Disorder is also moot because it no longer matters (except to perhaps Landis and the qui tam lawsuit isofar as Armstrong's credibility is in issue).

The symptoms of these disorders include - deceitfulness, serial lying, conning others for personal gain, impulsivity, irritability, aggressiveness, a lack of conscience, an inability to feel empathy toward others, irresponsibility , little respect for rules and little regard to the welfare of others.

To really know if LA is a sociopath or psychopath he would have to be professionally assessed by a psychologist or psychiatrist using an accepted screening device (Hare PCL-R). Armstrong is hardly likely to submit to this kind of examination anytime soon.

All cycling fans can examine the existing record of LA's self-absorbed behaviour in the context of the symptoms of the above noted disorders and come to their own conclusions about the type of person he is.

The only thing I have ever agreed with Pat McQuaid about anything is his statement - "There is no room in cycling for Lance Armstrong"

To read the banal arguments presented here about who should interview Armstrong and why is a futile and empty exercise.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

Wicklow200 said:
Kimmage puts himself front and centre of any article he writes. Every crusade or the latest shiny thing that catches his attention will always come back to himself: either inserting himself into the story or giving his opinion which he considers non-refutable.
This only suggests you've read rather few of Kimmage's writings.

Wicklow200 said:
So for example his recent take down of Walsh was so personalised, bring in their relationship so much that it almost negated his whole argument
In this case it was perfectly appropriate to speak about the relationship with Walsh, as Kimmage was asked about it specifically. This story was in essence about Walsh jumping on the Sky bandwagon and betraying his fans and friends. It was personal in nature.
Also, social media had already speculated abundantly about the personal aspects of the relationship between Walsh and Kimmage.
And Kimmage himself is not very chatty on twitter, you may have noticed. The story was given momentum by others. Not Kimmage's fault.
Anyway, it was refreshing to hear Kimmage speak so frankly about the relationship with Walsh in the interview with Ger. It was excellent work from Ger to give Kimmage a platform to express his emotions.

In fact, I would argue it's a pity Ger didn't take a similar approach to Lance: ask Lance whether he felt/feels betrayed by his friends and/or colleagues.
 
Jul 11, 2009
283
0
0
Visit site
Re:

sniper said:
If I decide to talk to him, I take into account that he's already been exposed, already stripped of his results, facing several law suits, has been publicly humiliated, and forced to apologize to a number of people (some of whom aren't exactly sweathearts themselves by the way).
Why all this retrospective anger towards Lance?


you keep trying to paint him as just another [apologetic] doper. Poor, abused Lance. Why the hate?

yet he is far more than that.

why not address the greed, cynicism and fraudulent intent that lead to the livestrong .com/.org bamboozlement.

the skimming of millions honestly donated in the hopes of research and the potential for a minimization/end to some of the suffering caused by cancer.

all diverted into "cancer awareness" , private jets, fancy living
a disgusting scam, executed by a pure scumbag and his associates.

go on, call him just another doper who's paid his dues.
which other doper has perpetrated anything close what this piece of human excrement has done?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

autologous said:
sniper said:
If I decide to talk to him, I take into account that he's already been exposed, already stripped of his results, facing several law suits, has been publicly humiliated, and forced to apologize to a number of people (some of whom aren't exactly sweathearts themselves by the way).
Why all this retrospective anger towards Lance?


you keep trying to paint him as just another [apologetic] doper. Poor, abused Lance. Why the hate?

yet he is far more than that.

why not address the greed, cynicism and fraudulent intent that lead to the livestrong .com/.org bamboozlement.

the skimming of millions honestly donated in the hopes of research and the potential for a minimization/end to some of the suffering caused by cancer.

all diverted into "cancer awareness" , private jets, fancy living
a disgusting scam, executed by a pure scumbag and his associates.

go on, call him just another doper who's paid his dues.
which other doper has perpetrated anything close what this piece of human excrement has done?
I don't know the answer to all this. I've never followed the side stories very closely. And I can only repeat I'm not terribly interested in them either.
Yeah, the cancer card was awful.
But Lemond played the "I got shot" card and the "kidney patient" card. Of course he never faced the scrutiny Lance faced. But if he had, think about what his defense would have sounded like.
Wiggins is into charities, too. He's now playing the asthma card. Froome is playing the bilharzia card.
And tons of other celebrities are into charity.
What Lance did, many others would probably have done the same in his position. He exploited the system and the nature of our sport loving society.
And do note that the guys who bought into all the scam are as much to blame as Lance himself.
Lance maximally exploited a corrupt system that feeds on an audience with blinders on.

That's not to say it wasn't awful. It was. And again, Lance deserved to be taken down.
I watched it all unfold and it was delightful.
First the Floyd emails, then the USADA investigation.
It was great and it was deserved.
But for me, with those revelations and with Lance being stripped, it was also *over*, passe, past.

Now you gotta ask yourself:
1. Have we heard Lance's side of the story? I certainly haven't.
2. Do I want to hear Lance's side of the story? I certainly do.
Yet all we get is Walsh's side, Lemond's side, Betsy's side of the story.
And guys like Ger keep feeding us those sides of the story like a broken record which we are supposed to treat as Gospel.
And so what about Lance's side of the story? It gets brushed aside under the presumption that he's a pathological liar.
But, if that's your take on him, then why bother to talk to him in the first place?
I would tell guys like Ger: either try to get Lance's side of the story, or don't bother.

Right now, I'd be interested in hearing Lance's side of the story. It's clear that he's angry and frustrated.
If I were a journo, I'd see if I could offer him a platform to vent some of that anger and frustration.
Of course, that may mean having to analyze his discourse to filter out lies and halftruths, but so be it.
When Betsy and Lemond speak, we have to do the very same. Yet we don't. When they speak, we somehow take it as gospel. At least Ger did.
Too rarely do I notice any kind of reflection on some of the hypocrisy behind Betsy's or Lemond's accusations.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

RobbieCanuck said:
Why anyone would want to invite Armstrong to speak at a conference or interview him is completely unfathomable and incomprehensible. LA is simply irrelevant to cycling. He clearly established a reputation for himself as a serial liar, so any interview is moot.

As to whether LA is a sociopath, a psychopath or suffers from Antisocial Personality Disorder is also moot because it no longer matters (except to perhaps Landis and the qui tam lawsuit isofar as Armstrong's credibility is in issue).

The symptoms of these disorders include - deceitfulness, serial lying, conning others for personal gain, impulsivity, irritability, aggressiveness, a lack of conscience, an inability to feel empathy toward others, irresponsibility , little respect for rules and little regard to the welfare of others.

To really know if LA is a sociopath or psychopath he would have to be professionally assessed by a psychologist or psychiatrist using an accepted screening device (Hare PCL-R). Armstrong is hardly likely to submit to this kind of examination anytime soon.

All cycling fans can examine the existing record of LA's self-absorbed behaviour in the context of the symptoms of the above noted disorders and come to their own conclusions about the type of person he is.

The only thing I have ever agreed with Pat McQuaid about anything is his statement - "There is no room in cycling for Lance Armstrong"

To read the banal arguments presented here about who should interview Armstrong and why is a futile and empty exercise.

To put bums on seats and make the organisers a lot of money. Journalists who wanted to attend had to pay and Ewan MacKenna was not getting paid to ask questions. It was a money exercise and Armstrong is still a big draw, just like a car crash, rubber neckers.......

Organisers were refusing to offer refunds but had contacted their lawyers to chase Armstrong for the money they had paid him to attend. Tells us the morals of the organisers.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

Wicklow200 said:
Kimmage puts himself front and centre of any article he writes. Every crusade or the latest shiny thing that catches his attention will always come back to himself: either inserting himself into the story or giving his opinion which he considers non-refutable.

It's not a surprise that this got out of hand when he came into view

So for example his recent take down of Walsh was so personalised, bring in their relationship so much that it almost negated his whole argument

Kimmage doesn't always put himself front and centre, but he does have a interview style that gives the reader insights into his thinking.

You don't consider that journalists need to be crusaders against the tidal wave of cheating and doping in sport? I do and i wish there were more.

This didn't get out of hand! It made news that Armstrong cancelled and newstalk milked it as would any commercial organisation. Welcome to the 21stCentury.

I for one was very happy to hear the tale of Kimmage's row with Walsh. It demonstrates how dedicatated a journalist he is. That Kimmage was right from day one about Sky shows what a sellout Walsh is that it appears he betrayed his profession and his friendship for money!

A lot of people in Ireland are still unhappy and begrudge that Kimmage exposed that their heroes Kelly and Roche were not the knights in shining armour many believed them to be.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
autologous said:
sniper said:
If I decide to talk to him, I take into account that he's already been exposed, already stripped of his results, facing several law suits, has been publicly humiliated, and forced to apologize to a number of people (some of whom aren't exactly sweathearts themselves by the way).
Why all this retrospective anger towards Lance?


you keep trying to paint him as just another [apologetic] doper. Poor, abused Lance. Why the hate?

yet he is far more than that.

why not address the greed, cynicism and fraudulent intent that lead to the livestrong .com/.org bamboozlement.

the skimming of millions honestly donated in the hopes of research and the potential for a minimization/end to some of the suffering caused by cancer.

all diverted into "cancer awareness" , private jets, fancy living
a disgusting scam, executed by a pure scumbag and his associates.

go on, call him just another doper who's paid his dues.
which other doper has perpetrated anything close what this piece of human excrement has done?
I don't know the answer to all this. I've never followed the side stories very closely. And I can only repeat I'm not terribly interested in them either.
Yeah, the cancer card was awful.
But Lemond played the "I got shot" card and the "kidney patient" card. Of course he never faced the scrutiny Lance faced. But if he had, think about what his defense would have sounded like.
Wiggins is into charities, too. He's now playing the asthma card. Froome is playing the bilharzia card.
And tons of other celebrities are into charity.
What Lance did, many others would probably have done the same in his position. He exploited the system and the nature of our sport loving society.
And do note that the guys who bought into all the scam are as much to blame as Lance himself.
Lance maximally exploited a corrupt system that feeds on an audience with blinders on.

That's not to say it wasn't awful. It was. And again, Lance deserved to be taken down.
I watched it all unfold and it was delightful.
First the Floyd emails, then the USADA investigation.
It was great and it was deserved.
But for me, with those revelations and with Lance being stripped, it was also *over*, passe, past.

Now you gotta ask yourself:
1. Have we heard Lance's side of the story? I certainly haven't.
2. Do I want to hear Lance's side of the story? I certainly do.
Yet all we get is Walsh's side, Lemond's side, Betsy's side of the story.
And guys like Ger keep feeding us those sides of the story like a broken record which we are supposed to treat as Gospel.
And so what about Lance's side of the story? It gets brushed aside under the presumption that he's a pathological liar.
But, if that's your take on him, then why bother to talk to him in the first place?
I would tell guys like Ger: either try to get Lance's side of the story, or don't bother.

Right now, I'd be interested in hearing Lance's side of the story. It's clear that he's angry and frustrated.
If I were a journo, I'd see if I could offer him a platform to vent some of that anger and frustration.
Of course, that may mean having to analyze his discourse to filter out lies and halftruths, but so be it.
When Betsy and Lemond speak, we have to do the very same. Yet we don't. When they speak, we somehow take it as gospel. At least Ger did.
Too rarely do I notice any kind of reflection on some of the hypocrisy behind Betsy's or Lemond's accusations.
Good post sniper.

I too would like to hear Lance's side of the story, the real story......

I'm certainly not an LA apologist by any means by wanting to hear the truth from his mouth about everything that happened. Although, I think we can all say that it'll be very difficult trying to decipher what's true and what's fiction, as sniper mentions above.
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

Benotti69 said:
RobbieCanuck said:
Why anyone would want to invite Armstrong to speak at a conference or interview him is completely unfathomable and incomprehensible. LA is simply irrelevant to cycling. He clearly established a reputation for himself as a serial liar, so any interview is moot.

As to whether LA is a sociopath, a psychopath or suffers from Antisocial Personality Disorder is also moot because it no longer matters (except to perhaps Landis and the qui tam lawsuit isofar as Armstrong's credibility is in issue).

The symptoms of these disorders include - deceitfulness, serial lying, conning others for personal gain, impulsivity, irritability, aggressiveness, a lack of conscience, an inability to feel empathy toward others, irresponsibility , little respect for rules and little regard to the welfare of others.

To really know if LA is a sociopath or psychopath he would have to be professionally assessed by a psychologist or psychiatrist using an accepted screening device (Hare PCL-R). Armstrong is hardly likely to submit to this kind of examination anytime soon.

All cycling fans can examine the existing record of LA's self-absorbed behaviour in the context of the symptoms of the above noted disorders and come to their own conclusions about the type of person he is.

The only thing I have ever agreed with Pat McQuaid about anything is his statement - "There is no room in cycling for Lance Armstrong"

To read the banal arguments presented here about who should interview Armstrong and why is a futile and empty exercise.

To put bums on seats and make the organisers a lot of money. Journalists who wanted to attend had to pay and Ewan MacKenna was not getting paid to ask questions. It was a money exercise and Armstrong is still a big draw, just like a car crash, rubber neckers.......

Organisers were refusing to offer refunds but had contacted their lawyers to chase Armstrong for the money they had paid him to attend. Tells us the morals of the organisers.
that and they're not broadcasting to the choir, but the peanut gallery...
 
Jul 21, 2016
913
0
0
Visit site
I agree with Sniper's general sentiments expressed above.
I would be interested to hear Armstrong's side of the whole sorry story, warts and all, if he was willing and able to tell it. I imagine it would need a very skilled interviewer to create the 'space' for this to happen.

Continuing down the road of making him a pariah, calling him a sociopath etc., doesn't seem a worthwhile use of time and energy. It's certainly not informative.
I tend to think society can benefit to some degree by giving a voice to the 'bad' and the 'mad', being open to hearing their stories. Morality, intentions and actions are complex muddy areas of our lives, as we all know.

Armstrong committed what must be the biggest sporting fraud in history, emotionally abusing many people along the way. He's an intelligent man, I would find it interesting to hear how his inner cogs worked that led him down that road. How did he get there? Was it fueled by a nihilistic freedom of thought and action, that none of it really mattered? Was he guilt ridden and in denial, did it all run away from him, taken by the fame and adoration? etc etc.
I prefer restorative justice to punitive. I prefer deterministic philosophy to libertarian. Let the man speak I say. If it's self serving garbage so be it, it wouldn't be a shock. But he may have something interesting to say.
 
Re:

Dan2016 said:
I agree with Sniper's general sentiments expressed above.
I would be interested to hear Armstrong's side of the whole sorry story, warts and all, if he was willing and able to tell it. I imagine it would need a very skilled interviewer to create the 'space' for this to happen.

Continuing down the road of making him a pariah, calling him a sociopath etc., doesn't seem a worthwhile use of time and energy. It's certainly not informative.
I tend to think society can benefit to some degree by giving a voice to the 'bad' and the 'mad', being open to hearing their stories. Morality, intentions and actions are complex muddy areas of our lives, as we all know.

Armstrong committed what must be the biggest sporting fraud in history, emotionally abusing many people along the way. He's an intelligent man, I would find it interesting to hear how his inner cogs worked that led him down that road. How did he get there? Was it fueled by a nihilistic freedom of thought and action, that none of it really mattered? Was he guilt ridden and in denial, did it all run away from him, taken by the fame and adoration? etc etc.
I prefer restorative justice to punitive. I prefer deterministic philosophy to libertarian. Let the man speak I say. If it's self serving garbage so be it, it wouldn't be a shock. But he may have something interesting to say.

Certainly not the biggest sporting fraud in history (but not worth arguing about anymore). Emotional abuse has been embellished beyond a credible magnitude (but not worth arguing about anymore).

Your (and others') notion to pursue another tack has merit.
 
Re: Re:

autologous said:
sniper said:
If I decide to talk to him, I take into account that he's already been exposed, already stripped of his results, facing several law suits, has been publicly humiliated, and forced to apologize to a number of people (some of whom aren't exactly sweathearts themselves by the way).
Why all this retrospective anger towards Lance?


you keep trying to paint him as just another [apologetic] doper. Poor, abused Lance. Why the hate?

yet he is far more than that.

why not address the greed, cynicism and fraudulent intent that lead to the livestrong .com/.org bamboozlement.

the skimming of millions honestly donated in the hopes of research and the potential for a minimization/end to some of the suffering caused by cancer.

all diverted into "cancer awareness" , private jets, fancy living
a disgusting scam, executed by a pure scumbag and his associates.

go on, call him just another doper who's paid his dues.
which other doper has perpetrated anything close what this piece of human excrement has done?

A gross misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what actually went down with Livestrong Foundation, but not worth arguing about.
 
Re:

Dan2016 said:
I agree with Sniper's general sentiments expressed above.
I would be interested to hear Armstrong's side of the whole sorry story, warts and all, if he was willing and able to tell it. I imagine it would need a very skilled interviewer to create the 'space' for this to happen.

Continuing down the road of making him a pariah, calling him a sociopath etc., doesn't seem a worthwhile use of time and energy. It's certainly not informative.
I tend to think society can benefit to some degree by giving a voice to the 'bad' and the 'mad', being open to hearing their stories. Morality, intentions and actions are complex muddy areas of our lives, as we all know.

Armstrong committed what must be the biggest sporting fraud in history, emotionally abusing many people along the way. He's an intelligent man, I would find it interesting to hear how his inner cogs worked that led him down that road. How did he get there? Was it fueled by a nihilistic freedom of thought and action, that none of it really mattered? Was he guilt ridden and in denial, did it all run away from him, taken by the fame and adoration? etc etc.
I prefer restorative justice to punitive. I prefer deterministic philosophy to libertarian. Let the man speak I say. If it's self serving garbage so be it, it wouldn't be a shock. But he may have something interesting to say.

Armstrong is the biggest sports fraud in professional cycling history, but the biggest fraud in history (and the most evil) is the DDR.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Digger said:
Wai one minute...ewan never learned it was lance's fault. He actually doesn't blame lance for the doping aspect to a large degree at all. Lance was aksed to come by the organisers not by ewan. Ewan only wanted to find out about lance the person not the doping - and whilst doping is the same now as before and after lance, lance is still lying. He is lying about 09 and 10...the make up of the fed case, his thoughts on Floyd, why he made Floyd an enemy to begin with, is all relevant and stuff i'd like to find out. And I don't even admire betsy anymore but in fairness lance said he wouldn't fight her on it - then with ger he did exactly that...plus and this is pertinent to today lance still protects the peloton and sky. Why won't he give an honest answer about sky?

And he has been talking a lot to Floyd and others not mentioned above.

Where lance will never learn, is that it was never the doping, it was his actions off the bike...and I gave him every chance in the last tow years but time and again he acts like this...and as for ger's interview, name one question which as unfair.
You said ger messed it up...lance behaved like a belligerent thug the whole way through. And yes more so than that, lance emailing Hilary to promise campaign funds in return for the feds calling off the chase does make him relevant again,

Digger, what's the story behind this Lance and Hillary stuff, and how did it become public? I haven't been paying much attention to Lance in a long time, and this little nugget caught my eye. Thanks.

Curious to know how much Mr. Stingy offered.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Why would he have mentioned concrete sums of money through email?

For the rest there's little news here, as far as I can tell.
We knew he had shitloads of money.
We knew he liked to get cosy with politicians.
We knew he wanted to stop the federal investigation.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re:

Dan2016 said:
...
Continuing down the road of making him a pariah, calling him a sociopath etc., doesn't seem a worthwhile use of time and energy. It's certainly not informative.
I tend to think society can benefit to some degree by giving a voice to the 'bad' and the 'mad', being open to hearing their stories. Morality, intentions and actions are complex muddy areas of our lives, as we all know.
good paragraph.

And as Alpe says, whilst different views will continue to exist, most of the stuff is just not worth arguing about anymore.

The thing is, the way in which Lance was taken down (the investigations, the testimonies, Lance's admission, the stripping of the results), it brought a satisfactory amount of closure to the case.
Well, not for a hand full of people, but certainly for the vast majority of cycling spectators.

By contrast: In the case of, say, Team Sky, one can only pray to the Good Lord that we get even a remotely similar amount of detail/exposure and subsequent closure through justice. It's very unlikely.
In the case of most GT winners, there will never be any kind of exposure/closure.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
Dan2016 said:
...
Continuing down the road of making him a pariah, calling him a sociopath etc., doesn't seem a worthwhile use of time and energy. It's certainly not informative.
I tend to think society can benefit to some degree by giving a voice to the 'bad' and the 'mad', being open to hearing their stories. Morality, intentions and actions are complex muddy areas of our lives, as we all know.
good paragraph.

And as Alpe says, whilst different views will continue to exist, most of the stuff is just not worth arguing about anymore.

The thing is, the way in which Lance was taken down (the investigations, the testimonies, Lance's admission, the stripping of the results), it brought a satisfactory amount of closure to the case.
Well, not for a hand full of people, but certainly for the vast majority of cycling spectators.

By contrast: In the case of, say, Team Sky, one can only pray to the Good Lord that we get even a remotely similar amount of detail/exposure and subsequent closure through justice. It's very unlikely.
In the case of most GT winners, there will never be any kind of exposure/closure.
I think the Armstrong saga has all but fizzled out with many cycling fans. Sure, there are plenty who despise him, and an emerging trend who even sympathize with him. But, IMO, I think the majority simply don't care and have moved on. Judging by the comments on the periodic CN stories on LA, many are questioning why reports are being done on his on-going legal problems, twitter comments, etc. He isn't going to tell us anything new, he still maintains that he was clean in his comeback and it appears he still has his ego ever so wanting of attention.

I think history will look back at how well he seems to have greatly benefited from his ill-gotten gains. He has enormous wealth, good health (so far anyway, but you have to wonder what the long-term consequences could be concerning his chronic PED use), a future in master's competitions, and they even made a movie about him (does he get any revenue from that? Lol). And to my complete surprise, he was invited as a guest speaker this past March to address students at a Univ. of Colorado Sports Governance class.

Sure, he's been stripped of his titles, given a lifetime ban and publicly disgraced, but going from the "penthouse to the outhouse" hasn't, IMO, seemed to be a big deal for him - as compared to the consequences of other high-profile American athletes who have been disgraced with doping. For example, compare LA's situation to that of Marion Jones. Jones, who was implicated in the BALCO doping scandal, is bankrupt, served prison time and many people have probably forgotten who she even is.

Armstrong will probably never have to work another day the rest of his life while most of us posting here will. Certainly, none of us will ever be invited as a guest speaker to discuss sports ethics at a prominent University. He seemed to enjoy the spotlight at the presentation, charming the impressionable students with his candor and humor. It certainly was a side of Lance we never saw of him years ago.

https://youtu.be/fshoz6cnKPY
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

Great post, Nomad.

For all of the skepticism bordering on cynicism on other topics, some people remain hilariously naive about Lance. You will never get the truth from Lance. You will only get the same kind of "truth" he spouted on It's Not About the Bike, then on all those slightest smidge press releases and Trek photo ops, on Charlie Rose, then on Oprah ... narrative after narrative he thinks can sell. The truth to Lance is whatever he thinks his target audience wants to hear from him, and whatever will help him draw attention to whatever he's selling.

But I don't begrudge anyone's willingness to be deceived. It's inherently human to believe in wonderfully complex motivations and undiscovered McGuffins, in impossible reconciliations and and unbounded personal growth. It's so much more fun to believe that there's always an unforeseen turn, and additional complication, that redemption ultimately awaits the "bad" and damnation the "good". That battles are more often won convincingly on bold gambles rather than ambiguously by the gradual tightening of the noose. Although, on the other hand, I do understand how it might be seen as even more naive to think that, however grim things are, and however circuitous the steps we're taking might be, things might actually be getting better.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

carton said:
... some people remain hilariously naive about Lance. You will never get the truth from Lance. .
You will never get the truth from Merckx, from Lemond, from Contador, from Indurain, from Wiggins, or from Froome.

Lance has been thoroughly investigated, fully exposed, has admitted to doping, and has been stripped of all his TdF titles. None of the above have (with the partial exception of Contador).

Imo it's time to move on and focus on those that haven't been exposed yet.
 
Re: Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession

sniper said:
carton said:
... some people remain hilariously naive about Lance. You will never get the truth from Lance. .
You will never get the truth from Merckx, from Lemond, from Contador, from Indurain, from Wiggins, or from Froome.

Lance has been thoroughly investigated, fully exposed, has admitted to doping, and has been stripped of all his TdF titles. None of the above have (with the partial exception of Contador).

Imo it's time to move on and focus on those that haven't been exposed yet.
No one I can think of is asserting that Merckx was clean. Contador was caught. Indurain refuses to deny it at this point. Wiggins' reputation has taken a beating. Froome has plenty of public doubters. LeMond has received the appropriate amount of static for it, which is to say, pretty much none whatsoever outside of this forum.

But I do agree with you completely on your concluding statement.