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

[Dear Wiggo]

Never one to forego kicking a man while he's down, this is a screen shot from this week's episode of the UK comedy/car show, Top Gear:

Priceless.

Prefer LA to the git hold his poster.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/sports/cycling/end-of-the-ride-for-lance-armstrong.html

Tells the story of Lance leaving his dream home and also his inspiration and his downfall through the eyes of his massage guy (I can't spell french words, sorry)

Whether you feel Lance deserves it or just revel in his less than billionaire 'slum' status; there is something in this article for everyone. I liked this more than any other book or article.

He may even earn a little pity, just as that little Italian climber that the Giro wants to honor (the Pirate, who died of drug abuse). I hated him as a cyclist, but pity him how he died. I loved Lance as a cyclist despite his arrogance and morals. He deserved to be punished, but not unfairly.

Still, he doesn't get it. He thinks Trek should be only thankful for what he did for the company. Oh well, he could always wind up with a Kardashian in the future or some other reality show.

You sure can't forget the man. He will always be Tour history and its biggest legend.

NO. He will forever be remembered as the biggest, most arrogant, hubristic, bullying, manipulating, sociopathic cheat and fraudster in world sport. His legacy does not come close to legend status, more like pitiful charlatan

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Eddy Merckx opinion counts for alot. And so does Jan.

I dont hold the doping against him, I dont even hold the pseudo corruption getting the UCI to work their inimitable magic on Mayo et al.

But he could have gone easy on those like the Andreu's, who never saw life thru his amoral lens.

He was a champion, and his will was peerless, for that, much respect.

JV on the other hand, he's a chump

Doping is the bane of sport. It is personal corruption at its worst. It makes competition unfair. To not hold Armstrong responsible for doping is ludicrous. He was a cheater and a fraud and therefore definitely not a champion.

I will give you this. He was single minded in perfecting his cheating only. That is it and for that he deserves no respect. Given the overwhelming evidence of his prevarication I find your comments absurd. Just my opinion.

 

[MarkvW]

Doping is the bane of sport. It is personal corruption at its worst. It makes competition unfair. To not hold Armstrong responsible for doping is ludicrous. He was a cheater and a fraud and therefore definitely not a champion.

I will give you this. He was single minded in perfecting his cheating only. That is it and for that he deserves no respect. Given the overwhelming evidence of his prevarication I find your comments absurd. Just my opinion.

Same for Merckx, Anquetil, Coppi and all the other dopers?

 

[86TDFWinner]

I loved Lance as a cyclist despite his arrogance and morals. He deserved to be punished, but not unfairly.

In MANY folks opinions, he didn't get punished enough. How you could think he has been punished unfairly, makes me think you still believe in the myth.

Same for Merckx, Anquetil, Coppi and all the other dopers?

And Miggy, and Roche & Delgado...YES, the same for ALL of them!!! Merckx is especially bad IMO, as he's known for years about Wonderboy, and chose to turn a blind eye & said nothing. That makes him just as bad, and/or worse IMO.

NO. He will forever be remembered as the biggest, most arrogant, hubristic, bullying, manipulating, sociopathic cheat, POS, and fraudster in world sport. His legacy does not come close to legend status, more like pitiful charlatan

Added a word, but the rest is spot on.

 

[D-Queued]

...

And Miggy, and Roche & Delgado...YES, the same for ALL of them!!! Merckx is especially bad IMO, as he's known for years about Wonderboy, and chose to turn a blind eye & said nothing. That makes him just as bad, and/or worse IMO.

....

You are too kind.

Merckx allegedly made the intro / referral to Ferrari.

Many of us wish to keep Eddy on a pedestal that unfortunately cannot be justified.

Eddy isn't as bad as Armstrong. That doesn't mean that his active facilitation is anything but unforgivable.

Dave.

 

[SundayRider]

In MANY folks opinions, he didn't get punished enough. How you could think he has been punished unfairly, makes me think you still believe in the myth.



And Miggy, and Roche & Delgado...YES, the same for ALL of them!!! Merckx is especially bad IMO, as he's known for years about Wonderboy, and chose to turn a blind eye & said nothing. That makes him just as bad, and/or worse IMO.




Added a word, but the rest is spot on.

To people who have an interest in the sport yes probably how he will be remembered, to the general public probably just the guy that won a bike race in France after nearly dying and then lying about it.

Even some cyclists don't seem to share the hate that LA gets on these pages. A cyclist friend said to me a while back 'there is people with similar traits to LA in just about every job/industry/sport/walk of life'.

 

[86TDFWinner]

To people who have an interest in the sport yes probably how he will be remembered, to the general public probably just the guy that won a bike race in France after nearly dying and then lying about it.

Even some cyclists don't seem to share the hate that LA gets on these pages. A cyclist friend said to me a while back 'there is people with similar traits to LA in just about every job/industry/sport/walk of life'.

I'd suspect they're looked upon in similar fashion as Wonderboy is, but if they have no issues with it, neither do I. My guess is, just as with the case of Wonderboy, there'll be A LOT of empty seats at their funerals too.

 

[SundayRider]

I'd suspect they're looked upon in similar fashion as Wonderboy is, but if they have no issues with it, neither do I. My guess is, just as with the case of Wonderboy, there'll be A LOT of empty seats at their funerals too.

Lots of cyclists I ride/socialise with only look at his achievements and the fact all the others cheated too and sort of rationalise that. They don't look into his relationships with others in a deep way like we do on here, they don't read every interview on the internet regarding Lance as many do on here etc etc. This goes for lots of people in the public eye footballers, musicians, actors. For me if a musician I like is a grad C*** it puts me off their music in a big way, for lots of people though it doesn't register, same with how quite a few cyclists seem to view Lance.

 

[RownhamHill]

This was essentially my point, the quote was broad. He was likely referring to doping as a whole, even though he included EPO in the list

Yeah that particular quote is interesting. Thinking about this this morning it's pretty clear that Macur has three main 'sources' for the early years; Hendershot, JT Neale, and (reading between the lines) Lance himself - I'm pretty sure the source with 'first hand' knowledge of the San Sabastian bribe is more than likely Lance off the record, and indeed Macur describes in the intro how he co-operated in an attempt to shape the book ('tell the true story')

Now obviously, over the course of a lifetime, Lance has proved he has problems distinguishing between the concept of 'truth' and 'convenient narrative', often confusing the two.

What's also obvious is that Hendershot didn't take notes at the time, and is remembering stuff from 20 years ago which was a completely mundane part of his job over a period of years; so while he's obviously a great witness on the big picture (ie I was jacking up riders with a cocktail of random crap every day), some of the finer detail is fuzzy (ie what specific cocktail to which specific rider on which specific day). Meanwhile one of the other 'sources' is dead, and the other one, Lance, obviously has a very strong incentive to manage the narrative to his own advantage.

So with all that in mind, the 1993 quote is interesting as it's a 'slip' in the narrative - maybe Macur just made a mistake in the quote, maybe Hendershot maybe a mistake in his recollection at that particular point, or maybe its an accidental hint at the actual truth that Macur couldn't report on because she couldn't substantiate it over and above Lance's strong claim to it being 1995. Who knows!

 

[Alpe73]

In MANY folks opinions, he didn't get punished enough. How you could think he has been punished unfairly, makes me think you still believe in the myth.

Market forces will eventually, ultimately decide Armstrong's full punishment. You (like me) are a minuscule part of those forces. So chat on.

 

[Alpe73]

Even some cyclists don't seem to share the hate that LA gets on these pages. .

Some (many?) feel compelled to shut their mouths to keep their jobs. Right or wrong, not so difficult to understand. Rider perspective is different than keyboard warrior perspective, unless you (now as a keyboard warrior) were a former pro or ammy who got torched.

Perspective .... flux.

 

[Alpe73]

My guess is, just as with the case of Wonderboy, there'll be A LOT of empty seats at their funerals too.

Yeah, and thousands will boycott this year's Giro. Keep it real, man.

 

[elizab]

So Lance, George, and Frankie are all lying? Perhaps

I'm not speaking for liar Lance and disingenuous George but I can tell you Frankie's not lying. He said he had no idea John was making these concoctions back in the motorola day. As with The Secret Race I'm sure we'll learn stuff from Juliet's book we/Frankie had no idea about until we read about it.

If I'm going to cheat on Frankie and I know you'd be adamantly against it, would I tell you? Lance knew where Frankie stood, hence, the lack of openness wrt to lance with frankie. Remember when Frankie stated in his deposition that he told lance he was nuts when lance was bragging about all the pills he was taking at certain points in the race? Frankie telling lance no how many times to seeing ferrari? the rest is history...

 

[horsinabout]

Doping is the bane of sport. It is personal corruption at its worst. It makes competition unfair. To not hold Armstrong responsible for doping is ludicrous. He was a cheater and a fraud and therefore definitely not a champion.

I will give you this. He was single minded in perfecting his cheating only. That is it and for that he deserves no respect. Given the overwhelming evidence of his prevarication I find your comments absurd. Just my opinion.

Whole sale doping is a corruption to cycling and I know this. As I have already iterated, you have to look at the bigger picture. It is both incorrect to blame Armstrong solely for the creation of a doping empire, although I concede he participated with gusto. Nor is it correct to get personal and hold him up as a champion hero. I personally don’t see Armstrong as a champion. I see him as a street fighter, a survivor. His doping can never be condoned, but needs to be seen in context and the constant attacking of him must not blind or distract from the current state of affairs, which I see as its partial purpose. I think this was the point that Brodeal was making and got misunderstood.

As we have seen recently with the track world championships and the ‘supposed’ lack lustre performances (edit-of the British team). In actual fact, and I know this, those performances especially in the sprinting were more near to ‘normal’, such that it made me feel that it was becoming more human again. However, how long will it or can it last if winning is the name of the game?

 

[Netserk]

Hi Betsy, now you're here, when did Frankie start using epo, and what drugs had he used before (and when did he start using those)?

Thank you in advance.

 

[Race Radio]

Armstrong's lawyers filed an emergency appeal to stop him going under oath Thursday for the SCA case. They say lance telling the truth will cause him "Irreparable harm"

Amazing

 

[martinvickers]

Armstrong's lawyers filed an emergency appeal to stop him going under oath Thursday for the SCA case. They say lance telling the truth will cause him "Irreparable harm"

Amazing

Sir, I do believe you've just won the internets with that.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Lance has proved he has problems distinguishing between the concept of 'truth' and 'convenient narrative', often confusing the two.

You are being too gentle. There's no confusion. As long as the story fits the narrative, "I'm the world's greatest cyclist, better than Lemond." It's all true. If there are conflicting accounts, it's your problem you don't understand.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Armstrong's lawyers filed an emergency appeal to stop him going under oath Thursday for the SCA case. They say lance telling the truth will cause him "Irreparable harm"

Amazing

Another delay to review the new appeal? And then an appeal about the decision on the appeal?

 

[D-Queued]

Armstrong's lawyers filed an emergency appeal to stop him going under oath Thursday for the SCA case. They say lance telling the truth will cause him "Irreparable harm"

Amazing

I was wondering how they would move to stop the deposition if they were in the midst of actual settlement discussions.

While it is amazing at face value, I would caution against reading too much into this. It is highly (!) probable that the two sides are very close to a settlement.

SCA cannot let Lance off the hook on the deposition, while Lance would obviously want to settle before having to provide one. Sometimes, though, negotiations take longer than anyone wants or hopes.

Dave.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

I was wondering how they would move to stop the deposition if they were in the midst of actual settlement discussions.

While it is amazing at face value, I would caution against reading too much into this. It is highly (!) probable that the two sides are very close to a settlement.

SCA cannot let Lance off the hook on the deposition, while Lance would obviously want to settle before having to provide one. Sometimes, though, negotiations take longer than anyone wants or hopes.

Dave.

Lance not reacting well to being 'the 'ball(s)' in the vice and not the guy tightening.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Armstrong's lawyers filed an emergency appeal to stop him going under oath Thursday for the SCA case. They say lance telling the truth will cause him "Irreparable harm"

Amazing

Oh, it'll "cause him harm" alrighty. This may be as close to the truth as Lance has ever gotten.

 

[MarkvW]

I was wondering how they would move to stop the deposition if they were in the midst of actual settlement discussions.

While it is amazing at face value, I would caution against reading too much into this. It is highly (!) probable that the two sides are very close to a settlement.

SCA cannot let Lance off the hook on the deposition, while Lance would obviously want to settle before having to provide one. Sometimes, though, negotiations take longer than anyone wants or hopes.

Dave.

The appeal makes no legal sense whatsoever--and any responsible lawyer would have told Lance that. It is just throwing money away on lawyers. This appeal isn't just a little bit stupid. It's mind-bogglingly stupid. It's so stupid, I can't say how stupid it is.

Is Lance going scorched-earth on his creditors? Maybe he isn't anywhere near as wealthy as we think. Maybe he figures he might as well burn up his money on attorney fees rather than pay off his creditors?

 

[elizab]

Hi Betsy, now you're here, when did Frankie start using epo, and what drugs had he used before (and when did he start using those)?

Thank you in advance.

Frankie first tried it in 96 although it could've been 95. The one time trip to Switzerland (he's most positive it was once he went but will say could've been two at the most and FOR HIMSELF ONLY) was the only purchase he made. He only used epo definitely for the 99 Tour (stopping thereafter) and for a few other races (I have to read his affidavit for the usada report - it's all here: http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Andreu+Frankie+Affidavit.pdf

He did get injected with epo by the team doctors during one of the Tours I think. the other injection was a something that del Moral refused to tell Frankie what it was. If he didn't take it in 99, he wouldn't start the next race day.

Does that answer your question?