BroDeal said:
This.
It is ironic how people who were so upset about being labeled by Armstrong
have spent years proving that Armstrong made the right call. Many who
used charges of doping to tar their foes are now exposed as obsessed axe
grinders. It was never about doping. On this very forum, which was built
on years of arguing for the prevalence of doping in the European peloton,
they now deny doping's extent because it might lessen the culpability of
one rider. They would prefer to live in a phantasmagorical reality where
a few riders condemning themselves to stay in the U.S. would have changed
the fates of their mythical clean riders, as though the places for those who
stayed home would not have been filled by the thousands of eager amateurs
who were not only willing to do what was necessary to race in the big
leagues but had already started.
It has been a seemy exercise in human duplicity. Remember the fanboys who
would prefix a post with a denial about being a fan? The other side of the
coin has been revealed. It is haters denying they hate Armstrong. It has
reached a risible point where they now claim they care about him and hope
he gets help. This of course is often done in the same post used to attack
any teammate or friend who has presented a more nuanced explanation of
what went into the decisions that were made. Those who have been lauded
as heroes of the revolution get an ice pick to the head if they, after the
better part of two decades have gone by, reconcile. Those traitors are put
on the Andreu Strategies enemies list, and the call goes out the interns to
attack them at every turn.
This Armstrong affair could have been the catharsis to change the sport,
to admit its past and transition to a better future. Instead it has been
the dawning of a new omerta. The demonization of Armstrong's doping is
an extension and reinforcement of the scapegoat policy that was used to
cover up the sport's systemic doping. Those who promote the division of
riders into good dopers and bad dopers are now part of the problem. They
are far more toxic than a pro making a dumb tweet or a UCI apparatchik
telling the prols we are in a new era.
I can't tell how much of this post is facetious, but it seems to weave in and out of things that seem obvious and things that seem ridiculous. Like, yes those who promote the division of riders into good dopers and bad dopers are part of the problem, but I wouldn't use the word 'now'... that's been obvious for years and years. Why do you think this has changed since the Reasoned Decision? Or is it just that it's so obvious that even the dumbest anonymous posters with axes to grind have to notice it now?
The 'ridiculous' I'm referring to is, in the most clear example, trying to paint the Andreu perspective as analagous to Armstrong's use of PR firms and the media to dominate the narrative. I shouldn't have to explain why that's so ridiculous, so I hope you're joking. But people seem to be agreeing with you in earnest so I feel the need to mention it.
Anyway, your whole tirade was in response to JRT's assertion that Betsy was always after Armstrong, and that seems to be what you're referring to when you talk about 'obsessed axe grinders' and saying Armstrong 'made the right call'. Somehow you conflate this with it not being about doping for these people, but do you really think that Armstrong fell because he doped? That seems ridiculous to me - his fall was facilitated by doping as an excuse for the public to create a narrative the he was bad, but he fell because he was such a **** about it. And because he was the most recognizable and successful beneficiary of dope in the history of cycling. And because he deliberately ruined lives when they threatened that lie. You can be against doping in sport and also recognize that Armstrong's place in the spectrum of morals in sport was a special conflation of odious things that offended a broad cross-section of people, and so some people were disappointed he doped, and others disliked him for dominating the media, and others were personally hurt that he used his power to make them and maybe their husband's lives incredibly difficult. It's ridiculously facile to paint Betsy in the same broad brushstrokes as some anonymous internet poster who keeps spewing about Armstrong because he doped and that was wrong while cheering obviously doped riders today.
Anyway, if you'd care to elaborate on why you think Armstrong made 'the right call' in trying to bury the Andreus in seemingly unnecessary and petty ways, and why that might be equivalent on the moral spectrum to appearing in interviews that talk about what Armstrong did long after everyone knows he's been guilty - which I suppose could be described, at worst, as overkill or attention-seeking - if you want to explain why those things are equally egregious on the level of morality, I'm all ears.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram