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

[Alpe73]

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...)

1. What is your vision for pro cycling?
2. What are the chances of that vision being realized?
3. What will you do if it (the vision) does not materialize?

 

[Bluenote]

Yes, Lance is a bad person. Very bad.

D-Q'd has a point. There's been some interesting studies that sociopaths, narcissists, others who show no remorse, can be quite successful. There is some evidence that a higher than average number of sociopathic types go into things like business, finance, law, even medicine. They have no qualms about doing whatever need be to get the job done.

I'm not saying that Armstrong is a sociopath - I'm not qualified to say that. But I think we can all agree that he shows little remorse for what he's done.

Pick parts of what made Armstrong so successful and ask "was this aided by Armstrong's lack of guilt / remorse?'

It takes a pretty amoral person to hold themselves up as an anti-cancer crusader, then cynically lie 'I'd never risk doping after nearly having died of cancer.' It was a very effective lie, because subconsciously you think 'yeah, what cancer survivor / crusader would lie about taking risky dope.' A guy with guilt about doping, lying, and lying to cancer survivors would not have been able to tell that lie confidently.

Armstrong isn't Jeffery Dahmer. But relative to many other dopers, he took things pretty far.

 

[Alpe73]

Yes, Lance is a bad person. Very bad.

Someone had to say it, Mark ... after all this time. And, might I add, you were fairly assertive (I'm just wandering, Mark ... were you yawning at the time?) in saying it. I would expect nothing less (or even, 'more') of a post #10,002 for this thread. On on to # 20,004.

 

[Bluenote]

1. What is your vision for pro cycling?
2. What are the chances of that vision being realized?
3. What will you do if it (the vision) does not materialize?

Realistically? Or ideally?

Realistically, there will always be some doping in cycling.
But it doesn't have to corrupt sport at the highest levels (payments to the UCI, warnings about tests, etc...)
We'll have to see what the IIRC comes up with; if Armstrong or Brunyeel ever talk, what comes out of the Qui Tam, etc...
I'm not happy that USA Cycling seems to have escaped unscathed.

Me? I'll keep riding my bike. I've been riding since before cycling was huge in the US.

Pro-cycling? I'll watch occasionally, kinda like how I occasionally watch boxing, Football, or an action movie. It can be entertaining, but I couldn't tell you where reality ends and illusion begins.

 

[Archibald]

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'm not sure on this "super responder" bit.
Considering he was apparently using EPO prior the cancer/GC winner transformation, why wasn't he super responding in the mid nineties?
He was involved with Ferrari then too, right?

 

[veganrob]

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.

No.
I think it was more like NASCAR but everybody had restrictor plates on their car except for Lance.


Ferrari.Hein.Phat.

 

[thehog]

No.
I think it was more like NASCAR but everybody had restrictor plates on their car except for Lance.


Ferrari.Hein.Phat.

I would agree. Lance didn't even cheat fairly!

I'm actually not sure how he could have lost. He doped, elimated competition through dope tests, avoided controls and told everyone to go f%%% themselves.

Goes to show that people will believe in anything. What a strange world we live in.

Reminds me of Madoff. He couldn't possibly sustain the returns that he was reporting legally. But it took neigh on 10 years for anyone to actually believe it let alone have the will to investigate it seriously.

 

[thehog]

CALORGUEN, France (AFP) — Lance Armstrong has become a stain on the glorious cycling memories of French legend Bernard Hinault, who said he would refuse to speak to the shamed American rider.

Cycling has an unfair reputation over drug-taking, according to the five-time Tour de France winner who marks his 60th birthday on Friday as one of the most popular living Frenchmen.

Hinault told AFP in an interview that he has had a “dream life” in cycling but that doping scandals that have made the sport notorious “hurt all those who love cycling.”

“But they should look at all sports. Cycling is no more rotten than the others,” he declared. “People are always picking on cycling.”

But mention Armstrong and his mood darkens. “If I met him today I would not talk to him. I would not even say hello.”

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014...oping-in-the-sport_352761#f2dTRgtVAj3sUhZU.99

 

[Pazuzu]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014...oping-in-the-sport_352761#f2dTRgtVAj3sUhZU.99

When I first saw the headline on Yahoo about Hinault talking about "unfairness & doping" I thought he was going to argue that Armstrong being unfairly singled out for doping when everyone else was doing the same. Thankfully he didn't take that angle. However, I disagree with his assessment that cycling has an unfair reputation for 'drug taking.' Given the past 20+ years, that reputation is well earned!

 

[python]

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 dont mean to be negative or personal, but sorry, this is a serious bs misconception rebuked many times before on the basis of plain facts !

why his 'killer instinct' (he must have been born with) ONLY bore fruits of total domination past 1999 ?

how many watts does 'killer instinct' cost ?

as i analyzed in my previous posts, citing the recently linked hard data, a certifiably doped, 20 yo, crush-at-all cost armstrong, could only produce 340-350 watts at anaerobic threshold.

where did the other appr. 100 watts he gained past 1999 come from ?

his killer instinct ? no need to be a physiologist, just use you common sense in stead of mythology

 

[Oldman]

I'm not sure on this "super responder" bit.
Considering he was apparently using EPO prior the cancer/GC winner transformation, why wasn't he super responding in the mid nineties?
He was involved with Ferrari then too, right?

Having a credit card to buy rocket fuel doesn't make you a rocket. Lance succeeded in exacerbating his cancer on the first go around. He had near exclusive access to the best doctor for the following career.

 

[DirtyWorks]

No.
I think it was more like NASCAR but everybody had restrictor plates on their car except for Lance.


Ferrari.Hein.Phat.Thom

Fixed that for you. Nothing would have happened without Thom and Co. in the U.S. IMO, later on, the exclusive access to Ferrari was critical.

 

[ggusta]

i dont mean to be negative or personal, but sorry, this is a serious bs misconception rebuked many times before on the basis of plain facts !

why his 'killer instinct' (he must have been born with) ONLY bore fruits of total domination past 1999 ?

how many watts does 'killer instinct' cost ?

as i analyzed in my previous posts, citing the recently linked hard data, a certifiably doped, 20 yo, crush-at-all cost armstrong, could only produce 340-350 watts at anaerobic threshold.

where did the other appr. 100 watts he gained past 1999 come from ?

his killer instinct ? no need to be a physiologist, just use you common sense in stead of mythology

I really don't see it as killer instinct, he's somewhat of the 90 pound weakling who suddenly finds the genie in the bottle on the beach and takes out all his years of anger, rage and bitterness on his perceived enemies. On the road and especially off. Winning was far from satisfactory, it was like 'here, let me drag your dead carcass around the town square like a billion times and then stomp on it in front of your mom'. And to make it worse, he never even looks back and thinks, wow, that was a bit much, he seems to think it wasn't enough afterwards.

I wouldn't call that a killer instinct, I'd call that someone with a problem I am glad I don't have.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Having a credit card to by rocket fuel doesn't make you a rocket. Lance succeeded in exacerbating his cancer on the first go around. He had near exclusive access to the best doctor for the following career.

good post

 

[mewmewmew13]

I really don't see it as killer instinct, he's somewhat of the 90 pound weakling who suddenly finds the genie in the bottle on the beach and takes out all his years of anger, rage and bitterness on his perceived enemies. On the road and especially off. Winning was far from satisfactory, it was like 'here, let me drag your dead carcass around the town square like a billion times and then stomp on it in front of your mom'. And to make it worse, he never even looks back and thinks, wow, that was a bit much, he seems to think it wasn't enough afterwards.

I wouldn't call that a killer instinct, I'd call that someone with a problem I am glad I don't have.

the story Tyler Hamilton told in his book of Lance beating up a driver who irked him..
not normal

 

[86TDFWinner]

When I first saw the headline on Yahoo about Hinault talking about "unfairness & doping" I thought he was going to argue that Armstrong being unfairly singled out for doping when everyone else was doing the same. Thankfully he didn't take that angle. However, I disagree with his assessment that cycling has an unfair reputation for 'drug taking.' Given the past 20+ years, that reputation is well earned!

According to some here, Hinault was a "doper" too. Infact, Many have said that doping has gone on since the inception of the tour.

I think it'd be more hypocritical of Merckx or Indurain to say this stuff than Hinault, but that's MY opinion.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Having a credit card to by rocket fuel doesn't make you a rocket. Lance succeeded in exacerbating his cancer on the first go around. He had near exclusive access to the best doctor for the following career.

But wasn't his doping the cause of his cancer?

 

[Oldman]

But wasn't his doping the cause of his cancer?

I'm not an oncologist but presumably you'd have to be genetically disposed to get cancer. Certainly some meds and behavior contributes to the likelihood that a genetic weakness affects your health but it's not necessarily cause and effect. HGH on the other hand...
Either way his approach was like gasoline near a spark.

 

[python]

...it was like 'here, let me drag your dead carcass around the town square like a billion times and then stomp on it in front of your mom'. .....

thanks for a hearty chuckle i know very well the image of 'angry' siting in my head, but given my background i could NEVER come up with such a vivid pic as you did.

... in all fairness to 9000ft, he/she by this 'killer instinct' probably meant the unique ability to dig deep (or deeper) than one's competition when hearts and lungs are maxed out. iow, to overcome one's limit.

indeed, most athletes, even at the elite level differ in the ability...mew for instance just mentioned tyler... he indeed could go beyond the wall in solo rides. i dont exclude that texas could also dig very deep.

the problem is, at the world-class level of competition the NATURAL 'dig deep' will last minutes, perhaps a couple of hours during a given race - never for 7 years during each race. NEVER.

and here's what's more important - this is usually overlooked by most fans who don't consider human physiology - each such superhuman dig, each travel into a stratospheric pain world incurs a cost.. tyler said it best, 'you can only burn so many matches'.

I wouldn't call that a killer instinct, I'd call that someone with a problem I am glad I don't have.

i am still to come across a study that would translate a personality disorder into horse power or watts. armstrong has the disorder - very certainly - but his WATTS come from doping.

a lot of doping.

 

[D-Queued]

Yes, Lance is a bad person. Very bad.

D-Q'd has a point. There's been some interesting studies that sociopaths, narcissists, others who show no remorse, can be quite successful. There is some evidence that a higher than average number of sociopathic types go into things like business, finance, law, even medicine. They have no qualms about doing whatever need be to get the job done.

I'm not saying that Armstrong is a sociopath - I'm not qualified to say that. But I think we can all agree that he shows little remorse for what he's done.

Pick parts of what made Armstrong so successful and ask "was this aided by Armstrong's lack of guilt / remorse?'

It takes a pretty amoral person to hold themselves up as an anti-cancer crusader, then cynically lie 'I'd never risk doping after nearly having died of cancer.' It was a very effective lie, because subconsciously you think 'yeah, what cancer survivor / crusader would lie about taking risky dope.' A guy with guilt about doping, lying, and lying to cancer survivors would not have been able to tell that lie confidently.

Armstrong isn't Jeffery Dahmer. But relative to many other dopers, he took things pretty far.

Sigh. Another transparent, thoughtless post from MarkvW.

Bluenote, this book is well known / highly regarded:

SNAKES IN SUITS

you can also buy it from Amazon: http://www.amazon.ca/Snakes-In-Suits-When-Psychopaths/dp/0061147893

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

Sigh. Another transparent, thoughtless post from MarkvW.

Bluenote, this book is well known / highly regarded:

SNAKES IN SUITS

you can also buy it from Amazon: http://www.amazon.ca/Snakes-In-Suits-When-Psychopaths/dp/0061147893

Dave.

Your post was ridiculous. Embracing the "dark side" and being "big" don't make you ride your bike faster. Before you attack me personally, consider just how stupid your post was.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Your post was ridiculous. Embracing the "dark side" and being "big" don't make you ride your bike faster. Before you attack me personally, consider just how stupid your post was.

Consider how stupid you are for not understanding that was not the point of his post.

 

[Bluenote]

Sigh. Another transparent, thoughtless post from MarkvW.

Bluenote, this book is well known / highly regarded:

SNAKES IN SUITS

you can also buy it from Amazon: http://www.amazon.ca/Snakes-In-Suits-When-Psychopaths/dp/0061147893

Dave.

I was playing "ignore MVW's strawman / snark, stick to the high road."

The issue is more complex / interesting than just 'lets pick on Armstrong and call him mean names.'

To me, lack of guilt is kinda like lack of pain. You hear it about it and think 'wow, wouldn't it be cool to not feel guilt, or not feel pain.'

Then you meet someone who feels no remorse. They treat people horribly and don't get why its a big deal. Makes you say 'wow, I'm so glad I have a conscience.'

Trying to understand why and how someone did things, is not quite the same as picking on them and calling them names. Statistically, Armstrong isn't the only "remorseless" guy in cycling. Will we be taken in by their myth, too?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Hey Marky Mark.

Why don't you explain to us again why Floyd and Frankie are loathsome characters, and Stephanie is a shining example of someone to be venerated. I just love to watch you show your ineptness in both character assessment, and logic in general, over and over and over.

Like I've said before, you're like a cross between the hog and BPC. A perfect son as it were.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I was playing "ignore MVW's strawman / snark, stick to the high road."

The issue is more complex / interesting than just 'lets pick on Armstrong and call him mean names.'

To me, lack of guilt is kinda like lack of pain. You hear it about it and think 'wow, wouldn't it be cool to not feel guilt, or not feel pain.'

Then you meet someone who feels no remorse. They treat people horribly and don't get why its a big deal. Makes you say 'wow, I'm so glad I have a conscience.'

Trying to understand why and how someone did things, is not quite the same as picking on them and calling them names. Statistically, Armstrong isn't the only "remorseless" guy in cycling. Will we be taken in by their myth, too?

Careful, Mark is going to tell you how stupid you are for thinking the issue is more complex than "Lance is a very bad person, very bad." That is the only dynamic he will allow in his position as "wrong all the ****ing time about everything he writes" super-stardom.

When MarkvW disagrees with you, you can be just about positive that no further investigation is needed on your part, because you must be squarely on the mark...because he never is.