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

[Granville57]

I'm not saying that Armstrong is a sociopath -

Oh, no problem. I got your back. Armstrong's a sociopath.

 

[mrhender]

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.

I'll try this and see if it works..

Consider the world of cycling as a casino..
When you become professional you enter said casino..
Now what you see is a minor group taking in some huge winnings.
They take those winnings because their stakes are high.
You try to make your way placing some small bets here and there, but you never win much and tend to lose in the long run..

So what do you do?
You can either go home and cut your losses.
Or you can start placing higher bets and maybe get a huge win.

The problem for heavy gamblers is that sometimes their actions has severe consequenses to their sorroundings. Lies and desperate measures to raise doe to bet with now becomes necessary.
So was it you nature that made you lie and do despicable things? Or was it just being hooked that changed the game.. Some serious cognitive dissonance takes place in the mind of a pathological gambler, mostly because his actions are against his self-percieved nature as well as how his relations regard him.

Maybe this only makes sense in my head, so can you see the point I'am making here?
--

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.

Lance on the other hand, he had a serious deal on the blackjack table going..
Not only did he count cards.. He also made friends with the owners of the casino, cause if everyone saw how much he call haul in it would increase the amount of guests/interest thus making more revenue -alongside some percentages of Lance's winnings..
They played the game, and they sure knew how to do it...
It was a sweet deal for everyone... And maybe it was a perfect match for Lance's nature, as well as those casino owners..

 

[Bluenote]

I'll try this and see if it works..

Consider the world of cycling as a casino..
When you become professional you enter said casino..
Now what you see is a minor group taking in some huge winnings.
They take those winnings because their stakes are high.
You try to make your way placing some small bets here and there, but you never win much and tend to lose in the long run..

So what do you do?
You can either go home and cut your losses.
Or you can start placing higher bets and maybe get a huge win.

The problem for heavy gamblers is that sometimes their actions has severe consequenses to their sorroundings. Lies and desperate measures to raise doe to bet with now becomes necessary.
So was it you nature that made you lie and do despicable things? Or was it just being hooked that changed the game.. Some serious cognitive dissonance takes place in the mind of a pathological gambler, mostly because his actions are against his self-percieved nature as well as how his relations regard him.

Maybe this only makes sense in my head, so can you see the point I'am making here?
--



Lance on the other hand, he had a serious deal on the blackjack table going..
Not only did he count cards.. He also made friends with the owners of the casino, cause if everyone saw how much he call haul in it would increase the amount of guests/interest thus making more revenue -alongside some percentages of Lance's winnings..
They played the game, and they sure knew how to do it...
It was a sweet deal for everyone... And maybe it was a perfect match for Lance's nature, as well as those casino owners..

Armstrong doesn't like to gamble, he likes to win.

A "gambler" is a guy like Joe Namath who thrives when things are hardest. Armstrong doesn't revel in beating the odds, he wants the game stacked in his favor.

But I think I get the analogy you are making. Namely that you have to go "all in," to get ahead in cycling. So do cyclists come to cycling because they are willing to go "all in?" Or does cycling take regular people and change them until they'll do "whatever it takes."

I'm guessing some of both.

 

[Bluenote]

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.

Man, Chewie, don't get a dumb ban. SCA might come down soon, we may need the input of a poster / lawyer.

 

[mrhender]

Armstrong doesn't like to gamble, he likes to win.

A "gambler" is a guy like Joe Namath who thrives when things are hardest. Armstrong doesn't revel in beating the odds, he wants the game stacked in his favor.

But I think I get the analogy you are making. Namely that you have to go "all in," to get ahead in cycling. So do cyclists come to cycling because they are willing to go "all in?" Or does cycling take regular people and change them until they'll do "whatever it takes."

I'm guessing some of both.

Not so sure about Armstrong.. I think especially his comeback was part of him not being able to stay out of the game.. He left the Casino with huge winnings. But for a gambler it is not about winning -it's the thrill of placing the bets... So basically he saw a chance and nothing could hold him back..

About the second part. I agree that it may be some of both.
But basically my point was that I do not think they are anymore different than soceity in general.. And those who choose to cheat are not necessarily morally corrupt.. The next thing to address, is what about those who justifies the doping to themselves and others..
I think that is part of a defense-mechanism..
If you admit that you where wrong it is the same as admitting to have been living in a lie -as a cheater.... This is not an easy decision to make..
So the cognitive dissonance is replaced by consonanse -make sense of and justify your actions, even if you know deep down they are wrong.

 

[Archibald]

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.

fair enough. So, do you think the real improvement was with Ferrari's technique/application of the particular system used on LA?
Or was it more the change in focus that triggered the 'super responder' thingy - ie; one day racer to GC contender?

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.

not so much genetics. We've apparently all got the right cells in us to be cancerous. It's like grass seeds in the earth - they'll sit there til they get the right amount of sun/water to grow. Much in the same way as your gas to spark example - LA n Ferrari didn't just pour on a cup of gas to that spark as a dump truck

 

[D-Queued]

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.

Yes, you are right. I did employ some poetic license. Specifically when employing the 'dark side' and the 'angel on the shoulder' metaphors.

You should be able to see beyond that, though, and understand the fundamental point.

I was not attacking you personally. I am commenting solely on what you have posted.

Stupid? Stupid is as stupid does.

Your original post that I had responded to, and where I included the metaphors, completely missed a critical aspect of Lance's character.

The 'work hard' stuff that you did choose to cite is a ridiculous and overused platitude. It is a 'myth' that has long been debunked. Did you mean it seriously? Wouldn't that be stupid given all that we know about Lance?

Heck. Everyone in the pro peloton works hard. Moreover, dope lets you work harder.

In addition to the 'Hard Work' nonsense, Lance may be a 'responder'. So what? So are others. Big deal.

But, we also know that Lance doped prior to Ferrari. If he is a responder, then his pre-Ferrari performances do not give us a multi-time Grand Tour winner, nor do they suggest that he is some sort of extra special, super responder.

So what are the critical factors?

Could Ferrari alone be the reason for the transformation?

Why haven't other Ferrari clients won seven?

Wait, what. Did Lance pay for (semi) exclusivity?

Wouldn't that desire to control the Ferrari then fit with something in his character about going beyond mere doping, and mere doping with a Ferrari?

Lance wasn't interested in half-measures. He wanted everything. Just like he wanted to buy the Tour. Just like he wanted to run for Governor.

That character aspect has to be a major factor in his transformation.

Dave.

 

[Alpe73]

fair enough. So, do you think the real improvement was with Ferrari's technique/application of the particular system used on LA?
Or was it more the change in focus that triggered the 'super responder' thingy - ie; one day racer to GC contender?



not so much genetics. We've apparently all got the right cells in us to be cancerous. It's like grass seeds in the earth - they'll sit there til they get the right amount of sun/water to grow. Much in the same way as your gas to spark example - LA n Ferrari didn't just pour on a cup of gas to that spark as a dump truck

Thanks for this; you seem to know what you're talking about. Got any links for your information (including the grass growing study) to reputable/vetted scientific studies that show the links between PED use (ones that Lance was using) with testicular cancer in humans or laboratory animals?

Thanks again, bro.

 

[Bluenote]

Thanks for this; you seem to know what you're talking about. Got any links for your information (including the grass growing study) to reputable/vetted scientific studies that show the links between PED use (ones that Lance was using) with testicular cancer in humans or laboratory animals?

Thanks again, bro.

This is pretty well trod over ground.

1) The cause of most testicular cancers is unknown.
2) There is some evidence that EPO and HgH may cause tumors to grow faster, behave more aggressively.
3) Armstrong had a fairly aggressive cancer that spread to his lungs and brain.

That would fit with Archibald's analogies 'the spark was there' (malignant cells,) 'then you dump gas on them' (a growth accelerant, like EPO or HgH.)

Is there proof that EPO, HgH, etc... Caused Armstrong's cancer - no.

Are there scientific studies showing that EPO And HgH might act like 'gas on a fire' or 'rain on a seed' - yes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23218687/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043661807000382

The FDA is (was) concerned enough about EPO's potential to accelerate cancer growth, that they came up with a risk managment plan and extra training for Doctors.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2010/ucm200471.htm

 

[Archibald]

Thanks for this; you seem to know what you're talking about. Got any links for your information (including the grass growing study) to reputable/vetted scientific studies that show the links between PED use (ones that Lance was using) with testicular cancer in humans or laboratory animals?

Thanks again, bro.

the grass seed example is from Dr T. Colin Campbell, and was referring to cancer not necessarily being a genetic disposition as noted by Oldman...

Links with PEDs? See Bluenote's post above.
As for what I'm aware of; certain protein levels are one of the main activators and inhibitors - again from Dr T. Colin Campbell...

 

[Alpe73]

Lance wasn't interested in half-measures. He wanted everything. Just like he wanted to buy the Tour. Just like he wanted to run for Governor.

Dave, you want to be a screenplay writer. You show promise, bro.

 

[Alpe73]

This is pretty well trod over ground.

1) The cause of most testicular cancers is unknown.
2) There is some evidence that EPO and HgH may cause tumors to grow faster, behave more aggressively.
3) Armstrong had a fairly aggressive cancer that spread to his lungs and brain.

That would fit with Archibald's analogies 'the spark was there' (malignant cells,) 'then you dump gas on them' (a growth accelerant, like EPO or HgH.)

Is there proof that EPO, HgH, etc... Caused Armstrong's cancer - no.

Are there scientific studies showing that EPO And HgH might act like 'gas on a fire' or 'rain on a seed' - yes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23218687/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043661807000382

The FDA is (was) concerned enough about EPO's potential to accelerate cancer growth, that they came up with a risk managment plan and extra training for Doctors.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2010/ucm200471.htm

Thanks for these.

From the abstract of the first study ... "recent preclinical and clinical studies indicate that EPO could potentially accelerate tumor growth and jeopardize survival in cancer patients."

From the abstract of the second study ... "Cancer risk associated to doping might be higher than that of patients using hormones/growth factors as replacement therapy, since enormous doses are taken by the athletes often for a long period of time. Moreover, these substances are often used in combination with other licit or illicit drugs and this renders almost unpredictable all the possible adverse effects including cancer."

* don't have the account or cash to access the full studies ... have you studied them both? Are the studies' full findings more definitive than what's outlined in the abstract, summaries that some might consider 'unremarkable.'?

I don't know what volume and variants of PEDs Lance Armstrong consumed over what time period under what disposition (precancerous or cancerous). I (and, I assume, Archibald ... analogies, metaphors n' all) have insufficient scientific knowledge to the analyze a host of risk factors potentially related to Armstrong's cancer. Therefore, it is difficult to convincingly postulate upon an etiology for Armstrong's initial tumor or the worsening of said tumor.

But that doesn't mean that your scientific knowledge 'isn't in play', to turn a phrase.

 

[frenchfry]

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.

The main psycopathic character in the book is named Dave, your name is Dave...coincidence???

 

[thehog]

Speaking of selling bikes:

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/lance-armstrong-movie-bikes-go-on-sale-42970/

 

[Bluenote]

summaries that some might consider 'unremarkable.'

Various studies of EPO's ability to increase tumor growth is sufficient that the FDA issued a bulletin and developed a whole risk management plan, Doctor training, etc...

summaries that some might consider 'unremarkable.'?

Who are these "some?"
Doctors? PhD medical researcher types?
The FDA?
Defenders of Armstrong on the internet?

If you know any of these "some" I suggest you tell them to contact the FDA and tell the FDA 'hey, you've got it all wrong boys.'

summaries that some might consider 'unremarkable.'?

"some" also believe the Earth is flat. I don't find the measure "some people" agree / disagree to be a meaningful metric.

From the abstract of the first study ... "recent preclinical and clinical studies indicate that EPO could potentially accelerate tumor growth and jeopardize survival in cancer patients."

Yes, I acknowledged the underlined in my post.

Is there proof that EPO, HgH, etc... Caused Armstrong's cancer - no.

Are there scientific studies showing that EPO And HgH might act like 'gas on a fire' or 'rain on a seed' - yes.

* don't have the account or cash to access the full studies ...

Then why did you waste my time asking for "vetted" studies? Most vetted studies are behind paywalls. Yes, I can access these studies. No, I can not post them (copy write issues).

... have you studied them both? Are the studies' full findings more definitive than what's outlined in the abstract,

I would describe this as a "goalpost move."
-First you want "vetted" studies, which I provided.
-you ignore the importance of the FDA's actions on EPO
-But then the goalpost gets moved to 'has Bluenote studied this, what is Bluenote's scientific knowledge.'

... have you studied them both? Are the studies' full findings more definitive than what's outlined in the abstract,

I assume if I engage this line of argument, the goalposts will just move again. You'll be picking a nit about the statistical models the studies used, how they were regressed, how much I know about that stuff, etc...

If you're not going to accept the FDA's opinion, you're unlikely to accept anything else. Not worth wasting my time to argue this with you.

could potentially accelerate tumor growth and jeopardize survival in cancer patients."

If you want to critique Archibold's imprecise use of language and say: 'hey Bro, you should have said 'EPO could be like rain on grass,' then go for it.

Though, one could turn that same criticism back on you.

Got any links for your information (including the grass growing study) to reputable/vetted scientific studies that show the links between PED use (ones that Lance was using)with testicular cancer in humans or laboratory animals?

You were imprecise when you said 'show the links.' You should have said 'show a 100% link,' or 'show a link that no one (not even some people!) would dispute.'

summaries that some might consider 'unremarkable.'

You were imprecise when you said 'some people.' How many people is 'some?' Does it matter if these 'some' are Doctors, or PhD types?

What does 'unremarkable' mean, in the context of a medical study?

We could play this language game all day. But why bother?

Archibald wasn't 100% correct when he described PEDs as gasoline to a spark, but he wasn't 100% incorrect either. Proving a guy wasn't right but he also wasn't wrong, isn't exactly winning the internet.

 

[Samson777]

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

And you are saying this is a lie, or what is your point excatly

 

[Hugh Januss]

Speaking of selling bikes:

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/lance-armstrong-movie-bikes-go-on-sale-42970/

No thanks, I already own a bunch of bikes that belong to somebody who didn't win the TDF.

 

[D-Queued]

Dave, you want to be a screenplay writer. You show promise, bro.

Thanks! But, there isn't much money in that from what I can tell.

I have had some success in having my property used for film sets, though.

The main psycopathic character in the book is named Dave, your name is Dave...coincidence???

And, Alpe73, then there is this.

Psycopaths probably don't make good screenwriters after all.

FF - Not Dave, Dave Queued. That should be pretty definitive

Dave.

 

[86TDFWinner]

And you are saying this is a lie, or what is your point excatly

Please point out where I said anything was a lie?

Do you have 100% factual/credible proof that Hinault doped?

What is YOUR point exactly?

 

[ChrisE]

Please point out where I said anything was a lie?

Do you have 100% factual/credible proof that Hinault doped?

What is YOUR point exactly?

Because you posted in the third person, not as your opinion. A not so subtle distancing from what Hinault doping insinuates. We know why you did that.....your hero Captain America beating dopers means you have to do more screeching on the forum.

 

[aphronesis]

Because you posted in the third person, not as your opinion. A not so subtle distancing from what Hinault doping insinuates. We know why you did that.....your hero Captain America beating dopers means you have to do more screeching on the forum.

Speaking of wasting your time....

 

[ChrisE]

Speaking of wasting your time....

Sometimes I get bored. You have room to talk with your ongoing arguments with the resident wingnut in the politics forum.

 

[Samson777]

Please point out where I said anything was a lie?

Do you have 100% factual/credible proof that Hinault doped?

What is YOUR point exactly?

I was asking a question, if I had been sure that this was your point, there would be no reason for asking. So that was my point, to ask a question. Really sophisticated..

No I do not have a 100% proof Hinault doped. 100% is often very difficult to reach in so many aspects of life, I think. I assume you do not have 100% proof he was clean either?

Also, I wonder why ignore the part about doping being part of the Le tour from early days.
Anyway, thank you for answering my question, which I think you did at least

 

[86TDFWinner]

I was asking a question, if I had been sure that this was your point, there would be no reason for asking. So that was my point, to ask a question.

Which I answered with a question. You assumed I was lying, you asked and made an insinuation, I simply asked how you knew or assumed i was lying?

No I do not have a 100% proof Hinault doped. 100% is often very difficult to reach in so many aspects of life, I think. I assume you do not have 100% proof he was clean either?

Nope, sure don't. But I haven't seen any credible proof saying he did. I can't say either way.

Also, I wonder why ignore the part about doping being part of the Le tour from early days.

I agree here, but then that might segue into talk about :Merckx/Coppi/Indurain/etc.

The interviewer asked, he answered, folks shouldn't get too riled up over it IMO.

Anyway, thank you for answering my question, which I think you did at least

Thank you for thanking me.......

 

[86TDFWinner]

Because you posted in the third person, not as your opinion.

I did? Thought I'd asked a question in return.

A not so subtle distancing from what Hinault doping insinuates.

Which is what exactly? I've never insinuated that Hinault doped, explain?

We know why you did that

Please share why?

.....your hero Captain America beating dopers means you have to do more screeching on the forum.

LOL! looks like yet ANOTHER **** hurt Wonderboy fan is all bent outta shape because your "hero" Cancer Jesus was/is a fraud.

But yeah, whatever you say(scratches head)