Ramifications of Lance Conviction

Sep 21, 2011
26
0
0
I guess I'm obliged to say that I am in no way a Lance fan nor have any allegiance to the Livestrong army before I start out.

If at all possible, can we take off the I hate Lance colored glasses and speculate on what happens if he does get banned? I know that can be tough, but I think there is much more to the Lance Armstrong USADA case than is being discussed. Namely, what happens 6 months, 1 year, 5 years down the road?

First off, what does the sport gain from Lance receiving a ban? Does the sport take a step towards becoming cleaner or do we all just get the smug satisfaction that we were right the whole time and feel vindicated for Lance getting his just desserts for cheating and lying to us?

Secondly, what does it do to the sport of cycling and those associates of Lance not charged? Does Radioshack, a company with zero European stores, pull sponsorship money out of a sport where even the most successful team from a year ago had to disband? Does Bontrager Livestrong fold leaving fewer chances for developing young riders? And what about people like Levi and George? If it comes out that they doped for all those years how does that affect them? To use George, since that is a very popular rumor, do people come down on him as they have come down on Lance over the years if it comes out or he admits to doping? Does BMC cancel their contract with his clothing company? Does his development team fold?

Third and final, what about Lance's influence outside the sport? Even though some would argue this isn't important, I feel it is really being overlooked. Although some magazine articles would have you think otherwise, Livestrong does help many people. And, even though I definitely don't agree with his rhetoric concerning cancer, Lance is a very big inspiration to multitudes of people who frankly couldn't care less about cycling. But does a conviction hurt this?

I realize that is a lot, but to be honest I don't have a ton of people I know that I can volley cycling related questions off of. Also, I know that showing any sort of sympathy towards Lance is not the most popular thing to do. I feel we gravitate towards sport because in a world that is infinitely grey, sport is supposed to be black and white. The best man wins, and if you do something wrong, you are punished for it. But is sport really black and white? And in a case like this where the athlete is an icon outside of his sport, does this make it more grey? As hard as it is to do, I think it is important to remove ourselves from our emotions toward Lance and analyze the situation as objectively as possible.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BigPhil3 said:
I guess I'm obliged to say that I am in no way a Lance fan nor have any allegiance to the Livestrong army before I start out.

If at all possible, can we take off the I hate Lance colored glasses and speculate on what happens if he does get banned? I know that can be tough, but I think there is much more to the Lance Armstrong USADA case than is being discussed. Namely, what happens 6 months, 1 year, 5 years down the road?

First off, what does the sport gain from Lance receiving a ban? Does the sport take a step towards becoming cleaner or do we all just get the smug satisfaction that we were right the whole time and feel vindicated for Lance getting his just desserts for cheating and lying to us?

Secondly, what does it do to the sport of cycling and those associates of Lance not charged? Does Radioshack, a company with zero European stores, pull sponsorship money out of a sport where even the most successful team from a year ago had to disband? Does Bontrager Livestrong fold leaving fewer chances for developing young riders? And what about people like Levi and George? If it comes out that they doped for all those years how does that affect them? To use George, since that is a very popular rumor, do people come down on him as they have come down on Lance over the years if it comes out or he admits to doping? Does BMC cancel their contract with his clothing company? Does his development team fold?

Third and final, what about Lance's influence outside the sport? Even though some would argue this isn't important, I feel it is really being overlooked. Although some magazine articles would have you think otherwise, Livestrong does help many people. And, even though I definitely don't agree with his rhetoric concerning cancer, Lance is a very big inspiration to multitudes of people who frankly couldn't care less about cycling. But does a conviction hurt this?

I realize that is a lot, but to be honest I don't have a ton of people I know that I can volley cycling related questions off of. Also, I know that showing any sort of sympathy towards Lance is not the most popular thing to do. I feel we gravitate towards sport because in a world that is infinitely grey, sport is supposed to be black and white. The best man wins, and if you do something wrong, you are punished for it. But is sport really black and white? And in a case like this where the athlete is an icon outside of his sport, does this make it more grey? As hard as it is to do, I think it is important to remove ourselves from our emotions toward Lance and analyze the situation as objectively as possible.
Cycling survives fairly intact. The banning of LA and the stripping of his results, I think, provides a huge deterrent for this type of corruption.

Brands and people associated with the Lance Armstrong brand will take a hit. I think that those that have provided testimony will survive reasonably well. The hardcore LA fan will villify, but I think they know that.

Lance will take an enormous financial hit now and in the future. Will it break him? I dunno. One thing is certain... He will fade away towards irrelevance and I think this is what he fears most.
 
BigPhil3 said:
I guess I'm obliged to say that I am in no way a Lance fan nor have any allegiance to the Livestrong army before I start out.
Sorry to break the bad news to you, but years of history on this forum have proven that anyone who begins a thread or post with statements like yours above (and there have been many) are Lance fans and apologists.

Cycling will do just fine, the large number of not-for-profit organizations in the area of cancer will do just fine collectively (heck, Livestrong itself will probably be just fine)

Maybe they will actually benefit, and the so-called "Lance Effect" will be discovered to be non-existent as an influencing factor in anything but hsi own PR releases and his shills P & P doing PdF coverage?
 
Sep 21, 2011
26
0
0
Weapons of @ss Destruction said:
Sorry to break the bad news to you, but years of history on this forum have proven that anyone who begins a thread or post with statements like yours above (and there have been many) are Lance fans and apologists.
I guess I should have said that I love Lance, have all his books, collect every magazine he has ever been in and wear no less than 13 Livestrong bracelets when I go ride on my US Postal replica Trek whilst wearing my Lance world championship jersey?
 
All worth it to send the message that dope cheaters will no longer be tolerated no matter how powerful and connected they might be.
All worth it if the underlying ethos in cycling can be changed from "cheat to win" to "cheat and you will be caught and punished (eventually at least)".
All worth it if the sign of a true champion becomes "do everything you can to win within the rules". Actually be on your bike 7 hours a day and don't be on anything else.
Who knows maybe more sponsors will be lining up to invest in a sport that doesn't resemble WWF quite so much.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Cycling survives fairly intact. The banning of LA and the stripping of his results, I think, provides a huge deterrent for this type of corruption.

Brands and people associated with the Lance Armstrong brand will take a hit. I think that those that have provided testimony will survive reasonably well. The hardcore LA fan will villify, but I think they know that.

Lance will take an enormous financial hit now and in the future. Will it break him? I dunno. One thing is certain... He will fade away towards irrelevance and I think this is what he fears most.
financial hit?

he has earnt over 100 million on the back of this myth. Dare say, it is a profit. Not a hit/loss.
 
Jun 18, 2012
165
0
0
Could it destroy Lance? Possibly,it could open him up to a lot more scrutiny about other things. Maybe even perjury charges from the SCA lawsuit.

Cycling? Might take a hit, could make sponsors add more clause for financial, like "your guys get busted for doping, we get the money back". That would make team DS a little more concerned what their riders are doing.

Bigger problem, the IOC down to the UCI is corrupt.

It would be a big wake up call to all the doping still going now. But as long as there is money to be made and accolades with egos to prop up, someone will always risk doping. You will never 100% clean the peloton. Maybe we can get it down to a few riders, peer pressure will take over. Instead of omerta about doping, there will be snitches everywhere. It will be back alley stuff and the "docs" won't be riding on team buses and working out of "sports medicine facilities".

Currently the dopers are ahead of the testing. I was talking to "someone" not to long ago, maybe longer, rumor has, there is a PED now that would require a freaking MUSCLE BIOPSY to detect it, but it would have to beclose to the point of administration!

I think we all need to accept the peloton will never be clean, but keep the fight up. People have died, and we already know kids having been using, let alone the jackasses at amateur and semi pro races...:rolleyes:

There will always be athletes willing to risk it all. Too much to gain not to.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
All worth it to send the message that dope cheaters will no longer be tolerated no matter how powerful and connected they might be.
All worth it if the underlying ethos in cycling can be changed from "cheat to win" to "cheat and you will be caught and punished (eventually at least)".
All worth it if the sign of a true champion becomes "do everything you can to win within the rules". Actually be on your bike 7 hours a day and don't be on anything else.
Who knows maybe more sponsors will be lining up to invest in a sport that doesn't resemble WWF quite so much.
but yes they WILL be tolerated.

The choice is ration. The gain still exists, and is monumentally greater, than any harm involved in its pursuit. The potential gain, is far greater than the risk. If you are from these Type A personality(ies).

Unless you have ethics, the gains, far outeigh consequences

always will too. As long as the system exists, to create a business of sport, and commodify champions and winning. Only can influence the system, by being inside it. And we have seen JV been co-opted and his cognitive dissonance and ethical ambiguity. Peope who rise within the system, are apparatchiks who play this game.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Forgive my cynicism, Phil, but your introduction starts out with the apologist fan's qualifications we've seen before. I would wager that this is part of the public campaign to soften the blow when Lance is forced to settle with USADA. That would be a "smart" move on his part; particularly if he's able to hang on to some money and that tenuous grip on his personal reality that's driven him to the level of fraud committed to date.
As far as actual and peripheral damage to the "sport" or the "charity" I call BS. Every participant has profitted in some way at the expense of truth and I cynically find your soft sell of that reality insulting. If you believe it then you have my sympathy.
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
BigPhil3 said:
I guess I'm obliged to say that I am in no way a Lance fan nor have any allegiance to the Livestrong army before I start out.

If at all possible, can we take off the I hate Lance colored glasses and speculate on what happens if he does get banned? I know that can be tough, but I think there is much more to the Lance Armstrong USADA case than is being discussed. Namely, what happens 6 months, 1 year, 5 years down the road?

First off, what does the sport gain from Lance receiving a ban? Does the sport take a step towards becoming cleaner or do we all just get the smug satisfaction that we were right the whole time and feel vindicated for Lance getting his just desserts for cheating and lying to us?

Secondly, what does it do to the sport of cycling and those associates of Lance not charged? Does Radioshack, a company with zero European stores, pull sponsorship money out of a sport where even the most successful team from a year ago had to disband? Does Bontrager Livestrong fold leaving fewer chances for developing young riders? And what about people like Levi and George? If it comes out that they doped for all those years how does that affect them? To use George, since that is a very popular rumor, do people come down on him as they have come down on Lance over the years if it comes out or he admits to doping? Does BMC cancel their contract with his clothing company? Does his development team fold?

Third and final, what about Lance's influence outside the sport? Even though some would argue this isn't important, I feel it is really being overlooked. Although some magazine articles would have you think otherwise, Livestrong does help many people. And, even though I definitely don't agree with his rhetoric concerning cancer, Lance is a very big inspiration to multitudes of people who frankly couldn't care less about cycling. But does a conviction hurt this?

I realize that is a lot, but to be honest I don't have a ton of people I know that I can volley cycling related questions off of. Also, I know that showing any sort of sympathy towards Lance is not the most popular thing to do. I feel we gravitate towards sport because in a world that is infinitely grey, sport is supposed to be black and white. The best man wins, and if you do something wrong, you are punished for it. But is sport really black and white? And in a case like this where the athlete is an icon outside of his sport, does this make it more grey? As hard as it is to do, I think it is important to remove ourselves from our emotions toward Lance and analyze the situation as objectively as possible.
what does Little Jimmy's mom think about Lance now after he put a smile on her sons face before he died? isn't that your real question
 
Jun 13, 2010
263
0
0
BigPhil3 said:
I guess I'm obliged to say that I am in no way a Lance fan nor have any allegiance to the Livestrong army before I start out.

If at all possible, can we take off the I hate Lance colored glasses and speculate on what happens if he does get banned? I know that can be tough, but I think there is much more to the Lance Armstrong USADA case than is being discussed. Namely, what happens 6 months, 1 year, 5 years down the road?

First off, what does the sport gain from Lance receiving a ban? Does the sport take a step towards becoming cleaner or do we all just get the smug satisfaction that we were right the whole time and feel vindicated for Lance getting his just desserts for cheating and lying to us?

Secondly, what does it do to the sport of cycling and those associates of Lance not charged? Does Radioshack, a company with zero European stores, pull sponsorship money out of a sport where even the most successful team from a year ago had to disband? Does Bontrager Livestrong fold leaving fewer chances for developing young riders? And what about people like Levi and George? If it comes out that they doped for all those years how does that affect them? To use George, since that is a very popular rumor, do people come down on him as they have come down on Lance over the years if it comes out or he admits to doping? Does BMC cancel their contract with his clothing company? Does his development team fold?

Third and final, what about Lance's influence outside the sport? Even though some would argue this isn't important, I feel it is really being overlooked. Although some magazine articles would have you think otherwise, Livestrong does help many people. And, even though I definitely don't agree with his rhetoric concerning cancer, Lance is a very big inspiration to multitudes of people who frankly couldn't care less about cycling. But does a conviction hurt this?

I realize that is a lot, but to be honest I don't have a ton of people I know that I can volley cycling related questions off of. Also, I know that showing any sort of sympathy towards Lance is not the most popular thing to do. I feel we gravitate towards sport because in a world that is infinitely grey, sport is supposed to be black and white. The best man wins, and if you do something wrong, you are punished for it. But is sport really black and white? And in a case like this where the athlete is an icon outside of his sport, does this make it more grey? As hard as it is to do, I think it is important to remove ourselves from our emotions toward Lance and analyze the situation as objectively as possible.

Nike, O, and T will continue to sponsor him and his brand, no matter what unfolds from the USADA investigation, and NOTHING will happen to the money men behind the scenes pulling all of the strings, that much I am certain of.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
sartain said:
Nike, O, and T will continue to sponsor him and his brand, no matter what unfolds from the USADA investigation, and NOTHING will happen to the money men behind the scenes pulling all of the strings, that much I am certain of.
Sorry but that's already changing. The Trek commercials in our neighborhood show No LANCE, no Nike commercials at all and Oakley routinely sponsors both gangsters and Poseurs so you could be right about them. No Lance on the Ultra or Nissan commercials...the future is now.
 
May 23, 2010
516
0
0
BigPhil3 said:
I guess I should have said that I love Lance, have all his books, collect every magazine he has ever been in and wear no less than 13 Livestrong bracelets when I go ride on my US Postal replica Trek whilst wearing my Lance world championship jersey?
That right. The truth that's all we're after. And that answers your questions as well. Who cares what happens to LA? The truth about him cheating is first and foremost. Let the rest fall where it may.
 
Sep 21, 2011
26
0
0
Oldman said:
Forgive my cynicism, Phil, but your introduction starts out with the apologist fan's qualifications we've seen before. I would wager that this is part of the public campaign to soften the blow when Lance is forced to settle with USADA. That would be a "smart" move on his part; particularly if he's able to hang on to some money and that tenuous grip on his personal reality that's driven him to the level of fraud committed to date.
As far as actual and peripheral damage to the "sport" or the "charity" I call BS. Every participant has profitted in some way at the expense of truth and I cynically find your soft sell of that reality insulting. If you believe it then you have my sympathy.
I in no way shape or form think Lance is innocent. He's a self promoting narcissist who thinks he is made of teflon. Seriously, the guy tweeted a story about one of the judges reviewing his case being a pervert. I am in the situation where if I say anything that is not out and out crucifying Lance, I will no doubt be labeled as Juan Pelota fan numero uno.

I'm not saying that all charges should be dropped, I'm not trying to force my opinions on anyone. I'm simply saying, that separating the distaste of Lance from this situation, what do you think will happen. Will it have some positive effect on the sport? Yes. Will it have some negative effect on the sport? Personally I think so.
 
BigPhil3 said:
...
First off, what does the sport gain ...

Secondly, what does it do to the sport of cycling and those associates of Lance not charged? ...

Third and final, what about Lance's influence outside the sport? ...
Perhaps this should be a bit more open ended. There may be more than three ramifications.

Consider, for example, those wrongly impacted or harmed directly by his actions? What about all of the direct victims? Will they get justice for the damage?

As noted in another thread, should we expect wrongful dismissal suits from employees of Armstrong and/or Tailwind who were terminated?

What about all of the (witness) harrassment?

Dave.

(BTW, while I wish it were otherwise, I do not have high confidence in SCA receiving its money back and/or damages)
 
BigPhil3 said:
Sorry I was kind of being a D bag.
No worries. Liked the response actually. Hopefully you realize that I wasn't joking though about saying that many posts that read almost exactly like your thread starter have come and gone, and they almost always turn out to be huge LA fans, who start off claiming they aren't fans at all to try to score credibility before pumping the usual pro-LA talking points either later in the same post, or after trying to maintain the status quo for a while. Pretty soon though, they can't help themselves, since that's why they initiated the dialogue in the first place.
 
Sep 21, 2011
26
0
0
Weapons of @ss Destruction said:
No worries. Liked the response actually. Hopefully you realize that I wasn't joking though about saying that many posts that read almost exactly like your thread starter have come and gone, and they almost always turn out to be huge LA fans, who start off claiming they aren't fans at all to try to score credibility before pumping the usual pro-LA talking points either later in the same post, or after trying to maintain the status quo for a while. Pretty soon though, they can't help themselves, since that's why they initiated the dialogue in the first place.
Oh I completely agree. Like I said to someone else a few posts up, if I don't put a disclaimer, than anything slightly not anti Lance turns me into a huge Lance fan.

I honestly don't care what happens to Lance and I'm not saying he doesn't need to be punished in some way, I just feel that there are going to be some unintended consequences when all of this is over.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
In the eyes of many, and maybe most, LA really is, still, a singular figurehead for cycling. Even now he is the Boss, the Patron (or Patron Emeritus, maybe), the guy with influence, both inside the sport and out of it. Those who would diminish this diminish also the huge beneficial outcome of his being convicted.

Lance is essentially the Godfather in cycle sport. When he falls, the cockroaches will all go scurrying for darkness.

Once it becomes apparent that his seven year domination of the Tour was a colossal fraud and a lot of marketing hooey; once it's seen that the sport's governing body, UCI, is corrupt; we may have an initial contraction of the sport. Sponsors leave, some races fold, others survive but are curtailed.

Cycling's response to this, I believe, will be to clean its own house. It will be as though someone has pulled back the roof and let sunshine in. The dodgy teams and DSes will be gone almost immediately, and drug testing will be turned over to a reputable third party. All this will have to be done if the sport is to survive. Euro governments may even do what I've suggested here previously and threaten ASO and others with nationalization.

I know it seems like a lot to have happen solely on account of an LA conviction; but I believe his conviction will be a beginning, not an end, and by the time all the dominoes have fallen as a result of this, it will be, to mix metaphors, as though someone has lanced (sorry) a boil on the sport. So, yeah, a positive for the sport, in a big way.

As for the charity, it may take on a different name and survive, it may not. If it doesn't, charities with similar missions will expand their own purviews, no doubt, to fill in the void (and take the donations).

As for the man, Lance himself, I hope he is smart enough to move on, learn from this, and become a more whole person. OK, that's probably a stretch. :D

I hope some of the older facilitators behind LA are held to account, as well, but I don't have much confidence in this regard.
 
May 25, 2010
250
0
0
Good OP, we need to stay as balanced as we can. Armstrong may be a lying, bullying, egotistical snake, but the fall out out from this case is going to be far reaching, and the people he used to attain his ends will suffer, and sadly, that will include the cancer sufferers who benefit from Livestrong. I know his team mates were well paid, and technically had a choice, but they were part of his game too.

I say that we simply need the truth, and sadly, if there is unfortunate fallout in places, it's a simple consequence of justice. I can't wait to see him fall.
 
Apr 8, 2010
329
0
0
samerics said:
... that will include the cancer sufferers who benefit from Livestrong...
I've never really understood what Livestrong does for cancer sufferers. As far as I know it has never put money into research on cancer. At one stage it was touting itself as a source of information, but there's tons of free information on the internet.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS