• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Tour de Pharmacy

Aug 31, 2012
7,550
3
0
Will cause viewers to have wrong views about the relative incidence of doping in cycling vs NFL/football/tennis etc
 
No surprise to see Lance involved in this terrible idea. Still trying to subtly push his 'everyone was at is - it was a level playing field' agenda.

Also, can't wait to see the sequels 'National Pharmacy League' and 'Wimbledope'.
 
Re:

DFA123 said:
No surprise to see Lance involved in this terrible idea. Still trying to subtly push his 'everyone was at is - it was a level playing field' agenda.
I'm wondering about his motives as well, the cynic in me thinks Armstrong is having a passive-aggressive go at Tyler Hamilton and any the other informants. Or he is just making fun of himself?

If it was free I'd give the flick a looky, just to see if there are any truly inside jokes that only cycling fans would get. But as things stand it seems like yet another cheap and easy swipe at cycling's doping problem, if they were to tackle track or the NFL I'd be a lot more impressed.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Isn't laugher one of the stages of grief or did they rewrite that? If you can't laugh at yourself...
You really think Armstrong is laughing at himself? I mean, there's a first time for everything, but I find it so much more likely he's taking shots at someone else.
 
Re: Re:

carton said:
fmk_RoI said:
Isn't laugher one of the stages of grief or did they rewrite that? If you can't laugh at yourself...
You really think Armstrong is laughing at himself? I mean, there's a first time for everything, but I find it so much more likely he's taking shots at someone else.
Why do you assume it's laughing at himself? Why not assume he's laughing at the whole thing about doping? You see, the problem here is you seem to want Armstrong to be what people always wanted Armstrong to be: scheming, conniving, always with the ulterior motive. Some are so used to that mindset that they just can't let it go, everything has to be about Ty or Tygart or Betsy or whoever. Well, news: it doesn't have to be like that.
 
Re: Re:

spalco said:
carton said:
You really think Armstrong is laughing at himself? I mean, there's a first time for everything, but I find it so much more likely he's taking shots at someone else.

In the trailer that was published he is directly mocking Tyler Hamilton imo.
Oh FFS. Why not JV? It was JV who clung to anonymity, Ty went public (eventually).

Why does everything have to be a *** conspiracy around here?
 
Re:

spalco said:
It doesn't look like the 60 minutes interview to you?

edited to add: not to mention the irony of Lance Armstrong playing the whistleblower in general.
1) No, except in the way one interview looks like another interview, in which case he's mocking oh I don't know, Bob Dylan or Lady Gaga or Johnny Depp; 2) You really don't do humour, do you, you're too busy speeding along on the sense of humour by-pass to smell the roses?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
1) No, except in the way one interview looks like another interview, in which case he's mocking oh I don't know, Bob Dylan or Lady Gaga or Johnny Depp; 2) You really don't do humour, do you, you're too busy speeding along on the sense of humour by-pass to smell the roses?

I can't explain it very well, especially not in English, but apart from the trailer looking painfully unfunny aside from the cycling theme, I really don't see anything funny in the role Armstrong seems to be playing in that film (although it's likely those couple minutes in the trailer are the whole extent of his involvement, considering the pretty impressive cast list).

Charlie Chaplin playing Hitler is funny, George W Bush playing a Guantanamo guard in a sketch probably wouldn't be.
If that makes me a bore in your eyes, I'll accept that.

eta: I'm certainly not "deeply troubled" by that film. I'll even watch it, but I honestly expect it to be ***. And if I turn out to have been wrong, I'll say so too, promise.