[Closed] Bbc four right now 11pm Armstrong the dick

Ta, on now.
🙂

Neil? Louis? Alexander? Stretch?

Debate on R5live this afternoon at 3pm regarding doping/the future of sport

I think it was The Moral Maze on R4 last night, had some professor on it, I think... I don't know what he was professor of, probably Prof. of Cockwombletry at Kings College London, or something.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06nrjjg

He was arguing that doping isn't really cheating or immoral, and it's only cheating because the rules of [various sports] say it is. So we should move to changing the rules of sports, so that cheating isn't cheating and it's all transparent - "athletes" have to declare what they're using, how much, when etc... but it won't be cheating. And it'll be safer for everyone.

He also claimed that this would be perfect, because this is what people want, because people enjoy watching sport now, and the doping is already happening, so people must want to watch sport where doping is allowed.

And some poor guy not getting enough airtime trying to argue that that's NOT what we want, which is why we're trying to clean up sport, but getting shot down by professor idiot because "well it doesn't matter what you do, you can't stop athletes doping".

Yes, you can. You ban them. For life....if they even so much as go anywhere near banned substances.
IF they're a professional athlete. They should be willing to give blood/urine samples ANYTIME, without warning.
I had some heroes as a kid, and I don't know if they ever doped - people like Steve Cram and Daley Thompson and others I can't remember. Then Ben Johnson came along.

You may be gifted with awesome genes for the sport(s) of your choice, or you may be like me with stumpy little legs who works extra hard to get to the top (which I never did, I just won the 100/200m sprints on sports day - but I worked my little socks off to do it).

CHEATING - via chemicals... is horrible. It has to be stopped, otherwise what's the point? I may as well compete in the London Marathon in my car.

Why is Armstrong a Dick?

Genuine question.

IMO: Because he cheated, was a bully and a dick, and made lots of money (but also for a good cause) off the back of being a dick.

You could argue that he cheated someone else out of all the wins he got, but then everyone else was allegedly cheating, too... so maybe they all cheated someone who WASN"T cheating out of whatever they could have won....

But he's a dick. With some redeeming qualities.

But he's a dick. With some redeeming qualities.

It seems to me like he might [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10737827/Psychopaths-how-can-you-spot-one.html ]actually be psychopathic[/url].

Of course, we don't know Armstrong well enough to know the extent to which any of [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10737827/Psychopaths-how-can-you-spot-one.html ]the criteria[/url] applies, but from first glance, there are certainly aspects of his behaviour that come across as psychopathic.

I listened to the Professor on the moral maze last night and found myself agreeing with Melanie Philips 🙁 , Does this signal the end for my moral high ground?, should i start to browse the Daily Mail?.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06nrjjg ]Link to moral maze here[/url]

I heard some of that show, some interesting bits but a clear case of over-thinking the issue and a couple of contributors who seemed to think they were much more clever than their comments suggested.

The former Olympic rower was the best contributor that I heard.

Is this Armstrong doc the same one they showed on the Beeb a while back?

Bikebuoy, how could you possibly think he isn't?

somafunk - Member

Debate on R5live this afternoon at 3pm regarding doping/the future of sport

Ta, I'll make a point of listening to that. 🙂

funkweasel - Member

But he's a dick. [i]With some redeeming qualities[/i].

Armstrong is a long way from redemption IMO. Has he yet acknowledged his mistakes without tagging an asterisk on to them? 🙁

funkweasel - Member

IMO: Because he cheated, was a bully and a dick, and made lots of money

Yup. I wonder how many lives he's had a negative impact on because of his cheating and bullying. Hard to quantify I guess.

funkweasel - Member

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06nrjjg

Ta for the linky. Hopefully I can get the podcast to listen to as I drive to Peaslake shortly. 🙂

For me the issue with Armstrong is less the doping and more to do with his behaviour towards other people (it is rather difficult to square the opprobium heaped on Armstrong with the relatively high regard in which Pantani is still held, with a climb in the Giro being named after him each year and an annual memorial ride; hard to imagine the same honours being accorded Armstrong!).
However Armstrong's behaviour towards his team-mates, fellow riders, Greg LeMond, Betsy Andreu, Emma O'Reilly etc etc sets him apart from anyone else.

@bikebouy. Armstrong is a dick not so much for the drug taking and lying, they go hand in hand and seem to be very much par for the course at the time. But for the fact that if questioned about alleged drug taking, he didn't just say "I've never failed a drug test, and refuse to give credence to such allegations by commenting about them" like everyone else. No he slandered people, sued them, ruined their business's. Thats what made him different.

Yes, you can. You ban them. For life....if they even so much as go anywhere near banned substances.
IF they're a professional athlete. They should be willing to give blood/urine samples ANYTIME, without warning.

What about missing a test? What if you don't know where they are? Could you promise your employer you would be able to give a drug/alcohol test at any time and let people know where you were? I couldn't as I have family and social commitments (not to mention the fact I would obviously fail the alcohol test at times).

What about novel methods or methods that you can't really test for (e.g. blood doping)?

I think we should attempt to minimise doping in sport, but I don't think you can just fix it at will.

Why is Armstrong a Dick?

Genuine question.

Cheating to get ahead doesn't an angel make, but most of the competitive peleton were on EPO at some point, and so this isn't why he's singled out.

It's the aggressive and bullying stance in the opposite taken, where he's gone out to destroy people like Greg Lemond, David Walsh, Emma O'Reilly, etc, etc.

Also standing on the podium after his last Tour victory and criticising anyone who can't "believe in dreams" is hard to watch with hindsight and not feel disgusted.

Then we get into the whole Livestrong/cancer side of things, which is complicated, inspiring for many, distinctly icky for others, and just such a shitestorm that going into it here is a whole other thread - that's been done.

Will get this on catch up

I've just finished reading The Program. Well worth a read. The fact that he was doping is frankly incidental to what happened subsequently. The extraordinary lengths he went to to maliciously and vindictively harass and bully the people who crossed him, ruining careers and destroying lives in the process without a second thought, as long as his interests were served. Then hijacking cancer charities to provide him with cover.

The very living embodiment of the word 'sociopath'. A vile human being with no discernible redeeming features. He still actually sees himself as the victim in all this. The wronged person.

Unbelievable

Why is Armstrong a Dick?

[i][b]IMO[/b][/i] Armstrong is a Dick... not because he cheated in the TDF, and not because of his blatant lies. In some ways I can forgive that in light of the undeniable good charity work he did.

Armstrong is a Dick because the one lie he won't admit to is giving the doctors that diagnosed him with testicular cancer, in front of others, the long list of banned substances and steroids he'd been taking up to then.

If the substances and steroids didn't cause the cancer they certainly accelerated it.

[i][b]I believe[/b][/i] he denies this lie, or certainly avoids admitting to it, because it removes some of the moral standing he has taken in his hard luck survival story and charity work, where as if he just came out and admitted it with a stern warning that these substances can cause or accelerate cancer, as it did with him, he may actually do some good by what he's done in discouraging other people from doing the same because of what it might do.