 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So last night I researched this and it gave me a real mixed bag of emotions. Lance was an angry kid, had no male role models and one telling part...the Andreu's nor Lance would reveal certain people's knowledge or involvement (team Director etc), was Lance manipulated into his situation when he was niave and weak then because he's bloody minded he went at it all with his stubbornness?
Many many shades of grey.
Manipulated?
Um, no.
He is a sociopath.
The only good thing to come out of his involvement in cycling is that they take doping somewhat more seriously, still don't do enough. But its better than it was.
The guy was born with some good Genes and a strong character. He then made some bad choices whilst in a very bad place.
I also agree that he helped our sport get cleaner - not clean but cleaner.
[i]I also agree that he helped our sport get cleaner[/i]
Not on purpose.
[edit] to expand - he didn't 'help' - that implies it was an outcome he desired, he was the cause of it.
I was a bit disappointed by it, I think they took it a bit easy on Armstrong. They were too delicate with just how vicious he was with those who spoke against him.
Interesting chap, but I don't think he will ever be open fully about all he did.
The guy had no remorse even when exposed, remember his gloating tweet after it all came out of him 'laying around' with his 7 yellow cheaters jerseys. ( https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/nov/11/lance-armstrong-yellow-jerseys) he's a scumbag.
Just wondering what sources the OP used for his research?
As i know Armstrong and his cronies were quite smart with making sure negative articles were shouted down. Most of the cycling press were involved. Pretty sure that some journalists knew they were doing it, others just published what they were given.
Spelled naive wrongly. Imagine that.
Many many shades of grey.
Time for a visit to Specsavers,then all will become clear.
I am making no excuses for him ...
He was in a game where the majority of the people at the top where cheating, he was the very best at cheating. This means being all in and behaviour that we all find unnacceptable. His determinatiin and single mindedness (qualities found in many top sportsmen especially individual sports) where utilised to the max in his cheating.
US cycling was involved in doping for years prior to Armstrong. He was just the icing on the cake. It was so obvious he was a cheat, his associations, his performance and his attitude.
Many many shades of grey.
Not really. It's a pretty black and white situation
Pretty sure that some journalists knew they were doing it, others just published what they were given.
There are a lot of journos who engaged in hand wringing after the USADA report and the Oprah program about how they blackballed colleagues and ignored the elephant in the room in order to have continued access to Lance and his gang. Some of them even admit they were pretty convinced of Lance's doping even whilst publicly writing articles in support of him and slamming doubters.
Watched the armstrong lie, thought that it portrayed him post event as a regretful, but overall nice-ish guy.
Watched The Program and though a but less polished, he's portrayed as an absolute asshat.
somewhere lies the truth, about the lies, and a truth...somewhere..erm
Many many shades of grey.
Oh that's what [b]that[/b] book was about...if I'd known it was about cycling I would have tried harder to wrench it out of my wife's hands, she couldn't leave it alone.
Rob Titchener in the Tour de France? What were they thinking?
[quote="headfirst"]Oh that's what that book was about...if I'd known it was about cycling I would have tried harder to wrench it out of my wife's hands, she couldn't leave it alone.Hand (singular) surely. Wouldn't the other have been occupied?
There was a concerted campaign by Pharmstrong, his associates and acolytes to bully, shout-down and threaten anyone who dared question his miraculous achievements and lots of astro-turfing by Livestrong interns - Trek effectively killed off Greg Lemond's business as they daren't question their golden goose. He was protected by US Cycling, sponsors and their lawyers who bank-rolled the whole scam and used cancer as a shield. As it was, he wasn't that great a rider, with only 1x WC and Fleche Wallone his only other major achievements - even doped-up he couldn't beat the likes of Michael Boogeerd at Amstel. He killed-off the careers of many aspiring riders who didn't want to adopt his methods. Go and read Tyler Hamilton's book for an alternative perspective.
He's clearly a massive narcissist and he still says he won those Tours. He ruined lives with his lies and he says that? He's not sorry and he's not deserving of any sympathy.
I've said this before but I'll say it again...
His biggest and most disappointing lie is the one he still maintains, and that is regarding his confession to the doctors when he was diagnosed with testicular cancer about what he was taking before then.
He should be screaming that out as loud as he can because the drugs and steroids he was taking, if they didn't cause the cancer certainly helped accelerate it, that's what steroids do.
What clearer message can you send out to put people off taking drugs and steroids is there other than 'don't, they might kill you like they nearly killed me', but instead he continues to deny that witnessed conversation in the blind hope that his Livestrong campaign is still his saving grace.
His biggest and most disappointing lie is the one he still maintains, and that is regarding his confession to the doctors when he was diagnosed with testicular cancer about what he was taking before then.
He swore a deposition saying that Betsy Andreu's recollection of the conversation was untrue.
Were he to admit that he lied in that deposition, he is open to a criminal charge of perjury. He has to continue the lie to avoid prosecution.
for me, biggest & most dissapointing is saying he rode the comeback clean!
You saw it right, oldish guy keeping up with feather light spaniards, in the prime (prob on the juice as well).
if he admits that, then i think the respect would come back.
I suggest anyone interested in Lance and Lance-era cycling should read "The Secret Race" by Tyler Hamilton, if you haven't already.
EDIT: sorry dovebiker, I see you've mentioned this already.
I suggest anyone interested in Lance and Lance-era cycling should read "The Secret Race" by Tyler Hamilton, if you haven't already.
Absolutely agree. It's a brilliant book.
Well lets just thank all thats holy, that none of our legendary (middle distance ) athletes, were juiced up to the eyeballs !!
TBH the doping is pretty much irrelevant. So many of them were (and still are) at it that it's almost an irrelevance.
The way he went about covering his arse is the worst bit. Ruined many people, ruined a few businesses. Dragged people through the shit.
Even Virenque didn't do that, and he was (until the Armstrong shit hit) one of the most unrepentant dopers around.
Armstrong has started [url= http://theforwardpodcast.libsyn.com ]His own podcast series here[/url], I've downloaded it so will have a listen when out n' about this afternoon.
The argument that everyone was doping so that makes it ok or a level playing field is rubbish. Many talented cyclists have chosen not to dope, you just won't have heard of them as they got pushed down the rankings and out by those that did and therefore lost out on a successful cycling career. We all have a choice with the decisions we make, it's not all about achieving money and fame.
if he admits that, then i think the respect would come back.
Don't think so...
The Hamilton book is a cracking read, Armstrong is beyond tainted, I didn't even like reading about him in the expose by the Times guy.
US cycling was involved in doping for years prior to Armstrong.
I think I am right in saying US used "blood doping" at an Olympics as it wasn't illegal at the time.
As a doctor points out in 'The Death of Marco Pantani' not all riders react in the same way to EPO etc. If everybody dopes the ones whose bodies react best will rise to the top, not the best athletes.
I'm in the black and white camp too - Hamilton's book doesn't paint a very good picture.
Lance doesn't come across as very likable, destroying others to maintain the lie and then not really seeming that contrite when caught.
]then not really seeming that contrite when caught.
I think he was so surprised at being caught that he probably didn't even think about how to react. More or less considered untouchable, won everything that he took on (TdF and court cases). Classic case where the rider has become bigger than the sport.
USA Cycling, the team, the doctors, some of the media (who were only looking at selling magazines). Everyone was in on all of it, the race organisers kept on putting in harder and harder, more dramatic stages, the riders, teams, managers etc felt that the only option open to them was doping and the cycle continues - everyone else is doing it so I have to as well and that mentality pervaded all the levels.
Let's not forget as well that the sport needed Armstrong after the catastrophic previous years of Festina and Puerto. It was in their interests to have a charismatic English-speaking, untainted winner. Opened doors in America that even Greg Lemond had never managed to find.
The stuff about destroying others careers is largely rubbish - the only thing about that is it was more public than the thousands of other cases where bright-eyed naive young riders had gone over to the continent trying to make it big, been told by their DS to dope (becasue everyone doped), refused and were thrown off teams or who spent years scraping round in regional level Belgian kermesses getting their arses kicked before giving up in tears.
The argument that everyone was doping so that makes it ok or a level playing field is rubbish. Many talented cyclists have chosen not to dope, you just won't have heard of them as they got pushed down the rankings and out by those that did and therefore lost out on a successful cycling career. We all have a choice with the decisions we make, it's not all about achieving money and fame.
Trouble i have with that arguement is that when you are not at the cutting edge of the sport you probably aren't going to be so inclined to cheat. I imagine that the majority of talented guys didn't start out thinking they were going to dope, but when they got to the point that they saw natural talent would get them only so far they probably changed their minds.
I suspect that all things being equal, the best guys that were doping would also most probably have been the best guys if everyone was clean.
Not trying to defend the dopers, but don't think its as clear cut as saying they took away the livlihoods of the clean guys
He raised mens awareness of a killer illness, he got loads of funding to support research, he also got more people racing and cycling.
He did wrong, but achieved all the above, anyone else achieved similar, in any other sport, NO.
OK on this viewing of the documentary it made me realise what a strong, manipulative? character Johan Bruneel was. The Andreau's mentioned that when there was two rival team contract offers to Johan these suddenly mysteriously vanished. Also when Andreau refused to dope one year he was given a stark choice. The blatant team all doping in the 'broken down' team bus. All this and JB got away without any official damage or charges etc etc.
I'm starting to think LA had a twisted sense of loyalty. Maybe his ass was saved with the doping question on the 99 Tour win and he owed a big favour/felt he was saved/owed someone(?) loyalty and it all snow balled from there on and once in upto his neck with the risk of letting down alot of survivors, the loss of money and sheer bloodimnded one-narrow focus personality he was easy to control and steer? (Lance). He didn't set out to lie, but like Traders upto their neck in losses his view on what was normal and acceptable became skewered by personal survival at all costs. More lies in a original lie was normal, he became a bad person. In Italy when he was younger he made the choice to dope as he knew the alternative was to go home. Then when he was at rock bottom and came back weaker in muscle mass he knew (and was covered) into a deeper lie onwards.
This is why I think I could forgive the bloke.
I didn't think it would take this long for LanceLove to be back TBH.
Do Livestrong fund research? Thought it was just PR guff
To say that Pharmstrong was manipulated is a fallacy, he's been saying this as his defence to try and throw Weisel, Bruyneel et al under the bus. Weisel was able to attract other investors and they effectively took out huge bets in his favour - to the disadvantage of the likes of SCA Promotions because via Verbruggen they were protected by the UCI. The likes of Trek, Oakley and Nike were all complicit in the con - an Oakley employee committed perjury to protect him. LiveSTRONG spend most of it's money on promoting itself, administration and private jets - it was only latterly under scrutiny that it actually spent any money on research. A considerable amount of its administration costs were lawyer fees. If it wasn't for the likes of Greg Lemond, Betsy Andreu and David Walsh, the cycling media would still be blowing smoke up his ar$e.
He raised mens awareness of a killer illness, he got loads of funding to support research, he also got more people racing and cycling.
He did wrong, but achieved all the above, anyone else achieved similar, in any other sport, NO.
Jimmy saville did a bit of charity work too 🙂
[quote="aP"]I didn't think it would take this long for LanceLove to be back TBH.In some places it's not gone away, and it also shows how effectively the story has been whitewashed. And how thoroughly the blame game was played.
Ah well.
He raised mens awareness of a killer illness, he got loads of funding to support research, he also got more people racing and cycling.
This is where you misunderstand the facts. Livestrong donates very little to research, it supports "awareness" which is hardly something that cancer lacks. It's not like we'd never heard of it before. As for getting people racing and cycling I don't recall a boom in the UK or Europe, only in the US.
read this for stuff about Livestrong:
http://www.outsideonline.com/1904781/its-not-about-lab-rats
In some places it's not gone away, and it also shows how effectively the story has been whitewashed. And how thoroughly the blame game was played.
Ah well.
Plus it's hora who was always a Lance fanboy so any excuse to ignore the truth of the bulling asshole and recast him as a manipulated cancer curing hero was going to be taken.
This is where you misunderstand the facts. Livestrong donates very little to research, it supports "awareness" which is hardly something that cancer lacks. It's not like we'd never heard of it before.
Is this where [b]you[/b] misunderstand the benefits of awareness?
The world needs people with the drive and determination of Lance. No doubt a colossal C-Unit but nobody's perfect 😆
p.s. I've never had an interest in road cycling (apart from scanning the threads on here) so didn't worship/get my heart broken by him in his glory days. I sense a lot of his detractors did at some point.
Well speaking from personal experience I don't think there was much of a lack of awareness of cancer. Having had both grandmothers and one grandfather treated for various types of cancer as I was a child in the 70s and 80s perhaps I was an exception but I recall cancer being discussed in primary school classes.
It's a different kind of awareness though. It's ok to feel your balls in public and grope girls in a medical way 😀 I'm being flippant here, but there has been a cultural shift in cancer awareness in recent years. The stigma has lifted somewhat. Yellow bands, pink ribbons etc. It started somewhere and like it or not, Bad Lance is partly to blame.
This is where you misunderstand the facts. Livestrong donates very little to research, it supports "awareness" which is hardly something that cancer lacks.
The American healthcare system is very different to the NHS and there is (or was) a definite lack of awareness, a lack of knowledge about how to wade through the myriad health insurance forms and a huge cost to doing all that.
Livvestrong genuinely did a lot of good work in that areas (while also undoubtedly acting as a publicity machine for Lance Inc) but then most charities endorsed by celebrities have exactly the same mutual benefit effect.
Jesus H christ
Hora and lance is the cycling equivalent of Burton and taylor
They love each other ..they feel betrayed... they love ...all the time being unrequited ...how sad.
Essentially cycling should turn its back on this self obsessed narcissists....to be clear I mean Lance 😉
[b]
[/b]Plus it's hora who was always a Lance fanboy so any excuse to ignore the truth of the bulling asshole and recast him as a manipulated cancer curing hero was going to be taken.
THIS
Interesting article about Armstrongs relationship with Livestrong.
> http://www.outsideonline.com/1904781/its-not-about-lab-rats <
Atlaz posted the self same link while he was eating his breakfast 😉
Cancer awareness saves lives.
Haters want to belittle his charity work, we can't stop that. In my view you must seperate his premier league doping from his cancer charity.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who watched the Horizon program last night on the study of human decision making, it went into how our various cognitive bias' work, and briefly discussed how, despite ourselves, we tend to either ascribe totally positive or negative attributes to people, organisations and concepts based almost entirely on the initial input, we then skew our understanding looking for justifications to back up that initial judgement...
It seems to apply with Lance now, given his rather public fall from grace over the last few years the general input is [i]"Lance = BAD"[/i] people struggle to square the socipathic, narcissist, cheat that grabs the headlines with the charity work, the perceived vulnerability of a cancer survivor and someone who is a father, or any other positive character traits he may have...
In short people like 'black and white'... and Lance sort of jumped from one extreme to the other for many...
The reality is probably a bit more nuanced... Yes LA cheated, he cheated a lot, and bullied and lied and organised others to help him cheat, and then abandoned half of them and 'misused' his cancer survival to help add a halo effect to his image...
But it doesn't mean he is totally devoid of any positive human characteristics, He is not actually Evil incarnate...
Similarly we like to look for a single factor or influence from which all the failure or corruption of an organisation or system spreads. And Lance is an easy candidate for that role. I don't doubt he is one of the main players, if not the top of the pile, but it didn't happen in isolation, He was able to influence, corrupt plenty of others, nobody truly carry's 100% of the blame for these sort of things...
my real question/concern is, Just how much has the UCI really changed?
Mechanical doping has arrived, and some might argue that the response has been slower that expected and a bit lacking, you might hope that post-LA the governing bodies response to any suggestions of cheating would be swift and decisive but it doesn't feel like they are any better than a decade ago.
I'm sure from the inside of the sport mechanical and/or rider doping can still be justified as [i]"Levelling an already skewed playing field"[/i] which was of course part of the LA defence...
TBH Lance is now just a sideshow, a cautionary tale that comes up every summer when the Grand tours start, the real focus should be on the UCI as governing body IMO...
Lance couldn't have achieved what he did without the 'protection' of the UCI/Verbruggen/McQuaid - whether we'll ever get the point of understanding the complicity of their involvement we'll likely never know. I agree that Lance wasn't evil incarnate, but there was a time where it wasn't even possible to debate this issue as you'd face significant personal attacks from his acolytes and the 'cancer Jesus' mythology they built around him. Some of the issues also extend wider beyond UCI and the role of sports governing bodies in protecting their interests, particularly sponsors e.g. IAAF
Some of the issues also extend wider beyond UCI and the role of sports governing bodies in protecting their interests
That link opens up a graphic of all the connections LA had - everything from the US Federation through to the various management companies, offshore accounts, sponsors, partners and so on.
Paul Sherwen and Phil Liggett were both in on this (whether or not they knew or cared is debateable) as well as they provide the US commentary stream; Paul Sherwen owns (owned?) a goldmine in South AFrica which LA at one point had some shares in.
This goes far far deeper than simply "Lance doped therefore Lance is bad"
Everyone else doped too but none of them managed to become global superstars. Virenque was big in France - no one outside of France except the dedicated Tour watchers knew who he was.
Pantani was big in Italy and a lot of continental Europe, but outside that no one knew who he was.
Indurain was big in Spain... you get the picture.
Lance was big all over the world. And with that exposure comes all the extra risk which requires all the extra lies which eventually spiralled out of control.
Iirc Steve Peters (sport psychology coach for sky/BC) made a point of watching the interview LA did with Oprah because he knew he'd be asked about it... even he was shocked at his horrendous personality flaws !
Sorry but there isn't shades of grey with lance and the 'i wasn't the only one' argument is pure whattaboutery ; he doped as much as he could, probably more than the others and coerced/bullied his team into the same, and played the sports organisation too; he deserves to be struck from the record and everything else as well. ***T
Lance cheated, I can forgive him that, he was a complete **** by all accounts, well so are many driven top sportsmen or women, I can firgive that, he lied about his doping and covered his tracks, well of course he would I can forgive that too. What I cant forgive is his lying to people affected by cancer.