Lance



  • @MajorRage said in Lance:

    @sparky said in Lance:

    He robbed clean, hard-working riders of wins.

    Along with unicorns, mermaids and the BFG.

    Yawn. Same old line the Lance Armstrong apologists always trot out. "Everyone else was at it." No they all weren't.

    Each to their own, but a cheating **** (who rightly got caught) ain't my idea of a hero.



  • @sparky said in Lance:

    No they all weren't.

    caaaaan you point me in the direction of the ones who weren't?



  • @mariner4life said in Lance:

    @sparky said in Lance:

    No they all weren't.

    caaaaan you point me in the direction of the ones who weren't?

    alt text

    I'll just point out that not testing positive doesn't mean they weren't doping...



  • @antipodean said in Lance:

    @mariner4life said in Lance:

    @sparky said in Lance:

    No they all weren't.

    caaaaan you point me in the direction of the ones who weren't?

    alt text

    I'll just point out that not testing positive doesn't mean they weren't doping...

    That's a lot of red ink....



  • @canefan i assume that's only guys who failed a test too



  • @mariner4life said in Lance:

    @canefan i assume that's only guys who failed a test too

    Oh yeah, I assumed that. What about the little Aussie battler Evans?



  • @MajorRage said in Lance:

    @mariner4life said in Lance:

    also, i, for what ever reason, really dislike that David Walsh. Which is weird, but he comes across as such a smug, condescending fuckwit.

    The same Walsh that wrote the piece about the All Black myth around 2004?

    Genuine question: was it?

    You're not getting muxed ip with Simon Barnes?



  • @mariner4life said in Lance:

    for those that watched it, what did we think?

    The first 10 minutes i thought it had devolved in to a redemption puff piece. Thankfully, it was not.

    I thought the most telling lines were from Floyd Landis, who would have every reason to hate Lance. But even he thinks it's shit how it all landed on him, just because he was the better athlete.

    If it wasn't for the drug part, people would have zero fucks to give about the bullying. Look at the Jordan documentary for a watered down example. But it's become a part of the "this is worse" story.

    I thought some of his answers were really open actually.

    But everyone who was not a cyclist fucking hates Lance. All the affiliated people were just scathing. Funnily enough, the riders not so much.

    I simply can't read the fucker. Can't tell if he's honest or not. That kitchen scene where the greatest cyclist ever can't cut cheese seemed so fake or staged.

    Do his good deeds outweigh the terrible treatment of people telling the truth? Probably not so I think my first impression of not wanting to be anywhere near the guy holds sway.

    He's certainly a winner but not a champion in my mind.

    Landis gets points for honesty and the power of his convictions.

    In every sport, administrators are complicit in the nefarious things but always the athlete goes for a skate.

    Good doco though.

    Been pondering 2 questions about the doco:

    Has the drugs in cycling thing been cleaned up in any measurable way?

    Why do we yearn for our sporting heroes to be good guys? What's with that?



  • @Siam good post. Agree on the reading him bit. The bit when he said lying was fucking easy because you do it all the time, made me sit back and think "even now?". But then, do i really care that he acted like a fluffybunny? Really?

    The good deeds bit? I actually do think that the work he did that has benefited thousands and thousands of people in a very meaningful way massively outweighs the hurt to a few people. And as i said earlier in the thread, i cannot categorically say i wouldn't have followed a similar path if it meant holding on to everything i had built.

    The winner v champion thing is an interesting question. My instant thought was "agree" but even with as much reflection time as typing this post, i'm wondering if i do agree. He won 7 fucking Tours, straight. That's extraordinary. Yes, drugs bla bla, and i get that. But if you can accept that all his challengers were on it...

    Last two questions: I doubt it. The sport is just perfect for it. It's probably better than the really wild days of 20 years ago, but i have a hard time believing it's clean.

    I generally don't care that much, as i can separate "the art from the artist", however i know that i am in a minority with that one. I reckon it's two things. We think we are good guys, and therefore we want to see a bit of ourselves in our heroes. And, for a lot of people, it's the "won't somebody think of the children". You love that sports guy, be like that sports guy. If that sports guy is a fluffybunny, that conversation becomes a lot harder to have.



  • @canefan said in Lance:

    @mariner4life said in Lance:

    @canefan i assume that's only guys who failed a test too

    Oh yeah, I assumed that. What about the little Aussie battler Evans?

    I'm not casting aspersions there. It's a pertinent question though. There are a couple of ways of viewing his win.



  • @canefan said in Lance:

    @mariner4life said in Lance:

    @canefan i assume that's only guys who failed a test too

    Oh yeah, I assumed that. What about the little Aussie battler Evans?

    he's the only guy on that page without a red mark that you'd defo hesitate to get the marker out... I'd mainly say that cause he had some massive bad days.. that's probably the biggest thing about doping - you can keep the same level for a 3 week tour when all of science tells you it's impossible.



  • @WillieTheWaiter said in Lance:

    @canefan said in Lance:

    @mariner4life said in Lance:

    @canefan i assume that's only guys who failed a test too

    Oh yeah, I assumed that. What about the little Aussie battler Evans?

    he's the only guy on that page without a red mark that you'd defo hesitate to get the marker out... I'd mainly say that cause he had some massive bad days.. that's probably the biggest thing about doping - you can keep the same level for a 3 week tour when all of science tells you it's impossible.

    yep. Although spent a lot chasing down breakaways, and then won with a huge effort on the last day...

    but in general, i actually agree with you. And i thought that tour nearly killed him.



  • @mariner4life said in Lance:

    The winner v champion thing is an interesting question. My instant thought was "agree" but even with as much reflection time as typing this post, i'm wondering if i do agree. He won 7 fucking Tours, straight. That's extraordinary. Yes, drugs bla bla, and i get that. But if you can accept that all his challengers were on it...

    He still had to beat his peers. You could give me enough drugs to wipe out a pod of blue whales and I still wouldn't peddle up some of those climbs in a month of Sundays.



  • @booboo said in Lance:

    @MajorRage said in Lance:

    @mariner4life said in Lance:

    also, i, for what ever reason, really dislike that David Walsh. Which is weird, but he comes across as such a smug, condescending fuckwit.

    The same Walsh that wrote the piece about the All Black myth around 2004?

    Genuine question: was it?

    You're not getting muxed ip with Simon Barnes?

    There was two wasn't there. One by Walsh, another by Barnes? Could be wrong, long time ago, and even I don't hold grudges that long.



  • @antipodean said in Lance:

    @mariner4life said in Lance:

    The winner v champion thing is an interesting question. My instant thought was "agree" but even with as much reflection time as typing this post, i'm wondering if i do agree. He won 7 fucking Tours, straight. That's extraordinary. Yes, drugs bla bla, and i get that. But if you can accept that all his challengers were on it...

    He still had to beat his peers. You could give me enough drugs to wipe out a pod of blue whales and I still wouldn't peddle up some of those climbs in a month of Sundays.

    See this story is open to interpretation. It took me too long to realise you meant the drugs would wipe out the whales.

    I originally imagined you getting given a shitload of drugs and then annihilating them whales in a frenzy.



  • @sparky said in Lance:

    @MajorRage said in Lance:

    @sparky said in Lance:

    He robbed clean, hard-working riders of wins.

    Along with unicorns, mermaids and the BFG.

    Yawn. Same old line the Lance Armstrong apologists always trot out. "Everyone else was at it." No they all weren't.

    Each to their own, but a cheating **** (who rightly got caught) ain't my idea of a hero.

    Never said he was a hero nor denied it's right he got caught.

    It's the determination and single-mindedness that I admire. Do I sustain this position largely because I believe all his fellow competitors were at it? Probably, yes. If he was a complete outlier I would most likely be in the majority camp.



  • did he really get caught? He was dobbed in by a bunch of guys looking for immunity and reduced sentences for doing exactly the same thing.



  • @Siam said in Lance:

    I simply can't read the fucker. Can't tell if he's honest or not. That kitchen scene where the greatest cyclist ever can't cut cheese seemed so fake or staged.

    I just thought he came across as someone that preferred to be very private. The director asks for a few humanising shots and he does the equivalent of tripping over his own shoe laces.

    The scene where he discussed Jan Ullrich was great. He gave the best answer of the whole documentary when discussing someone else's consequences



  • @mariner4life said in Lance:

    did he really get caught? He was dobbed in by a bunch of guys looking for immunity and reduced sentences for doing exactly the same thing.

    He confessed as he was royally fucked and realised nothing was going to stop the truth coming out.



  • @mariner4life yeah I could change my mind 6 times in an hour about whether he was a hero or villain and still not settle on an appraisal.

    That livestrong stuff was heroic and fair dinkum, and his ruining people was also fair dinkum. I think I decided years ago that the harm you do defines you ultimately more than the good, but that's just me trying to turn grey into black and white.

    The bloke's got me flummoxed.

    The Ullrich bit was the most natural emotions I think too.

    Also cycling really takes a unique mindset. Quite telling that 3 of them (at least) went nuts when they were denied cycling ( landis, Ullrich and pantini (?)).



  • I've never really been into cycling as a spectator sport, save when Bradley Wiggins was around as I found him a very engaging person. I followed his latter career but lost a large slice of interest once he retired and we had Frome who is just not as appealing. Now that there are clouds over Brad's TdF victory I am really saddened in a way that i wouldn't be with Frome or for that matter Armstrong, so I guess for some it is all about the person, their hero if you like and that will likely polarise views on someone like Armstrong who has extremes to his achievements.

    Like many I wasn't at all surprised to hear that Armstrong had been doping, I sort of took it for granted (and not just him), so that in itself was not enough to downplay his achievements. His behaviour to those around him, the bullying and the ruining of peoples' lives to my mind has tarnished him. His interview with Oprah did him no favours either. It showed him as completely unrepentant and still a cruel and heartless person. I also find that picture of him posing with his yellow jerseys as continuing with the unrepentant stance.

    Having said all that can you really take away what he underwent to get to that summit that he reached? Doping or not, I don't think so. For sure, you can strip him of his titles but you cannot take away what the man did. Tour cycling is probably the most unrelenting test of endurance, will and self sacrifice in sport. To complete a TdF is an accomplishment in itself. To paraphrase Alan Minter "sure there have been deaths in cycling, but none of them fatal".



  • @Catogrande v good post mate



  • @Catogrande said in Lance:

    I've never really been into cycling as a spectator sport, save when Bradley Wiggins was around as I found him a very engaging person. I followed his latter career but lost a large slice of interest once he retired and we had Frome who is just not as appealing. Now that there are clouds over Brad's TdF victory I am really saddened in a way that i wouldn't be with Frome or for that matter Armstrong, so I guess for some it is all about the person, their hero if you like and that will likely polarise views on someone like Armstrong who has extremes to his achievements.

    Like many I wasn't at all surprised to hear that Armstrong had been doping, I sort of took it for granted (and not just him), so that in itself was not enough to downplay his achievements. His behaviour to those around him, the bullying and the ruining of peoples' lives to my mind has tarnished him. His interview with Oprah did him no favours either. It showed him as completely unrepentant and still a cruel and heartless person. I also find that picture of him posing with his yellow jerseys as continuing with the unrepentant stance.

    Having said all that can you really take away what he underwent to get to that summit that he reached? Doping or not, I don't think so. For sure, you can strip him of his titles but you cannot take away what the man did. Tour cycling is probably the most unrelenting test of endurance, will and self sacrifice in sport. To complete a TdF is an accomplishment in itself. To paraphrase Alan Minter "sure there have been deaths in cycling, but none of them fatal".

    I feel the same about Geraint Thomas.

    I really hope he did it clean.



  • @MajorRage said in Lance:

    @booboo said in Lance:

    @MajorRage said in Lance:

    @mariner4life said in Lance:

    also, i, for what ever reason, really dislike that David Walsh. Which is weird, but he comes across as such a smug, condescending fuckwit.

    The same Walsh that wrote the piece about the All Black myth around 2004?

    Genuine question: was it?

    You're not getting muxed ip with Simon Barnes?

    There was two wasn't there. One by Walsh, another by Barnes? Could be wrong, long time ago, and even I don't hold grudges that long.

    And you call yourself a Kiwi ...



  • @Bones said in Lance:

    @antipodean said in Lance:

    @mariner4life said in Lance:

    The winner v champion thing is an interesting question. My instant thought was "agree" but even with as much reflection time as typing this post, i'm wondering if i do agree. He won 7 fucking Tours, straight. That's extraordinary. Yes, drugs bla bla, and i get that. But if you can accept that all his challengers were on it...

    He still had to beat his peers. You could give me enough drugs to wipe out a pod of blue whales and I still wouldn't peddle up some of those climbs in a month of Sundays.

    See this story is open to interpretation. It took me too long to realise you meant the drugs would wipe out the whales.

    I originally imagined you getting given a shitload of drugs and then annihilating them whales in a frenzy.

    Either or. They are a hazard to international shipping.



  • @Catogrande said in Lance:

    Like many I wasn't at all surprised to hear that Armstrong had been doping, I sort of took it for granted (and not just him), so that in itself was not enough to downplay his achievements. His behaviour to those around him, the bullying and the ruining of peoples' lives to my mind has tarnished him. His interview with Oprah did him no favours either. It showed him as completely unrepentant and still a cruel and heartless person. I also find that picture of him posing with his yellow jerseys as continuing with the unrepentant stance.

    I just gotta say - that whole "ruined peoples lives" is yet another example of the over dramatised bollicks that surrounds the Armstrong saga.

    is there anyone involved that is desitute, living under a bridge, killed themselves? Cause when you say "life ruined" that means to this day, and to then end of their life. It's a big statement.

    I always ask people who say this to name 5 people whose 'life is ruined' by Armstrong - should be easy right since there was so many. Haven't got one yet.

    At best you could say it was a temporary employment dispute with a cnuty co-worker or boss that harmed your career.

    You know what does ruin peoples lives? Getting fucking cancer.

    That's what I don't get - the sheer volume of people who absolutely HATE Armstrong because of this whole - he "ruined the lives" of a handful of cyclists - but completely ignore the THOUSANDS of cancer sufferers whose lives he postively impacted - and we're talking about people who went to their graves happy that he reached out to them. Why don't they count? Why are a handful of cyclists more important. (also kinda find that amusing as 99% of the worlds population HATE cyclists but as soon as they find out LA was a prick to them they're right on the bandwagon to support them..)

    If you had to choose a manner of having your 'life ruined' - what would you pick? shitty employment situation or getting cancer?

    Anyway - I'll always say that there is no way you can't say that LA hasn't positively impacted this world more than his negative impacts.

    Actually one other thing I would say is maybe people need to look at things from his perspective.. Betsy Andreu for example.. he went after her big time.. but he was on what he thought at the time was his death bed, with his best mate and wife there... he comes clean to the docs about what he's been taking. She takes that and gives it to the papers, specifically to the guy that's your 'mortal enemy'.. would that piss you off!!? I farking know it would me and I'd be out to get that person.

    Anyway at the end of the day I can totally understand why he's unrepentant. Easy for those outside of cycling to just say he shouldn't have taken drugs, but it's been part of the culture and normality since day 1 or the sports existence. These guys are just in a bubble all year interacting with nothing but other cyclists, the general public pays attention for 3 weeks during TDF. He did nothing different than anyone else, and the guys that did the same are welcomed with open arms at the tour e.g. Mercxk Conti etc.. whereas the only guys excluded are basically him and Ullrich.



  • @MajorRage said in Lance:

    It's the determination and single-mindedness that I admire. Do I sustain this position largely because I believe all his fellow competitors were at it? Probably, yes. If he was a complete outlier I would most likely be in the majority camp.

    it's probably the main thing that people ignore and what made LA as good as he was.. the "top 2 inches".

    He had no off switch. One of the only guys that could just ignore his body and push through situations where other guys would sit up. Evans for example - having a bad day he'd just crack.. Remember a day when he went out the back before Cav on a climb which takes a special effort!

    Also was what made him a massive prick, and impossible to measure the 'benefits' so people often just jump on the 'he took drugs that's all he had to do'



  • @WillieTheWaiter said in Lance:

    @MajorRage said in Lance:

    It's the determination and single-mindedness that I admire. Do I sustain this position largely because I believe all his fellow competitors were at it? Probably, yes. If he was a complete outlier I would most likely be in the majority camp.

    it's probably the main thing that people ignore and what made LA as good as he was.. the "top 2 inches".

    He had no off switch. One of the only guys that could just ignore his body and push through situations where other guys would sit up. Evans for example - having a bad day he'd just crack.. Remember a day when he went out the back before Cav on a climb which takes a special effort!

    Also was what made him a massive prick, and impossible to measure the 'benefits' so people often just jump on the 'he took drugs that's all he had to do'

    A great bit on his podcast from the Tour a couple of years back where he was talking about what pissed him off about the whole thing was people instantly wrote off all shit he said he did in his book with regards to training and prep. His take is, "i still did all of that, it's just he left the last bit off the list". He mentioned it in the documentary as well.



  • @WillieTheWaiter that's fair about the ruined lives thing mate. They weren't ruined. It's hyperbole But it's not really in our human wiring to accept such a foundation of intentional lying to smear someone else.

    Is doping more or less prevalent these days. I'd accept any answer, just curious what the word in the industry is.



  • @WillieTheWaiter said in Lance:

    @MajorRage said in Lance:

    It's the determination and single-mindedness that I admire. Do I sustain this position largely because I believe all his fellow competitors were at it? Probably, yes. If he was a complete outlier I would most likely be in the majority camp.

    it's probably the main thing that people ignore and what made LA as good as he was.. the "top 2 inches".

    He had no off switch. One of the only guys that could just ignore his body and push through situations where other guys would sit up. Evans for example - having a bad day he'd just crack.. Remember a day when he went out the back before Cav on a climb which takes a special effort!

    Also was what made him a massive prick, and impossible to measure the 'benefits' so people often just jump on the 'he took drugs that's all he had to do'

    Similar reasons (obviously sans drug scandals) why Tiger, Kobe and MJ were so great. And why they were seen by many as total assholes especiall in their primes



  • @WillieTheWaiter

    As I mentioned “likely to polarise views”. Which is fair enough. You have a lot of admiration for the guy, others less so. Both are understandable viewpoints. The ruined lives thing is of course relative and so yeah some hyperbole there. Having your career taken away from you is not the same as cancer, but then again I don’t know of many examples where someone has gone out of their way to systematically give someone cancer on a personal level ie tobacco and the like aside.

    I’m not arguing for or against the man here, something that I thought I’d made clear.



  • @Catogrande said in Lance:

    @WillieTheWaiter

    As I mentioned “likely to polarise views”. Which is fair enough. You have a lot of admiration for the guy, others less so. Both are understandable viewpoints. The ruined lives thing is of course relative and so yeah some hyperbole there. Having your career taken away from you is not the same as cancer, but then again I don’t know of many examples where someone has gone out of their way to systematically give someone cancer on a personal level ie tobacco and the like aside.

    I’m not arguing for or against the man here, something that I thought I’d made clear.

    If you aren't with us, you're against us.



  • @Siam said in Lance:

    Is doping more or less prevalent these days. I'd accept any answer, just curious what the word in the industry is.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_France_records_and_statistics#Overall_speed

    2005 was the fastest tour ever. Since then it's got slower ... read into that what you will 🙂



  • @Catogrande said in Lance:

    examples where someone has gone out of their way to systematically give someone cancer on a personal level

    Think I'm reading that correctly. And I think I agree with you ...

    ... Am not sure though ...



  • @booboo said in Lance:

    @Catogrande said in Lance:

    examples where someone has gone out of their way to systematically give someone cancer on a personal level

    Think I'm reading that correctly. And I think I agree with you ...

    ... Am not sure though ...

    Assuming you were looking for clarification. ..

    Cancer is very much worse than someone deliberately shafting your career but no one deliberately sets out to give you cancer. So to compare Armstrong’s actions to cancer you would need to take that into account.



  • I just finished the doco. I really enjoyed it, I found it quite compelling. Lance came across as pretty candid to me. It did not try to cast him in a more favourable light, he clearly was a hugely gifted athlete, a cheat, a bully, and a liar and fraud. He did huge things with his livestrong foundation that benefited millions of people. While trying to appear contrite, other times he is unrepentant and sometimes he was enraged at the way he was treated despite everything he did. As with many things in life, he is a multifaceted complicated figure



  • @canefan I'm now in an airbnb with no sky access so haven't seen E2, but that summary seems to gel with the bloke I've followed over the years.



  • @voodoo said in Lance:

    @canefan I'm now in an airbnb with no sky access so haven't seen E2, but that summary seems to gel with the bloke I've followed over the years.

    No sky access! Got to take at least one star off your review....



  • @WillieTheWaiter said in Lance:

    @Catogrande said in Lance:

    Like many I wasn't at all surprised to hear that Armstrong had been doping, I sort of took it for granted (and not just him), so that in itself was not enough to downplay his achievements. His behaviour to those around him, the bullying and the ruining of peoples' lives to my mind has tarnished him. His interview with Oprah did him no favours either. It showed him as completely unrepentant and still a cruel and heartless person. I also find that picture of him posing with his yellow jerseys as continuing with the unrepentant stance.

    I just gotta say - that whole "ruined peoples lives" is yet another example of the over dramatised bollicks that surrounds the Armstrong saga.

    is there anyone involved that is desitute, living under a bridge, killed themselves? Cause when you say "life ruined" that means to this day, and to then end of their life. It's a big statement.

    I always ask people who say this to name 5 people whose 'life is ruined' by Armstrong - should be easy right since there was so many. Haven't got one yet.

    At best you could say it was a temporary employment dispute with a cnuty co-worker or boss that harmed your career.

    You know what does ruin peoples lives? Getting fucking cancer.

    That's what I don't get - the sheer volume of people who absolutely HATE Armstrong because of this whole - he "ruined the lives" of a handful of cyclists - but completely ignore the THOUSANDS of cancer sufferers whose lives he postively impacted - and we're talking about people who went to their graves happy that he reached out to them. Why don't they count? Why are a handful of cyclists more important. (also kinda find that amusing as 99% of the worlds population HATE cyclists but as soon as they find out LA was a prick to them they're right on the bandwagon to support them..)

    If you had to choose a manner of having your 'life ruined' - what would you pick? shitty employment situation or getting cancer?

    Anyway - I'll always say that there is no way you can't say that LA hasn't positively impacted this world more than his negative impacts.

    Actually one other thing I would say is maybe people need to look at things from his perspective.. Betsy Andreu for example.. he went after her big time.. but he was on what he thought at the time was his death bed, with his best mate and wife there... he comes clean to the docs about what he's been taking. She takes that and gives it to the papers, specifically to the guy that's your 'mortal enemy'.. would that piss you off!!? I farking know it would me and I'd be out to get that person.

    Anyway at the end of the day I can totally understand why he's unrepentant. Easy for those outside of cycling to just say he shouldn't have taken drugs, but it's been part of the culture and normality since day 1 or the sports existence. These guys are just in a bubble all year interacting with nothing but other cyclists, the general public pays attention for 3 weeks during TDF. He did nothing different than anyone else, and the guys that did the same are welcomed with open arms at the tour e.g. Mercxk Conti etc.. whereas the only guys excluded are basically him and Ullrich.

    I don't get the moral relativism from a lot of the Lance / cycling fanboys on this. Just because he wasn't the only one doping doesn't make him any less dirty. Two wrongs don't make and a right and all that and it's bit like a rapist saying he was raised in a village full of rapists so we shouldn't judge him too harshly.



  • @canefan said in Lance:

    I just finished the doco. I really enjoyed it, I found it quite compelling. Lance came across as pretty candid to me. It did not try to cast him in a more favourable light, he clearly was a hugely gifted athlete, a cheat, a bully, and a liar and fraud. He did huge things with his livestrong foundation that benefited millions of people. While trying to appear contrite, other times he is unrepentant and sometimes he was enraged at the way he was treated despite everything he did. As with many things in life, he is a multifaceted complicated figure

    You actually make him sound like a psychopath when you describe hime like that.


Log in to reply