Lance Armstrong

Post by **snarl** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:52 pm

So it turns out he's the biggest **** in the history of sport then.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:40 am

No shocker there.

ruby_moon · Post by **ruby_moon** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:19 am

I actually had an English teacher in High School that went to school with Lance Armstrong. He was apparently that way as a kid too. We did get to hear all kinds of shenanigans that they got into as kids, but yeah.

Post by **Best First** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:52 am

What gets on my wick is the people who say "he's still a legend".

You backed trhe wrong horse. admit it and move on.

knobs.

Post by **snarl** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:32 am

I was having a text based argument with my mate all night who wishes the investigators just lied and said they found nothing on him, because "he's such an inspiration and he's done so much for charity"

Jimmy Saville much?

Ok, there is a stretch in the damage you're causing people between being a hardened nonce and being a corrupt sportsman, but imo what they have done is broadly similar.

Stupid ******* ****.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:57 am

snarl wrote:Ok, there is a stretch in the damage you're causing people between being a hardened nonce and being a corrupt sportsman, but imo what they have done is broadly similar.

They both ****** over a load of innocents, for one thing.

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:21 pm

Still, as with Justin Lee Collins if you're going to get found out to be a complete and utter bastard this is the week to do it as you're still going to look like a Saint compared to every other male celebrity in the news this week.

Indeed, Collins seems to be the only British TV presenter the press aren't trying to prove is a secret paedophile at the moment.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:05 pm

Well, as most of you know, I'm in Austin, so Lance is one of the "local heroes." That is to say, he's still going to be a respected member of the community because of his cancer/charity work, people still think it's cool when they see him riding/running through the Hill Country highways, and I drive right past a "Lance Armstrong 24 Fitness" on the way home. So I feel I at least have to wade into this discussion on some level.

1. Clearly what Armstrong did was wrong and should be punished.
2. It can be argued that when Armstrong began cheating, sports in general and cycling specifically were rampant with cheating.
3. As we move through the 21st century, the line between sports products OK-to-use (creatine, nutritional supplements, muscle recovery products) and the not-OK-to-use (steroids, HGH) WILL be incredibly subtle and complicated. Case in point: injecting yourself with blood high in platelets like Armstrong. Medicine and biology have gotten to the point where if one particular thing is illegal, we can just switch around some molecules and have something else.
4. America is rampant with cheating. That is to say, we have become a culture where doing anything and everything to win (lying, cheating) is OK provided its in the service of winning. Case in point: Predator Drone and the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney.
5. Despite all this, as I have said, Lance Armstrong has simply done too much good for this to tar him as similar problems have done to someone such as Barry Bonds. Another reason why he won't carry the stigma like Barry Bonds: he won (See #5). Don't get me wrong, I haven't met him, but based upon what I've seen and what I've heard, the guy's probably an asshole. But to me:

Surviving cancer, becoming a symbol of hope to millions, raising millions to save millions of lives > institutionalized cheating in his cycling team and used fancy biology to win an assload of Tours.

And I've never even bought a Livestrong bracelet. AND I grew up cheering on Greg LeMond and loving the Tour. But I think the whole narrative of "Cycling was PURE and then Lance showed up and only USPS cheated and now that they're gone cycling is PURE once more" is BS. Throw out the bad apple, discipline the bad apple, but don't act like that period of cycling was pristine.

Post by **Best First** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:14 am

i don't think i have seen anyone saying that cycling is pure and Armstrong corrupted it.

Just that the fact he was not the only cheating **** out there doesn't justify it.

And i'd reflect on what kind of character you have to be to take that adulation knowing how you got there.

I know a lot of the world regularly debases standards and then justifies it as everyone else doing as well but... **** that basically.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:41 am

Shanti418 wrote:Surviving cancer, becoming a symbol of hope to millions, raising millions to save millions of lives > institutionalized cheating in his cycling team and used fancy biology to win an assload of Tours.

The only thing that separates him from any other cancer survivor is that he went on to win loads of bike races. Yeah, he did charity work, but that was all aided by his high profile... as a result of beating cancer and going on to win all these bike races.

And he cheated to do it. So it invalidates itself. The one begat the other. You could argue that all the money raised justifies the shady means of getting there... but whatever.

Blah.

Post by **Best First** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:53 am

Brendocon wrote: You could argue that all the money raised justifies the shady means of getting there...

And we are back to Jimmy...

Post by **snarl** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:56 am

I like this:

wideload · Post by **wideload** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:15 pm

Armstrong deserves to be tarred and feathered. Yes tarred and feathered.

Anyways, cheating in sports is now so endemic that professional sports have become a sideshow. It would be so easy to get rid of too. Take blood samples year round as soon as an athlete becomes eligible. Keep those samples in a bank and test them whenever someone wins any kind of major title/award and new forms of testing are available.

Most current sports just take samples around competition time. You don't need to take steroids around competition time, that's not the way steroid cycles work. You take a 12 week cycle, and those steroids will give you benefits for the rest of your life.

Post by **snarl** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:12 pm

at the very least, he deserves to have his kids touched by the weeping angels, transporting them back to 70s Leeds.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:02 pm

Who cares if he took drugs or not? FFS, it's only riding bikes.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:29 pm

Best First wrote:i don't think i have seen anyone saying that cycling is pure and Armstrong corrupted it.

Just that the fact he was not the only cheating **** out there doesn't justify it.

And i'd reflect on what kind of character you have to be to take that adulation knowing how you got there.

I know a lot of the world regularly debases standards and then justifies it as everyone else doing as well but... **** that basically.

That's all totally true. I was speaking more to the "Why is it that despite this, millions of people will still view Armstrong as a positive, or indeed, inspirational figure?" than "Does lots of people cheating justify HIM cheating?" Whether or not its justified, the feeling that it was widespread + my contention that cheating/lying isn't even FROWNED UPON in the US as much as it was 10-20 years ago is a large reason of why this is not going to stick in the minds of some people.

Brendocon wrote:The only thing that separates him from any other cancer survivor is that he went on to win loads of bike races. Yeah, he did charity work, but that was all aided by his high profile... as a result of beating cancer and going on to win all these bike races.

And he cheated to do it. So it invalidates itself. The one begat the other. You could argue that all the money raised justifies the shady means of getting there... but whatever.

Blah.

Well, first of all, I was just reading an article which intimated that his testicular cancer was DUE to performance enhancing, which would cast a whole different light on Lance (boy, that guy REALLY stuck to performance enhancing) and the Livestrong Foundation (When I tried to cheat, I got lemons, but then I made Livestrong Lemonade!).

But leaving aside this notion because I don't know if its true or not, I don't think that his charity work is cancelled out because the millions he spent on charity he got from cheating races. I mean, if "the ends never justify the means," then why do I love Robin Hood and Tyler Durden?

To me, cycling is fooling itself if it thinks it's like running but with a bike. Cycling these days is more like Formula 1: a maximization of the person, the machine, and the science. Different ways to increase human performance is part of the science.

And again as I was saying, this line between OK and no go is ridiculous. Consider: If you're a baseball player or a cricket player, you can have lasers shoot into your eyes to perfect your vision, and that's legal. If you're a basketball player, you can take out your used leg ligament and insert a fresh ligament of a dead boy (Derrick Rose of the Chicago Bulls). If you're a basketball player, you can go to Germany to get "platelet rich plasma therapy" like Kobe Bryant and that's legal. However, if you use a blood booster like EPO - as in the case of Armstrong - that's illegal. The point is, we're really getting to the point where we're splitting hairs here between untainted and tainted competition.

Darth Aux · Post by **Darth Aux** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:03 pm

snarl wrote: "he's such an inspiration and he's done so much for charity"

Jimmy Saville much?

I think the same thing, when people give that argument.

A lot of people argued that the priest at my childhood church was a good man and was a pillar of the community. Tell that to the boys he abused!

Although I don't count Lance's drug taking on the same level as Father Davies' sins, a cheater is a cheater and he doesn't deserve praise for his accomplishments, when they were achieved by cheating.
Just like that twisted *** didn't deserve the love and trust our community gave him.

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:26 pm

The Savile thing is quite scary really, even though I think there's now a fair bit of tabloid exaggeration going on (a lot of the stories stripped of hyperbole basically boil down to "I saw him with someone who I can't actually say for sure wasn't 16") there was clearly a huge, huge level of abuse going on there, even if only a tenth of the accusations are true. Millions upon millions raised for charity seemingly simply to let him get at 14 year old girls. Eeek.

Though the number of people falling over themselves to go "Well, I so knew all along but am only saying something now because SHUT UP" are even more depressing. Especially Esther Rantzen, who seems to be determined to set herself up as the official face of celebrity smugness about having known he did it but doesn't think it's odd that the founder of a children's charity didn't bother to mention her suspicions to anyone.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:06 pm

Shanti418 wrote:But leaving aside this notion because I don't know if its true or not, I don't think that his charity work is cancelled out because the millions he spent on charity...

Spent? I thought we were talking about raised? Or did he buy all those wristbands himself?

I mean, if "the ends never justify the means," then why do I love Robin Hood and Tyler Durden?

Tyler Durden is fictional. He's irrelevant to any discussion about actual real life events and people.

Once there was a bloke with a split personality who did some things that were idealistically laudable in a fictional universe, but some other fictional people suffered for it. That has what to do with this?

Robin Hood has been idealised and mythologised to the point where nobody actually knows the truth about him, if he was even real. He's practically fictional. You may as well invoke the gospel of Malcolm Reynolds.

Armstrong had cancer. He overcame said cancer to win some bike races. In the process he became an inspiration to millions as somebody who'd overcome cancer to win a load of bike races. And set up stuff to raise money for charity off the back of it.

But he cheated to win those races. So boo ******* hoo. He's not a role model, he's somebody who played on a medical condition and cheated at sport to set himself up as a role model, then used his position to raise money for charity and set himself up as unimpeachable. But the cat is out of the bag and he's thoroughly impeached.

Doing a load of charity work doesn't change the original sin. The parallels between this and Jimmy are just inescapable.

Post by **snarl** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:32 pm

This Charity doo dah - it's not all altruism is it?

Personal opinion - a lot of it is he did to serve his ego, to service personal guilt, to make him untouchable, as tax relief...

I reckon there would be a smidgen of "giving back", but I think... yeah, I am now overcome by cynicism when it comes to evaluating him.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:36 am

Agree with Snarlz. Guys a douche.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:02 pm

I'm actually gonna side with Shantz on this one. Where do you draw the line with the **** that's available and the **** that's illegal, when so much of it does the same thing?

I mean, I have Aderall and Ritalin in the cupboard from a failed ADD diagnosis. When I took them, they both felt like taking speed--could have stayed up all night playing music, writing, whatever. Both obtained legally; in fact, in the hopes of helping me have a better, more productive life.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:01 pm

Brendocon wrote:
Shanti418 wrote:But leaving aside this notion because I don't know if its true or not, I don't think that his charity work is cancelled out because the millions he spent on charity...
Spent? I thought we were talking about raised? Or did he buy all those wristbands himself?

Raised. My apologies for the mistake.

I mean, if "the ends never justify the means," then why do I love Robin Hood and Tyler Durden?
Tyler Durden is fictional. He's irrelevant to any discussion about actual real life events and people.

Once there was a bloke with a split personality who did some things that were idealistically laudable in a fictional universe, but some other fictional people suffered for it. That has what to do with this?

Robin Hood has been idealised and mythologised to the point where nobody actually knows the truth about him, if he was even real. He's practically fictional. You may as well invoke the gospel of Malcolm Reynolds.

OK, well then don't engage in my off-the-cuff examples and engage in the philosophical point of the ends justifying the means. Do they ever? If I make a billion dollars selling pornography and then spend it on helping poverty, is that alright? If I'm a defense contractor making a better way to kill people, is it OK if I'm using the money to revitalize my community? If I have to kill 10 people to save 1000? Or, if we're Walter White, is it OK to cook meth to create a nest egg for my family because I have cancer? If any of these end DO justify means, what's the line between them and Armstrong?

Armstrong had cancer. He overcame said cancer to win some bike races. In the process he became an inspiration to millions as somebody who'd overcome cancer to win a load of bike races. And set up stuff to raise money for charity off the back of it.

But he cheated to win those races. So boo ******* hoo. He's not a role model, he's somebody who played on a medical condition and cheated at sport to set himself up as a role model, then used his position to raise money for charity and set himself up as unimpeachable. But the cat is out of the bag and he's thoroughly impeached.

Doing a load of charity work doesn't change the original sin. The parallels between this and Jimmy are just inescapable.

That's where I disagree with you most. To me this:

THE SAME THING happened to Lance and Jimmy: they had an original sin they tried to offset by charity work

Is NOT as important as this:

Cheating to win bike races IS NOT NEARLY THE SAME THING as sexually abusing children.

Post by **snarl** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:40 pm

the severity of the crimes they committed is for sure not comparable.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:23 pm

I used to think being on Jim'll fix it would make my weekend, turns out it made my whole week...