The case against Lance Armstrong

[ghost]

Lance is grasping at straws.   The funniest thing about all this is dopers being pissed at a doper for being caught doping and then lying about doping.  I'm assuming he's got attorneys involved because he's going to be sued about a million times.  I'm not really sure why he chose to do this.  He has really opened himself up for a lot of legal difficulty.  Unless he's got some sort of deal in place that if he helps bring down the UCI (which he should) that he will get some leniency.  

Addendum-  in looking at some of the commentary from other riders, you would think that they thought Lance invented doping.  Now he's going to turn into a huge scapegoat for a problem that existed long before he came around, was prevalent when he rode across the peloton and will be present long after he is gone. 

[HaemishM]

I saw bits of this, heard the commentary on it this morning, then I checked with myself.

...

...

Nope, still don't give two shits about cycling.

[Venkman]

I really hate this thing. They hype the shit out of his reveal. At first I thought it was on his road to becoming a force against doping. But then I realized, nope, just rebranding. And that was before this:

JJ Abrams picks up write for as yet unreleased book on this stupid bullshit.

This right here is why a) this is my first ever post in Sports/Fantasy after 8 years; and, b) I don't follow organized sports. I hear too much about how every sport is really just a metagame of brinkmanship to see who can dodge rules better. That's coupled with this stupid trait in society where we elevate someone whose singularly good at a sport into some paragon of virtue until, shockingly, that really good player in that really aggressive sport does something typical of little-brain-thinking macho narcissism.

My real problem isn't the sports. I'm sure the vast majority of it is legit players in legit games who are merely really good.

It's how the media covers it and how society just loves the shit out of it through the mother of rose colored lenses.

[Margalis]

JJ Abrams and Lance Armstrong are a match made in heaven.

[Paelos]

Yeah, he ruined people's lives and now wants our forgiveness? Nah. I didn't watch the interview, I won't buy anything he does, and I will do everything I can to advise any clients against his charity in favor of other cancer organizations.

[Xuri]

He's not after forgiveness. He's not sorry he doped himself, he's sorry he got caught.

[Sir T]

He revealed a measure of the man that he is and this much is certain: If you never met this jerk, well, count your blessings.

Fellow riders say they wish they'd never hooked on with him. Support staff claim they wish they'd never taken a job. Sponsors are lining up to sue. Journalists who carried his water for years are writing they wish they'd never bought the lie.

The more Armstrong talked Thursday, the more it became obvious: This seems like the last and least likable individual you'd want to hang around.

He was, and likely remains, nothing but a machine of personal glorification, no concept of his real place in the world. Now that the truth is out, it's not about the cheating so much as it's about the way he fought dirty to protect the cheating.

"I was a bully," he acknowledged. "In the sense that I tried to control the narrative, and if I didn't like what somebody said, I tried to control that and say that's a lie."

Except he didn't stop at saying "that's a lie." He'd start there, then go on the attack, often trying to ruin his accusers professionally and, perhaps, personally, maybe legally and certainly financially.

Consider Emma O'Reilly, an Irish massage therapist who began working for his team while in her 20s. She later told the truth about Lance and drugs. For that she's testified Team Armstrong responded by calling her a whore and a drunk. But Armstrong didn't stop there. No, he tried to sue into oblivion this woman of limited financial means.

What did Armstrong say of Emma? He couldn't remember if he even attempted legal action against her.

"To be honest Oprah," he chuckled lightly, "we sued so many people, I'm sure we did."

You sure?

"She's one of those people I have to apologize to," Armstrong said.

You think?

"She got run over, got bullied," he continued. He was in the wrong tense then. She got run over, got bullied. Not, "I ran her over. I bullied her." Because make no mistake, it was him. It was only him.

How the hell did this guy ever get so popular anyway. I took one look at him years ago and he had asshole written all over him.

[Malakili]

How the hell did this guy ever get so popular anyway. I took one look at him years ago and he had asshole written all over him.

Cancer. 

[ghost]

Yeah, he ruined people's lives and now wants our forgiveness? Nah. I didn't watch the interview, I won't buy anything he does, and I will do everything I can to advise any clients against his charity in favor of other cancer organizations.

He's sleaze, but it's silly to think that anyone in cycling is clean.  I find it laughable when they interview other cyclists that have been implicated in doping and they act like Armstrong is the antichrist.  Shit, people, they all dope.  It's the dirtiest sport in the world. 

[Paelos]

Exactly. All the more reason not to bankrupt other people when they try to tell the truth about you.

[Ginaz]

Well, at least he didn't call her fat!

Yeah.  What a douche bag.  That whole interview was a farce.  Instead of going to a real, seasoned journalist he went with Oprah, knowing he'd get soft ball questions and let off easy.

I'm betting sometime in the near future we'll hear Lance has "found God" becomes a born again Christian, which of course, will somehow mean he can't be held accountable for anything he did before that and we should all just leave him alone.

[Sir T]

I wonder how soon we will get the "well he must have been better than everyone else anyway 'cause everyone is on drugs" comments?

[lamaros]

There is no doubt he was an incredibly driven athlete who was also a great cyclist. There is also no doubt that most of the other cyclists were also doping. Many got caught and many have admitted it.

He's always been an unlikeable jerk, this wild public outcry is mostly driven by a) people who only every engaged with his 'story' feeling stupid and duped, and b) people who have known he's a cheating jerk relishing the opportunity to cry it from the rooftops.

[ghost]

There is no doubt he was an incredibly driven athlete who was also a great cyclist. There is also no doubt that most of the other cyclists were also doping. Many got caught and many have admitted it.

He's always been an unlikeable jerk, this wild public outcry is mostly driven by a) people who only every engaged with his 'story' feeling stupid and duped, and b) people who have known he's a cheating jerk relishing the opportunity to cry it from the rooftops.

It's very likely that he has a personality disorder.  He's extremely charismatic, good at making the right comment at the right time and extremely self centered.   People either love him or hate him. 

Personally, I still think he's more entertaining as a failure than many athletes.  His interview with Oprah was riveting.  I can't wait to see how many lies he gets caught in from that.

[Margalis]

I wonder how soon we will get the "well he must have been better than everyone else anyway 'cause everyone is on drugs" comments?

There is no doubt he was an incredibly driven athlete who was also a great cyclist.

Cycling is a very low skill sport. If you have more strength and endurance than other people you will win. In baseball you still need hand-eye coordination and reflexes, in football you still need field vision, good decision-making with the ball, etc. Being great at cycling is 99% raw physical ability, which is what doping improves - and he was the best at doping. There's no way of knowing how good a cyclist Armstrong was without that help. (And even in skill sports people vastly underestimate how much of a help performance enhancers are)

If a dude wins a holding your breath underwater competition using an air tank, beating other people using inferior air tanks, who is the best at holding their breath underwater? It's pointless to even discuss. Armstrong was the best at cheating in a field of mostly (but not all) cheaters. There's no way to separate his performance from his cheating.

[satael]

I wonder how soon we will get the "well he must have been better than everyone else anyway 'cause everyone is on drugs" comments?

There is no doubt he was an incredibly driven athlete who was also a great cyclist.

Cycling is a very low skill sport. If you have more strength and endurance than other people you will win. In baseball you still need hand-eye coordination and reflexes, in football you still need field vision, good decision-making with the ball, etc. Being great at cycling is 99% raw physical ability, which is what doping improves - and he was the best at doping. There's no way of knowing how good a cyclist Armstrong was without that help. (And even in skill sports people vastly underestimate how much of a help performance enhancers are)

If a dude wins a holding your breath underwater competition using an air tank, beating other people using inferior air tanks, who is the best at holding their breath underwater? It's pointless to even discuss. Armstrong was the best at cheating in a field of mostly (but not all) cheaters. There's no way to separate his performance from his cheating.

While I have no love for cycling, I'm pretty sure your remark just made most track'n'field sports trivial  (110m hurdles is just about physical and no skill or technique needed either right?)
I really doubt it's 99% physical with technique and strategy being just 1% of it (I mean there are teams and things like climb specialists for a reason?)

[rk47]

cycling is like sex. do it wrong and you get sick.

[DraconianOne]

I wonder how soon we will get the "well he must have been better than everyone else anyway 'cause everyone is on drugs" comments?

There is no doubt he was an incredibly driven athlete who was also a great cyclist.

Cycling is a very low skill sport. If you have more strength and endurance than other people you will win. In baseball you still need hand-eye coordination and reflexes, in football you still need field vision, good decision-making with the ball, etc. Being great at cycling is 99% raw physical ability, which is what doping improves - and he was the best at doping. There's no way of knowing how good a cyclist Armstrong was without that help. (And even in skill sports people vastly underestimate how much of a help performance enhancers are)

If a dude wins a holding your breath underwater competition using an air tank, beating other people using inferior air tanks, who is the best at holding their breath underwater? It's pointless to even discuss. Armstrong was the best at cheating in a field of mostly (but not all) cheaters. There's no way to separate his performance from his cheating.

While I have no love for cycling, I'm pretty sure your remark just made most track'n'field sports trivial  (110m hurdles is just about physical and no skill or technique needed either right?)
I really doubt it's 99% physical with technique and strategy being just 1% of it (I mean there are teams and things like climb specialists for a reason?)

Spot on. Endurance sport is as much - if not more - about the mental approach and the will to push through pain barriers as it is about strength and endurance. Technique and strategy also come into it, especially at elite levels where other physiological factors like VO2Max matter less.

[UnSub]

How the hell did this guy ever get so popular anyway. I took one look at him years ago and he had asshole written all over him.

He won. There are lots of people out there with asshole written all over them but they win / sing popular songs, earn lots of money and people love them for it.

Armstrong was a winner in a sport dominated by Europeans and had a great story behind him. The US loves winners with personal narratives like his.

[ghost]

Cycling is a very low skill sport. If you have more strength and endurance than other people you will win. In baseball you still need hand-eye coordination and reflexes, in football you still need field vision, good decision-making with the ball, etc. Being great at cycling is 99% raw physical ability, which is what doping improves - and he was the best at doping. There's no way of knowing how good a cyclist Armstrong was without that help. (And even in skill sports people vastly underestimate how much of a help performance enhancers are)

You should try heading down some of the mountains in the Alps or Pyrinees at 60 miles per hour and see how little skill it takes.  Or try a sprint at full speed in a pack full of bikes because it's super easy and requires no skill at all.   

[slog]

Cycling is a very low skill sport. If you have more strength and endurance than other people you will win. In baseball you still need hand-eye coordination and reflexes, in football you still need field vision, good decision-making with the ball, etc. Being great at cycling is 99% raw physical ability, which is what doping improves - and he was the best at doping. There's no way of knowing how good a cyclist Armstrong was without that help. (And even in skill sports people vastly underestimate how much of a help performance enhancers are)

You should try heading down some of the mountains in the Alps or Pyrinees at 60 miles per hour and see how little skill it takes.  Or try a sprint at full speed in a pack full of bikes because it's super easy and requires no skill at all.   

It's still 99% (maybe 98%) raw physical ability. 

Anyway, Lance is an ass.  I hope the people that he sued all sue him back for lying under oath and he ends up homeless.

[satael]

Cycling is a very low skill sport. If you have more strength and endurance than other people you will win. In baseball you still need hand-eye coordination and reflexes, in football you still need field vision, good decision-making with the ball, etc. Being great at cycling is 99% raw physical ability, which is what doping improves - and he was the best at doping. There's no way of knowing how good a cyclist Armstrong was without that help. (And even in skill sports people vastly underestimate how much of a help performance enhancers are)

You should try heading down some of the mountains in the Alps or Pyrinees at 60 miles per hour and see how little skill it takes.  Or try a sprint at full speed in a pack full of bikes because it's super easy and requires no skill at all.   

It's still 99% (maybe 98%) raw physical ability. 

Anyway, Lance is an ass.  I hope the people that he sued all sue him back for lying under oath and he ends up homeless.

And somehow being able to hit a ball (or a player in the opposing team) is not about physical ability but some incredible skills that no cyclist can ever even imagine? 

[ghost]

It's still 99% (maybe 98%) raw physical ability. 

Umm, no.  It's tough to make a real assessment of "skill" in sport when your frame of reference is baseball or golf which are 98% skill and 2% physical ability.

[Margalis]

People are taking the low-skill comment about cycling as a pejorative when it wasn't intended as such. Being able to pump your legs fast for a long time is a skill in itself, if you consider basic physical mechanics a skill. My point is that the range of things you have to do in cycling is narrow and very closely related to raw physical ability and performance enhancing drugs give you a big boost that translate very directly into overall performance.

Having a lot of oxygen in your blood is going to help a football player a lot, a baseball player a bit, and a cyclist a huge amount, because converting oxygenated blood into physical motion is the basis of cycling.

[ghost]

Well certainly endurance is a key factor in any kind of road race, however I don't think that to say it is a "very low skill sport" does it justice.  The comment makes me think that you don't understand cycling.  It's a team sport.  There are fine nuances with the teamwork in both the sprints and in the mountain stages.  And it's not just about endurance.  The sprints are not really endurance based at all.  It's more about pure power and timing.  Usually those guys finish in the back of the stage races overall.  The only part of the Tour de France that would be close to what you're describing as cycling would be the time trials, and even those have a bit of skill involved regarding technique, position on the bike, etc. 

[Tale]

Of all the things I've read on this, I liked best this analysis of how Armstrong is still lying.

[DraconianOne]

David Walsh wrote a fascinating article in this weekends Sunday Times about his impressions of the interview with added tidbits like the fact that Armstrong had called Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly to "apologise" but suggested it was nothing more than a token PR exercise so that he could genuinely say "I reached out to them to make amends". (David Walsh's Twitter here)

[Korachia]

Arise necrothread!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview-part-1#null

Cyclingnews have interviewed Armstrong, and despite him not answering all questions, there are some interesting titbits such as the the whole High octane vs low octane doping . He also confirms that low octane doping (like using cortizone) is practically the established practice among even low ranking riders.

[ghost]

God he's such a dick.   

It's silly to think that the whole peloton wasn't doping back then and it's silly to think that the big players aren't still doping now. 

[Korachia]

He is not exactly graceful in defeat, that's for sure. Some day I hope he gets financially ruined by lawsuits, so he is forced to publish his memoir with all the juicy revelations. This might just force a much needed break in the sick culture of bicycling. One day maybe..

[ghost]

It will definitely happen in our lifetimes.  You note that in the article that he is living in "temporary suburban housing", whatever that means.  I guess he sold his mansion?

[Korachia]

It will definitely happen in our lifetimes.  You note that in the article that he is living in "temporary suburban housing", whatever that means.  I guess he sold his mansion?

Did he not get divorced recently? I just thought that was the reason. But I soo hope you are right 

[ghost]

He got divorced several years ago.  

Edit-  I don't think he married Anna Hansen, but I could be wrong.

[Korachia]

Ahh yeah that was Crow he was married too. Lucky guy.

Well even if he publishes the truth at some point, many might not believe him at all. Just look at Michael Rasmussen(almost won TDC but was thrown out because of the where-abouts scandal) who has a book out very soon, which already got leaked. Because he lied about doping in the past, many commentators and media people is questioning everything to a degree which I find specious. He might still be lying for profit/revenge seems to be their main counterargument. Furthermore they are saying that it's not relevant anymore. Mainly because the bicycling sport have changed, and the riders who used to dope and are now managers, directors, trainers, and commentators have seen the light and changed their way.

Absolute bullshit.

[ghost]

Actually, they called off their marriage 3 months prior to getting hitched, IIRC.  I don't think he's been married but once.

I actually believe everything that comes out of his mouth right now.  He's a "flipped switch" kindof guy.  Once he's off of lying he's the type that will get all sanctimonious and proselytize about doping.  

And yeah, all you need to know about doping and cycling is that it is estimated that doping gives a 15-20% boos in performance for cyclists.  If it were "clean", as they claim, we'd see significant reductions in the times.  There's just no way that Team Sky, or any of these motherfuckers, aren't doping.