Lance Armstrong Possible PED Confession - (Oprah interview Jan 17)

Discussion in 'Sports' started by Earth, Aug 24, 2012.

  1. Rich S

    Rich S

    Messages:
    3,001
    Anways many people have loved Lance and defended him vehemently over the years. His fans seem just as agressive as his detractors which has always made it tough get anywhere when it comes to criticizing him.

    My issue with him is that he taught an entire generation of riders to lie and most importantly hurt anybody who questions a performance. To me the performances I see in the pros (and amateurs, especially amongst older riders who should be on their way down the ladder) is unreal.

    What do you think, is it OK to lie and dope. To me its always been pretty dodgy to dope. I dont have a problem with people riding $3,000 wheels, $5,000 aero frames, but to me doping is a spectrum. There's EPO, but there's ephedrine, steroids, insulin (which is unsafe) artificial red blood cells, amongst other things. To me its not the same as steeling a bag of M&Ms from the store, its a more dodgy choice that Lance Armstrong taught as being as casual as pumping your tires up full of air.

    I just dont like Lance's casual attitude towards it. He could have said nothing (stoic like the German cyclist Jan Ullrich) which would be appropriate giving the gravity of the situation but instead he shoots off. If you've not experienced Lance talking about doping here's a compilation that I find a good representation of him over the years:


     
  2. FoolKiller

    FoolKiller Premium

    Messages:
    24,556
    Location:
    United States
    That he was willing to do anything to win. Dishonestly, yes. Making him undeserving of his titles and resulting money? Yes.

    Hate to break it to you, but cheating, bending the rules, and finding loopholes is a part of sports and has in fact altered how sports are played.

    Finding ways around the rules brought us the forward pass in football, the wide range of pitches in baseball, the three point shot in basketball, new technologies in race car engineering, the new materials in swimming, running, and cycling uniforms, and every single trick play you can think of.

    What have performance enhancing drugs brought? A new stage in physical prowess. One that should be set to a new standard, but there it is.


    Place a man on a figurative pedestal and he will eventually fall. Part of my statement is a critique of our hero worshipping culture. No matter their achievements, their philosophy, or their acts they are still just men. I'm suppose to feel indignant about a guy who inspired my wife to pay $1 for a rubber bracelet that's lost somewhere in our house?


    Did he beat non-cancer patients who were also cheating, placing them on an even playing field?

    Does that make a cancer survivor winning over guys who did all the same things he did any less amazing?


    Why? I'm asking in all honesty. Clearly, athletes all over are doing these things and looking impressive because of it. Why not separate them out? My thought is that if a guy has any form of performance altering modification, physical or chemical, they are placed, permanently, in a separate class. Some may find this higher level to be a wonder to watch, others may find it boring. In the US you see the same situation between pro and college levels of sports. College players show more heart and passion because they can't go any further otherwise, but they aren't as skilled and amazing plays are far and few between. Pro players have the riches and are living the dream, leaving them without a passion for the game and often not trying at all in certain areas, but the key to that money is being newsworthy. This leads to showmanship, always going for the big play that will get you on highlight reels but has a higher risk of failure than success. Few like both scenarios, but many like one or the other. A Modification league or class will just be a different form of performance again.

    Did I say he was justified or shouldn't lose his titles and money? No. I just said that I don't get why everyone has made a big deal of it. Honestly, once this all blows over, will the lives of 99% of the world be affected?

    I don't know about you, but I have far more important concerns in my day-to-day life.


    Hence why I suggested separating them out. If these things will be this ingrained in sports for decades you will never be able to stop it, and all you will do is have stories like this time and time again, which does send the message that only the guys using can become champions, and by the time they are caught, if they are caught, it will be too late for you to gain recognition. Even worse because it goes on enough that you likely wouldn't have even been able to compete for a podium position.


    I did say "if." But after the earlier Komen debacle I won't be surprised if it does.

    But I should respect someone who only cared about disease research because of one man? If you don't want to give to Livestrong or wear your yellow bracelet, fine. Give to another cancer charity or wear a pink or red bracelet. Your awareness didn't end with Armstrong's reputation. If your concern about cancer does, then what does that make you? Why spite patients with testicular cancer because one of them lied to you. Don't punish the testicles because you feel like one guy gave you the shaft.

    I can care about those things and still wonder why the media is in orgasmic bliss anout these kinds of scandals and why the public rides the wave with them. My indignation will not have an affect on whether he gets justice.

    Keep in mind, I say the same things about every celebrity sex scandal out there.

    Yes, it would be the same, as would my reaction.


    I doubt the point was to say anyone can do it. If you believed anyone could do it then why is it an achievement? If anything it was to make him a poster boy because it is an amazing thing that draws attention from even non-fans of the sport. I don't watch things anyone can do. It us why walking and breathing aren't spectator sports.

    This sounds like a good argument for having it out in the open in a monitored capacity instead of in back rooms with no oversight.

    Cancer isn't a lie. Hopefully, neither is the concern of those who donate.

    Unless he was put up to it he completely deserves to lose all sympathy.

    By the way, don't create idols of men. Few truly deserve it.


    Famine, good point. (I didn't see your post until I began typing this one) But I am not arguing he shouldn't be held fiscally responsible. Every penny from awards and sponsorships are up for legal scrutiny.
     
  3. Emptyone

    Emptyone

    Messages:
    1,457
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Part of the point is both to thrill, and persuade your average Joe they can do it too. He was perfect because he survived cancer, so gave hope to everyone.

    People would still cheat, if you gave them the option to. Might as well try have a clean sport instead.

    No, but it would tarnish the image of the charity, and charities need funds.

    He was partly put up to it, no one goes into sport intending to cheat to win. Unless he did, in which case there is no sympathy. His must win at all costs attitude would suggest he might of ...

    It's hard not to when your just a kid :lol: But it's just as easy to lose them when you grow up to see who they truly are. Lance bullying his way to 7 victories and no confession for years, whilst ruining others lives, is the way to lose that.
     
  4. Touring Mars

    Touring Mars Moderator

    Messages:
    22,658
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    You don't say...

    ... one could argue that athletic sports themselves are inherently risky (which they are), but there is a limit to how far one can push the human body, as opposed to merely technology or rules, and that makes drug abuse a different matter altogether.

    It doesn't really matter - he profited from breaking the rules of the contests in which he competed. Yes, he's a great athlete nevertheless, but that doesn't excuse his actions - and it especially does not justify his aggressive behaviour in denying his cheating.

    Yet you feel the need to post in this thread... yes, it's hardly worthy of the front page, but those of us who follow cycling and sports in general do care about the integrity of the sports and sportspeople we follow... if it doesn't matter that much to you, then fine, so why are you arguing?... I'm not losing any sleep myself - but I don't think this guy needs any more apologists or folks who think that by cheating he has somehow struck a blow for the advancement of sport, or anything else for that matter.
     
  5. Rich S

    Rich S

    Messages:
    3,001
    To me the message that has been sent to young riders by Lance over the years is that you can dope as long as you aren't caught. To me doping not a black and white issue, and not something that has simple effects like the Drag reduction system in Formula 1.

    There's EPO, the there's insulin, steroids, corticoids, artificial hemoglobin, etc,etc. The gains from doping very by quite a bit.

    The German cyclist Jan Ullrich was my favorite rider, along with Vinokourov when I started cycling as a kid, mainly because they did not say much and were very stoic on doping, as was Bjarne Riis the 96 Tour winner who worked with Sastre, Contador later on. To say that Lance is in the same league as past multiple Tour winners is unfair due to the huge advancement of drugs/blood doping. The winner of an Arms race; wins due to their fire power... In Lance's case he had the best fire power combined with already being a good rider without doping (although its been an awful long time since he's ridden clean).

    For those who haven't heard what Lance has said about doping here is a video that sums it up:

     
  6. FoolKiller

    FoolKiller Premium

    Messages:
    24,556
    Location:
    United States
    We are approaching a point where technical mods and genetic alterations will be happening. We already have athletes doing things such as blood transfusions and breathing pure oxygen between rounds that come without the dangers of drugs. Get ahead of it now. In the coming generation we will be having the first genetically designed kids entering sports. Steroids are just a primitive technology to what is coming. Lets get ahead of the coming situations before it winds up like the current cases of gender testing, and ends up just shaming people who didn't make a choice.

    The point is, the charities, particularly those that aren't Livestrong, are still legitimate, the disease is still just as real, and hurting dying children because you were "betrayed" by a cancer survivor you never met is selfish. "It wasn't me! It was the one-balled man!"

    If he saw others cheating and chose to do it too it is not the same as if the coach or regulating organization told him to do it or get out.

    It's natural. I still have Jordan, but I know he likely has a trail of skeletons that just need to be found.

    If I learned anything from pop culture though, it is if you can dance or create art you are forgiven for the most heinous crimes possible.

    As I pointed out above, we are very near this going beyond just drugs (it already is if you consider gender discrepancies). We can get ahead of it or act like it is just another drug issue.


    If I recall, my original point was about whether he still had an achievement worth noting, not whether he was justified. Why do you keep arguing a point I didn't make?


    Sorry. I found my news reader clogged full of Lance Armstrong stories, it is invading even my podcasts and so I thought I would make an argument for how everyone is over reacting. I'm definitely not being an apologist. If that isn't clear yet, saying the lawsuits and loss of titles is fully appropriate, I don't know what to tell you.
     
  7. Slash

    Slash Premium

    Messages:
    34,825
    Location:
    United States
    I was reading a poll on a local news reporting site (I mean extremely local, town wise) and they had a poll that asked (Note I reworded the first couple words so it covered all sports and not just "ball"):


    "Should players of sports believed to have used steriods be barred from the Hall of Fame?"

    Answers were yes and no. Surprisingly "Yes" was winning by a decent margin. Personally, such as a case like this, I don't think anyone should be removed from it, or withheld from it until proven that they used them, be it by samples or admitting it etc. I voted "No".
     
  8. Rich S

    Rich S

    Messages:
    3,001
    To me baseball is not nearly as affected by doping as cycling has been, not even close. But to add to that athletes whom are suspected have not been proven guilty, whereas Lance Armstrong has been given a life ban by the international Olympic committee for all sanctioned competition. That's a bit different than simply being a suspect, Lance (the subject of the thread) is not considered a suspect.
     
  9. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    68,279
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    He's ruined the film Dodgeball too. The bastard.
     
  10. Tornado

    Tornado

    Messages:
    37,769
    Well, Dodgeball was a parody anyway. Maybe Armstrong's cameo about overcoming the odds just turns the entire thing into a satire instead.
     
  11. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    68,279
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Remember the five Ds of Dodgeball, kids... Dodge, dive, duck, dip and...


    DRUGS!
     
  12. Bram Turismo

    Bram Turismo Premium

    Messages:
    10,689
    Location:
    Belgium
    I thought he was going to drag all the people who wanted to see him hang, down with him but he doesn't want to give anything away. I'd like to know precisely what went on, who did it (doesn't even have to be names), and who was aware of all this.

    This is just turning into a "Alright, you got me. Yes, I did it" interview.
     
  13. Rich S

    Rich S

    Messages:
    3,001
    I've followed this whole saga for a long time, basically in cycling you've had something called "Omerta" or code of silence.

    The "EPO generation" refers to not being able to compete with epo users. It was an open secret in cycling during the 90s-2000s and it became open to the general public over the last couple of years/months. Its actually very simple, red blood cells carry oxygen, having more of them allows you to carry more oxygen, the amount you gain increase your sustaibable wattage by an almost 1:1 ratio of red cells to POWER on the bike. Not all riders see the same gains, Lance was likely one of the lucky guys that saw huge increases with his doping.

    If you want to know who did what you need to read the numerous magazine articles, books, and podcasts on the subject of Lance's excessive bullying over the years. It was insane, he basically became like a pit bull all the while encouraging doping/"Omerta" to flourish.
     
  14. Earth

    Earth

    Messages:
    7,809
    Maybe he was upset because of all the tattletales who tried to rat him out even though they did the same stuff? I can see why Armstrong didnt take kindly to a bunch of jealous teammates who are mad his cheating led to millions and theirs didnt.

    Thats why Armstrong and many other athletes take so long to come out with the truth. They know everyone else does it, so 'why should I confess because I was the better player/athlete?' Im sure Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire knew they were batting against juiced up pitchers. Im sure Roger Clemens knew he was pitching against juiced up batters. 'Why should we be called out and thrown under the bus simply because we were the best who juiced' is their reasoning.

    Hes not a tattletale. Unlike his jealous and likely broke at the time teammates he has no money to gain by ratting people out.

    Instead of trying to drag others down with him Armstrong should instead focus on helping to clean up the sport etc
     
  15. hellnback

    hellnback

    Messages:
    1,003
    For me the biggest moment of the interview...

    Oprah: Was it a big deal to you? Did it feel wrong?

    Armstrong: At the time? No.

    Oprah: It did not even feel wrong?

    Armstrong: No. Scary.

    Oprah: Did you feel bad about it?

    Armstrong: No. Even scarier.

    Oprah: Did you feel in any way that you were cheating?

    Armstrong: No. The scariest.

    Why??? Look at the way in which he answered. Only in the last one did the head move, it subconsciously nooded as he was saying no.

    I repeat what I have said before, while I've always suspected him, I for one don't feel cheated, it was always great theatre watching it at the time. I will still always watch it, especially the mountain stages.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  16. Famine

    Famine Administrator

    Messages:
    68,279
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    How can that occur without knowing where and from whom he got the help? Without knowing the names of the other people responsible? Without knowing how he managed to actually fail a drugs test in 2006, but it was never reported and he was never banned?

    He can't clean anything up without naming the people responsible. Or without giving back the money he won (and the reputations he sullied) by lying to courts when sueing journalists who were - it's now apparent - telling the truth.
     
  17. Bram Turismo

    Bram Turismo Premium

    Messages:
    10,689
    Location:
    Belgium
    If cycling is to become clean, everyone who was involved in this doping saga should go down with Armstrong. You cannot clear the dirt if you don't know where it is.

    Why should Armstrong be the sole person to go down as the "One guy who cheated an entire sport"?

    The worst thing of all is that people will think of Hincapie and Leipheimer as those guys who gave the last pieces of evidence needed to catch Armstrong. Yet these two riders have been involved with doping for as long as Armstrong has, so they aren't any better than Armstrong is. After all, they have lied all these years until now.
     
  18. prisonermonkeys

    prisonermonkeys Premium

    Messages:
    33,155
    Location:
    Peru
    The problem is that professional cycling may not be able to recover from this. At all. Armstrong described some fairly sophisticated operations, using couriers and secret fridges, and all of it kep his drug use hidden for seven years. And if he's doing it, others are doing it, too. I'm willing to bet that even if Armstrong named names, he'd probably only be able to point out to a handful of people involved in it. For every one person he names, there is probably going to be one or two involved that he doesn't know about.
     
  19. hogger129

    hogger129 (Banned)

    Messages:
    691
    I think it's wrong that he lied, but I think he should be remembered for the money he raised for charities. I'm willing to give him a pass here. At least he did something good with the money.
     
  20. niky

    niky Moderator

    Messages:
    23,800
    Location:
    Philippines
    Merged similar threads. Carry on. ;)
     
  21. PzR Slim

    PzR Slim Premium

    Messages:
    6,499
    Location:
    England
    Until you look a little deeper and realise just how much money he personally made from the foundation as well as having use of the Livestrong private jet whenever he wanted. Oh and then you realise that the foundation basically only advertises cancer, they put zero into research. You guys should really educate yourselves about the truth of the matter.
     
  22. Earth

    Earth

    Messages:
    7,809
    You make some good points. I wonder though what type of can of worms might eventually get opens if he truly does tell everything and anything. Like the idea of how he failed a test in 2006 but it was never reported. That coincides with my hunch he had help on the inside from the cycling world.

    prisonermonkeys says for every person Armstrong can name theres probably 2-3 more he doesnt know about. I just hope they dont try to act like cycling is clean now that they caught Armstrong and maybe later down the line some who helped him. Thats just the tip of the iceberg.

    Yes Armstrong made money from sponsors etc, but they made money from him in return, likely much more then they paid him. I expect any court proceedings involving sponsors to be a dog and pony show and little else.

    Yeah, if the guys who helped him are still involved they need to be shut down. I just think the whole thing has been overblown. Why are we at this point in the first place? Armstrong should have been caught a long time ago. Why wasn't he? Thats the real problem to me. The "police" here, who possibly are corrupt themselves, have shown incredible incompetence, to the point where competitors laugh about how easy it is to cheat.

    Well, I've spent enough time with this. As I said in an earlier post I made the mistake the mistake of taking sports too seriously, and thats my bad. If I see it for what it is, then I wouldn't care as much.
     
  23. Bram Turismo

    Bram Turismo Premium

    Messages:
    10,689
    Location:
    Belgium
    Because he has never tested positively.

    Since 2008 the UCI have implemented the blood-passport. They have a sample of each rider and have their accurate values. Riders are also obliged to make their whereabouts known when on training or off-training. And each team and rider can now randomly be tested during training.

    It was not like this in Armstrong's era. Riders were only tested during the race. This meant that they could undergo blood-transfusions during training, as an example, meet up at the race with exceptional form yet with clean blood values. Therefore you would never get caught if everyone involved just shut up and profit from it all together.

    Armstrong has been accused of doping since as early as 1999. People even got suspicious when Eddy Merckx introduced Armstrong to Ferrari in 1995. But they never had any solid proof to even begin a case against Armstrong.
     
  24. Emptyone

    Emptyone

    Messages:
    1,457
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Well he did, at least twice for sure. In 1999 for cortisone at the Tour, but then he backdated a prescription for it, as it's legal when prescribed for pain.

    Then at the Tour of Switzerland in 2001, he tested positive after the ninth stage, but it got hushed up, due to it being highly suspicious, as opposed to outright positive.

    Plus the re-tested EPO samples from 1999.

    But as he and numerous others have testified, testing positive was as Tyler Hamilton put it 'an IQ test'. If you were smart, you didn't get caught.
     
  25. prisonermonkeys

    prisonermonkeys Premium

    Messages:
    33,155
    Location:
    Peru
  26. tankuroded

    tankuroded

    Messages:
    3,598
    Location:
    Indonesia
  27. FoolKiller

    FoolKiller Premium

    Messages:
    24,556
    Location:
    United States
    Were you one of the people he crushed to hide the truth?

    Or just one of the people to have gained hope and care about what cancer survivors can achieve?
     
  28. tankuroded

    tankuroded

    Messages:
    3,598
    Location:
    Indonesia
    Neither. I always thought he deserves to [insert kind of abuse here]. :rolleyes:
     
  29. FoolKiller

    FoolKiller Premium

    Messages:
    24,556
    Location:
    United States
    pay restitution to those he financially ruined in order to hide the truth.

    I don't get the desire to personally harm someone who you likely had zero interaction with and did nothing to harm you.

    Currently there is a debate regarding Tiger Woods and if we can forgive him, and all I can wonder is why I need to forgive him for cheating on his wife. This obsession with celebrities and us taking personal offense at their failings makes no sense to me.
     
  30. Joel

    Joel Premium

    Messages:
    8,134
    Location:
    Canada
    Yeah, I never got this one. I watch Tiger Woods play golf, and I don't care what his 19th hole is. I don't understand why every single athlete has to be a "role model", and why we make a bunch of dumb jocks have to be a shining citizen. I'm just dumbfounded that people actually care about him cheating on his wife, it doesn't make sense.