Yep, it was a good read!
Lance Armstrong to be charged with doping offences - Washington Post
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Yep, it was a good read!
I was just made aware of Betsy Andreau's facebook page.. fecking hell, she is totally obsessed with Armstrong! Him calling her a lunatic might not be that far off after all.. Lance Lance Lance on her timeline 
I was just made aware of Betsy Andreau's facebook page.. fecking hell, she is totally obsessed with Armstrong! Him calling her a lunatic might not be that far off after all.. Lance Lance Lance on her timeline
Why wouldn't she be obsessed with him? He lied, manipulated and cheated for the duration of his time as the king of the peloton, and she was discarded and made to feel like an outcast by Armstrong and his army of adoring fans, all because she refused to lie on his behalf. She maintained her stance for years whilst all of that happened, and then he turns around in a pathetic attempt at damage limitation in an Oprah interview and cracks a joke about her.
Filippo Simeoni was one of the others who became a pariah. His offence? To confirm that, big surprise, Dr Ferrari had his clients on doping programs. Here was his response to Armstrong's admission:
It's sometimes difficult to comprehend just how much influence Armstrong had and how spiteful he was in using it against people. The man is a complete sociopath.
The information that you are providing is well known. However, to call a man who "cheated" at a sport and tried his best to protect his position (which was bad, yes we can aknowledge that. Bad, but understandable) a sociopath is just silly. Betsy would do well, for her own sake, to try to move on now that things have been resolved.
The fact that the knowledge is well known doesn't mitigate the seriousness of his actions. If you want to oversimplify it to the extent that he simply cheated at his sport (there's nothing ambiguous about his cheating, it doesn't need quotation marks), of course you hold a negative view of her. Alejandro Valverde cheated at his sport, as have many other cyclists. To put the majority them on a par with Armstrong is disingenuous.
As for your point about his actions being understandable, how so? I'd appreciate it if you could address that point in particular. I find it hard to believe that anybody who's followed cycling for years and knows about Armstrong's transgressions could consider it to be 'understandable'.
I put the word cheating in quotation marks because he only did what the vast majority of the peloton did. However, I see that his cheating is not what you are taking an issue with. Yes, I most certainly can adress that point.
Look, here is a world class athlete at the top of the world. He has been helping millions of people with his LiveStrong foundation and he is a multi-millionaire living the dream. Nonetheless, if information about his use of EPO (despite it being a common thing) and so on would become public knowledge then all of that would disappear (well he is still rich, and hopefully that will remain the case after the court case vs the State.. anyway) so what does he do? He tries to keep this information from coming out, using every possible mean, within limits. What he did outside of the bike was not pretty, I don't condone that - but it was certainly understandable.
For the record, I have been following the Tour since the start of Armstrong's first comeback.
By lying and through threats. Do you consider such actions to be within limits? If I did that to someone on the street, I would be arrested.
I don't really see the point of this statement. By this definition, you are saying it is understandable for criminals to cover up their tracks after committing a crime. But this is still evil. Sociopathic? I think there is an argument for it, certainly.
Also, why do you hope he's still rich after the court case? Most of his career is based on cheating, so it makes sense for him to be stripped off as much wealth as possible because of it. It won't happen, of course, as many people will still believe in the Lance Armstrong brand and PR, so he'll be able to raise a couple of million dollars where necessary. Which is unfair no matter how you think about it.
Hi there! I remember you were quite active in this thread earlier too
Within limits? Well, he didn't physically assault anyone.. (I'm joking here for those who doesn't understand it - disclaimer and all..) Edit: Yes, I consider lying and threatening to sue within limits actually, that is not illegal is it?
The point of the statement? Of course it is understandable. I don't think the criminal comparison is quite right. I suppose we can agree to disagree on the sociopath thing, I personally think it is just silly to call him that. It is perfectly understandable to try to defend what you have (especially when you have what he had).
Why do I hope that? Well, I'm still a fan of the guy and he has given me a lot of inspiration since I first heard about him. I've only had a very very brief interaction with him, but he was surprisingly kind. I got no grudge against Armstrong for what he did. He earned his money during a period where the playing field was level (This is a whole other discussion, but I believe that it was) and he played his brand perfectly - I have no wish to see him go bankrupt, why would I?
Who is to say what he did was 'within limits'? It wasn't just 'not pretty', it was despicable and he was content to ruin people's livelihoods if it meant avoiding being caught. He'd use all means available as long as it kept the trail cold, and, as has been demonstrated at numerous points down the years, he wouldn't show any remorse over it. The vast majority haven't done what he did, otherwise it wouldn't be question. And it is understandable to call him a criminal. He's done more than transgress within the confines of his sport. If he hadn't, they'd be content to leave it at that.
As for the issue of cheating in general, I take issue with cheating whenever anybody does it, and I think there should be a minimum of four years punishment for anybody who is caught, as the current system clearly isn't enough of a deterrent.
You could argue that he has shown remorse for it now (Yes yes blah blah, I don't really believe in that either but for the sake discussion) as he has travelled around Europe to appologize. Look, you don't like the guy - I understand!
I don't like the guy and everything I say is therefore discredited! You like the guy, and you're willing to excuse all of the despicable things he's done - also understandable. There were many more like you before Travis Tygart exposed him. It's gone eerily quiet on that front since the heroic comeback was shown to be a sham.
Christ, I didn't say that!
The heroic comeback was a sham? It was most certainly not. He beat cancer, and won the Tour de France, in a level playing field, for 7 consectutive years at the same time as he inspired millions of people. Too many people are willing to overlook all the good he did because of his transgressions.
With regards to the "eerily quiet" part - there are still plenty of supporters. Check out Twitter and his Strava profile.
Are you serious? It's like you're still spinning the lies long after everybody else gave up. Please, for the love of God, don't give me that "everybody was doping, so technically his victories are still credible" nonsense.
Yes, I am serious. Don't be condescending. Yes, for the love of God, I am going to give you exactly that.
Who is, officially, credited with winning the Tour during those years? Nobody. That ought to be a good enough answer.
Jan Ullrich very recently said that Armstrong should be restored as the champion.
You keep thinking exactly that. Meanwhile, we can all live safely in the knowledge that the sport's biggest ever cheat was exposed for being the fraud that we suspected he was.
Very condescending tone that..!
Hardly a crime, is it.
Oh, my! Struck a nerve! I tried to have a reasonable discussion, you were the one who started with arrogant responses.
What's arrogant about it? I simply find it amusing that you talk like it's still 2010 and Lance is still the hero about to launch Radioshack and go get him some o' that yellow jersey.
I'm not talking like it's still 2010, I am aware of what he did. I just don't think it is anything to get upset about (The EPO use that is). The other stuff we have debated. "You keep thinking exactly that" is a pretty arrogant response.. I respect that you don't like him and think that he's the big bad wolf - but you apparantly can't stand my opinion on the matter. And he is still the hero for many - just ask around at cancer wards all over the world.
i worn the livestrong bracelet for so many years. Lance was one of my heroes along my mother, who also fought and beat Cancer.
The weird thing is that only the day before the truth about his cheating came out (i was on holidays, no idea he was being investigated), my bracelet disappeared! No idea how it happened, but it was gone, like if for some reason, the bracelet understood the shame is was going to feel after reading the news. Or was it just coincidence? crazy world....
Such a let down. Now he has to pay.
The weird thing is that only the day before the truth about his cheating came out (i was on holidays, no idea he was being investigated), my bracelet disappeared! No idea how it happened, but it was gone, like if for some reason, the bracelet understood the shame is was going to feel after reading the news. Or was it just coincidence? crazy world....
Such a let down. Now he has to pay.
Sorry to hear that your mother had to fight cancer. I've lost several relatives to it.
Regarding the part in bold, I think one can argue that he has already paid - and a alot!
What do you want me to say? "Hey, you, change your mind"? What's there to reasonably debate here? If you don't want to read the report, or you've read it and you still think what he did was justifiable, you've clearly made your mind up.
Also, you can't accuse me of being arrogant and then come out with nonsense like "you think he's the big bad wolf," as that's as condescending about my view as anything I could say about yours e.g. you think he's the messiah.
I won't get into the cancer thing. I'm talking about him as a cyclist and a person within the sport.
Because that would put him in a far better light? It's a part of the package.
And yes, I have read the report and I've watched the documentaries and read the books (Well, just the Cycle of Lies book) and no, it does not change my mind at all.
I suggest that we are both being condescending here and should just leave it. I'm being sincere here, I don't want you to think that I'm being a cnut to you.
If you really want to drop it, I suggest you don't try to tempt me with comments like that. I could get into it, but I'm doing the decent thing by not.
You're doing the decent thing? fecking hell.. I thought we could end this now, but then you make a snide comment like that.. What do you have to say then?
Hi there! I remember you were quite active in this thread earlier too
Within limits? Well, he didn't physically assault anyone.. (I'm joking here for those who doesn't understand it - disclaimer and all..) Edit: Yes, I consider lying and threatening to sue within limits actually, that is not illegal is it?
No, but then again, it's certainly not admirable, certainly given he was lying while making those legal threats.
The lies also meant he'd committed perjury, which was only avoided because of the statute of limitations.
I find it hard to imagine you find it acceptable for him to lie and hurt others just so he can feel better about himself, hiding behind the argument of "it's not illegal". Armstrong is not the victim in this - he's the aggressor and the mastermind.
It's understandable, but also wrong. He should have told the truth and handed himself in as soon as he made that mistake.
I don't know why you keep pushing this point if you like the guy so much. You are justifying his offences.
His gains are ill-gotten and based off lies and cheating. His lies have cost other cyclists - who raced fair - money and prizes. His fame has let him set up a foundation he used for further PR, ensuring he was set for life once the facade fell down.
If he had a conscience, he'd hand back all of those funds. But we all know he's not going to do that. He cheated; he knew he'd be caught; he ensured he'd still be comfortable when he did. He'll be richer and more famous than all the other cyclists he raced against, despite the fact he officially won no titles.
Why do you keep repeating the "playing field was level" argument? Each person reacts differently to doping. Some benefit more than others. It's not the same boost per rider. Also, claiming other people doped too is two wrongs don't make a right. It doesn't make Lance Armstrong any less a scumbag - and it fails to justify the more serious issue that he was the one of the ringleaders and masterminds, risking other peoples' lives for his own benefit.
He spearheaded that charity through fraud by virtue of the fact that he's the biggest fraud in cycling. He fed millions of cancer patients a load of crap about his miracle recovery and had them defending him from the 'cynics', vehemently denying his involvement in anything underhand. He want content to abuse that image for years.
How he used that charity to maintain his image was extremely scummy, and he was always leaving it open to damage in the event that he was exposed, as Nike's subsequent decision to break ties with the organization proved. He built up the empire to fight cancer, and then he compromised it. Congratulations are in order, eh. The former, of course, obviously excuses the latter.
There was also the fact that people couldn't discern between Livestrong the charity and the commercial side of Livestrong. You can be sure he made a pretty penny off of the cancer gig.
Sorry, x42bn6, but I can't be arsed to edit the quotes so it might be a tad more messy than your post.
I don't find it accetable that he could lie to "feel better" about himself, I find it understandable that he did so he could keep his fortune and position.
I'm just going to skip straight to the level playing field part, as I don't have any to further add.
It know that people react differently to EPO, which is why it is always annoying when someone, like yourself, is clever enough to bring it up! However, people react different to training as well - it has been proven that a certain percentage of the world population are genetically unable to increase their VO2max. It was discussed with regards to Anderson once. I still consider the playing field as level - they all knew about it and they all had access to it. I honestly think that the latter part really makes the first part a moot point.
Considering the risking other people's lives, I don't buy into that. George Hincapie testified aganst Armstrong and he also went hard out against Frankie Andreau and said that nobody did something that they did not want to do (heck Frankie was the guy who taught Hincapie to dope) - It is not like Lance held 'em down and forced EPO into their veines. Those who were not comfortable could leave - which they did (However, some made more noise than others..).
Are you linking to ethics on Wikipedia there? I don't think that enhances the point. Yes, one could say that two wrongs does not make one right - but all the others still did it! So I don't think it is fair to give Armstrong, or anyone else, stick for using performance enhancing drugs. It was just the way it was. It was not RIGHT, but the culture did certainly not start with Lance Armstrong. He might not have done anything to stop it, but in all reality who could expect him to do so? His choice (and anyon elses) was to say "Look, do I head back to Shitsville, Texas and work in a bike shop for the rest of my life, or do I get on the train here?" Look, I like you as a poster but we just have to disagree here!
What do you mean with "crap about his miracle recovery"? That is belittling and abusive towards people who have suffered from cancer. Of course he made money, they all did. My point is that he REALLY did help and inspire A LOT of people regardless of all the other stuff, you can't really sweep that under the carpet. You might believe that LiveStrong was just a "cancer shield" - I obiously don't think so - but it doesn't really matter does it? Those people got help and inspiration regardless. I'll dig out a quote from Alex Gibney (who made the Armstrong Lie) but I don't really see the point in it..
This is Alex Gibney, who followed Lance for a long time and made a critical documentary about him: "Some mocked LiveStrong for being nothing but a front for hiding Lance's doping. But I didn't view it that way. LiveStrong had raised over 300 million USD to support cancer victims and 70 million people proudly wore those wristbands" Also, "I have seen him with kids in the cancer wards, and I also know people he's reached out to and that's real. It is as genuine as that fury on the bike" - Bill Strickland (Editor for a bike mag who for the record has been highly critical)
Last edited:
Oh look, I'm belittling and abusing cancer patients. I didn't see that accusation coming. How can you accuse it of being belittling and abusive right after asking me to qualify the statement? At least accuse me after you get the clarity. As for the statement itself, his miracle recovery to return to cycling and win the yellow jersey was a load of crap, and I stand by that. It can't be a miracle if you're deceiving people, can it.
Alex Gibney's quote is interesting. I also found Michael Birdsong's quote interesting:
"I thought a lot of it was actually going to these cutting-edge research mini-grants, you know, to help these promising studies that were going on,"
I wonder if he ever did get his $50,000 back. As tragic as it is for families struggling to recover from the effects of cancer, I also wonder why they stopped funding research. And why would a non-profit organization sell its name to a for-profit organization. Unsurprisingly, the Livestrong charity/brand raises many questions, but I suppose it's easier to sweep them under the carpet and keep insisting that every negative is offset by the money raised.
How can it be crap? He DID get well from cancer, that was not crap. And he DID make a comeback to pro cycling, that was not crap either. Also, LiveStrong was always about cancer awareness, not research. Also, the way you keep saying "Miracle recovery" sounds a wee bit condescenging too. It WAS a miracle - 20 years earlier he would be dead.
Edit: May I ask where you are from? It can sometimes be a bit easier to understand the poster if you know his/her background. It is always annoying when people don't put up their location.
And he DID dope. And he DID do it for all of his Tour wins. The miracle on wheels, no doubt.
I know what Livestrong was always about. That doesn't change anything I've said.
Having seen people go through chemo and radio therapy first hand, I don't care what they were doping him up on or if they were pumping him full of unicorn blood, to return to compete at the highest level of any sport, even if he'd finished last, is an absolutely immense achievement, on a physical level.
But yeah, on a sporting level, he's a cheat.
But yeah, on a sporting level, he's a cheat.
Absolutely, bless you for seeing this!
I don't think anyone is arguing against him being a cheat - as probably 99% of the peloton were too.
There's no denying that Lance is incredibly talented, both physically and mentally. Still, I think you underestimate the unicorn blood and signing all of your rivals to serve as your domestiques.
As an aside, with regards to "everybody was doing it, so it was a rival playing field anyway," that's a hilarious one. It's like a slap in the face of sports science. All of the researchers might as well pack up and go home.
That's just a good strategy though. And I don't think any of Lance's closest rivals became his domestique.
So does that mean drugs help level the playing field to make up for it? My arse.
The difference between training and drugs is that drugs have significantly higher risk to kill you, and the effects are arguably much more dramatic. Also, even if a training schedule is bad for one rider but good for another, generally, both riders can still get a similar level of training - just in different ways. But when it comes to doping, there isn't much choice - there's a few different types of doping, and that's it. The difference between the types simply comes down to risk/reward in terms of being detected versus killing yourself.
If this means leveling the playing field by forcing the rider to choose the probability of killing themselves, then to me, that's a stupid argument. Sport is about competition, not self-harm.
Wrong. Do you really think Michele Ferrari charged a few quid for his services? USADA states Armstrong transferred about $1m to Ferrari - which puts it out of range of most cycling teams, let alone riders. Hincapie said it was $15,000 per year for Ferrari's services alone - which was never going to be enough for most riders, and still out of their range.
Building such a team, not only to perform well, but avoid tests and beating the test techniques was a team effort out of the ability of most teams. There were riders looking out for testers, the ability to smuggle things past testers, and an enforced doping regime within the team to ensure the team was successful. There is a reason why the USADA has called it the "most sophisticated" doping operation ever - because it's not just Lance popping some pills or fiddling with needles. What he and his team did was beyond the methods of any other cycling team.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...conspiracy-in-sporting-history-say-USADA.html
Ah, great. Let's all just deceive the U.S. Postal Service and take their sponsorship money.