'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Lusk Doyle · 15-12-2012 4:23pm

No

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Oh Pat....

He really needs to have someone whispering in his ear saying "are you sure you want to say this".

He clearly is a graduate of the "Shoot first, ask questions later" school.

Dietsquirt · 15-12-2012 8:39pm

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

I was gonna compete in powerlifting a few years ago. there's a separate drug-free organisation worlwide and in Ireland which I would have joined. same as bodybuilding, theres Naturals(drug free), I heard from a Polish guy recently that some guys in Ireland are 'cheating' in that too!

Nobody is 'cheating' man, everybody is on the same page, all athletes at the top of their sport will do 'whatever it takes' to get the edge. I'm not condoning it, it's just sport.

kumate_champ07 · 15-12-2012 9:26pm

Dietsquirt wrote: »

Nobody is 'cheating' man, everybody is on the same page, all athletes at the top of their sport will do 'whatever it takes' to get the edge. I'm not condoning it, it's just sport.

if you specifically join a sports organisation that has 'Drug Free' in its title and you use drugs, then that surly is 'cheating', theres another bigger organisation for you where everyone knows what the deal is

Dietsquirt · 15-12-2012 9:58pm

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

if you specifically join a sports organisation that has 'Drug Free' in its title and you use drugs, then that surly is 'cheating', theres another bigger organisation for you where everyone knows what the deal is

But all sports at a professional level are drug free :rolleyes:, allegedly. Again i think it's the society we live, everyone wants to see world records broken, if you're not 'willing to do whatever it takes' you're going to get left behind.

I just don't agree with people who say athletes are 'cheating' when they win a big competition and get caught taking drugs. the runner up got away with it, 3rd, 4th, 5th...

Everyone is on the same page, again i'm not condoning it, it's just professional sports these days.

dave_o_brien · 16-12-2012 12:51am

No

Dietsquirt wrote: »

I just don't agree with people who say athletes are 'cheating' when they win a big competition and get caught taking drugs. the runner up got away with it, 3rd, 4th, 5th...

Everyone is on the same page, again i'm not condoning it, it's just professional sports these days.

Not to be pedantic*, but the contradiction in those two statements suggests that you aren't fully sure what either "condoning" or "just don't agree with" mean.

*That's a lie. I love being pedantic.

MPFG · 16-12-2012 12:44pm

No

A different point of view ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/why-im-not-angry-at-lance-armstrong/2012/12/15/5802bcce-460e-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html?hpid=z5

ktz84 · 16-12-2012 12:53pm

No

MPFG wrote: »

A different point of view ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/why-im-not-angry-at-lance-armstrong/2012/12/15/5802bcce-460e-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html?hpid=z5

Her ambivalence I believe doesn't stem from her relationship with Armstrong, though it must have an effect, it is simply that she hasn't understood the most crucial point in terms of performance and that is that the response to doping is highly individual and whilst the rider with the best physiological and biological makeup may respond very little to doping a pack fodder rider can be transformed into a dominant rider such as Armstrong. That doesn't even the playing field but distorts it and that's why it can never be condoned.

McTigs · 18-12-2012 5:01pm

No

This made my day!

wonderfullife · 18-12-2012 5:58pm

No

MPFG wrote: »

A different point of view ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/why-im-not-angry-at-lance-armstrong/2012/12/15/5802bcce-460e-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html?hpid=z5

ktz84 wrote: »

Her ambivalence I believe doesn't stem from her relationship with Armstrong, though it must have an effect, it is simply that she hasn't understood the most crucial point in terms of performance and that is that the response to doping is highly individual and whilst the rider with the best physiological and biological makeup may respond very little to doping a pack fodder rider can be transformed into a dominant rider such as Armstrong. That doesn't even the playing field but distorts it and that's why it can never be condoned.

She's a total hypocrite - lauding him in writing for his wins now after-the-fact saying "oh well it doesn't matter as i've always felt cheating was ok"

Lumen · 18-12-2012 6:00pm

wonderfullife wrote: »

She's a total hypocrite - lauding him in writing for his wins now after-the-fact saying "oh well it doesn't matter as i've always felt cheating was ok"

"my opinion of him was never based on what he did in a bike race in France 10 years ago".

It's no surprise that people who don't care about cycling don't care about someone cheating in cycling.

wonderfullife · 18-12-2012 6:10pm

No

Lumen wrote: »

"my opinion of him was never based on what he did in a bike race in France 10 years ago".

It's no surprise that people who don't care about cycling don't care about someone cheating in cycling.

Funny how she lauded him in writing in so many articles for his cycling "achievements". For someone with no interest in cycling she sure as hell blew his trumpet when he succeeded.

hardCopy · 19-12-2012 11:03am

No

Maybe it doesn't bother her because he made her very, very, very rich.

So many of Lance's friends have built their careers around him, they can't afford to condemn him.

MPFG · 19-12-2012 4:01pm

No

I love the reply to who is Bradley Wiggans by using LA for comparison

https://twitter.com/NickHartwell1/status/281327815796854786/photo/1

MPFG · 20-12-2012 9:22pm

No

I have to STOP posting on this thread ......but in the meantime

http://www.theradsport.com/twitter-responses-to-armstrong/

ThisRegard · 23-12-2012 8:41pm

No

The Sunday Times are now suing him for €1.2m over their libel payment to him back in 2006
http://jrnl.ie/728866

Leroy42 · 24-12-2012 11:31am

This is a bit of the whole sorry mess (sorry for the world of cycling, not LA). Why he pursued people like the Sunday times etc with such ferocity? i know that they say the best form of defense is attack, but surely he knew that at some point the truth would out?

I get him taking on the like of Landis and Lemond, O'Reilly and ex team mates, that was to scare others and other than their word (most of them discredited before they opened their mouths) they had nothing on him directly, but you take on an entire paper, and not only win but take money off them, then I for one would think you'd need to be fairly sure of yourself.

Or is it that even with the lawsuits that are going to hit him, he will be far better off than he could have ever been had he not done so? Maybe it like when we all start to lie, it just snowballs and you almost have to convince yourself that you're right in the end? Thinking back to the time, I remember thinking that he must be cleaner than they make out as why we he go after them so much....probably answered my own question right there!

buffalo · 24-12-2012 11:41am

No

If you're peddling a lie, and someone calls you on it (and publishes it), and you don't sue them for libel, what will everyone else say? Who else will publish similar stories about you?

It's great that justice is finally being done.

Lusk Doyle · 24-12-2012 11:46am

No

I just hope that NOBODY buys his next book. Even if its "just to see". Give that fcuker nothing.

Leroy42 · 24-12-2012 12:12pm

Yes Buffalo, I get that point, but why. So what the Sunday Times posts an article. Without any proof nobody was listening. Looking back, there was loads of evidence, but most people choose not to accept it. They had invested too much into the great story already (Ligget et al.)

So let them write their stories, deny it and move on. His main audience and fan base was the US, and many over there don't seem to care about drugs in sport. All he had to do was not get caught. Anybody saying anything without the evidence was shouted down, not only by LA but the UCI itself.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him at all. I hope he gets everything he deserves. Just wondering why the ferocity of his attacks on some people. I don't see why he needed to.

On a separate point, I never understood why he came back in 2009. He had his legacy and I reckon if he hadn't come back he would have been let drift off.

corny · 24-12-2012 12:32pm

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes Buffalo, I get that point, but why. So what the Sunday Times posts an article. Without any proof nobody was listening. Looking back, there was loads of evidence, but most people choose not to accept it. They had invested too much into the great story already (Ligget et al.)

So let them write their stories, deny it and move on. His main audience and fan base was the US, and many over there don't seem to care about drugs in sport. All he had to do was not get caught. Anybody saying anything without the evidence was shouted down, not only by LA but the UCI itself.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him at all. I hope he gets everything he deserves. Just wondering why the ferocity of his attacks on some people. I don't see why he needed to.

On a separate point, I never understood why he came back in 2009. He had his legacy and I reckon if he hadn't come back he would have been let drift off.

Do you not think his fervent denials and pursuit of those in the way were the very reasons why he got away with it for so long? Replace that with half hearted denials and not caring what people print and he'd have been outed long ago. Like or loathe his methods he did some job in covering up the truth.

On the ferocity of his attacks? Its very consistent with what we know of his personality. No half measures, little regard for people in the way, the Times was just another speed bump to be steam rolled.

Run_to_da_hills · 24-12-2012 10:05pm

No

He doesn't look at all happy with the latest alligations.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252842/Disgraced-cyclist-Lance-Armstrong-sued-Sunday-Times-1million-recoup-libel-payout.html

sy · 24-12-2012 10:48pm

No

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

He doesn't look at all happy with the latest alligations.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252842/Disgraced-cyclist-Lance-Armstrong-sued-Sunday-Times-1million-recoup-libel-payout.html

2 Wheels Good · 25-12-2012 1:21am

No

corny wrote: »

Do you not think his fervent denials and pursuit of those in the way were the very reasons why he got away with it for so long? Replace that with half hearted denials and not caring what people print and he'd have been outed long ago. Like or loathe his methods he did some job in covering up the truth.

On the ferocity of his attacks? Its very consistent with what we know of his personality. No half measures, little regard for people in the way, the Times was just another speed bump to be steam rolled.

After watching Irelands Pictorial Weekly, you could replace Lance with Bertie and it would all sound the same!

supackofidiots · 26-12-2012 10:20pm

Yes, but he's still great

100 pages into tyler hamilton's book now.
tbh hamilton seems like a bit of a snake, not sure would I trust him. stabs his roommate, teammate, and close friend right in the back.

I'll never get why lance came back in 2009, the witch hunt would have never been re-opened.

morana · 26-12-2012 10:53pm

No

supackofidiots wrote: »

I'll never get why lance came back in 2009, the witch hunt would have never been re-opened.

thanks be to God he did and the cheat and bruyneel have been exposed.

MPFG · 27-12-2012 2:55am

No

Many powerful people like Armstrong (became) have strong belief systems that do not always have an acquaintance with the truth…These beliefs grow powerful if those around them not only allow their fantasy to continue but actually strengthen it …to the point where they can feel infallible in their assumed reality…… ….that’s why ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes ‘ is such a great parable …Armstrong wasn’t wearing any clothes and Pat knew it deep down as did Hein , as did many in cycling.
I kind of feel sorry for Armstrong because for all his wealth, and connections, and sporting ability and determination, achievements, etc …he really at the end of the day is a fool with no connection with what really counts in life (that he presumes to know so much about). … However Armstrong did not create the doping system in cycling…he simply exploited it and he was not alone…He did it with the acquiescence of other cyclists, managers, teams, UCI , many fans and probably some sponsors…..

dastardly00 · 27-12-2012 4:01am

No

supackofidiots wrote: »

I'll never get why lance came back in 2009, the witch hunt would have never been re-opened.

I guess that his enormous ego made him believe that he would never be caught doping. Or worse case scenario, he could pay off the UCI so it would be kept quiet.

RobFowl · 27-12-2012 1:27pm

No

Todays the day !
If he want to appeal to CAS it's his last chance.

No fan at all but worried for the guy and it's hard not to feel sympathy on a human level.
Hope he picks himself up and gets on with his life.

Bluefoam · 27-12-2012 1:40pm

No

RobFowl wrote: »

No fan at all but worried for the guy and it's hard not to feel sympathy on a human level.
Hope he picks himself up and gets on with his life.

On a human level I feel sorry for the riders who died from the endemic drug use which by all accounts seems to have been championed by Armstrong. I feel sorry for their parents and families, who must feel utterly perplexed by the situation. I feel sorry for the riders who took the moral high ground and didn't dope, at the cost of their dreams and carriers. I feel sorry for the talented and hard working riders who took drugs to try to match Armstrong, but who's bodies didn't take to the drugs in the same way as others and who were put in a disadvantageous position. I feel sorry for those at the other end of Armstrong's venomous and career destroying vendetta. I feel sorry for those he sued and those who's livelihoods he destroyed. I feel sorry for those who thought that they were contributing money to Livestrong.org the charity, but were actually fooled into spending money on Livestrong.com and lining Armstrong's pockets. I feel sorry for the charities that lost out on peoples donations because of this. I feel sorry for the fans and the sport in general, but I don't feel sorry for Lance Armstrong.

Blackrockcomet · 27-12-2012 4:36pm

dastardly00 wrote: »

I guess that his enormous ego made him believe that he would never be caught doping. Or worse case scenario, he could pay off the UCI so it would be kept quiet.

Exactly and in some ways he was justified believing this as he had been getting away with things for so long. I have heard a lot of people saying things like "How did he think he'd get away with it' and 'he was always going to be caught' but he very nearly did get away with it, if the USADA hadn't taken an interest in him, he would have succeeded. Without the threat of perjury facing those who testified against him(and the clear example of Marion Jones who went to jail for lying and showed that this was serious) there would have been enough evidence for Lance to fight it and possibly win.

'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Comments