Is Lance Armstrong a psychopath?

RidleyRider · 19-01-2013 03:07AM

I can justify him taking testosterone, I wouldn't wish cancer on my worst enemies but he could have done it in a better orgsnised way. Now, I've watched Armstrong closely, he could have gone to the UCI, explained the fact he doesn't produce as much testosterone as other males. The, asked can he take testosterone to put him on the same level playing field as the rest of the males in the pro tour peloton.

As for blood transfusions and EPO, that's out of order and the fact he lied blatantly for the past 19 years is ridiculous. He was the master of his own downfall. Getting involved with Dr. Ferrari, a master of EPO and other PED's, was straight away going to put a huge circle around his entire career. He was stupid for that reason and yes you can understand the reason people looked towards a man who came back from a cancer fight that doctors left him with a 50% chance of surviving and then to go on to win 7 tours in a row.

But for some reason or other, I don't believe he did take them. I think it's him saying these things to finally get piece of mind. And this is where everyone is going to slate me and throw the abuse but think about it. He never failed a drug test. It was all here say from people. People who were caught, people who never hit the high tops like he did.

Now I'm off to watch the interview :pac:

Biggins · 19-01-2013 03:15AM

RidleyRider wrote: »

...It was all here say from people. People who were caught, people who never hit the high tops like he did.

No - it was not all hearsay from people.

A week ago one sports testing expert alone stated that they went back and knowing now what to look for, re-checked five years of his blood-work.
The experts words was that the five years of blood samples were "flaming" with doping substances.
Each and every single one of them.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/01/news/tygart-armstrong-samples-were-flaming-positive_270945

The samples were originally reported as negative but they were re-tested in 2005.

“All six were flaming positive,” Tygart said.

RidleyRider · 19-01-2013 03:17AM

Biggins wrote: »

No - it was not all hearsay from people.

A week ago one sports testing expert alone stated that they went back and knowing now what to look for, re-checked five years of his blood-work.
The experts words was that the five years of blood samples were "flaming" with doping substances.
Each and every single one of them.

Fair enough, I was unaware with that. But, why was it up til now to be caught? If in 1997, all those other riders were caught for the same offence, how did he slip under the radar?

ballsymchugh · 19-01-2013 03:20AM

RidleyRider wrote: »

I can justify him taking testosterone, I wouldn't wish cancer on my worst enemies but he could have done it in a better orgsnised way. Now, I've watched Armstrong closely, he could have gone to the UCI, explained the fact he doesn't produce as much testosterone as other males. The, asked can he take testosterone to put him on the same level playing field as the rest of the males in the pro tour peloton.

Now I'm off to watch the interview :pac:

testosterone is regulated by another hormone, so he wouldn't be short of what he needs to function as a healthy human being with one ball.

he just said he'd apologise to david walsh, i wonder will he apologise for bringing up the memory of mr walsh's son in his argument against him? he's one sick bastard for what he said there.

Biggins · 19-01-2013 03:25AM

RidleyRider wrote: »

Fair enough, I was unaware with that. But, why was it up til now to be caught? If in 1997, all those other riders were caught for the same offence, how did he slip under the radar?

Codes of silence, bullying, intimidation of press (look how he sued one paper, The Times into silence), how many other papers alone and/or people did he see were silenced.

Like Jimmy Savile and the utter power and influence he had, god-like it seems to some who idolised him, he, Armstrong also could do no wrong it seemed and he wielded that power to see he got his way.

RidleyRider · 19-01-2013 03:29AM

Biggins wrote: »

Codes of silence, bullying, intimidation of press (look how he sued one paper, The Times into silence), how many other papers alone and/or people did he see were silenced.

Like Jimmy Savile and the utter power and influence he had, god-like it seems to some who idolised him, he, Armstrong also could do no wrong it seemed and he wielded that power to see he got his way.

So at the end of the day, it was all money?

Do you think the UCI knew all this time? If the donation was to cover up his failed test in the Tour De Suisse, why should we have any sort of backing of the UCI?

Biggins · 19-01-2013 03:35AM

RidleyRider wrote: »

So at the end of the day, it was all money?

Do you think the UCI knew all this time? If the donation was to cover up his failed test in the Tour De Suisse, why should we have any sort of backing of the UCI?

Not all money.
In some cases it was pure fear being on a possible losing side and fearing the then wrath that might come from a god-like figure direct and/or from his then supporters.

The checkers at the earlier time might have suspected but didn't know exactly (thus the later retesting when they knew what to look for with then better available tech too).

What might or might not hang over the UCI, is something Armstrong should be questioned about direct.
...But not in a wishy-washy soft-touch interview method that he conveniently allowed himself to be put through in what really a partial PR exercise.

Itwasntme. · 19-01-2013 03:39AM

black francis wrote: »

Total cyclepath.

This was inspired and deserves a double thank

.

Capt'n Midnight · 19-01-2013 03:51AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

Win the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times??

I think you're overestimating the general public's cycling ability.

To be fair the general public have actually won the Tour as many times as Lance.

RidleyRider · 19-01-2013 04:03AM

Biggins wrote: »

Not all money.
In some cases it was pure fear being on a possible losing side and fearing the then wrath that might come from a god-like figure direct and/or from his then supporters.

The checkers at the earlier time might have suspected but didn't know exactly (thus the later retesting when they knew what to look for with then better available tech too).

What might or might not hang over the UCI, is something Armstrong should be questioned about direct.
...But not in a wishy-washy soft-touch interview method that he conveniently allowed himself to be put through in what really a partial PR exercise.

So, it's never going to be all over for Lance, but is it now time to forget? Move on with the fact he's admitted he's done wrong? The sport of cycling is never going to be 100% clean and even after hearing all this I guarantee at some stage during the pro tour season some other cyclists will be caught with traces of PED's and will receive their ban.

I think it's time Lance Armstrong is forgotten about in the sport because he was, in all his time, no good for it. But in all of this, to clean up cycling, we can't forget Lance. I think it's time for him to stop fighting with cycling and step up and tell everyone who else was involved.

Without knowing who else was involved, because it was not a one-man operation, cycling will never be clean and though it may be time to move on, the sport will never be able to be without this information.

Biggins · 19-01-2013 04:10AM

RidleyRider wrote: »

So, it's never going to be all over for Lance, but is it now time to forget?

No.

He has not answered some VERY serious questions.
He has just answered the convenient ones and is still lying even in those apparently, to further cover his ass.

The top ten questions he needs to answer as put together from The Times alone: http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/6793/10questions.jpg

He is also now being sued in three separate cases.

Cycling will never be clean as long as creeps like him get to slip away giving no proper answers!

RidleyRider · 19-01-2013 04:16AM

Those questions asked were by Operah, a lot of which was her fault if you ask me. It wasn't no-hose barn as was proclaimed.

I just don't see the questions we want answered being answered anytime soon. Then again, if he wants his ban reviewed he'll have no other choice.

Darkglasses · 19-01-2013 04:23AM

RidleyRider wrote: »

It wasn't no-hose barn as was proclaimed.

A...what?

Biggins · 19-01-2013 04:25AM

RidleyRider wrote: »

Those questions asked were by Oprah, a lot of which was her fault if you ask me. It wasn't no-hose barn as was proclaimed.

I just don't see the questions we want answered being answered anytime soon. Then again, if he wants his ban reviewed he'll have no other choice.

There no chance in hell of he re-entering the sport he once abused I think.
He's done - thus his move to the Ironman competitions.

He deliberately selected Oprah because he knew of her style of easier questioning than face a tougher grilling that he almost certainly knew he would bet from better sports experts - not a morning/afternoon chat show hostess.

Oprah's style allowed him within minutes to make many grandiose speeches, meanderings around truths and as already stated, advance some possible still lies.

Put the creep in an interview with an actual sporting expert and we might get some answers.
...But like (sorry to use this political analogy - but it fits) Enda Kenny ducking real debates/political questions and people, Armstrong knew exactly the softer and convenient situation he was cowardly putting himself into.

If he had any guts he would have faced a real expert.
He didn't.
He's still using the media and Oprah alone for his own means and still there are many things he stands to explain.

RidleyRider · 19-01-2013 04:31AM

Biggins wrote: »

There no chance in hell of he re-entering the sport he once abused I think.
He's done - thus his move to the Ironman competitions.

He deliberately selected Oprah because he knew of her style of easier questioning than face a tougher grilling that he almost certainly knew he would bet from better sports experts - not a morning/afternoon chat show hostess.

Oprah's style allowed him within minutes to make many grandiose speeches, meanderings around truths and as already stated, advance some possible still lies.

Put the creep in an interview with an actual sporting expert and we might get some answers.
...But like (sorry to use his political analogy - but it fits) Enda Kenny ducking real debates/political questions and people, Armstrong knew exactly the softer and convenient situation he was cowardly putting himself into.

If he had any guts he would have faced a real expert.
He didn't.
He's still using the media and Oprah alone for his own means and still there are many things he stands to explain.

Oh I totally agree he'll never be allowed back but wasn't it said that he wasn't allowed to take part in any sporting competition?

Oprah is a softy, he did manipulate her to his own advantage and possibly didn't offer as much remorse as he should have for what he did because Oprah wasn't piling on the pressure and making him answer the big, so called questions.

Then again, if he was pressured he may not have taken part in any interview whatsoever. At some point, a true sporting expert will have to interview him and get the proper answer but I suppose we could look at this as a start? I mean we waited nearly 20 years for him to confess. It looks as though we'll be forced to wait again.

Biggins · 19-01-2013 04:37AM

RidleyRider wrote: »

...It looks as though we'll be forced to wait again.

With three civil court cases already now ahead of him, in a court dock better answers might be forced out of him still.
I certainly hope so.
He was at the very centre of the doping/cheating activity for years.
He cannot be just allowed walk away without proper grilling now, using the now available evidence.
He cannot be just allowed walk away with his wrongfully gained millions.

If he is, that would be a moral crime committed by the rest of us and would once again show the world that the creeps can win once more!

RidleyRider · 19-01-2013 04:42AM

Biggins wrote: »

With three civil court cases already now ahead of him, in a court dock better answers might be forced out of him still.
I certainly hope so.
He was at the very centre of the doping/cheating activity for years.
He cannot be just allowed walk away without proper grilling now, using the now available evidence.
He cannot be just allowed walk away with his wrongfully gained millions.

If he is, that would be a moral crime committed by the rest of us and would once again show the world that the creeps can win once more!

100% agree with you. A man with the amount of crimes he has committed morally at the least should not be left walk free with a petty interview with Oprah Winfrey, a soft touch in everyones opinion.

Do you think that he should be allowed compete in ironmans/triathlons and marathons, after everything he's done in cycling? Should he be trusted to compete in these events?

Biggins · 19-01-2013 04:49AM

RidleyRider wrote: »

...Do you think that he should be allowed compete in ironmans/triathlons and marathons, after everything he's done in cycling? Should he be trusted to compete in these events?

Honest answer, don't know.
I would never trust him again in any sport, thats for sure.
I'm assuming he's an insurance nightmare also for any one that wishes to support him.
Whatever he gets involved in - he should be tested every time in every competition for years till he retires.
He should also be held accountable in a court for the lies/purgered testimony he has given (to gain millions alone) and for the fraud he's carried out in the sport.
It also boils down to financial fraud - winnings that too should have gone to more deserving honest winners.

RidleyRider · 19-01-2013 04:53AM

Biggins wrote: »

Honest answer, don't know.
I would never trust him again in any sport, thats for use.
I'm assuming he's an insurance nightmare also for any one that wishes to support him.
Whatever he gets involved in - he should be tested every time in every competition for years till he retires.
He should also be held accountable in a court for the lies/purgered testimony he has given (to gain millions alone) and for the fraud he's carried out in the sport.
It also boils down to financial fraud - winnings that too should have gone to more deserving honest winners.

Can it be held up in court as fraudulent activities though? Considering it was sport?

I know he created a false identity for say for himself but can a judge and jury see it as that?

I don't know much/anything about the law or justice system but I would imagine in a court of law he can't be prosecuted?

Lionel Messy · 19-01-2013 04:56AM

He is a compulsive lying kunt. It's written all over his boney texan face.

RidleyRider · 19-01-2013 05:01AM

Lionel Messy wrote: »

He is a compulsive lying kunt. It's written all over his boney texan face.

No need to bring out the 'C' word. It was written on his face, now its out in the open.

What's written on his face now is guilt and shame- but no remorse.

Biggins · 19-01-2013 05:01AM

RidleyRider wrote: »

Can it be held up in court as fraudulent activities though? Considering it was sport?

I know he created a false identity for say for himself but can a judge and jury see it as that?

I don't know much/anything about the law or justice system but I would imagine in a court of law he can't be prosecuted?

Every country has fraud defined within their own legal statues but generally in criminal law, fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.
His actions certainly fit that description.
Various sporting bodies (that awarded money) as well as other people who came next in line (or knocked out) in competitions might have a case against him.

Food for thought.

RidleyRider · 19-01-2013 05:03AM

Biggins wrote: »

Every country has fraud defined within their own legal statues but generally in criminal law, fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.
His actions certainly fit that description.
Various sporting bodies (that awarded money) as well as other people who came next in line (or knocked out) in competitions might have a case against him.

Food for thought.

True, but I guess that's an assumption. Time will tell.

deco nate · 19-01-2013 05:03AM

Biggins wrote: »

With three civil court cases already now ahead of him, in a court dock better answers might be forced out of him still.
I certainly hope so.
He was at the very centre of the doping/cheating activity for years.
He cannot be just allowed walk away without proper grilling now, using the now available evidence.
He cannot be just allowed walk away with his wrongfully gained millions.

If he is, that would be a moral crime committed by the rest of us and would once again show the world that the creeps can win once more!

im sure you know this but,the s.o.l means that he will get away with most of the
money he so called earned.thats why he only admited to dopin upto 2005.
anything before that he cannot be done for,btw tonights show made me
think even less for oppie cos she licked his ass big time!.

he is.and always be a big ego that thinks he was in the right.and
everything he said about the people that said the truth should sue
his ass off,alas they cant cos of time restri ts

Biggins · 19-01-2013 05:07AM

deco nate wrote: »

im sure you know this but,the s.o.l means that he will get away with most of the
money he so called earned.thats why he only admited to dopin upto 2005.
anything before that he cannot be done for,btw tonights show made me
think even less for oppie cos she licked his ass big time!.

he is.and always be a big ego that thinks he was in the right.and
everything he said about the people that said the truth should sue
his ass off,alas they cant cos of time restraints

Yes, he deliberately lied (it seems) about events up to 2009 for legal reasons.
If evidence can be produced in court for between 2006 and 2009 - despite what he says in possible lies or denial - then a case against him can still be brought.

At present, it looks like he's going to walk away eventually with his still many ill-gotten millions (or at least the bulk of it).
Thats a crying shame.
There are more honest deserving people out there that competed against him which deserved the money he wrongly gained.

68 lost souls · 19-01-2013 05:09AM

Has any one ever seen the comedian, can't remember their name but they had a good point, they said what would be more interesting was to encourage PEDs and see what it would be humanly possible to do if every one was using. To see if we can run a 5 second 100 meters or similar?

Also I still have some what mixed, yes he cheated and was a fraud but at the same time he did help raise a lot for charity and inspire a lot of people. I would much rather see him forced to give his money to the charities he has let down that see him have to give it to his competitors or the sporting organisations.

deco nate · 19-01-2013 05:12AM

Biggins wrote: »

With three civil court cases already now ahead of him, in a court dock better answers might be forced out of him still.
I certainly hope so.
He was at the very centre of the doping/cheating activity for years.
He cannot be just allowed walk away without proper grilling now, using the now available evidence.
He cannot be just allowed walk away with his wrongfully gained millions.

If he is, that would be a moral crime committed by the rest of us and would once again show the world that the creeps can win once more!

im sure you know this but,the s.o.l means that he will get away with most of the
money he so called earned.thats why he only admited to dopin upto 2005.
anything before that he cannot be done for,btw tonights show made me
think even less for oppie cos she licked his ass big time!.

he is.and always be a big ego that thinks he was in the right.and
everything he said about the people that said the truth should sue
his ass off,alas they cant cos of time restri ts

DEFTLEFTHAND · 19-01-2013 05:13AM

It's a good job the statute of limitations came to the rescue of our Stephen Roche, he could have been erased from history like Michelle Smith.

Biggins · 19-01-2013 05:17AM

How the world saw it on Twitter

Sir Matthew Pinsent: “If that was live it would have been fine — but it’s recorded, edited & polished. Far too much miss over hit.”

Dietmar Hamann (former Liverpool footballer): “I heard Lance Armstrong may take over as the new fitness coach. #Saints”

Lord Sugar: “Now a good sales person will rise to the challenge to sell the Lance Armstrong cycling jersey inventory.”

Dan Walker (Football Focus presenter): “No signs of remorse from Armstrong. Seems the only thing he hasn’t lied about is his book title: It’s not about the bike.”

Novak Djokovic: “They should take all his titles away because it’s not fair towards any sportsman. He should suffer for his lies.”

Mishal Husain (BBC News): “Fascinating word cloud generated by intv. ‘Sorry’ & ‘apologise’ barely feature.”

Pete Reed (Olympic rower): “That others were also cheating doesn’t absolve Armstrong. He cheated anyone who ever looked up to him or wore a yellow Livestrong band.”

Matt Giteau (Australia rugby union player): “They were all doing it, he just did it better. I am still a fan.”

Valérie Fourneyron (French Sports Minister): “The manipulation continues. It’s a well-acted scene. We have a minimal confession.”

Excerpt from The Times (LINK)

During his battle with testicular cancer, doctors asked Armstrong whether he had taken drugs. Ms Andreu said he reeled off a list of banned substances. Armstrong’s vengeance for that testimony — which she had been forced to give a decade later in court proceedings — was terrible: he vilified her and worked to banish her husband from professional cycling.

Now, even as he confessed to being a cheat and a liar, he could not acknowledge that she had told the truth. “I’m not going to take that on,” he told Winfrey. An emotional Ms Andreu told CNN: “You owed it to me, Lance, and you dropped the ball. After what you’ve done to me and what you’ve done to my family, and you couldn’t own up to it? Now we’re supposed to believe you? You had one chance at the truth, and this was it.”

O' and as regards the UCI...

International cycling’s governing body tried to claim the moral high ground yesterday, midway through Lance Armstrong’s chat-show confessional, amid a flurry of recriminations directed at the disgraced American cyclist from the world of professional sport.

The UCI said that it was pleased that Armstrong had “confirmed there was no collusion or conspiracy” in response to the suggestion that its officials covered up a positive test in exchange for payments totalling $125,000 (now about £79,000).

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/cycling/article3662158.ece

deco nate · 19-01-2013 05:19AM

Biggins wrote: »

Yes, he deliberately lied (it seems) about events up to 2009 for legal reasons.
If evidence can be produced in court for between 2006 and 2009 - despite what he says in possible lies or denial - then a case against him can still be brought.

At present, it looks like he's going to walk away eventually with his still many ill-gotten millions (or at least the bulk of it).
Thats a crying shame.
There are more honest deserving people out there that competed against him which deserved the money he wrongly gained.

the thing that really gets me is....l'll go on oppie
say i did it..so sorry to the people i hurt...and
sued....(ie,before 2005)and id called,text them to say im sorry(he texted one of them askin them to call him back for a chat!)and doesnt have the ball to pay them back pulse thier bills.never mind the
money they lost cos of his bs.and that photo he tweeted a few weeks ago.so yes he is a headcase

Is Lance Armstrong a psychopath?

Comments