Lance
-
@MajorRage said in Lance:
He robbed clean, hard-working riders of wins.
Along with unicorns, mermaids and the BFG.
Yawn. Same old line the Lance Armstrong apologists always trot out. "Everyone else was at it." No they all weren't.
Each to their own, but a cheating **** (who rightly got caught) ain't my idea of a hero.
-
-
@mariner4life said in Lance:
No they all weren't.
caaaaan you point me in the direction of the ones who weren't?
I'll just point out that not testing positive doesn't mean they weren't doping...
-
@antipodean said in Lance:
@mariner4life said in Lance:
No they all weren't.
caaaaan you point me in the direction of the ones who weren't?
I'll just point out that not testing positive doesn't mean they weren't doping...
That's a lot of red ink....
-
@canefan i assume that's only guys who failed a test too
-
@mariner4life said in Lance:
@canefan i assume that's only guys who failed a test too
Oh yeah, I assumed that. What about the little Aussie battler Evans?
-
@MajorRage said in Lance:
@mariner4life said in Lance:
also, i, for what ever reason, really dislike that David Walsh. Which is weird, but he comes across as such a smug, condescending fuckwit.
The same Walsh that wrote the piece about the All Black myth around 2004?
Genuine question: was it?
You're not getting muxed ip with Simon Barnes?
-
@mariner4life said in Lance:
for those that watched it, what did we think?
The first 10 minutes i thought it had devolved in to a redemption puff piece. Thankfully, it was not.
I thought the most telling lines were from Floyd Landis, who would have every reason to hate Lance. But even he thinks it's shit how it all landed on him, just because he was the better athlete.
If it wasn't for the drug part, people would have zero fucks to give about the bullying. Look at the Jordan documentary for a watered down example. But it's become a part of the "this is worse" story.
I thought some of his answers were really open actually.
But everyone who was not a cyclist fucking hates Lance. All the affiliated people were just scathing. Funnily enough, the riders not so much.
I simply can't read the fucker. Can't tell if he's honest or not.
That kitchen scene where the greatest cyclist ever can't cut cheese seemed so fake or staged.Do his good deeds outweigh the terrible treatment of people telling the truth? Probably not so I think my first impression of not wanting to be anywhere near the guy holds sway.
He's certainly a winner but not a champion in my mind.
Landis gets points for honesty and the power of his convictions.
In every sport, administrators are complicit in the nefarious things but always the athlete goes for a skate.
Good doco though.
Been pondering 2 questions about the doco:
Has the drugs in cycling thing been cleaned up in any measurable way?
Why do we yearn for our sporting heroes to be good guys? What's with that?
-
@Siam good post. Agree on the reading him bit. The bit when he said lying was fucking easy because you do it all the time, made me sit back and think "even now?". But then, do i really care that he acted like a fluffybunny? Really?
The good deeds bit? I actually do think that the work he did that has benefited thousands and thousands of people in a very meaningful way massively outweighs the hurt to a few people. And as i said earlier in the thread, i cannot categorically say i wouldn't have followed a similar path if it meant holding on to everything i had built.
The winner v champion thing is an interesting question. My instant thought was "agree" but even with as much reflection time as typing this post, i'm wondering if i do agree. He won 7 fucking Tours, straight. That's extraordinary. Yes, drugs bla bla, and i get that. But if you can accept that all his challengers were on it...
Last two questions:
I doubt it. The sport is just perfect for it. It's probably better than the really wild days of 20 years ago, but i have a hard time believing it's clean.I generally don't care that much, as i can separate "the art from the artist", however i know that i am in a minority with that one. I reckon it's two things. We think we are good guys, and therefore we want to see a bit of ourselves in our heroes. And, for a lot of people, it's the "won't somebody think of the children". You love that sports guy, be like that sports guy. If that sports guy is a fluffybunny, that conversation becomes a lot harder to have.
-
@mariner4life said in Lance:
@canefan i assume that's only guys who failed a test too
Oh yeah, I assumed that. What about the little Aussie battler Evans?
I'm not casting aspersions there. It's a pertinent question though. There are a couple of ways of viewing his win.
-
@mariner4life said in Lance:
@canefan i assume that's only guys who failed a test too
Oh yeah, I assumed that. What about the little Aussie battler Evans?
he's the only guy on that page without a red mark that you'd defo hesitate to get the marker out... I'd mainly say that cause he had some massive bad days.. that's probably the biggest thing about doping - you can keep the same level for a 3 week tour when all of science tells you it's impossible.
-
@WillieTheWaiter said in Lance:
@mariner4life said in Lance:
@canefan i assume that's only guys who failed a test too
Oh yeah, I assumed that. What about the little Aussie battler Evans?
he's the only guy on that page without a red mark that you'd defo hesitate to get the marker out... I'd mainly say that cause he had some massive bad days.. that's probably the biggest thing about doping - you can keep the same level for a 3 week tour when all of science tells you it's impossible.
yep. Although spent a lot chasing down breakaways, and then won with a huge effort on the last day...
but in general, i actually agree with you. And i thought that tour nearly killed him.
-
@mariner4life said in Lance:
The winner v champion thing is an interesting question. My instant thought was "agree" but even with as much reflection time as typing this post, i'm wondering if i do agree. He won 7 fucking Tours, straight. That's extraordinary. Yes, drugs bla bla, and i get that. But if you can accept that all his challengers were on it...
He still had to beat his peers. You could give me enough drugs to wipe out a pod of blue whales and I still wouldn't peddle up some of those climbs in a month of Sundays.
-
@MajorRage said in Lance:
@mariner4life said in Lance:
also, i, for what ever reason, really dislike that David Walsh. Which is weird, but he comes across as such a smug, condescending fuckwit.
The same Walsh that wrote the piece about the All Black myth around 2004?
Genuine question: was it?
You're not getting muxed ip with Simon Barnes?
There was two wasn't there. One by Walsh, another by Barnes? Could be wrong, long time ago, and even I don't hold grudges that long.
-
@antipodean said in Lance:
@mariner4life said in Lance:
The winner v champion thing is an interesting question. My instant thought was "agree" but even with as much reflection time as typing this post, i'm wondering if i do agree. He won 7 fucking Tours, straight. That's extraordinary. Yes, drugs bla bla, and i get that. But if you can accept that all his challengers were on it...
He still had to beat his peers. You could give me enough drugs to wipe out a pod of blue whales and I still wouldn't peddle up some of those climbs in a month of Sundays.
See this story is open to interpretation. It took me too long to realise you meant the drugs would wipe out the whales.
I originally imagined you getting given a shitload of drugs and then annihilating them whales in a frenzy.
-
@MajorRage said in Lance:
He robbed clean, hard-working riders of wins.
Along with unicorns, mermaids and the BFG.
Yawn. Same old line the Lance Armstrong apologists always trot out. "Everyone else was at it." No they all weren't.
Each to their own, but a cheating **** (who rightly got caught) ain't my idea of a hero.
Never said he was a hero nor denied it's right he got caught.
It's the determination and single-mindedness that I admire. Do I sustain this position largely because I believe all his fellow competitors were at it? Probably, yes. If he was a complete outlier I would most likely be in the majority camp.
-
did he really get caught? He was dobbed in by a bunch of guys looking for immunity and reduced sentences for doing exactly the same thing.
-
I simply can't read the fucker. Can't tell if he's honest or not.
That kitchen scene where the greatest cyclist ever can't cut cheese seemed so fake or staged.I just thought he came across as someone that preferred to be very private. The director asks for a few humanising shots and he does the equivalent of tripping over his own shoe laces.
The scene where he discussed Jan Ullrich was great. He gave the best answer of the whole documentary when discussing someone else's consequences
-
@mariner4life said in Lance:
did he really get caught? He was dobbed in by a bunch of guys looking for immunity and reduced sentences for doing exactly the same thing.
He confessed as he was royally fucked and realised nothing was going to stop the truth coming out.
-
@mariner4life yeah I could change my mind 6 times in an hour about whether he was a hero or villain and still not settle on an appraisal.
That livestrong stuff was heroic and fair dinkum, and his ruining people was also fair dinkum. I think I decided years ago that the harm you do defines you ultimately more than the good, but that's just me trying to turn grey into black and white.
The bloke's got me flummoxed.
The Ullrich bit was the most natural emotions I think too.
Also cycling really takes a unique mindset. Quite telling that 3 of them (at least) went nuts when they were denied cycling ( landis, Ullrich and pantini (?)).
