Lance
-
@WillieTheWaiter that's fair about the ruined lives thing mate. They weren't ruined. It's hyperbole
But it's not really in our human wiring to accept such a foundation of intentional lying to smear someone else.Is doping more or less prevalent these days. I'd accept any answer, just curious what the word in the industry is.
-
@WillieTheWaiter said in Lance:
@MajorRage said in Lance:
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.
it's probably the main thing that people ignore and what made LA as good as he was.. the "top 2 inches".
He had no off switch. One of the only guys that could just ignore his body and push through situations where other guys would sit up. Evans for example - having a bad day he'd just crack.. Remember a day when he went out the back before Cav on a climb which takes a special effort!
Also was what made him a massive prick, and impossible to measure the 'benefits' so people often just jump on the 'he took drugs that's all he had to do'
Similar reasons (obviously sans drug scandals) why Tiger, Kobe and MJ were so great. And why they were seen by many as total assholes especiall in their primes
-
As I mentioned “likely to polarise views”. Which is fair enough. You have a lot of admiration for the guy, others less so. Both are understandable viewpoints. The ruined lives thing is of course relative and so yeah some hyperbole there. Having your career taken away from you is not the same as cancer, but then again I don’t know of many examples where someone has gone out of their way to systematically give someone cancer on a personal level ie tobacco and the like aside.
I’m not arguing for or against the man here, something that I thought I’d made clear.
-
@Catogrande said in Lance:
As I mentioned “likely to polarise views”. Which is fair enough. You have a lot of admiration for the guy, others less so. Both are understandable viewpoints. The ruined lives thing is of course relative and so yeah some hyperbole there. Having your career taken away from you is not the same as cancer, but then again I don’t know of many examples where someone has gone out of their way to systematically give someone cancer on a personal level ie tobacco and the like aside.
I’m not arguing for or against the man here, something that I thought I’d made clear.
If you aren't with us, you're against us.
-
Is doping more or less prevalent these days. I'd accept any answer, just curious what the word in the industry is.
2005 was the fastest tour ever. Since then it's got slower ... read into that what you will
-
@Catogrande said in Lance:
examples where someone has gone out of their way to systematically give someone cancer on a personal level
Think I'm reading that correctly. And I think I agree with you ...
... Am not sure though ...
-
@Catogrande said in Lance:
examples where someone has gone out of their way to systematically give someone cancer on a personal level
Think I'm reading that correctly. And I think I agree with you ...
... Am not sure though ...
Assuming you were looking for clarification. ..
Cancer is very much worse than someone deliberately shafting your career but no one deliberately sets out to give you cancer. So to compare Armstrong’s actions to cancer you would need to take that into account.
-
I just finished the doco. I really enjoyed it, I found it quite compelling. Lance came across as pretty candid to me. It did not try to cast him in a more favourable light, he clearly was a hugely gifted athlete, a cheat, a bully, and a liar and fraud. He did huge things with his livestrong foundation that benefited millions of people. While trying to appear contrite, other times he is unrepentant and sometimes he was enraged at the way he was treated despite everything he did. As with many things in life, he is a multifaceted complicated figure
-
-
@WillieTheWaiter said in Lance:
@Catogrande said in Lance:
Like many I wasn't at all surprised to hear that Armstrong had been doping, I sort of took it for granted (and not just him), so that in itself was not enough to downplay his achievements. His behaviour to those around him, the bullying and the ruining of peoples' lives to my mind has tarnished him. His interview with Oprah did him no favours either. It showed him as completely unrepentant and still a cruel and heartless person. I also find that picture of him posing with his yellow jerseys as continuing with the unrepentant stance.
I just gotta say - that whole "ruined peoples lives" is yet another example of the over dramatised bollicks that surrounds the Armstrong saga.
is there anyone involved that is desitute, living under a bridge, killed themselves? Cause when you say "life ruined" that means to this day, and to then end of their life. It's a big statement.
I always ask people who say this to name 5 people whose 'life is ruined' by Armstrong - should be easy right since there was so many. Haven't got one yet.
At best you could say it was a temporary employment dispute with a cnuty co-worker or boss that harmed your career.
You know what does ruin peoples lives? Getting fucking cancer.
That's what I don't get - the sheer volume of people who absolutely HATE Armstrong because of this whole - he "ruined the lives" of a handful of cyclists - but completely ignore the THOUSANDS of cancer sufferers whose lives he postively impacted - and we're talking about people who went to their graves happy that he reached out to them. Why don't they count? Why are a handful of cyclists more important. (also kinda find that amusing as 99% of the worlds population HATE cyclists but as soon as they find out LA was a prick to them they're right on the bandwagon to support them..)
If you had to choose a manner of having your 'life ruined' - what would you pick? shitty employment situation or getting cancer?
Anyway - I'll always say that there is no way you can't say that LA hasn't positively impacted this world more than his negative impacts.
Actually one other thing I would say is maybe people need to look at things from his perspective.. Betsy Andreu for example.. he went after her big time.. but he was on what he thought at the time was his death bed, with his best mate and wife there... he comes clean to the docs about what he's been taking. She takes that and gives it to the papers, specifically to the guy that's your 'mortal enemy'.. would that piss you off!!? I farking know it would me and I'd be out to get that person.
Anyway at the end of the day I can totally understand why he's unrepentant. Easy for those outside of cycling to just say he shouldn't have taken drugs, but it's been part of the culture and normality since day 1 or the sports existence. These guys are just in a bubble all year interacting with nothing but other cyclists, the general public pays attention for 3 weeks during TDF. He did nothing different than anyone else, and the guys that did the same are welcomed with open arms at the tour e.g. Mercxk Conti etc.. whereas the only guys excluded are basically him and Ullrich.
I don't get the moral relativism from a lot of the Lance / cycling fanboys on this. Just because he wasn't the only one doping doesn't make him any less dirty. Two wrongs don't make and a right and all that and it's bit like a rapist saying he was raised in a village full of rapists so we shouldn't judge him too harshly.
-
I just finished the doco. I really enjoyed it, I found it quite compelling. Lance came across as pretty candid to me. It did not try to cast him in a more favourable light, he clearly was a hugely gifted athlete, a cheat, a bully, and a liar and fraud. He did huge things with his livestrong foundation that benefited millions of people. While trying to appear contrite, other times he is unrepentant and sometimes he was enraged at the way he was treated despite everything he did. As with many things in life, he is a multifaceted complicated figure
You actually make him sound like a psychopath when you describe hime like that.
-
I just finished the doco. I really enjoyed it, I found it quite compelling. Lance came across as pretty candid to me. It did not try to cast him in a more favourable light, he clearly was a hugely gifted athlete, a cheat, a bully, and a liar and fraud. He did huge things with his livestrong foundation that benefited millions of people. While trying to appear contrite, other times he is unrepentant and sometimes he was enraged at the way he was treated despite everything he did. As with many things in life, he is a multifaceted complicated figure
You actually make him sound like a psychopath when you describe hime like that.
I wasn't trying to be complimentary. I remember him at the time, he really put cycling on a whole greater level. But he shares many traits with other super athletes, who are all a little bit sociopathic in their own ways
-
@WillieTheWaiter said in Lance:
@Catogrande said in Lance:
Like many I wasn't at all surprised to hear that Armstrong had been doping, I sort of took it for granted (and not just him), so that in itself was not enough to downplay his achievements. His behaviour to those around him, the bullying and the ruining of peoples' lives to my mind has tarnished him. His interview with Oprah did him no favours either. It showed him as completely unrepentant and still a cruel and heartless person. I also find that picture of him posing with his yellow jerseys as continuing with the unrepentant stance.
I just gotta say - that whole "ruined peoples lives" is yet another example of the over dramatised bollicks that surrounds the Armstrong saga.
is there anyone involved that is desitute, living under a bridge, killed themselves? Cause when you say "life ruined" that means to this day, and to then end of their life. It's a big statement.
I always ask people who say this to name 5 people whose 'life is ruined' by Armstrong - should be easy right since there was so many. Haven't got one yet.
At best you could say it was a temporary employment dispute with a cnuty co-worker or boss that harmed your career.
You know what does ruin peoples lives? Getting fucking cancer.
That's what I don't get - the sheer volume of people who absolutely HATE Armstrong because of this whole - he "ruined the lives" of a handful of cyclists - but completely ignore the THOUSANDS of cancer sufferers whose lives he postively impacted - and we're talking about people who went to their graves happy that he reached out to them. Why don't they count? Why are a handful of cyclists more important. (also kinda find that amusing as 99% of the worlds population HATE cyclists but as soon as they find out LA was a prick to them they're right on the bandwagon to support them..)
If you had to choose a manner of having your 'life ruined' - what would you pick? shitty employment situation or getting cancer?
Anyway - I'll always say that there is no way you can't say that LA hasn't positively impacted this world more than his negative impacts.
Actually one other thing I would say is maybe people need to look at things from his perspective.. Betsy Andreu for example.. he went after her big time.. but he was on what he thought at the time was his death bed, with his best mate and wife there... he comes clean to the docs about what he's been taking. She takes that and gives it to the papers, specifically to the guy that's your 'mortal enemy'.. would that piss you off!!? I farking know it would me and I'd be out to get that person.
Anyway at the end of the day I can totally understand why he's unrepentant. Easy for those outside of cycling to just say he shouldn't have taken drugs, but it's been part of the culture and normality since day 1 or the sports existence. These guys are just in a bubble all year interacting with nothing but other cyclists, the general public pays attention for 3 weeks during TDF. He did nothing different than anyone else, and the guys that did the same are welcomed with open arms at the tour e.g. Mercxk Conti etc.. whereas the only guys excluded are basically him and Ullrich.
I don't get the moral relativism from a lot of the Lance / cycling fanboys on this. Just because he wasn't the only one doping doesn't make him any less dirty. Two wrongs don't make and a right and all that and it's bit like a rapist saying he was raised in a village full of rapists so we shouldn't judge him too harshly.
That analogy is retarded. Rape? Really?
-
I just finished the doco. I really enjoyed it, I found it quite compelling. Lance came across as pretty candid to me. It did not try to cast him in a more favourable light, he clearly was a hugely gifted athlete, a cheat, a bully, and a liar and fraud. He did huge things with his livestrong foundation that benefited millions of people. While trying to appear contrite, other times he is unrepentant and sometimes he was enraged at the way he was treated despite everything he did. As with many things in life, he is a multifaceted complicated figure
You actually make him sound like a psychopath when you describe hime like that.
He is a psychopath.
-
@WillieTheWaiter said in Lance:
@Catogrande said in Lance:
Like many I wasn't at all surprised to hear that Armstrong had been doping, I sort of took it for granted (and not just him), so that in itself was not enough to downplay his achievements. His behaviour to those around him, the bullying and the ruining of peoples' lives to my mind has tarnished him. His interview with Oprah did him no favours either. It showed him as completely unrepentant and still a cruel and heartless person. I also find that picture of him posing with his yellow jerseys as continuing with the unrepentant stance.
I just gotta say - that whole "ruined peoples lives" is yet another example of the over dramatised bollicks that surrounds the Armstrong saga.
is there anyone involved that is desitute, living under a bridge, killed themselves? Cause when you say "life ruined" that means to this day, and to then end of their life. It's a big statement.
I always ask people who say this to name 5 people whose 'life is ruined' by Armstrong - should be easy right since there was so many. Haven't got one yet.
At best you could say it was a temporary employment dispute with a cnuty co-worker or boss that harmed your career.
You know what does ruin peoples lives? Getting fucking cancer.
That's what I don't get - the sheer volume of people who absolutely HATE Armstrong because of this whole - he "ruined the lives" of a handful of cyclists - but completely ignore the THOUSANDS of cancer sufferers whose lives he postively impacted - and we're talking about people who went to their graves happy that he reached out to them. Why don't they count? Why are a handful of cyclists more important. (also kinda find that amusing as 99% of the worlds population HATE cyclists but as soon as they find out LA was a prick to them they're right on the bandwagon to support them..)
If you had to choose a manner of having your 'life ruined' - what would you pick? shitty employment situation or getting cancer?
Anyway - I'll always say that there is no way you can't say that LA hasn't positively impacted this world more than his negative impacts.
Actually one other thing I would say is maybe people need to look at things from his perspective.. Betsy Andreu for example.. he went after her big time.. but he was on what he thought at the time was his death bed, with his best mate and wife there... he comes clean to the docs about what he's been taking. She takes that and gives it to the papers, specifically to the guy that's your 'mortal enemy'.. would that piss you off!!? I farking know it would me and I'd be out to get that person.
Anyway at the end of the day I can totally understand why he's unrepentant. Easy for those outside of cycling to just say he shouldn't have taken drugs, but it's been part of the culture and normality since day 1 or the sports existence. These guys are just in a bubble all year interacting with nothing but other cyclists, the general public pays attention for 3 weeks during TDF. He did nothing different than anyone else, and the guys that did the same are welcomed with open arms at the tour e.g. Mercxk Conti etc.. whereas the only guys excluded are basically him and Ullrich.
I don't get the moral relativism from a lot of the Lance / cycling fanboys on this. Just because he wasn't the only one doping doesn't make him any less dirty. Two wrongs don't make and a right and all that and it's bit like a rapist saying he was raised in a village full of rapists so we shouldn't judge him too harshly.
I think the issue is that (to use your analogy) he's made out to be a worse rapist than all the other rapists in the village when they were doing the exact same raping.
FYI: I'm not a Lance or cycling fanboy at all.
-
I'll be honest, I have very little regard for Armstrong (hypocritical I know as I really liked watching Pantani), but that documentary is pretty gripping. I think for me, the fact was that almost all of Armstrong's victories were so comprehensive it made the tour dull as ditchwater as a race rather than as a spectacle. Plus it was the start of the Time Trial era which still shits me no end. I hate multiple Time trials, one I can live with but two or more just seems to have an outsize effect on the overall placings.
-
-
Tour de France records and statistics - Wikipedia
