Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
What a cock.
I thought you of all people would find his treatment of women (especially Betsy Andreu and Emma O'Reilly) over the years pretty appalling.
Yeah, that's what he wrote.
but this went a little further from what little I've read about it all. But there's so many people with an axe to grind, told you so attitude and still a lot with very little to say.
that is cyclists for you, when it comes to pedestrian crossings, cycle restricted train services, or performance enhancing drugs they just don't accept the rules
did some cheating on a push bike while loads of other people were doing some cheating on push bikes. He just did it much better and more professionally. Only error he made was telling the truth, absolutely no need to
i know everyone was up to it and all that. But when you try to present yourself as a pillar of moral good and make a total fortune out of it, you're going to be held to a higher standard. also the blackmail and bullying that johntosh alluded to up there.
isn't like anyone gives a shit about chopper racing anyways
Lance asks the interviewer to imagine the choice a peloton of young men would make if it was between doping and having a career or going back to where they were from, probably in their early twenties, and starting from ground zero. The interviewer replies, 'would that really be so bad? they'd keep their integrity'.
I don't think there's any integrity in making a choice based on feeble bourgeois notions of 'honesty' or 'fairness' and deciding to wash your hands of it, in fact I think its vainglorious, pious even, whereas riding grand tours for example, even in a doped up peloton, is heroic, epic, an expression of freedom. I think that's what Lance is trying to get at when he reels off the stats for money raised for X charity, bike sales increased by Y amount.
Non cycling fans have trouble with his lack of contrition because he's belligerent but also intelligent, eloquent, understands and appreciates the history of a sport which seems to make no sense. Nobody from any other sport will have seen as deep into the vortex, into the primordial ooze as Lance has.
And he's right - if he hadn't been caught and been such a dick about it, fighting the whole time, the sport wouldn't be as clean as it is today. The problem isn't the fact of athletes doping, its that the sport is so reliant on layers of capital that they didn't want to have to mutually 'disarm' so quickly and under so much scrutiny.
In terms of his personality, he is a bully and an egotist. Pantani was manic depressive and had a nasty, abusive side too, but people love Pantani - I love Pantani. They both doped. The sport forces you to realise - if you hadn't already - that certain things are outwith the bounds of reason.
Did you use "feeble bourgeois notions" as a criticism with a straight face while posting that drivel?
I think rejecting the entire point of sport, honest human endeavour, as a feeble notion is pretty extreme fanboyism.
I didn't say anywhere that I liked Lance, and I don't know why it would matter if I did.
But if it were about winning at all costs there'd be no point in rules at all.
It doesn't matter if you like him but it seems the most obvious way someone could be so blinkered about it.
My point is that in this context it might have been more courageous to commit to doing a 'bad' thing and reap the rewards/take the punishment than to piously walk away. As a side note, how many of your favourite sporting moments could be framed like that?
I don't think that he's personally courageous - he's shown himself to be cowardly and vindictive, but there it is again: nuance. Though I can honestly understand why that might trouble some people.
The point is that notions of having 'integrity' are a bit weird. It's easy to be comfortably off, to have a not-amazing career that pays the bills and comfort yourself with "oh well, at least I have integrity".
Pretty sure Lance came from a pretty shitty, poor background. yes_ is questioning whether having 'integrity' in that situation was about to pay the bills or make up for what his life was like.
It's not to say that anyone from a poor background has to be criminally minded but it's easy to not have to struggle a great deal and therefore avoid committing crimes. If you then ask that everyone else do the same you are maybe being a little narrow-minded.
inexorably drawn into a life of crime/professional cycling.
and simply have *no choice* but to become doping professional cyclists instead.
(though cycling was a working class sport, its difficult to argue that it still is, except philosophically)
I wasn't talking about the practicalities of racing clean in terms of having money, a career etc, I'm saying that, in the scenario lance describes in the interview, it seems to me to be morally wrong for a life of adventure, success, hard work to go unlived because of a lazy morality. When you think of the drama of lance's life, i'd rather that it happened than didn't.
That's not to say that it wasn't equally courageous to have raced 'pan y agua' and spoken out against doping like Bassons.
I wasn't really saying that racing clean meant you wouldn't have a fun life. I thought the theoretical question was that Lance had never got into the sport at all because he would have 'integrity' and thus would have shunned it, and spent his life working in K-Mart or something.
Your point about a wild and crazy life is also kind of valid. If you're a risk taker then you tend to be that sort everywhere. As a spectator, particularly one with little to lose from it, I can also agree with your desire to have that story exist compared to a boring one of serious non-doping athletes.
Just for the sheer amount of contempt that I will be able to summon if so.
or was he just stripped of his titles? Basically, is he better off for cheating and reaping the sponsorship deals etc, than he would have been had he didn't? (hypothetically, obviously you can't say for sure how he would have performed without being a filthy great cheat).
You're your own worst enemy.
Fortunately he stopped a lot of workplace shootings in the meantime - what a hero, inspiring people not to kill their colleagues through his ongoing rejection of feeble bourgeois notions...
DR: You're facing a federal lawsuit [for breaching a contract with the US Postal Service]. Are you confident you will be successful defending yourself?
LA: "I'm not confident about anything. You have 12 jurors who decide whether or not the Postal Service was damaged to the tune of $30m. I'm confident that [the sponsorship] was beneficial to the organisation.
"By the way, I'm proud of that relationship, I'm proud of what we did. I'm proud of the fact that if you asked somebody on the street in 1998 what they thought of the Postal Service they would have given you the thumbs down. If you asked somebody who worked for the Postal Service in '98: "What do you think of working for them?" They would have said 'meh', thumbs down. But from 1999 to 2004, they loved it.
"It was well documented that workplace violence within the Postal Service was almost a comedy routine, it was tragic. The phrase 'going postal' was commonplace. From '99 to '04: no incidences of workplace violence. It was an organisation that was proud of what they had going, it was something that appeared in newspapers all over the world.
"Look, I loved racing for those folks, they had great people from the top to the bottom, so I don't know what 12 people are going to say. All I can do is put on the best defence and let a jury decide."
takes him one step closer to the edge (and he's about to break).
where he keeps apologising not on his own behalf, but on behalf of the whole of cycling instead. He's appalling human being.
that Sheryl crow dated for a bit? I like Sheryl crow,
Quite seriously. give it a rest. I don't know what you're on about and this following me about the boards accusing me of trolling is becoming harassing.
(I wasn't following you, just happened to be here anyway)
that you could stretch? I like stretching.
when you become like sexybum.
And if you pulled him too far he cracked and some gooey stuff came out.
I like his voice. "We have all the time dooby dooby doo".
in whose name he could not currently join a theoretical marathon to raise several hundred theoretical dollars. Which was a shame.
He *is* a fucking cock.
because he just would.
that no-one else could have raised any money if he hadn't done so.
is taking performance enhancing drugs?
The guy brutally and systematically destroyed the lives of anyone who dared to speak against him whilst he maintained a facade of being the world's greatest sporting hero.
He is hands things to ever happen to professional sport, and one of the biggest cunts of all time.
And Theo I guess, but he's just confused by the world.
Do you honestly need me to join in and say 'lance is a total cunt'? Of course he is! I never said anything to the contrary. What I'm trying to do is think about what it is about cycling which could have created what is possibly the biggest sporting controversy in history, and what might make him different from Pantani for example.
I mean, do you think sport exists because it is a display of only human virtue, or do you think the vice in there is also what attracts us?
"I don't think there's any integrity in making a choice based on feeble bourgeois notions of 'honesty' or 'fairness' and deciding to wash your hands of it, in fact I think its vainglorious, pious even, whereas riding grand tours for example, even in a doped up peloton, is heroic, epic, an expression of freedom"
Ooh, villains make stuff interesting too? No way!
I'm asking you would rather watch a race or a game of football or whatever as 90 minutes of relief from a morally ambiguous world -wherein you watch virtuous strong athletes embody virtues that one could only dream of attaining through a cloistered life of training and diet regime - then afterwards go back to the dirge of the everyday; is that the extent of your criticism? This is different to saying, 'shouldn't we have goodies AND baddies?' as you're trying to misrepresent to me.
Sport is not a pantomime, its an expression of life. As in life, people do bad things knowingly, and people do good things unthinkingly. The interrogation of that is what morality's about, and what is interesting about the Lance case.
I mean, its so obviously bad to dope, right? Its against the rules of the sport and everyone knew it was going on and the evidence against it should have made it easy to shut down right? Well it wasn't, and still isn't, because of sponsorship, money, power structures etc
In this sense Armstrong is the Patrick Bateman in this scenario.
Out of interest, what do you think about Marco Pantani?
I haven't defended him. But then it's just another boring Lance Armstrong thread so it seemed pointless to reiterate what an utterly awful human being he is once more.
I guess DiS has become like modern politics...
lo-pan post again, don't know why I find it so funny
then we'd be a bit better off I reckon ...
It would certainly stop the need for all the nastiness/subterfuge that came along with the Lance Armstrong case.
Other riders like Andreu, Hamilton etc. that got dragged along in his wake genuinely seem to have agonised over it and only gave in when it became obvious that either they doped or they were out. W
... with Armstrong he just saw other riders gaining an advantage by using testosterone and had to have it, then the same with EPO, blood transfusions etc. That ruthless, unquestioning need to win probably explains his shitty behaviour toward anybody that questioned him too