# Lance Again



## Smokin Joe (15 Sep 2015)

Ok, we're all sick to death of hearing about him, but from a glimpse of the trailer this looks like a worthwhile watch -

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...oing-to-watch-the-lance-armstrong-film-191675


----------



## Hacienda71 (15 Sep 2015)

The actor took EPO during the filming and didn't tell the production staff. Talk about getting into character lol.


----------



## gavroche (15 Sep 2015)

Why do we still talk about him? The man never achieved anything in cycling apart from being a cheat and a bully.


----------



## Hip Priest (15 Sep 2015)

gavroche said:


> Why do we still talk about him? The man never achieved anything in cycling apart from being a cheat and a bully.



Because it's an incredible story.


----------



## Simpleton (15 Sep 2015)

What does this film offer that the two (very good imo) dvds does not?

Trouble with a film like this is that some of the events are dramatised. Unless this film is based on a book or books?


----------



## steveindenmark (15 Sep 2015)

More money into his pocket. What suckers we are. I wont be watching it.


----------



## Citius (15 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> More money into his pocket. What suckers we are. I wont be watching it.



Is Lance on a percentage of box office then?


----------



## Hip Priest (15 Sep 2015)

So we saying bad people can't make for good stories? Won't be watching that new Krays film then.


----------



## Citius (15 Sep 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> So we saying bad people can't make for good stories? Won't be watching that new Krays film then.



Good job nobody ever made a film about Hitler. Oh, wait....


----------



## Crandoggler (15 Sep 2015)

I cannot wait to see it. He was juiced up, everyone else was too. He still battled cancer, beat it, came back like a farking Trojan Horse and smashed his way to the top. He bullied, manipulated and worked his ass off to do what he did. It was wrong, but what a story!


----------



## fossyant (15 Sep 2015)

He is a bit like Hitler of the sporting world - we still watch to understand.

I hope the actor didn't dabble with Testosterone... really not good for him long term - will shut his balls down, might not get a restart.


----------



## Simpleton (15 Sep 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> So we saying bad people can't make for good stories? Won't be watching that new Krays film then.



I'm not, but am wondering what this film offers on top of what is already out there. Spend an afternoon looking through the USADA report and the supporting docs for how it really was. I was blown away.


----------



## Hip Priest (15 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> I'm not, but am wondering what this film offers on top of what is already out there. Spend an afternoon looking through the USADA report and the supporting docs for how it really was. I was blown away.



Get what you're saying, but I think there's room for a dramatisation alongside the documentaries.


----------



## Herbie (15 Sep 2015)

gavroche said:


> Why do we still talk about him? The man never achieved anything in cycling apart from being a cheat and a bully.




I'd rather a film was made about. Eddy Merckx... He was the greatest cyclist IMHO 
Armstrong is a cheating no body


----------



## Berk on a Bike (15 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> What does this film offer that the two (very good imo) dvds does not?
> 
> Trouble with a film like this is that some of the events are dramatised. Unless this film is based on a book or books?


It's based on 7 Deadly Sins.


----------



## AndyRM (15 Sep 2015)

Herbie said:


> I'd rather a film was made about. Eddy Merckx... He was the greatest cyclist IMHO
> Armstrong is a cheating no body



La Course en Tete and The Greatest Show on Earth should keep you happy.

Eddy was no saint either...


----------



## Crandoggler (15 Sep 2015)

The man was a brilliant cyclist. Irrespective of his drug use. It's like a bodybuilding competition, everyone is/was on drugs, but it still took the determination and effort to win. He just did it better than anyone else. 

It's not like he was the only individual using drugs. That would be a totally different story.


----------



## steveindenmark (15 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Is Lance on a percentage of box office then?



Do you really think that they are going to make a film about him without him getting a cut? You must be joking.

The difference between Hitler, the Krays and Lance Armstrong is that Lance Armstrong conned everyone into believing that he was the sporting hero that he clearly wasn't. As far as I am concerned I would prefer it if he could never make any money out of anything to do with cycling.

Hitler and the Krays never claimed themselves to be anything that they wasn't. Regardless of what they did. Its a bad comparison, I know. But I didnt start it :0)


----------



## steveindenmark (15 Sep 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> The man was a brilliant cyclist. Irrespective of his drug use. It's like a bodybuilding competition, everyone is/was on drugs, but it still took the determination and effort to win.
> 
> It's not like he was the only individual using drugs. That would be a totally different story.



Oh that makes it alright then.


----------



## fossyant (15 Sep 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> The man was a brilliant cyclist. Irrespective of his drug use. It's like a bodybuilding competition, everyone is/was on drugs, but it still took the determination and effort to win.
> 
> It's not like he was the only individual using drugs. That would be a totally different story.



He might of been a high performance cyclist, but the guy was/is a total barsteward with everyone and including close friends. You read/listen to some reports from close team mates and their partners, and Greg Lomond's accounts.... the guy is gutter trash. He was a bit of a twat in his early days.


----------



## bianchi1 (15 Sep 2015)

I'll give it a watch. Like it or not it's a huge part of cycle racing history and a great story...you almost couldn't make it up! 

I've watched plenty of films/documentaries on drugged up cyclists that paint them as unwitting victims and am quite happy to listen to drug cheats commentating on current races, why not enjoy a bucket of popcorn watching Lance do his stuff.


----------



## Crandoggler (15 Sep 2015)

Hitler didn't con people? Have you read a history book? He practically brainwashed a nation. The Krays? Bribery and extortion? Jesus wept.


----------



## Crandoggler (15 Sep 2015)

fossyant said:


> He might of been a high performance cyclist, but the guy was/is a total barsteward with everyone and including close friends. You read/listen to some reports from close team mates and their partners, and Greg Lomond's accounts.... the guy is gutter trash. He was a bit of a twat in his early days.


Absolutely. But an interesting story to an outsider for sure.


----------



## 400bhp (15 Sep 2015)

Is there a car chase in it? If not I aint watchin.


----------



## Citius (15 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Do you really think that they are going to make a film about him without him getting a cut? You must be joking.



I think you need to do a bit more research on the film....


----------



## Citius (15 Sep 2015)

400bhp said:


> Is there a car chase in it? If not I aint watchin.



There's probably some bike chases...?


----------



## steveindenmark (15 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> I think you need to do a bit more research on the film....



If they are using his name he will be getting paid.

Unless Im missing something.


----------



## Citius (15 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Unless Im missing something.



Yep...


----------



## mustang1 (15 Sep 2015)

Smokin Joe said:


> Ok, we're all* sick to death of hearing about him*, but from a glimpse of the trailer this looks like a worthwhile watch -
> 
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...oing-to-watch-the-lance-armstrong-film-191675


Im not. 
Eagerly waiting for movie release.


----------



## mustang1 (15 Sep 2015)

Herbie said:


> I'd rather a film was made about. Eddy Merckx... He was the greatest cyclist IMHO
> Armstrong is a cheating no body



Me too!
But i reckon he also doped.


----------



## steveindenmark (15 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Yep...



Go on then a Film about Lance Armstrong using his name and he will not receive any money for it.

How did they manage that?


----------



## mustang1 (15 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Oh that makes it alright then.


I went to a car race once. No turbos were allowed in the engines, but all the drivers turbo'd their cars. The audience just turned a blind eye. But one racer installed a bigger turbo than everyone else but no one could figure it out until much later. All these people were annoyed that they were conned. They continued to turn a blind eye at the other drivers with smaller turbos.


----------



## Citius (15 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Go on then a Film about Lance Armstrong using his name and he will not receive any money for it.
> 
> How did they manage that?



Because you can't trademark a person's name, and Armstrong had no involvement in the making of the film. That's how.


----------



## steveindenmark (15 Sep 2015)

mustang1 said:


> I went to a car race once. No turbos were allowed in the engines, but all the drivers turbo'd their cars. The audience just turned a blind eye. But one racer installed a bigger turbo than everyone else but no one could figure it out until much later. All these people were annoyed that they were conned. They continued to turn a blind eye at the other drivers with smaller turbos.



Well seeing as we all think it is ok to win at any cost, we should start lobbying for a TDF for drug users. They would probably be faster than the non drug takers, there would be no expense with regards to testing and the cycling Federation need not continue to feel embarassed by handing down pixx poor sentences.

If the public who pay for these guys to earn milions by racing do not care if they take drugs or not, the sport will always be screwed.


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> Because you can't trademark a person's name, and Armstrong had no involvement in the making of the film. That's how.



You may not be able to trademark your name in the UK but you certainly can in the USA. I would be surprised if Armstrongs legal team did not close that loophole early in his career.


----------



## buggi (16 Sep 2015)

They should have got Ben Eckhart to play him. He's a better looking Lance


----------



## BEHMOTH66 (16 Sep 2015)

If you want to watch a great cycling film then Pantani is the film to watch. Will I watch this probably but not on the big screen


----------



## Hip Priest (16 Sep 2015)

BEHMOTH66 said:


> If you want to watch a great cycling film then Pantani is the film to watch. Will I watch this probably but not on the big screen



Good old clean Pantani.


----------



## BEHMOTH66 (16 Sep 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Good old clean Pantani.


I doubt most of the major names in cycling were drug free but it is a great film


----------



## Crandoggler (16 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> You may not be able to trademark your name in the UK but you certainly can in the USA. I would be surprised if Armstrongs legal team did not close that loophole early in his career.


Mate you need to relax. Who cares? Give him $100million, it's a story about his life, cheat or not. It's not like he was a serial killer or a rapist. He cheated better than his peers, that's it. I know you like cycling, but it's not grounds to condemn the man to eternal damnation because of his previous sporting life. 

I am more than happy to watch a dramatisation of a lunatic on a bike. Much like I am a fan of watching a dramatisation of a lunatic in a car (rush). 

Let it go, everyone on the tour is clean as a whistle now anyway


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Sep 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> Mate you need to relax. Who cares? Give him $100million, it's a story about his life, cheat or not. It's not like he was a serial killer or a rapist. He cheated better than his peers, that's it. I know you like cycling, but it's not grounds to condemn the man to eternal damnation because of his previous sporting life.
> 
> I am more than happy to watch a dramatisation of a lunatic on a bike. Much like I am a fan of watching a dramatisation of a lunatic in a car (rush).
> 
> Let it go, everyone on the tour is clean as a whistle now anyway



Its gone


----------



## Hip Priest (16 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Hitler and the Krays never claimed themselves to be anything that they wasn't. Regardless of what they did. Its a bad comparison, I know. But I didnt start it :0)



Yes, you can say what you like about Adolf Hitler, but at least he didn't take EPO.


----------



## raleighnut (16 Sep 2015)

Nah Hitler just took Synthetic Morphine.

I still think Armstrong's bit of CX riding was superb bike control.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr89ku-K2WU&feature=player_detailpage


----------



## mustang1 (16 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Well seeing as we all think it is ok to win at any cost, we should start lobbying for a TDF for drug users. They would probably be faster than the non drug takers, there would be no expense with regards to testing and the cycling Federation need not continue to feel embarassed by handing down pixx poor sentences.
> 
> If the public who pay for these guys to earn milions by racing do not care if they take drugs or not, the sport will always be screwed.



That's actually not a bad idea. (Not being sarcastic). I wonder how the public will see this. Drugs are rife in all sports (not implying its therefore OK or not OK, just saying).


----------



## screenman (16 Sep 2015)

mustang1 said:


> I went to a car race once. No turbos were allowed in the engines, but all the drivers turbo'd their cars. The audience just turned a blind eye. But one racer installed a bigger turbo than everyone else but no one could figure it out until much later. All these people were annoyed that they were conned. They continued to turn a blind eye at the other drivers with smaller turbos.



Scrutineering must have been a bit weak, a turbo is not something you can hide.


----------



## ColinJ (16 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Well seeing as we all think it is ok to win at any cost, we should start lobbying for a TDF for drug users. They would probably be faster than the non drug takers, there would be no expense with regards to testing and the cycling Federation need not continue to feel embarassed by handing down pixx poor sentences.
> 
> If the public who pay for these guys to earn milions by racing do not care if they take drugs or not, the sport will always be screwed.





mustang1 said:


> That's actually not a bad idea. (Not being sarcastic). I wonder how the public will see this. Drugs are rife in all sports (not implying its therefore OK or not OK, just saying).


A cheat is always a cheat. Don't you think that the worst cheats would cheat by entering the races reserved for non-cheats? Rather like now, in fact!


----------



## Tin Pot (16 Sep 2015)

As a dramatisation I think it should have an alternate ending where world doping agencies concede they were wrong and allow chemical, genetic and bionic enhancements in sport.

Lance II would be awesome.


----------



## blazed (16 Sep 2015)

You cannot watch or enjoy pro cycling with out the little doubt in the back of your head that whichever rider you are seeing is doping. Any one rider could easily be doping at any given time.

This is not because of Armstrong it's long been the way in cycling. The biggest names in cycling were dopers, but nobody has the hate that Armstrong does. His work outside of cycling is incredible as well. Regardless of doping, he's an extremely hard working, ambitious, determined individual and that is to be respected.

He was the best cyclist of all time. And he still cycles almost everyday and fanboys like me can give him kudos on strava.


----------



## Citius (16 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> You may not be able to trademark your name in the UK but you certainly can in the USA. I would be surprised if Armstrongs legal team did not close that loophole early in his career.



You seem happy to assume lots of things on the basis of very little knowledge. 'Livestrong' is trademarked. Lance's birth name is not. As others have said, just move on.


----------



## roadrash (16 Sep 2015)

Lance armstrong is a nobhead , allways has been, allways will be 
someone earlier in the thread said .. so what he doped , everybody did it, 
personally i think everybody is is rather a sweeping statement.
pantani has also been mentioned , another nobhead
in fact lets make it short, .... cheat = nobhead
there are many cyclist in the pro peleton today that i admire but should they be found to be cheats also, then they also become a nobhead

I cannot understand the need to cheat at anything....., your either good enough or your not .
thats my two pennys worth.


----------



## blazed (16 Sep 2015)

roadrash said:


> Lance armstrong is a nobhead , allways has been, allways will be
> someone earlier in the thread said .. so what he doped , everybody did it,
> personally i think everybody is is rather a sweeping statement.
> pantani has also been mentioned , another nobhead
> ...


If you are competing in a field where the competition are doping, and you dope, you are hardly cheating.

Your doping does not give you an 'unfair' advantage, it simply puts you on a level playing field.


----------



## roadrash (16 Sep 2015)

one question , can you say with absolute certainty that EVERYONE ELSE was doping .

it doesnt put you on a level playing field , it makes you a cheating nobhead just like any other doper


----------



## Andrew_P (16 Sep 2015)

Pretty sure even if you remove the spin from Hincapie & Armstrong if I bowled up to a European competition fresh faced and successful in my own country and got blown out the back by half way through giving the choice of joining them or giving up on being a pro I probably would have been at it as well. My personality type would have meant I would have ended up like David Millar but I can also see how big the lie became and can see why it was defended the way it was by personality type such as Armstrong's, after all he was a multi million pound business by then so had a lot more than his cycling titles to defend. I also remember Millars account of his first training ride with a pro team and him getting blown out the back and struggling to even hang on. I understand you could view it as spin to excuse the drug taking but fairly confident it happened to a lot of raw talent.


----------



## 400bhp (16 Sep 2015)

blazed said:


> Your doping does not give you an 'unfair' advantage, it simply puts you on a level playing field.



No it doesn't


----------



## Milkfloat (16 Sep 2015)

The difference between normal cheats and Armstrong that makes him an uber-knobber is that he wilfully ruined careers and arguably lives along the way.


----------



## Big Dave laaa (16 Sep 2015)

You've nailed it there in one short sentence @Milkfloat


----------



## John the Monkey (16 Sep 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> The difference between normal cheats and Armstrong that makes him an uber-knobber is that he wilfully ruined careers and arguably lives along the way.


...and seems to have actively perpetuated the culture and practices of which he claims to have been a victim.


----------



## mustang1 (16 Sep 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> The difference between normal cheats and Armstrong that makes him an uber-knobber is that he wilfully ruined careers and arguably lives along the way.



Are you talking, for example, about other people on his team with which he shared his prize winning money?

I just get irritated because Lance was singled out as a cheat. The reason seems to be because
1. He was also a bully.
2. His cheating method yielded greater results than other cheating methods.

Or maybe he was targeted for being top dog.... Topple down effect.


----------



## Citius (16 Sep 2015)

Lance was different because of how he dealt with it. He used his dishonesty to enrich himself and wilfully destroyed the careers of others - who (ironically) he knew were telling the truth about him.


----------



## Hip Priest (16 Sep 2015)

blazed said:


> You cannot watch or enjoy pro cycling with out the little doubt in the back of your head that whichever rider you are seeing is doping. Any one rider could easily be doping at any given time.
> 
> This is not because of Armstrong it's long been the way in cycling. The biggest names in cycling were dopers, but nobody has the hate that Armstrong does. His work outside of cycling is incredible as well. Regardless of doping, he's an extremely hard working, ambitious, determined individual and that is to be respected.
> 
> He was the best cyclist of all time. And he still cycles almost everyday and fanboys like me can give him kudos on strava.



He may have been the best TDF rider of all time, but not the best cyclist of all time. That honour goes to Eddy Merckx.


----------



## Milkfloat (16 Sep 2015)

mustang1 said:


> Are you talking, for example, about other people on his team with which he shared his prize winning money?
> 
> Not just those on his team, some of whom were attacked early on like Mike Anderson, but also associates like Betsy Andreu even other members of the pelton such as Filippo Simeoni.



Obviously he was not the only cheat, but the nature of his profile and success meant that he had a lot more to lose and thus his treatment of others is more in the public eye and more damaging for the sport.


----------



## vickster (16 Sep 2015)

He comes across as a bit of a nob all round really


----------



## w00hoo_kent (16 Sep 2015)

roadrash said:


> one question , can you say with absolute certainty that EVERYONE ELSE was doping .
> it doesnt put you on a level playing field , it makes you a cheating nobhead just like any other doper



Most of the books I've read that look at that period (and it's hardly exhaustive) tend to suggest that there was a two tier system going on within the peloton and it was pretty much accepted that some people chose to ride clean and they'd just be worse than those that didn't. It also seemed to suggest that the doping culture was pretty rife and some teams were a lot worse than others with their levels of compulsion. I presume part of the silence of the peloton thing was the understanding that you could only keep people quiet if they could still race so completely freezing out clean riders wasn't an option. But that is conjecture.

I agree with others on Lance, the issue for me isn't that he doped, but how he went about it. Whatever he was using as justification for his choices, in my book wasn't valid. I have more time for penitent dopers, although would still prefer everything clean and hope things are going that way.


----------



## Simpleton (16 Sep 2015)

blazed said:


> If you are competing in a field where the competition are doping, and you dope, you are hardly cheating.
> 
> *Your doping does not give you an 'unfair' advantage, it simply puts you on a level playing field*.



That's incorrect. If I have a natural haematocrit of 42 and you have one that is 49 and we both dope up to a level of 60, then I'll get more benefit then you.

This is what the UCI never got when they effectively legalised doping saying that those under 50 were okay. A bit like saying you can rob a bank and we won't arrest as long as you take less then £100.


----------



## Hacienda71 (16 Sep 2015)

The way Armstrong went about trying to ruin Greg Lemond financially was one of the things that I found really offensive. Most dopers would deny what they were doing until found out, not Lance he wanted to ruin people who refused to perpetuate his bullshit. Armstrong was a bully as well as a doper.


----------



## blazed (16 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> That's incorrect. If I have a natural haematocrit of 42 and you have one that is 49 and we both dope up to a level of 60, then I'll get more benefit then you.
> 
> This is what the UCI never got when they effectively legalised doping saying that those under 50 were okay. A bit like saying you can rob a bank and we won't arrest as long as you take less then £100.



It will never be a truly level field. Nature itself makes sure of that. If one rider naturally has a larger lung capacity than another he is at an advantage. Many riders are simply born with the tools to succeed.

Armstrong worked his nuts off, he made all other dopers his bitch, and he changed the lives of many, many people through his charity. 

He's an incredibly strong guy and that's admirable. Look at Pantani he fell to pieces when he was caught doping, mentally collapsed. The sh*t Armstrong has gone through his entire life and always came out fighting, that is why millions of people admire him.


----------



## Simpleton (16 Sep 2015)

blazed said:


> It will never be a truly level field. Nature itself makes sure of that. If one rider naturally has a larger lung capacity than another he is at an advantage. Many riders are simply born with the tools to succeed.
> 
> Armstrong worked his nuts off, he made all other dopers his bitch, and he changed the lives of many, many people through his charity.
> 
> *He's an incredibly strong guy and that's admirable*. Look at Pantani he fell to pieces when he was caught doping, mentally collapsed. The sh*t Armstrong has gone through his entire life and always came out fighting, that is why millions of people admire him.



But not as strong as to oust Weisel, Bruyneel et al when given the chance? I suppose him still upholding the Omerta is something that you deeply admire and respect despite the destructive influence that he had?


----------



## John the Monkey (16 Sep 2015)

Have we had these yet?

http://www.outsideonline.com/1904781/its-not-about-lab-rats

http://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong


----------



## AndyRM (16 Sep 2015)

blazed said:


> It will never be a truly level field. Nature itself makes sure of that. If one rider naturally has a larger lung capacity than another he is at an advantage. Many riders are simply born with the tools to succeed.
> 
> Armstrong worked his nuts off, he made all other dopers his bitch, and he changed the lives of many, many people through his charity.
> 
> He's an incredibly strong guy and that's admirable. Look at Pantani he fell to pieces when he was caught doping, mentally collapsed. The sh*t Armstrong has gone through his entire life and always came out fighting, that is why millions of people admire him.



Jesus... That's... Wow...

Anyway, I'll probably see the film. I've read that the cinematography, particularly of the racing, is excellent. That's not really a surprise though with Danny Cohen behind the camera.


----------



## blazed (16 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> But not as strong as to oust Weisel, Bruyneel et al when given the chance? I suppose him still upholding the Omerta is something that you deeply admire and respect despite the destructive influence that he had?



You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. So what if he was an peanut as well, what successful person isn't? If you want to get places you have to tread on a few people. 

Funny when you see people slagging off a guy like Armstrong who has achieved so much, has more talent in one of his pubes than this entire forum put together. What have ya'll done that's so impressive?


----------



## Hip Priest (16 Sep 2015)

blazed said:


> Funny when you see people slagging off a guy like Armstrong who has achieved so much, has more talent in one of his pubes than this entire forum put together. What have ya'll done that's so impressive?



I've thrown a kettle over a pub.


----------



## Simpleton (16 Sep 2015)

Patted my head and rubbed my belly in a circular motion.


----------



## John the Monkey (16 Sep 2015)

I can eat a fruit pastille without chewing it.

Most of the time.


----------



## Milkfloat (16 Sep 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> I've thrown a kettle over a pub.



I caught a raw egg that was thrown over a house (only took 9 attempts).


----------



## raleighnut (16 Sep 2015)

I once ate 3 shredded wheat for breakfast..........................................................I had to go for a lie down after though


----------



## roadrash (16 Sep 2015)

I have on the odd occasion beaten my grandaughter at snakes and ladders and i have climbed everest blindfolded











one of the above may be untrue, its down to you to decide which


----------



## User169 (16 Sep 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Go on then a Film about Lance Armstrong using his name and he will not receive any money for it.
> 
> How did they manage that?



You don't necessarily need to pay someone just because you make a film about them. The film is based on David Walsh' book Seven Deadly Sins, so it's likely Walsh who will be making money via sale of the film rights. Pierre Ballester isn't too happy according to a piece in cyclingnews yesterday.


----------



## AndyRM (16 Sep 2015)

I've got numchuck skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills. Great skills.

Beat that Lance!


----------



## cashy293 (16 Sep 2015)

blazed said:


> You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. So what if he was an peanut as well, what successful person isn't? If you want to get places you have to tread on a few people.
> 
> Funny when you see people slagging off a guy like Armstrong who has achieved so much, has more talent in one of his pubes than this entire forum put together. What have ya'll done that's so impressive?



Not taking into account you seem to have little knowledge of doping with comments like saying it was an even playing field as @Simpleton pointed out, its the fact you seem to think it's OK to 'tread on a few people' the way he did.

PS - Never thought I'd see the _word_ *ya'll* used in this forum so for that, I applaud you!


----------



## User169 (16 Sep 2015)

Citius said:


> You seem happy to assume lots of things on the basis of very little knowledge. 'Livestrong' is trademarked. Lance's birth name is not. As others have said, just move on.



It's not especially relevant, but Armstrong did actually obtain trademarks in the US on his birth name in relation to some goods and services, eg. bikes. Some of these marks remain in force.


----------



## Big Dave laaa (16 Sep 2015)

blazed said:


> You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. So what if he was an peanut as well, what successful person isn't? If you want to get places you have to tread on a few people.
> 
> Funny when you see people slagging off a guy like Armstrong who has achieved so much, has more talent in one of his pubes than this entire forum put together. What have ya'll done that's so impressive?



Something of an armstrong fanboy I'm guessing. Do you still wear your Liestrong wristband? Ya'll come back now y'hear


----------



## cashy293 (16 Sep 2015)

Big Dave laaa said:


> Something of an armstrong fanboy I'm guessing. Do you still wear your *Liestrong* wristband? Ya'll come back now y'hear



See what you did there. Very good!


----------



## mythste (16 Sep 2015)

I still have a livestrong lightweight top that I love too much to stop wearing.

I occasionally smoke in it to assert my understanding of the situation.


----------



## blazed (16 Sep 2015)

Big Dave laaa said:


> Something of an armstrong fanboy I'm guessing. Do you still wear your Liestrong wristband? Ya'll come back now y'hear


Absolutely. He's a legend. I grew up with him as a role model and I turned out perfect.


----------



## Smokin Joe (16 Sep 2015)

Delftse Post said:


> It's not especially relevant, but Armstrong did actually obtain trademarks in the US on his birth name in relation to some goods and services, eg. bikes. Some of these marks remain in force.


That wouldn't cover every use of your name. You can't stop people writing books or making films about you neither can you demand a share of the profits.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (16 Sep 2015)

blazed said:


> You cannot watch or enjoy pro cycling with out the little doubt in the back of your head that whichever rider you are seeing is doping. Any one rider could easily be doping at any given time.
> 
> This is not because of Armstrong it's long been the way in cycling. The biggest names in cycling were dopers, but nobody has the hate that Armstrong does. His work outside of cycling is incredible as well. Regardless of doping, he's an extremely hard working, ambitious, determined individual and that is to be respected.
> 
> He was the best cyclist of all time. And he still cycles almost everyday and fanboys like me can give him kudos on strava.



And the Kray twins were lovely to their dear old ma and never killed a man that didn't deserve it.

Nobody is denying the depth and bredth of doping in LAs time, nor before and to a lesser degree (hopefully) after but the rest were content to skulk in the shadows and lie/deny and change the subject.

LA garners the hate he does because of the heavy handed and vindictive manner in which he went out deliberately to brutalise and defame critics and those telling the truth about him when he didn't want the truth told.

You can be a doper without being a tulip about it. LA seemed not to realise that.

I still fancy seeing the film, I'm intrigued by that side of his nature and the seeming industrialisation of team doping that he engendered that took Festina's '98 work to a whole new level. Also that the likes of Emma O'Reilly (?) and Bassons seem willing to forgive or at least understand.


----------



## blazed (16 Sep 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> And the Kray twins were lovely to their dear old ma and never killed a man that didn't deserve it.
> 
> Nobody is denying the depth and bredth of doping in LAs time, nor before and to a lesser degree (hopefully) after but the rest were content to skulk in the shadows and lie/deny and change the subject.
> 
> ...



That's all well and good. A few people got took a hard time from Lance, boo hoo.

A positive side of him lieing is that the livestrong foundation flourished and has today raised over half a billion dollars for cancer research.

Is that not more important than a few two bobs getting hurt? Had he admitted to doping at the beginning, that money would not have been raised, how many people may have died due to not receiving that help?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (16 Sep 2015)

And how much more might have been raised if he hadn't dragged the Armstrong name into the gutter?

I seem to recall Livesteong doing a very good job of distancing themself from the man.

Two bobs???? As in two bob bits, rhyming slang or some colloquialism I've not heard?

Clearly disparaging & betrays a less than delightful attitude to innocent human beings telling the truth in your blinkered view.


----------



## AndyRM (16 Sep 2015)

Livestrong was originally called The Lance Armstrong Foundation. They changed names in 2012. Can't think why.

Anyway, I've been reading some reviews of the film. Not gone down that well from what I've seen. Mid-October for a UK release.


----------



## Herbie (16 Sep 2015)

mustang1 said:


> Me too!
> But i reckon he also doped.





Has he been stripped of all his tour titles etc?


----------



## Crandoggler (16 Sep 2015)

He also was meticulous in his race preparation, often repeating stages over and over. To be honest, if everyone wasn't cheating, and he wasn't, he probably would have won anyway.


----------



## Crackle (16 Sep 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> He also was meticulous in his race preparation, often repeating stages over and over. To be honest, if everyone wasn't cheating, and he wasn't, he probably would have won anyway.


That made me laugh out loud.


----------



## hennbell (16 Sep 2015)

He broke the rules at a time when almost everyone else was doing the same thing, That does not make it correct but explains it a little.


----------



## Hip Priest (16 Sep 2015)

I think it's almost certain that Lance Armstrong is a psychopath.


----------



## mustang1 (16 Sep 2015)

Herbie said:


> Has he been stripped of all his tour titles etc?



Nah, he didn't get caught.


----------



## Andrew_P (16 Sep 2015)

Still stay no one else rides a bike like Armstrong did going up those HC climbs, just the style I am talking about. I still find it exciting to watch and I now he was doping to the max.


----------



## Andrew_P (16 Sep 2015)

John the Monkey said:


> Have we had these yet?
> 
> http://www.outsideonline.com/1904781/its-not-about-lab-rats
> 
> http://www.outsideonline.com/1912911/our-fight-lance-and-livestrong


They still tried to cash in on viral videos.


----------



## John the Monkey (16 Sep 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> They still tried to cash in on viral videos.


Invalidating the points in the critical articles?

Or is this just that start of some sort of charming non-sequitur thread?

(In which case, Saxophone, daschund, brocolli).


----------



## Andrew_P (16 Sep 2015)

John the Monkey said:


> Invalidating the points in the critical articles?
> 
> Or is this just that start of some sort of charming non-sequitur thread?
> 
> (In which case, Saxophone, daschund, brocolli).


Meaning business is business which is effectively what Armstrong was at the time of the doping and the subsequent attacks on anyone trying to remove his sole business income. In other words I find it ironic that a publication that spent a lot of time attacking him was prepared to give him airtime as part of Armstrong's spin to get back off the naughty step which I think it is fair to assume was a monetised decision.


----------



## John the Monkey (16 Sep 2015)

Andrew_P said:


> Meaning business is business which is effectively what Armstrong was at the time of the doping and the subsequent attacks on anyone trying to remove his sole business income. In other words I find it ironic that a publication that spent a lot of time attacking him was prepared to give him airtime as part of Armstrong's spin to get back off the naughty step which I think it is fair to assume was a monetised decision.


But not invalidating the points in the articles critical of him, though?


----------



## stephec (16 Sep 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> And the Kray twins were lovely to their dear old ma and never killed a man that didn't deserve it.
> 
> Nobody is denying the depth and bredth of doping in LAs time, nor before and to a lesser degree (hopefully) after but the rest were content to skulk in the shadows and lie/deny and change the subject.
> 
> ...



That's the difference between him and all the other dopers, for what he tried to do to Lemond he deserves all the scorn he gets.

How many of the dopers of his time have phoned up someone and threatened to reveal a secret from their childhood to try and silence them?

He met his match in Betsy Andreu though, I'd love to see her give him a good stiff kick in the knackers.


----------



## stephec (16 Sep 2015)

User13710 said:


> Quite right. There's a flaw in that last sentence though.


She's got bigger ones than him?


----------



## blazed (16 Sep 2015)

stephec said:


> She's got bigger ones than him?


He's only got 1 ball. So knacker not knackers.


----------



## Tin Pot (16 Sep 2015)

blazed said:


> It will never be a truly level field. Nature itself makes sure of that.



A good point. Two athletes putting in exactly the same training effort, and/or training program, one will be better than the other. So are we cheering their genetic luck when they cross the line first?


----------



## stephec (16 Sep 2015)

blazed said:


> He's only got 1 ball. So knacker not knackers.


You learn something new every day.


----------



## Tin Pot (16 Sep 2015)

I like the way the mention of his name upsets so many people. That's always a good thing.


----------



## Simpleton (16 Sep 2015)

Crackle said:


> That made me laugh out loud.



Dunno about that. Armstrong as an athlete was superb. Measured VO2 is one of the highest ever recorded. And having read Emma O'Reilys book she talks about Armstrongs amazing ability to recover, without the need to dope.


----------



## Big Dave laaa (16 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> Dunno about that. Armstrong as an athlete was superb. Measured VO2 is one of the highest ever recorded. And having read Emma O'Reilys book she talks about Armstrongs amazing ability to recover, without the need to dope.



Actually this was all part of the web of lies that were spun to mask his doping. The real data shows that his VO2 max was nowhere near what was claimed and his heart isn't particularly massive. It was his ego that was exceptional and the chip on his shoulder


----------



## Crandoggler (16 Sep 2015)

Indeed. He was, without doping, an incredibly talented athlete. Unfortunately for him, he got caught out.


----------



## Crackle (16 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> Dunno about that. Armstrong as an athlete was superb. Measured VO2 is one of the highest ever recorded. And having read Emma O'Reilys book she talks about Armstrongs amazing ability to recover, without the need to dope.


Yeah but he was certainly prepared.


----------



## Simpleton (16 Sep 2015)

Big Dave laaa said:


> Actually this was all part of the web of lies that were spun to mask his doping. The real data shows that his VO2 max was nowhere near what was claimed and his heart isn't particularly massive. It was his ego that was exceptional and the chip on his shoulder



Really? I'd have thought the VO2 test was done early on in his carear pre doping. It does make sense when you take into account Armstrongs performances in one day races which was very good. He did of course fix the triple crown but he won the Worlds pre doping. I'll look into that further.


----------



## blazed (16 Sep 2015)

I heard he had a resting heart rate of 9 beats per minute and the life expectancy of a Galapagos tortoise.


----------



## Citius (16 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> but he won the Worlds pre doping.



I think he won the worlds the same year he began doping. His legendary 'high cadence' is another smokescreen perpretated by his entourage. Typically, it was no higher than anyone else's..


----------



## User169 (17 Sep 2015)

Smokin Joe said:


> That wouldn't cover every use of your name. You can't stop people writing books or making films about you neither can you demand a share of the profits.



That's why I said it wasn't especially relevant. Lance did also file a trademark application for his name in connection with the provision of oncology pharmaceuticals. Imagine taking Lance Armstrong branded medicines!


----------



## shouldbeinbed (17 Sep 2015)

Delftse Post said:


> That's why I said it wasn't especially relevant. Lance did also file a trademark application for his name in connection with the provision of oncology pharmaceuticals. Imagine taking Lance Armstrong branded medicines!


Well you know they'd be effective, the issue would be forcing your family to take them to assist you


----------



## blazed (17 Sep 2015)




----------



## shouldbeinbed (17 Sep 2015)

Ye cannit get vexed at Viz Letters


----------



## John the Monkey (17 Sep 2015)

Simpleton said:


> Really? I'd have thought the VO2 test was done early on in his carear pre doping.


The usual thing trotted out is the study Ed Coyle made of him (although, obviously don't know whether that's what you're referring to).

The problems with that are tackled in various places, iirc, but here's the Science of Sport blog;
http://sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors-evaluation/
http://sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-armstrong-research-installment-2/


----------



## Lemond (17 Sep 2015)

Even with the benefits of EPO, I still reckon it takes a bloody good cyclist to win seven TDFs...especially as many, many others would have been doping too.

Totally against cheating / doping and I'm glad he got caught, but there must have been a great deal of talent there to begin with.

Should make for a great movie.


----------



## Cer_r0bbo (17 Sep 2015)

Whether this clouds the issue or not I am looking forward to seeing the film! An infamous character like his is definitely filmworthy!


----------



## shouldbeinbed (17 Sep 2015)

Lemond said:


> Even with the benefits of EPO, I still reckon it takes a bloody good cyclist to win seven TDFs...especially as many, many others would have been doping too.
> 
> Totally against cheating / doping and I'm glad he got caught, but there must have been a great deal of talent there to begin with.
> 
> Should make for a great movie.


kinda ironic opinion for your choice of username. 

dope isn't dope isn't dope nor is the susceptibility or propensity for doing it the same in everyone so to imply that all dopers just raised the bar uniformly against the clean benchmark is maybe a little naive but I quite agree in a world where there were no PED's or blood bags, Armstrong's rather single minded nature and physical attributes would still have seen him doing well as a pro rider.

Chistophe Basson's book highlights the parallels in physique and attitude etc between himself and LA and as an avowed clean rider CB could mix with the enhanced riders up to a certain point on physical ability, smart training and talent alone.


----------



## le velo mec (21 Sep 2015)

I think, to relate to the original post of this thread, the film will appeal to anyone who likes a human interest story, even if it is about a megalomaniac anti-hero, those who can't get enough of a cycling fix no matter what and possibly Texans. Armstrong rode into a peloton that doped, but he had his wake up call and opportunity to come back clean. He didn't. I guess he was addicted in many ways, and some are still addicted by him. To those like me who believe in clean sport and the belief that the peloton is the cleanest it has ever been the film won't appeal as it seems to revere a cheat. It is history, but one that leaves a bad taste. Admittedly I am only guessing on how the film will portray him and if he is vilified then I say buy a ticket!


----------



## aberal (7 Oct 2015)

Has Ben Foster got to the essence of Armstrong? Maybe not, but interesting stuff about "becoming" Armstrong...http://www.mensjournal.com/adventure/collection/ben-foster-on-becoming-lance-20151006


----------

