# Lance Armstrong, love or loathe, in 2019



## stoatsngroats (2 Jun 2019)

View: https://youtu.be/ac_x4ucbReo


Just saw this.

Is he a self interested person, or someone who made some big mistakes but overall is wanting to help people.

I think the times I watched Le Tour, when he was cycling, there was something about his desire to win which made some unbelievable and exciting tv.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (2 Jun 2019)

Loathe, thanks.


----------



## roadrash (2 Jun 2019)

Hes a nob ed ……. hes desire to win by cheating you mean


----------



## Crackle (2 Jun 2019)

When I watch him my overall impression is that he still regrets he was caught and I can't get past that. There's a defiance which just won't go away. He's learned to swallow it but that's it, he's now selling the world a new story and he's good at selling stories.


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Jun 2019)

I loathe his actions, but there is something about him as a person I admire.

I'd love to meet him.


----------



## stoatsngroats (2 Jun 2019)

roadrash said:


> Hes a nob ed ……. hes desire to win by cheating you mean



Yes, I get that, but that’s not the worst thing for me, because it appears that it was common, if not rife, in the peloton of those years.
It’s more the vociferous lies for years, that he actually wasn’t doping in any way, that makes me dislike him as much as I do.


----------



## roadrash (2 Jun 2019)

I agree with you , and I feel the same for all riders who are guilty of cheating in what ever way. as crackle says I thing armstrongs only regret is being caught


----------



## cyberknight (2 Jun 2019)

stoatsngroats said:


> Yes, I get that, but that’s not the worst thing for me, because it appears that it was common, if not rife, in the peloton of those years.
> It’s more the vociferous lies for years, that he actually wasn’t doping in any way, that makes me dislike him as much as I do.


And the way he stomped all over everyone in the process


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2019)

Not love,but kind of admire him...still. I think it's more the beating cancer than his 7 dodgy TdF wins. He still competes and is still a great athlete. If he hadn't taken those mickey finns he could've still won the TdF 3,4 or 5 times.

I might even name one of my palm trees Lance!


----------



## Supersuperleeds (2 Jun 2019)

He's a cheating nobber who shouldn't be given any air time.


----------



## otek59 (2 Jun 2019)

roadrash said:


> I agree with you , and I feel the same for all riders who are guilty of cheating in what ever way. as crackle says I thing armstrongs only regret is being caught


 I believe he thought he was invincible and that the rules did not apply to him, sounds like another American in a position of power


----------



## cyberknight (2 Jun 2019)

Accy cyclist said:


> Not love,but kind of admire him...still. I think it's more the beating cancer than his 7 dodgy TdF wins. He still competes and is still a great athlete. If he hadn't taken those mickey finns he could've still won the TdF 3,4 or 5 times.
> 
> I might even name one of my palm trees Lance!


until he doped he was never going to be a GT contender as evidenced by his results prior to cancer, a good stage / one day er maybe but his vo2 max and haemocrit levels were nothing to write home about ( for a top althete anyway ) .Untill ferrari took him under his wing .
Of course i admire the determination to beat cancer at the level he had and come back to any level and maybe that determination overspilled into the way he treated people but it still does not excuse the way he did .
Read its not about the bike which was ghost written then compare notes with 7 deadly sins by david walsh


----------



## Slick (2 Jun 2019)

I reckon he's served his time.


----------



## Heltor Chasca (2 Jun 2019)

Slick said:


> I reckon he's served his time.



And very nicely too. I think he probably cleans up quite nicely from all the subsequent attention.


----------



## otek59 (2 Jun 2019)

I think with hindsight maybe we just ignore him don’t give him the attention as a narcissist he craves. And turn our attention to positive aspects of the sport


----------



## stoatsngroats (2 Jun 2019)

otek59 said:


> I think with hindsight maybe we just ignore him don’t give him the attention as a narcissist he craves. And turn our attention to positive aspects of the sport



That’s a good point, and I’m really looking forward to Tdf this year, it should be a good one.


----------



## Slick (2 Jun 2019)

Heltor Chasca said:


> And very nicely too. I think he probably cleans up quite nicely from all the subsequent attention.


I'm not entirely sure if "cleans up well" is a phrase I'd use. Like others have mentioned, he comes across as someone who is more sorry he was caught rather sorry he did it. That said, build a bridge and get over it. He wasn't the first and there is a few more stories to come from the peloton today. 

I don't love him or loath him but it would be great to have an honest conversation with him.


----------



## Accy cyclist (2 Jun 2019)

cyberknight said:


> until he doped he was never going to be a GT contender as evidenced by his results prior to cancer, a good stage / one day er maybe but his vo2 max and haemocrit levels were nothing to write home about ( for a top althete anyway ) .Untill ferrari took him under his wing .
> Of course i admire the determination to beat cancer at the level he had and come back to any level and maybe that determination overspilled into the way he treated people but it still does not excuse the way he did .
> Read its not about the bike which was ghost written then compare notes with 7 deadly sins by david walsh


Ok,some good points there,but I won't 'like' your post as it'd kind of be an admission that i'm wrong about him.


----------



## otek59 (2 Jun 2019)

Slick said:


> I'm not entirely sure if "cleans up well" is a phrase I'd use. Like others have mentioned, he comes across as someone who is more sorry he was caught rather sorry he did it. That said, build a bridge and get over it. He wasn't the first and there is a few more stories to come from the peloton today.
> 
> I don't love him or loath him but it would be great to have an honest conversation with him.


I think it would be difficult to have a honest conversation with him


----------



## Slick (2 Jun 2019)

otek59 said:


> I think it would be difficult to have a honest conversation with him


That's why it would be great.


----------



## welsh dragon (2 Jun 2019)

He was a bare faced liar, cheat, and as others said the only thing he regretted was getting caught. He cheated many cyclists out of the real possibility of being able to beat him if the races had been run in a fair way.

They way he stood his ground and told outright lies in front of the camera for years beggars belief. Not someone I would like to meet and certainly not someone I could ever admire.


----------



## fossyant (2 Jun 2019)

A cheating git, that made some people's life a misery - ex. friends and partners etc I've read a few things about how much of a driven narcissist he was - didn't give a hoot about anyone, and would destroy anyone that got in his way.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (2 Jun 2019)

fossyant said:


> A cheating git, that made some people's life a misery - ex. friends and partners etc I've read a few things about how much of a driven narcissist he was - didn't give a hoot about anyone, and would destroy anyone that got in his way.


...and actively, and with consummate malice destroyed entirely innocent people


----------



## fossyant (2 Jun 2019)

Bonefish Blues said:


> ...and actively, and with consummate malice destroyed entirely innocent people



Exactly. Horrid man.


----------



## TheDoctor (2 Jun 2019)

In 2008 I posted this.


TheDoctor said:


> [Because] even in his autobiography he comes across as an arrogant, self-centred pr1ck?


I stand by it, except I'd add bullying, lying and despicable to the charge sheet too.


----------



## screenman (2 Jun 2019)

I would suggest maybe the guy has mental problems, lots of people do.


----------



## fossyant (2 Jun 2019)

TheDoctor said:


> In 2008 I posted this.
> 
> I stand by it, except I'd add bullying, lying and despicable to the charge sheet too.



I thought a lot of him at the time, but then found out the truth. It's the damage to others that he did I can't forgive - he can cheat, but drag all sorts of folk through 'legal proceedings' and more.... 

Oh and having a pop at good old Greg Lemond did it for me.


----------



## fossyant (2 Jun 2019)

screenman said:


> I would suggest maybe the guy has mental problems, lots of people do.



Maybe now, I've not watched the OP's video, but not when he was a calculating evil barsteward.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (2 Jun 2019)

screenman said:


> I would suggest maybe the guy has mental problems, lots of people do.


Classic psychopathy, perhaps?


----------



## screenman (2 Jun 2019)

Bonefish Blues said:


> Classic psychopathy, perhaps?



Not a clue as it is not a subject I have much knowledge of.


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Jun 2019)

fossyant said:


> I thought a lot of him at the time, but then found out the truth. It's the damage to others that he did I can't forgive - he can cheat, but drag all sorts of folk through 'legal proceedings' and more....
> 
> Oh and having a pop at good old Greg Lemond did it for me.


Lemond was no saint. See the 1982 World Championship road race.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (2 Jun 2019)

screenman said:


> Not a clue as it is not a subject I have much knowledge of.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...le-dont-do/201602/5-traits-actual-psychopaths


----------



## fossyant (2 Jun 2019)

Smokin Joe said:


> Lemond was no saint. See the 1982 World Championship road race.



He was no Lance or Hinault either.... Lance was something else... Hinault was a tw@t that Lemond stood up to.


----------



## Dogtrousers (2 Jun 2019)

Who?

Neither love nor loathe. Just not in the least bit interested.


----------



## mickle (2 Jun 2019)

I never liked him as a human being but as a fellow testicular cancer surviving cyclist I saw him as an inspiration. So I was absolutely gutted when he was proved to be cheating. Actually he destroyed my love of professional cycling. I'll never forgive the daffodil.


----------



## fossyant (2 Jun 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> Who?
> 
> Neither love nor loathe. Just not in the least bit interested.



If you knew the history, then it's a massive issue for cyclists. I could explain, but, they made MOVIES...


----------



## Ian H (2 Jun 2019)

Professional cycling has always been a dirty sport (the riders mostly scraped a living however they could for most of its history), but there was a camaraderie between them, and a code of honour, and they rode the season together. Armstrong nearly destroyed all that. The damage is still there.


----------



## Dogtrousers (2 Jun 2019)

fossyant said:


> If you knew the history, then it's a massive issue for cyclists. I could explain, but, they made MOVIES...


I am well aware of the history thanks. 

I'm not in the least bit interested in him now.


----------



## Grant Fondo (2 Jun 2019)

I was worried he might crawl from under his rock at some point.


----------



## huwsparky (2 Jun 2019)

No one else was doping at that point were they. Best of a bad bunch, as simple as that really.


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Jun 2019)

huwsparky said:


> No one else was doping at that point were they. Best of a bad bunch, as simple as that really.



I would say that is very simplistic. Yes, a large percentage of people were cheating at the time, but this is a man who ruined many peoples lives.


----------



## MichaelW2 (3 Jun 2019)

Not only the drug cheating but the appalling way he treated the people who called him out, using his immense power in the sport to destroy careers.


----------



## Venod (3 Jun 2019)

He was the best of the best dopers, he was winning when a lot of his rivals were also doping, but the stories about his bullying ways are not an endearing trait, him getting caught and having his titles removed is probably the best thing that has happened to the sport, there were (and still are) plenty of lesser riders caught for doping, but would things have changed if Lance hadn't been outed?


----------



## Edwardoka (3 Jun 2019)

I could just about forgive the doping (the sport was riddled with it before he reached the top level) if he were manipulated into doing it by team leaders/managers but at the level of involvement he had? Never.

_He _was the ringleader. One who used manipulation, coercion, cajoling, intimidation and bullying on people within his sphere to force them to dope and keep their silence, and who wielded his not-inconsiderable influence with searing aggression to destroy anyone who tried to get in his way.

I too found him to be hugely inspirational when I was foolish enough to believe that he was clean, which probably goes some way to explain why many successful people are sociopaths and how many sociopaths are successful.

According to a cursory google his net worth is still ~$50m. Not a bad amount for an egomaniacal narcissist whose arrogance nearly brought down an entire sport.

A thoroughly contemptible person, anyone who defends him now or thinks that he's changed is either deluded or intellectually dishonest.


----------



## KneesUp (3 Jun 2019)

I'm sure he regrets the 'comeback' with Astana, but he's recently said that he'd do nothing different (that might be the interview in the OP, but I'm at work so I can't watch it) so maybe not.

I would imagine that he meant that - given the same set of circumstances - he'd do the same again. Those circumstances being a good cyclist coming to Europe and finding himself losing against good cyclists who were doping. As much as I'd like to pretend that I wouldn't dope, if my choice was a short career making up the numbers as a badly paid junior rider in a second division team, or winning stuff and getting better paid over a longer career, I think I'd choose the latter. The sheer number of top cyclists from that era who have admitted taking drugs, or were caught taking drugs, suggests that realistically you couldn't win without doping. That's a hard thing to come to terms with when you've committed to being the best you can be, especially as to do that you need to be a competitive, driven person anyway.

I guess if he'd not cheated, his cycling career would have lasted a few years, and he'd have gone back to Texas and done a normal job and become bitter and angry about being cheated out of his cycling career. As it is, he stood on the top of the podium in Paris seven times and has a reported $50 million. So at this stage, it would seem that he made the best choice for him, if not the sport. And yes, I am aware that by doing what he did, he ensured that other talented cyclists who would not dope had short careers and then couldn't get a ride.


----------



## Smokin Joe (3 Jun 2019)

KneesUp said:


> I'm sure he regrets the 'comeback' with Astana, but he's recently said that he'd do nothing different (that might be the interview in the OP, but I'm at work so I can't watch it) so maybe not.
> 
> I would imagine that he meant that - given the same set of circumstances - he'd do the same again. Those circumstances being a good cyclist coming to Europe and finding himself losing against good cyclists who were doping. As much as I'd like to pretend that I wouldn't dope, if my choice was a short career making up the numbers as a badly paid junior rider in a second division team, or winning stuff and getting better paid over a longer career, I think I'd choose the latter. The sheer number of top cyclists from that era who have admitted taking drugs, or were caught taking drugs, suggests that realistically you couldn't win without doping. That's a hard thing to come to terms with when you've committed to being the best you can be, especially as to do that you need to be a competitive, driven person anyway.
> 
> I guess if he'd not cheated, his cycling career would have lasted a few years, and he'd have gone back to Texas and done a normal job and become bitter and angry about being cheated out of his cycling career. As it is, he stood on the top of the podium in Paris seven times and has a reported $50 million. So at this stage, it would seem that he made the best choice for him, if not the sport. And yes, I am aware that by doing what he did, he ensured that other talented cyclists who would not dope had short careers and then couldn't get a ride.


Good post.

I've always said that if I'd been a pro in those days or before I'd almost certainly have doped, unless I had the natural ability to thrive without doing so. For a rider to go from outside the European mainland pre performance plan and Sky meant packing your bags and slumming it in a country where you didn't know the language or the culture in the hope that you would fight your way through the thousands of other contestants to land a pro contract - with an unsympathetic team who'd put a boot up your arse when it ended if you hadn't performed. Most cyclists who took that route had nothing to come back to, they had lived for the sport since they first bought a bike and had nothing in the way of qualifications or a trade. Returning after having not made it would be fairly humiliating, having to face clubmates and families who'd spent your two years boasting about how one of their own had "Made it". 

And all the time the team doctor and other riders are assuring you that what was available to enhance your performance was perfectly safe, and anyway, "Everyone was doing it". Even the authorities were turning a blind eye. It would have taken a saintliness far in excess of anything I possess (And most of the vocal anti-dopers, despite what they like to think) to have said "Non", and got the ferry back to the job at Dagenham bunging suspension legs on Cortinas.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Jun 2019)

He is a low down snake who was happy to ruin others careers, threaten and intimidate, because he wasnt man enough to put his hands up. 

He is the absolute worst face of cycle sport and should not be able to make another penny from anything to do with cycling.


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Jun 2019)

I would have doped too, but I would not have been such a c*** about it. I would like to think I would have been a David Millar kind of cheat.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Jun 2019)

If I had been a pro cyclist I would have been so good I wouldn't have needed to cheat.

Hey if you're going to change the past you may as well make a good job of it.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (4 Jun 2019)

otek59 said:


> I believe he thought he was invincible and that the rules did not apply to him, sounds like another American in a position of power



That wouldn't be the only resemblance. He was being lined up by Republicans for a run at the Governorship of Texas, and I am pretty sure that his ambitions would not have stopped there. So we may have been spared President Armstrong at least...


----------



## david k (15 Jun 2019)

He definitely has a personality disorder of some type. He cannot accept he has done anything wrong, regrets being caught, blames others for the situation and seeks retribution.

But something about these personality types that draw others in, they are winners and they struggle with rejection, not winning is rejection. They often have a high degree of emotional intelligence meaning they can easily manipulate others and enjoy doing so, those they can't they dismiss. We see lots of that in his riding days, black and white thinking, your with me or against me attitude. They know how to be charming, and use it to their advantage but can turn if they don't get their own way.

I find him fascinating interesting and like to hear him in interviews, but I don't like him or people with his personality, the corporate world is full of them, stepping on others to climb the ladder, people who are weak will latch onto them, people with integrity will confront them and be pushed out, if they have a fall like in his case others are happy to witness the 'bully' fall from grace, the hangers on desperately try to put distance between them.

So yes we do tend to get the love or loathe attitude towards these personality types, either way they are interesting and good media

Can you think of other people with this personality trait/s either personally, professionally or in the media?


----------



## Edwardoka (15 Jun 2019)

david k said:


> He definitely has a personality disorder of some type. He cannot accept he has done anything wrong, regrets being caught, blames others for the situation and seeks retribution.
> 
> But something about these personality types that draw others in, they are winners and they struggle with rejection, not winning is rejection. They often have a high degree of emotional intelligence meaning they can easily manipulate others and enjoy doing so, those they can't they dismiss. We see lots of that in his riding days, black and white thinking, your with me or against me attitude. They know how to be charming, and use it to their advantage but can turn if they don't get their own way.
> 
> ...


Personally, not so much. I naturally tend to distance myself from confident or self-assured people. Possibly an alpha male thing (of which I am most certainly not) or a defence mechanism against aggressive behaviour (grew up on a sink estate, survival instinct)

Professionally, yes, a couple of times. The most obvious was in a certain electricity supplier, someone I worked with ruined many people's career prospects at that place, she tried to undermine people at every turn while claiming to be a team player, and when, try as she might, she couldn't break a system that someone else had put in place, she claimed credit for it. Pure sociopathy. I know of several people who quit because of her.

In the media, I think it's probably quicker to list the people who _don't_ have these personality traits.


----------



## david k (15 Jun 2019)

Edwardoka said:


> Personally, not so much. I naturally tend to distance myself from confident or self-assured people. Possibly an alpha male thing (of which I am most certainly not) or a defence mechanism against aggressive behaviour (grew up on a sink estate, survival instinct)
> 
> Professionally, yes, a couple of times. The most obvious was in a certain electricity supplier, someone I worked with ruined many people's career prospects at that place, she tried to undermine people at every turn while claiming to be a team player, and when, try as she might, she couldn't break a system that someone else had put in place, she claimed credit for it. Pure sociopathy. I know of several people who quit because of her.
> 
> In the media, I think it's probably quicker to list the people who _don't_ have these personality traits.



That's very interesting and imo typical. I've met several and one that stands out. His need for control was bizarre and extreme. He ran a department, there were several line managers and I was one. I was up and coming, eager and highly regarded as the next in line, that was enough for him to target me. Other managers who didn't have aspirations were left to do what they want, but he micro managed me, I went along with it, assuming that it would pay off eventually, hoping my reasoning would make him reconsider his approach. This was a mistake, he saw it as a soft touch and increased the control, over time this ruins your confidence as you stop making decisions without approval, question your own thoughts and decisions and self esteem is affected. This then starts to affect your performance and he had me were he wanted me, I tried numerous things but all failed. I dropped down the pecking order and eventually when he was sacked(nobody shed a tear!) my position wasn't as strong as it was, in fact I'd say it was tainted with all the issues I had.

I was eventually down graded in a re structure and I just sat back and coasted until another opportunity elsewhere opened up, luckily it did and I'm in a great position currently, so it did pay off in the end but I wouldn't let it happen again. I would confront it immedialty and pay any consequences as the long game may have worked but took several years of stress. I'm now a manager and this experience I believe helps me so not all bad.

Long was of saying theses personality types don't reason, don't have empathy but do have a gift for knowing your emotions and when to use them, this is Lance all day long and he won't change. I actually think he knows he is like this but kind of accepts it's him


----------



## Milzy (27 Jun 2019)

If Lance Armstrong had not been a high profile pro. Let’s say an English man from Ilkely cycling club. He wouldn’t have got the experimental cancer treatment which saved his life. It’s likely on the NHS he would have died. So the wrongs he did saved his life.


----------



## cyberknight (27 Jun 2019)

Milzy said:


> If Lance Armstrong had not been a high profile pro. Let’s say an English man from Ilkely cycling club. He wouldn’t have got the experimental cancer treatment which saved his life. It’s likely on the NHS he would have died. So the wrongs he did saved his life.


Although it could be argued that the cocktail of stuff he was taking could have lead to the cancer taking hold just as there seems to be a number of pros dieing with heart problems atm.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (27 Jun 2019)

Massive and unscrupulous ego still seeking redemption.....


----------



## slowmotion (27 Jun 2019)

His doping wasn't ideal, but plenty of others were at it too. What really singles him out as a despicable human being is the determination and ruthlessness with which he attempted to destroy the reputations and businesses of those who stood in his way. That's unforgivable.


----------



## Milzy (27 Jun 2019)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Massive and unscrupulous ego still seeking redemption.....


IMO Only David Millar achieved redemption. Nobody else ever will.


----------



## mustang1 (28 Jun 2019)

roadrash said:


> Hes a nob ed ……. hes desire to win by cheating you mean



I thought everyone in tdf would have a desire to win or they wouldn't be in that race in the first place. 

Everyone in that era cheated but Lance was a lot more assertive. If it's the assertiveness and bullying we don't like, then we should call him out, and we do. But to single him out as the only cheater is missing the overall picture, imho?


----------



## Bonefish Blues (28 Jun 2019)

I've been thinking about this since I posted about a month ago.

I still hate him.


----------



## KneesUp (28 Jun 2019)

Milzy said:


> IMO Only David Millar achieved redemption. Nobody else ever will.


Some didn't need to achieve redemption - you don't hear many people criticising Tom Simpson, for example.


----------



## Milkfloat (28 Jun 2019)

KneesUp said:


> Some didn't need to achieve redemption - you don't hear many people criticising Tom Simpson, for example.



You do, he was doped up to the eyeballs!


----------



## roadrash (28 Jun 2019)

mustang1 said:


> I thought everyone in tdf would have a desire to win or they wouldn't be in that race in the first place.
> 
> Everyone in that era cheated but Lance was a lot more assertive. If it's the assertiveness and bullying we don't like, then we should call him out, and we do. But to single him out as the only cheater is missing the overall picture, imho?



I am pretty sure I did not, and have not, singled him out as the "ONLY" cheating rider


----------



## Edwardoka (28 Jun 2019)

Milzy said:


> IMO Only David Millar achieved redemption. Nobody else ever will.


Jury's still out on that one. Some people believe firmly in the maxim "once a doper, always a doper".

I seem to recall some people at GCN being quite opinionated about such matters, though admittedly that didn't stop them going for a ride with him in the countryside around Girona and interviewing him about his time-trialling philosophy.


----------



## Dogtrousers (28 Jun 2019)

Jury's definitely out on Millar. Nicole Cooke is definitely not a fan. Graeme Obree made some pretty damning comments about him at the time when Millar was made "Super Squeaky Cleanliness Honcho" of British Cycling, or some such mantle, a couple of years ago. I don't know if he still holds that post.

We are all entirely free to form our opinions people on the based on our own biases, and on their character and their story as well as their chemical intake. Which is why Armstrong is an embarrassment who is best forgotten and Pantani and Simpson are a tragic folk heroes.

Millar ... I do think he's quite good on the telly as a pundit, but I still don't like him.


----------



## stoatsngroats (28 Jun 2019)

An interesting thread, thanks for your thoughts!
My thoughts at the time we’re that he was exciting to watch, I was aware of some of the allegations over the years, but believed the lies that others saw through. I have similar dislike for other around at the time, and since, but always enjoyed the competitiveness each one of those above showed.

Maybe I’m not really interested in the stuff going on behind these scenes, more interested in the ‘show’. 
When you consider other personalities across other sports, and dare I say, entertainment, music, politics etc. I may 
be superficial, but at the time of watching, I’m frequently spellbound by effort, daring, strength, and competitive spirit. It’s better when there is a clean approach obviously, but maybe I like the ‘moment’ rather than the histrionics.

I bought some Livestong items, at the time, and I’m glad we had the spectacle of those years. It may have been equally spectacular without the whole episode, of course, and history has been rewritten to expunge that period.

Slightly different, I realise, but is F1, athletics, even movies and drama, any different to those cycling times? 

Will cycling ever be different, believeable, trustworthy? Maybe, maybe not, but damn it’s very watchable innit?
Cheers for involving yourself in my original post!
SnG


----------



## david k (28 Jun 2019)

mustang1 said:


> I thought everyone in tdf would have a desire to win or they wouldn't be in that race in the first place.
> 
> Everyone in that era cheated but Lance was a lot more assertive. If it's the assertiveness and bullying we don't like, then we should call him out, and we do. But to single him out as the only cheater is missing the overall picture, imho?


As far as I understand it, his cheating was more ruthless, determined and consistent whilst controlling many other riders, team mates and various people involved. 

I despise people like him, although I do find him fascinating


----------



## mustang1 (29 Jun 2019)

david k said:


> As far as I understand it, his cheating was more ruthless, determined and consistent whilst controlling many other riders, team mates and various people involved.
> 
> I despise people like him, although I do find him fascinating



Typical narcissist. I hate them. BUT I was in a car race once and someone accused me of cheating as I had a turbo installed which was not allowed. I told him he also has a turbo installed but he said that kind of cheating was ok because his turbo was smaller than mine. 

I digress but am making a round about point that they all cheated but Lance was called out because he was systematic.


----------



## Dogtrousers (29 Jun 2019)

mustang1 said:


> I digress but am making a round about point that they all cheated but Lance was called out because he was systematic.


Depends what you mean by "called out". Plenty of riders at the time were caught at the time (including Armstrong who managed to pull some strings and make it disappear) Plenty have been caught after the fact and had their race results annulled. He's nothing special.


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Jul 2019)

KneesUp said:


> Some didn't need to achieve redemption - you don't hear many people criticising Tom Simpson, for example.


You could justifiably criticize Simpson, but only in the same terms you could criticize virtually everyone who rode in that era. He was just unlucky in that his use of stimulants contributed to his high profile death.


----------



## KneesUp (2 Jul 2019)

Smokin Joe said:


> You could justifiably criticize Simpson, but only in the same terms you could criticize virtually everyone who rode in that era. He was just unlucky in that his use of stimulants contributed to his high profile death.


What do you mean by "that era" though? The 1960s? Pre-EPO? The era where cyclists did whatever they could in order to win?


----------



## Crackle (2 Jul 2019)

KneesUp said:


> What do you mean by "that era" though? The 1960s? Pre-EPO? The era where cyclists did whatever they could in order to win?


I think somewhere there is this very discussion. I can't recall all the details now but the doping laws were very different, almost non-existent and cycling was just moving out of an era of casually using stimulants to beginning to accept that they carried risks. 

Simpson's wasn't the first death, it led to further rules but anti-doping as we know it today didn't exist then, though it was gaining traction. 1964 was the first anti-doping tests at the Tokyo Olympics, 1965 Belgian and France enacted legislation about stimulants. Simpson died in '67, steroids weren't banned, not all amphetamines could be detected, some weren't even tested for, attitudes amongst the Peloton and the public had not hardened against drug use or begun to take the testing seriously, it wasn't even illegal in many countries and there was no WADA only the UCI. 

Systematic doping as we'd understand it today did not carry the same connotations, many still viewed it as necessary, racing schedules were different, how riders were paid was different, how they lived, how they were trained, everything, so sure, he doped, took stimulants and alchohol but it's not directly comparable to what Armstrong did, nor were the effects of stimulants anywhere near as potent as later steroids and then EPO which really could transform someone from Donkey to racehorse.


----------



## cheys03 (2 Jul 2019)

Bit late to the party, but loathe


----------



## Lloss (10 Jul 2019)

Just about all top cyclist have doped some have got caught some have not, EM springs to mind do we ban them all or just some of them, let us not forget the biggest doping team who have never been caught are racing today.I for one think LA was a tremendous rider.


----------



## roadrash (10 Jul 2019)

^^^^^ bollox ^^^^^


----------



## User169 (10 Jul 2019)

He's incorrigible!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lan...won-the-tour-de-france-if-everyone-was-clean/


----------



## rich p (10 Jul 2019)

Lloss said:


> Just about all top cyclist have doped some have got caught some have not, EM springs to mind do we ban them all or just some of them, let us not forget the biggest doping team who have never been caught are racing today.I for one think LA was a tremendous rider.


I don't understand why this poster is allowed to continually troll about the same subject yet my posts get deleted for criticising him.


----------



## Crackle (10 Jul 2019)




----------



## roadrash (11 Jul 2019)

rich p said:


> I don't understand why this poster is allowed to continually troll about the same subject yet my posts get deleted for criticising him.





good question, I haven't seen a good answer though


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 Jul 2019)

DP said:


> He's incorrigible!
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lan...won-the-tour-de-france-if-everyone-was-clean/


The daftest theory that does the rounds is the "level playing field" idea - that all doped riders would retain their relative rankings in the absence of doping programmes. It's so stupid I don't understand why it was put forward once, let alone repeatedly.


----------



## Edwardoka (11 Jul 2019)

I like Frankie Boyle's take on doping: "I don't want to see someone run 100 metres in 9 seconds. I want to see them run it in 2 seconds. I want to see someone with the legs of a kangaroo and the heart of a leopard."
It'd be pretty interesting to see what could be done if controlled substances, well... weren't. 

I don't miss the days where everyone was cheating, but I do miss the spectacle of big powerful riders hitting climbs hard (e.g. that time Armstrong gave Ullrich "the look" on Alpe d'Huez). It's a lot more visually exciting than a praying mantis hunched over his stem eking out a gap while riding at a level dictated by power meter.


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 Jul 2019)

What's that quote about the tour de France being like a sausage? Something like "I love the TdF and love sausages but I don't want to know how they are made"


----------



## Ming the Merciless (11 Jul 2019)

Can't say I pay much attention to him either way. He's history.


----------



## Milzy (11 Jul 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Can't say I pay much attention to him either way. He's history.


Not history to many who love his pod casts. He’s still the most talked about cyclist. The absolute cretin is still the best doped cyclist of all time.


----------



## suzeworld (22 Jul 2019)

I was thinking about him today

After getting over my absolute disgust in finding how he fooled me into believing in him, I am left with the fact that his story inspired me and I would never have tackled the alpine climbing I have done (post-cancer) without his inspiration. 
So even though the inspiration was part fakery the lasting effects on my life have been good.


----------



## KneesUp (22 Jul 2019)

Milzy said:


> Not history to many who love his pod casts. He’s still the most talked about cyclist. The absolute cretin is still the best doped cyclist of all time.


The podcast is quite good, once you get past all the advertorial content. Regardless of which results stand, he has definitely been there and done that, so his insights are still interesting. He can - surprisingly - laugh at himself too - one of the competition questions earlier on was something like 'Who has won the most Tour de France green jerseys?' which he stumbled over and then said something along the lines of 'I thought it was going to say who was won the most Tours de France - I was going to have to have words' Not comic gold, but it acknowledges the elephant in the room, and the relief makes you want to laugh.

He did point out yesterday though that he was still World Champion (1993)


----------



## fatjel (23 Jul 2019)

I have been watching his podcasts this year and I have to say quite enjoying them.
I don't get the doping thing tho. Armstrong the devil , Millar cool dude.
All the others somewhere in between.
I enjoy the scenery and the racing , doping is part of professional cycling and always has been
no worse in my view than an F1 car being a bit to wide.
Obviously if you're caught you're out but the decades of Armstrong outrage are a bit bewildering to me


----------



## suzeworld (23 Jul 2019)

It’s probably decades of outrage because he made such a “thing” of being clean. And seduced (most of us) us with that. Then his bullying was revealed and for me both of these factors magnified the cheating beyond the “usual” takes of dopage.


----------



## KneesUp (23 Jul 2019)

That sounds a little like his biggest crime was convincing people he wasn’t cheating. But surely all athletes do that?


----------



## suzeworld (23 Jul 2019)

No, I’m not saying anything about comparison of crimes. Fatjel’s asking why it still wrankles so much and I’m advancing a reason. I dunno how old you are, but if you lived through the fanfare of “cleaness” that he trumpeted around himself then you surely understand how disappointing it was to discover his clay feet. It wasn’t just cheating it was the whole edifice of his image too.


----------



## KneesUp (23 Jul 2019)

The first tour I watched was the last one won by a Frenchman. I wouldn’t say I thought Armstrong was cheating more than anyone else. He was passing the tests. But it’d be a stretch to say I thought he was clean too. It looked too easy for him, for Riis, for Ullrich. For all of them. And they were big guys. So my disappointment in him doping was like the disappointment when you do a scratchcard. Yes it’s disappointing you’ve not won £30k but really you didn’t think you were going to anyway.


----------



## roadrash (23 Jul 2019)

someone who cheated at the highest level, built his whole persona around how clean and how good an athlete he was, (look at me ive beat cancer and now I am winning the tour de france) not to mention the bullying tactics and ruined lives of people who stood up to him.

are you really comparing that to spending a quid on a scratch card and not winning £30k


----------



## KneesUp (23 Jul 2019)

roadrash said:


> someone who cheated at the highest level, built his whole persona around how clean and how good an athlete he was, (look at me ive beat cancer and now I am winning the tour de france) not to mention the bullying tactics and ruined lives of people who stood up to him.
> 
> are you really comparing that to spending a quid on a scratch card and not winning £30k


I think my emotional investment in sport is about the same - I watch the TdF because it interests me - tactics, cheating, scenery and all. I don't "support" a particular rider or team. (But that said Roche in '87 and LeMond in '89 were quite exciting)

I'm not saying he's a great person or anything - he ruined other people's lives, as so many others in many walks of life have done, are doing and will do. I'm just saying that having done those things doesn't make his opinions irrelevant, nor does it make him much different to many others who he raced against. But he has been treated differently, and that doesn't seem fair. I note that Bjarne Riis has admitted to using EPO when he won the tour in 1996, but he's still listed as the winner, and he is allowed to own and operate a UCI Continental Team, whereas Armstrong has had all his TdF results deleted and has a life ban from all cycling activities. I suspect if he'd won 1 or 2, like Riis he'd have been re-instated as the winner by now - and he would definitely have been if he was French. He is being treated differently because he won seven.


----------



## Crackle (23 Jul 2019)

I think he's being treated differently because of the sheer scale of his cheating, not just the doping but pursuing people through the courts, intimidating people personally, ridiculing people and on top of that he started a charitable foundation to help people in real need which was based on a lie, a lie which must have had an impact on all those who really bought into it, bought the bands, joined the fan club, defended him. He had political aspirations based on his success, he won sponsors who spent public money on him based on his lies. It's the sheer scale of what he did which has never been seen before, that's why he was treated differently, he needed to be to bring him down, nothing but a total re-write of what he did was ever going to convince people just how bad he was and it seems even that isn't enough. That's what i mean when I said earlier he's trying to re-write the narrative of what he did and it looks like he might be succeeding.


----------



## roadrash (23 Jul 2019)

KneesUp said:


> He is being treated differently because he won seven.




No, he isn't being treated differently just because he won/didn't win seven, see @Crackle post above, the thing is we are all different , have different values/beliefs etc , of course some will hate him and what he did with a passion while others may shrug shoulders and say ...oh well..never mind, personally my shoulders remain unshrugged , I cant stand the prick.


----------



## KneesUp (23 Jul 2019)

roadrash said:


> No, he isn't being treated differently just because he won/didn't win seven, see @Crackle post above, the thing is we are all different , have different values/beliefs etc , of course some will hate him and what he did with a passion while others may shrug shoulders and say ...oh well..never mind, personally my shoulders remain unshrugged , I cant stand the prick.



Riis eventually admitted he took EPO in winning the tour in 1997, when he could deny it no longer. They took the title off him, then gave it him back with an asterisk, and let him run his own cycling teams. 
Armstrong eventually admitted he took EPO when he could deny it no longer, and lost all his TdF wins and has a life ban from all professional cycling activities.

How is that the same treatment?


----------



## roadrash (23 Jul 2019)

I never said he wasn't being treated different, it was you that said he was being treated differently because he won seven..... I then said he isn't being treated differently JUST BECAUSE he won/didn't win seven TDF,


----------



## KneesUp (23 Jul 2019)

roadrash said:


> I never said he wasn't being treated different, it was you that said he was being treated differently because he won seven..... I then said he isn't being treated differently JUST BECAUSE he won/didn't win seven TDF,


I don't agree - the only difference between him and Riis is Riss won once and he won seven times. They both took the same drugs to do it, and denied it at the time.


----------



## roadrash (23 Jul 2019)

That's fine , im not trying change your mind, but for me , as I said @Crackle post above sums up the vast difference between them


KneesUp said:


> I don't agree - the only difference between him and Riis is Riss won once and he won seven times. They both took the same drugs to do it, and denied it at the time.


----------



## randynewmanscat (28 Jul 2019)

stoatsngroats said:


> View: https://youtu.be/ac_x4ucbReo
> 
> 
> Just saw this.
> ...



Truly loathe. His eagerness to litigate against people who did not have the cash to defend themselves against Lances lawyer army was despicable. He could fall under a bus and I would not unhappy.


----------



## randynewmanscat (28 Jul 2019)

KneesUp said:


> I don't agree - the only difference between him and Riis is Riss won once and he won seven times. They both took the same drugs to do it, and denied it at the time.


There is also the small but significant difference that Riis did not try to ruin peoples lives using lawyers as weapons.


----------



## david k (29 Jul 2019)

roadrash said:


> No, he isn't being treated differently just because he won/didn't win seven, see @Crackle post above, the thing is we are all different , have different values/beliefs etc , of course some will hate him and what he did with a passion while others may shrug shoulders and say ...oh well..never mind, personally my shoulders remain unshrugged , I cant stand the prick.



He is different to all other dopers I know, that's why he is treated differently, 




Because he is


----------



## oldfatfool (29 Jul 2019)

If he hadn't been such a twat as well as a doper then he would probably have kept his titles, but he was american, what do people expect, they litigate because they get wet when the forecast said sunshine.


----------



## KneesUp (30 Jul 2019)

randynewmanscat said:


> There is also the small but significant difference that Riis did not try to ruin peoples lives using lawyers as weapons.


That’s nothing to do with the rules of the TdF though. It doesn’t say “if you admit to cheating you can stay in the record books if we like you” does it?


----------



## randynewmanscat (30 Jul 2019)

KneesUp said:


> That’s nothing to do with the rules of the TdF though. It doesn’t say “if you admit to cheating you can stay in the record books if we like you” does it?


It does not. Riis did not win the tour according to the rules, writing him back into the victories was a bad mistake.


----------



## Foghat (30 Jul 2019)

KneesUp said:


> But he has been treated differently, and that doesn't seem fair.



Getting worked up over whether someone who behaved particularly egregiously, both within his sport and beyond, receives fair or consistent treatment under the rules of that sport seems a bit pointless.

Makes more sense to be pleased that someone who behaved so despicably has had most of their sporting record expunged, and that they have been rewarded for that behaviour by being given a dose of something they really don't like for a change..​


----------



## KneesUp (30 Jul 2019)

randynewmanscat said:


> It does not. Riis did not win the tour according to the rules, writing him back into the victories was a bad mistake.


But he’s there officially albeit with a star. Armstrong is not shown in any way. Whether you like someone personally or not should not have a bearing on how the rules are applied.


----------



## roadrash (31 Jul 2019)

oh dear …..how sad....never mind....


----------



## roadrash (31 Jul 2019)

and the feker appears on my twitter feed via road cc …


..<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Aspen Police respond to complaint about Lance Armstrong vs George Hincapie bike race on Sunday that was being filmed for podcast channel (+ video) <a href="https://t.co/T8CgZoKgjV">https://t.co/T8CgZoKgjV</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/cycling?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#cycling</a> <a href="https://t.co/MTS4ffUfQo">pic.twitter.com/MTS4ffUfQo</a></p>&mdash; road.cc (@roadcc) <a href="
View: https://twitter.com/roadcc/status/1156302669436391429?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
">July 30, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


----------



## smutchin (31 Jul 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> That is one difference, true. I wouldn't call it the only difference



Quite. It's like saying there's no difference between Ronnie Biggs and a shoplifter.



> Who cares?



I never liked him anyway so it's never been hard for me not to give a flying one.


----------

