I've just read "It's not about the bike"

[dellzeqq]

my theory is that Armstrong is cynical, and ruthless, and yet he puts so much in to life that he inspires great affection.

My Armstrong moments were these - the 2003 individual time trial which he won because he went out and rode the course the day before while Ulrich put his feet up, the Beloki incident when he went cross-country, and seeing him close up at the end of the 2004 tour. He won in 2003 because he wanted it more, he survived the Beloki crash because he wanted it more, and it was apparent, just by looking at the way that his skin stretched across his flesh, that, even in the company of very, very fit young men, he had devoted himself to being in better shape than they were because, I think, he wanted it more. For those reasons I'm a fan. I admire the cynicism and the ruthlessness, because they made the difference between him and the rest.

 

[slowmotion]

I think if I had recovered from cancer, and made a come back to promote Livestrong and some fat twat referred to me as cancer I think would have gone a bit further.

People perceive driven ambitious people as arrogant, because normally they have a goal and are single minded in getting there. Sometimes they might do things that are not pleasant to get to their goal.

I like the Lance story, I cannot give a flying fig what he was on, some “journalists” are now trying to attack Livestrong to try and pin something on him.

The "fat twat" was a professional cyclist, Paul Kimmage. Google him and you will find out that he has a fairly serious attitude towards doping. You will also find that loads of people think he is a bitter failure. I don't share that opinion. Here is a clip from 2009

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Ai6t6R1_w[/media]


Here is a link to the article about cancer...

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_na...nce-amrstrong-cancer-comments-in-context.html

I guess it all depends on what you think a hero should be. Does winning at all costs make you one? I don't take that view.


Being a bit of a shoot doesn't tick my boxes.

 

[raindog]

It could be that he's so brash and arrogant that he didn't knowingly see a problem with how unpleasant he comes across.

I think that could be spot on.

 

[Crackle]

I just don't believe that. He's just too smart

calculating you mean, not smart.

 

[totallyfixed]

Lot's of opinions bandied about on here, many of them based on snippets of information provided by biased reporting one way or the other. Those that choose to believe in Armstrong and do so because of his "heroic" fight against cancer are not looking at the whole picture and I would suggest reading the book "From Lance to Landis" by David Walsh, also this written interview by said author, not long and worth a look.
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/article.jsp?content=20070727_150415_8508
I am not Armstrong's greatest fan, the further away you are from him the better he comes across. Did he cheat? Of course he did, like everyone else in the teams he built around him. His now famous answer to the question he has often been asked "did you take PED's?" is always "I have never failed a drugs test", not the same as a straightforward "no".
Manipulative, arrogant, controlling, calculating and greedy are just some of the less than flattering adjectives applied to the man who destroyed the lives of those that disagreed or stood against him.
The law of Omerta still rules to this day in the professional peleton, my hope is that one day it will stop and only then will riders speak out.
A few years ago I had the opportunity to chat to 2 very well known ex pros, one of whom I greatly admired and I think universally so, and the other who I always had doubts about. I asked the question about doping among pro cyclists, the former was very open and had strong views, while the latter just kept quiet just nodding or shaking his head. Spoke volumes.

 

[Dave 123]

You don't need to smoke dope to get high on the moon...