The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[Hotblack Desiato]

Really? That is truly shocking.

Ah, is that a sarchasm I see opening up before me?

Perhaps I was insufficiently specific. First it was back in 2001, Tour de Switzerland, for EPO. Second it was a UCI test which their President denied ever having been positive and 3rd, Armstrong donated a total of $125,000 to UCI 'later'.

Now I am just an ordinary guy who goes out on a bike now and then, not one of the cognoscenti who know all there is to know about the pro bike scene, like wot your comment suggests you must do. Once, long after 2001, I used to think Armstrong was a great role model, . I used to think there's this guy he's beaten cancer, done this, done that blah, blah. And I wasn't alone, was I?

Now this book tells me it was all a huge corrupt con trick that sucked us all in and really we should have known right along. We all should have known.

I've got this coffee table book too, 100 years of the TdF, and guess who wrote the foreword. I want to go and cut the pages out and burn them.

So too damned right it's 'truly shocking', sunshine.

 

[Supersuperleeds]

Ah, is that a sarchasm I see opening up before me?

Perhaps I was insufficiently specific. First it was back in 2001, Tour de Switzerland, for EPO. Second it was a UCI test which their President denied ever having been positive and 3rd, Armstrong donated a total of $125,000 to UCI 'later'.

Now I am just an ordinary guy who goes out on a bike now and then, not one of the cognoscenti who know all there is to know about the pro bike scene, like wot your comment suggests you must do. Once, long after 2001, I used to think Armstrong was a great role model, . I used to think there's this guy he's beaten cancer, done this, done that blah, blah. And I wasn't alone, was I?

Now this book tells me it was all a huge corrupt con trick that sucked us all in and really we should have known right along. We all should have known.

I've got this coffee table book too, 100 years of the TdF, and guess who wrote the foreword. I want to go and cut the pages out and burn them.

So too damned right it's 'truly shocking', sunshine.

If you want to learn more about it you can read the USADA's reasoned decision about Armstrong. It is amazing what happened. If you google reasoned decision USADA then you can find a PDF of it.

 

[rich p]

Ah, is that a sarchasm I see opening up before me?

Perhaps I was insufficiently specific. First it was back in 2001, Tour de Switzerland, for EPO. Second it was a UCI test which their President denied ever having been positive and 3rd, Armstrong donated a total of $125,000 to UCI 'later'.

Now I am just an ordinary guy who goes out on a bike now and then, not one of the cognoscenti who know all there is to know about the pro bike scene, like wot your comment suggests you must do. Once, long after 2001, I used to think Armstrong was a great role model, . I used to think there's this guy he's beaten cancer, done this, done that blah, blah. And I wasn't alone, was I?

Now this book tells me it was all a huge corrupt con trick that sucked us all in and really we should have known right along. We all should have known.

I've got this coffee table book too, 100 years of the TdF, and guess who wrote the foreword. I want to go and cut the pages out and burn them.

So too damned right it's 'truly shocking', sunshine.

You could read this too...
... http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/armstrong-charged-and-banned.104078/

... and the 98 pages of this thread, to see the blood-letting and strife as it unfolded on CC. Not always pretty, I warn you!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I'm a member of Adventure Cycling the US touring cyclist association. The editor's letters in this month's magazine...

I found myself more than a little underwhelmed. What say you lovely peeps?

So I wrote to him...


Adventure Cycling's mission is to inspire & empower people to travel by bicycle. Lance Armstrong's mission was to cheat his way to a fortune and the status of a global celebrity. The reality of his cheating, and his continued denials of that cheating, does absolutely nothing to inspire and empower people to travel by bike.

Your editorial letter, whilst splendid in its rhetoric, and the alignment with Armstrong it contains, does nothing to inspire or empower people either. Quite the opposite. Lance didn't fail to live up to our impossible fantasies of who he was, he failed to live up to his own impossible fantasies about who he was. A point you appear to miss. Completely.

As for us Brits, we live on a collection of soggy green islands not a single isle, and our priorities are pretty well aligned, certainly more well aligned than yours appear to be given the views in your letter.

Greg Collins
Horsham
West Sussex
About 20 miles from Edenbridge, which I've ridden through many times. A delightful little town.

and he wrote back....


Greg,

Thanks for your feedback about my editorial in the Dec/Jan issue. Most of the responses have focused on whether I'm a socialist or not so it's good to hear from someone who noticed the letter was about Armstrong and personality cults, although I wouldn't go quite so far as to say I'm aligned with him. And, unfortunately, he is the towering figure in American cycling and has had a profound effect on the uptake of cycling in the U.S. so he's fair game, even for Adventure Cyclist magazine, in which his name has rarely appeared.

Also, I've been to the U.K. several times and my tour from Aberdeen across the Highlands up to Stornaway is still in my top five experiences of all time. I hope to return to ride the southwest portion of the chief British Isle before going on to Ireland. I hope I won't be met at the shore with flying bricks.

I hope you have a terrific 2013.

Michael Deme
Director of Publications
Editor, Adventure CyclistMagazine
150 E Pine St
Missoula, MT 59802

 

[Hotblack Desiato]

Most of us wanted to believe it at one time or another and mostly because of the beating cancer thing. We should all have known better and he is a truly disgusting person specifically because of the cold, calculated betrayal of the hopes he sought to have invested in him.

Apologies for the sarcasm.

Not to worry about the sarcasm!

It is interesting that the editor of Adventure Cyclists sees such a distinction between Armstrong's trickery and the powerful 'financial or political criminals' in 'our societies'. I'd suggest they are all part of the same crooked game.

 

[Noodley]

and he wrote back....
Greg,

1) it's good to hear from someone who noticed the letter was about Armstrong and personality cults, although I wouldn't go quite so far as to say I'm aligned with him.

2) And, unfortunately, he is the towering figure in American cycling and has had a profound effect on the uptake of cycling in the U.S. so he's fair game, even for Adventure Cyclist magazine, in which his name has rarely appeared.

Are you going to write back to him and highlight that:
1) his article was bugger all to do with personality cults, but more to do with criticising others who view Armstrong as he truly is and then trying to identify others more worthy of scorn. He seems to have an unhealthy attraction towards highlighting British inadequecies rather than those of his home country. Perhaps he does not have the balls to tackle his own countrymen in a magazine published in the US? So he, like Lance, is a coward.
2) in what way does he think that he has treated Armstrong as "fair game"? - that would impy that he thinks he in some way "went after" Armstrong, rather than be an apologist. For someone who is editor of a cycling magazine, albeit not a racing cycling magazine, he does seem to have a fairly limited knowledge about the extent to which Armstrong controlled and bullied others, the amount of money involved and how wide his influence extended. Although he does think he is suitably positioned to pass comment on a matter which he has shown he knows bugger all about. He is nothing more than an apologist for Armstrong.

And no twee reply, deflecting attention away from your points, can disguise this.

 

[ufkacbln]

Are you going to write back to him and highlight that:
1) his article was bugger all to do with personality cults, but more to do with criticising others who view Armstrong as he truly is and then trying to identify others more worthy of scorn. He seems to have an unhealthy attraction towards highlighting British inadequecies rather than those of his home country. Perhaps he does not have the balls to tackle his own countrymen in a magazine published in the US? So he, like Lance, is a coward.
2) in what way does he think that he has treated Armstrong as "fair game"? - that would impy that he thinks he in some way "went after" Armstrong, rather than be an apologist. For someone who is editor of a cycling magazine, albeit not a racing cycling magazine, he does seem to have a fairly limited knowledge about the extent to which Armstrong controlled and bullied others, the amount of money involved and how wide his influence extended. Although he does think he is suitably positioned to pass comment on a matter which he has shown he knows bugger all about. He is nothing more than an apologist for Armstrong.

And no twee reply, deflecting attention away from your points, can disguise this.

How's about actually reading his article

The "anyone not foaming rabidly at the mouth" is an apologist is showing itself as tedious and misplaced as usual

There are several points about personality cults, and the actual importance of Armstrong outside the racing world that are relevant, even if outside the Omertà's agenda of compulsory pathological hatred

 

[Noodley]

How's about actually reading his article

The "anyone not foaming rabidly at the mouth" is an apologist is showing itself as tedious and misplaced as usual

There are several points about personality cults, and the actual importance of Armstrong outside the racing world that are relevant, even if outside the Omertà's agenda of compulsory pathological hatred

I read it. The only person who sees "foaming at the mouth" appears to be you - as far as I can see, anyone who highlights Armstrong's deeds is "foaming at the mouth" in your book. You carry on with your own views and trolling if you want tho.

 

[ufkacbln]

Is there any level on which it is reasonable to regard Armstrong as a victim in all this, rather than the loathsome, manipulative person he appears to be?

Not at all, he is absolutely and unequivocally the cause of his own downfall

However as frequently stated before, he is not the only one guilty of cheating, using drugs to gain an illegal advantage or any of the other offences

Use Armstrong as a key to open the Pandora's box that was the reality of cycling and you will find that he was the worst, but not the only offender

 

[Noodley]

Have we not done this one before? Nobody here thinks Armstrong is the only doper, have you not been reading or something?

Have you had a sudden blow to the head and just woken up?

 

[thom]

Have we not done this one before? Nobody here thinks Armstrong is the only doper, have you not been reading or something?

Have you had a sudden blow to the head and just woken up?

I expected that catchy tune with the "let's go around again" line in it. Can't we have it instead ? Its really quite funky.

 

[Noodley]

I expected that catchy tune with the "let's go around again" line in it. Can't we have it instead ? Its really quite funky.

Here you go:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGI8YNa5f-M

 

[just jim]

The difference is that Lance was a kingpin - "The most important person or element in an enterprise or system". No amount of tedious obfuscation will change this fact. Happy new year - the Lance has been boiled!​

​

( just jim signs off from this thread 4EVA)​

 

[ufkacbln]

Have we not done this one before? Nobody here thinks Armstrong is the only doper, have you not been reading or something?

Have you had a sudden blow to the head and just woken up?

What I love about the true quality of your contribution is the lack of common courtesy... Really speaks volumes about the value

Doesn't agree with Noodley 's limited agenda - Nobber

Post something that doesn't agree with Noodley's limited agenda -Nobber



Such valuable depth, insight and wisdom really must be admired

Then again it is easier that actually discussing the points you are uncomfortable with

 

[Hotblack Desiato]

The difference is that Lance was a kingpin - "The most important person or element in an enterprise or system". No amount of tedious obfuscation will change this fact. Happy new year - the Lance has been boiled!

( just jim signs off from this thread 4EVA)

Again, from the Daniel Coyle/Tyler Hamilton source it does seem that Armstrong was the most important cyclist in escalating the problem. But he couldn't have done it without the professional, doping doctors. The likes of Fuentes who operated in Spain where no anti-doping laws applied and who made millions of dollars supplying the cheats with their materials.