planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:20 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

Armstrong: champ or cheat?
Champ 17%  17%  [ 12 ]
Cheat 61%  61%  [ 44 ]
Meh - the sport is so rotten, I can't be bothered 22%  22%  [ 16 ]
Total votes : 72
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5529
kai_ wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
kai_ wrote:
I don't think anyone is ignoring other riders or the broader problem. But saying that Armstrong's behaviour is mitigated by the fact that others were doing it doesn't really hold sway. If a group of people go into a shop all steal something, that doesn't mean that each individual's stealing is somehow less bad. We 'hang' them all.

The other thing is that Armstrong wasn't just a mere doper but involved with the organising, development and concealment of the whole thing. To go back to my stealing example, if one of those people tried to bully everyone else into stealing and made threats against those who refused to go along with it then they would face more sanctions than those who merely did the stealing.

And then, as PZR Slim said, there are genuinely innocent riders who refused to participate in it all and who were never given opportunities as a result or were hounded out of the sport, at least a proportion of the responsibility of which falls on Armstrong's shoulders. They did nothing wrong.

Before Armstrong nobody cheated, whole peleton was clean and young professional cyclist first contact with doping was when they spotted Armstrong and his team? Or not? I bet most or all of cyclist that made it to the highest level like Tour had already known how the sport worked.

Acknowledge that he was cheater, but don't blame him for the culture of the sport that has been there for decades before Armstrong. Clean riders rode with handicap and were denied victories for ages and according to many ex-riders they weren't majority, rather minority if there were any during some ancient tours.

I'm not holding him responsible for the culture of doping and I never have done. I'm holding him responsible for his actions within that culture and refusing to use the culture as any sort of mitigation of his actions.

If every single person who entered the world of cycling doped then there would be an argument to say that Armstrong was merely one cheater amongst many. However the fact is that not everyone broke the rules, that there were people who rode clean and there were people who refused to be drawn into that culture.


But..
http://i.imgur.com/i3mwd.jpg

And they are riders that were officially caught. Riders were aware that the sport was dirty. Look how little support Bassons was given during 1999 tour by whole peleton (stage 14)! And yet you talk about people who wanted to be clean. They should have stood behind Bassons, but no one did. Think why? Without Armstrong clean sportsman would have been denied their chance anyway. 'Armstrong was merely one cheater amongst many' who lived in lie. Such a Millar only confessed after he was shown hard and damning evidence. He is as bad as Armstrong, but Millar is given free pass.

Only very recently the peleton slowed down and they are not climbing that fast anymore. I would contribute it to WADA (whereabouts rule) and UNESCO convention against doping which both came into effect and full force around 2004-5. Armstrong made no difference. That revolution began in 1988.

I agree with this:
Quote:
And he didn't just dope and cheat: there were other things he did as part of that for which he needs to be held responsible and those things contributed not just to his success but to him getting away with what he did for so long. If Armstrong had just doped to gain an advantage in his own performance and hadn't bullied or tried to cover up times when he got caught or made donations to the UCI or sued people who tried to expose him then he would neither have been as successful as he was nor would this be the story it is now.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:07 pm
Posts: 510
Lets hope south park do an episode on him. He might be a new candidate for the biggest douche bag in universe award.

_________________
Trying to use 'tongue in cheek' humour in a forum is like wearing a Borat t-shirt in Kazakhstan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
dizlexik wrote:
kai_ wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
kai_ wrote:
I don't think anyone is ignoring other riders or the broader problem. But saying that Armstrong's behaviour is mitigated by the fact that others were doing it doesn't really hold sway. If a group of people go into a shop all steal something, that doesn't mean that each individual's stealing is somehow less bad. We 'hang' them all.

The other thing is that Armstrong wasn't just a mere doper but involved with the organising, development and concealment of the whole thing. To go back to my stealing example, if one of those people tried to bully everyone else into stealing and made threats against those who refused to go along with it then they would face more sanctions than those who merely did the stealing.

And then, as PZR Slim said, there are genuinely innocent riders who refused to participate in it all and who were never given opportunities as a result or were hounded out of the sport, at least a proportion of the responsibility of which falls on Armstrong's shoulders. They did nothing wrong.

Before Armstrong nobody cheated, whole peleton was clean and young professional cyclist first contact with doping was when they spotted Armstrong and his team? Or not? I bet most or all of cyclist that made it to the highest level like Tour had already known how the sport worked.

Acknowledge that he was cheater, but don't blame him for the culture of the sport that has been there for decades before Armstrong. Clean riders rode with handicap and were denied victories for ages and according to many ex-riders they weren't majority, rather minority if there were any during some ancient tours.

I'm not holding him responsible for the culture of doping and I never have done. I'm holding him responsible for his actions within that culture and refusing to use the culture as any sort of mitigation of his actions.

If every single person who entered the world of cycling doped then there would be an argument to say that Armstrong was merely one cheater amongst many. However the fact is that not everyone broke the rules, that there were people who rode clean and there were people who refused to be drawn into that culture.


But..
http://i.imgur.com/i3mwd.jpg

And they are riders that were officially caught. Riders were aware that the sport was dirty. Look how little support Bassons was given during 1999 tour by whole peleton (stage 14)! And yet you talk about people who wanted to be clean. They should have stood behind Bassons, but no one did. Think why? Without Armstrong clean sportsman would have been denied their chance anyway. 'Armstrong was merely one cheater amongst many' who lived in lie. Such a Millar only confessed after he was shown hard and damning evidence. He is as bad as Armstrong, but Millar is given free pass.

Only very recently the peleton slowed down and they are not climbing that fast anymore. I would contribute it to WADA (whereabouts rule) and UNESCO convention against doping which both came into effect and full force around 2004-5. Armstrong made no difference. That revolution began in 1988.

I've never excused the behaviour of anyone who cheated so I've certainly never given Millar a free pass. I've not given my opinion on the behaviour of other cyclists because this discussion is about Armstrong, but the only people who are absolved of responsibility entirely in this circumstance are those who didn't engage in doping at all. My comments in this thread have also been mostly about the actions of Armstrong beyond the doping to improve performance. I see the actual doping part as the least of all his transgressions.

However, to say that Armstrong made no difference to it all is something I do disagree with you about. He used his wins based on doping to court fame and then used that fame to protect himself from being caught. He picked and chose people to compete who were prepared to dope and forced out those who weren't. He sued people who told the truth to protect his lies. That wasn't just participating in a culture of doping, that was propagating that culture. Whether or not it became bigger and more prevalent with Armstrong's involvement or whether it wouldn't have gotten to the same point as it did is not something that can be statistically proven, but I personally think that when factoring in how much he controlled the situation and how much influence he had he was involved in making it bigger than it had been.

The people involved in the governing bodies who assisted his coverup and those who aided in developing the program that allowed it to happen with him and his teams on such a grand scale are equally responsible. But the other riders can IMO be distinguished in terms of the gravity. When they were caught they didn't use the means that Armstrong did to try to get out of it and instead threw up their hands and said "Yes OK I did it". They didn't have his authority over who rode. They didn't court the fame after their wins in the way that he did so that they had the power to suppress people who chose to speak out. In a lot of cases they didn't actively pursue doping in the way that Armstrong did. Their influence was much, much less.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5529
kai_ wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
kai_ wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
kai_ wrote:
I don't think anyone is ignoring other riders or the broader problem. But saying that Armstrong's behaviour is mitigated by the fact that others were doing it doesn't really hold sway. If a group of people go into a shop all steal something, that doesn't mean that each individual's stealing is somehow less bad. We 'hang' them all.

The other thing is that Armstrong wasn't just a mere doper but involved with the organising, development and concealment of the whole thing. To go back to my stealing example, if one of those people tried to bully everyone else into stealing and made threats against those who refused to go along with it then they would face more sanctions than those who merely did the stealing.

And then, as PZR Slim said, there are genuinely innocent riders who refused to participate in it all and who were never given opportunities as a result or were hounded out of the sport, at least a proportion of the responsibility of which falls on Armstrong's shoulders. They did nothing wrong.

Before Armstrong nobody cheated, whole peleton was clean and young professional cyclist first contact with doping was when they spotted Armstrong and his team? Or not? I bet most or all of cyclist that made it to the highest level like Tour had already known how the sport worked.

Acknowledge that he was cheater, but don't blame him for the culture of the sport that has been there for decades before Armstrong. Clean riders rode with handicap and were denied victories for ages and according to many ex-riders they weren't majority, rather minority if there were any during some ancient tours.

I'm not holding him responsible for the culture of doping and I never have done. I'm holding him responsible for his actions within that culture and refusing to use the culture as any sort of mitigation of his actions.

If every single person who entered the world of cycling doped then there would be an argument to say that Armstrong was merely one cheater amongst many. However the fact is that not everyone broke the rules, that there were people who rode clean and there were people who refused to be drawn into that culture.


But..
http://i.imgur.com/i3mwd.jpg

And they are riders that were officially caught. Riders were aware that the sport was dirty. Look how little support Bassons was given during 1999 tour by whole peleton (stage 14)! And yet you talk about people who wanted to be clean. They should have stood behind Bassons, but no one did. Think why? Without Armstrong clean sportsman would have been denied their chance anyway. 'Armstrong was merely one cheater amongst many' who lived in lie. Such a Millar only confessed after he was shown hard and damning evidence. He is as bad as Armstrong, but Millar is given free pass.

Only very recently the peleton slowed down and they are not climbing that fast anymore. I would contribute it to WADA (whereabouts rule) and UNESCO convention against doping which both came into effect and full force around 2004-5. Armstrong made no difference. That revolution began in 1988.

I've never excused the behaviour of anyone who cheated so I've certainly never given Millar a free pass. I've not given my opinion on the behaviour of other cyclists because this discussion is about Armstrong, but the only people who are absolved of responsibility entirely in this circumstance are those who didn't engage in doping at all. My comments in this thread have also been mostly about the actions of Armstrong beyond the doping to improve performance. I see the actual doping part as the least of all his transgressions.

However, to say that Armstrong made no difference to it all is something I do disagree with you about. He used his wins based on doping to court fame and then used that fame to protect himself from being caught. He picked and chose people to compete who were prepared to dope and forced out those who weren't. He sued people who told the truth to protect his lies. That wasn't just participating in a culture of doping, that was propagating that culture. Whether or not it became bigger and more prevalent with Armstrong's involvement or whether it wouldn't have gotten to the same point as it did is not something that can be statistically proven, but I personally think that when factoring in how much he controlled the situation and how much influence he had he was involved in making it bigger than it had been.

The people involved in the governing bodies who assisted his coverup and those who aided in developing the program that allowed it to happen with him and his teams on such a grand scale are equally responsible. But the other riders can IMO be distinguished in terms of the gravity. When they were caught they didn't use the means that Armstrong did to try to get out of it and instead threw up their hands and said "Yes OK I did it". They didn't have his authority over who rode. They didn't court the fame after their wins in the way that he did so that they had the power to suppress people who chose to speak out. In a lot of cases they didn't actively pursue doping in the way that Armstrong did. Their influence was much, much less.

I think you overstate the influence of Armstrong to other riders beyond his team. All kinds of bullying and suing everyone was another matter. This what made him douche, something more than casual cheater, but saying that he denied any clean rider from dozens of other team chance to compete has absolutely no grounds. You weren't robbed by him either as asphalt world try to suggest. Whatever mattered at Tour was already cheated and would have been cheated without Armstrong and actually was cheated before and after. He encouraged riders to cheat, but they were doing it outside Armstrong ring and before his 7 wins.

My point about no difference was that stricter anti doping measures would have been introduced anyway. WADA was created in 1999, but what really changed attitude towards doping was 1988 100 m final in Seul. The sport isn't cleaner because one doping ring was destroyed. In fact Armstrong was caught, because of the new rules, not the other way around.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
dizlexik wrote:
kai_ wrote:
I've never excused the behaviour of anyone who cheated so I've certainly never given Millar a free pass. I've not given my opinion on the behaviour of other cyclists because this discussion is about Armstrong, but the only people who are absolved of responsibility entirely in this circumstance are those who didn't engage in doping at all. My comments in this thread have also been mostly about the actions of Armstrong beyond the doping to improve performance. I see the actual doping part as the least of all his transgressions.

However, to say that Armstrong made no difference to it all is something I do disagree with you about. He used his wins based on doping to court fame and then used that fame to protect himself from being caught. He picked and chose people to compete who were prepared to dope and forced out those who weren't. He sued people who told the truth to protect his lies. That wasn't just participating in a culture of doping, that was propagating that culture. Whether or not it became bigger and more prevalent with Armstrong's involvement or whether it wouldn't have gotten to the same point as it did is not something that can be statistically proven, but I personally think that when factoring in how much he controlled the situation and how much influence he had he was involved in making it bigger than it had been.

The people involved in the governing bodies who assisted his coverup and those who aided in developing the program that allowed it to happen with him and his teams on such a grand scale are equally responsible. But the other riders can IMO be distinguished in terms of the gravity. When they were caught they didn't use the means that Armstrong did to try to get out of it and instead threw up their hands and said "Yes OK I did it". They didn't have his authority over who rode. They didn't court the fame after their wins in the way that he did so that they had the power to suppress people who chose to speak out. In a lot of cases they didn't actively pursue doping in the way that Armstrong did. Their influence was much, much less.

I think you overstate the influence of Armstrong to other riders beyond his team. All kinds of bullying and suing everyone was another matter. This what made him douche, something more than casual cheater, but saying that he denied any clean rider from dozens of other team chance to compete has absolutely no grounds. You weren't robbed by him either as asphalt world try to suggest. Whatever mattered at Tour was already cheated and would have been cheated without Armstrong and actually was cheated before and after. He encouraged riders to cheat, but they were doing it outside Armstrong ring and before his 7 wins.

My point about no difference was that stricter anti doping measures would have been introduced anyway. WADA was created in 1999, but what really changed attitude towards doping was 1988 100 m final in Seul. The sport isn't cleaner because one doping ring was destroyed. In fact Armstrong was caught, because of the new rules, not the other way around.

I think you underestimate Armstrong's influence on the Tour de France.

Armstrong was winning everything and, being a competitive sport, people wanted to beat him. So when team owners were looking for cyclists to compete in their teams against him they would have chosen cyclists who were good enough, and chances are to show that potential those cyclists would have been cheating as well and a lot of clean cyclists would have been denied the opportunity. Of course, as I have said, those owners and cyclists bear their responsibility, but I'm point out Armstrong's influence. And I've never said that Armstrong denied every clean rider the chance, but that his behaviour and the situation he had going on would have had a snowball effect.

When Bassons tried to speak out Armstrong went out of his way to push other cyclists to isolate him. Again, I am not absolving those other riders, but Armstrong was by that stage extremely influential. By suing and slandering people who spoke out against him in other circumstances he was putting other individuals in an extremely difficult position. I agree that those who didn't stand up to him were cowards, but I can also appreciate that when looking at the ramifications of doing so (being called an alcoholic prostitute, a crazy bitch, spending money to defend oneself against him filing lawsuits, and being isolated oneself) it's not exactly going to make it easy to be that brave.

By becoming as powerful as he did by cheating, Armstrong also became a figure that needed to be protected. He was a hero to the sport, to his supporters, to the general public in a lot of ways. And being a hero actually does come with it a lot of responsibility because of the loyalty and adulation it inspires. The death threats received by people would not have come directly from Armstrong, but they were done for him as the hero who needed to be protected. Now again, the people who made those threats are responsible. However, I have never heard Armstrong say it was wrong that that happened, that he didn't like people doing that in his name or for him.

So yes the cheating existed in spite of Armstrong, but would it have been so rampant and so all-encompassing? I agree however that anti-doping measures would have been introduced regardless and that they were what caught Armstrong out. But it is also possible that they would have been done sooner had Armstrong not been around and needing protecting, if members of the UCI were involved in the matter.

I've never said I was robbed because I never supported Armstrong. However, he did indeed rob people. The book he wrote in which he claims he was clean, the story of a a hero who stood above and beyond all the dirtiness, was actually a work of fiction. He defrauded or stole from people, depending on how you wish to view that. There have been cases where a person has passed a story off as true only for it to be revealed to not be and publishers have offered the money back (Forbidden Love is one example). But in any case, it is not so much the financial robbing that is the problem - it's the emotional robbing and the sense of emptiness that has to be dealt with upon discovering that something you believed in isn't true.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
Second part of the interview was farcical.

Lance claiming his former wife Kristin valued honesty and integrity, didn't know much and didn't really ask questions. This is the same Kristin that other cyclists have gone on record under oath stating that she assisted in the scheme, handed out and disposed of some of the drugs. When he discussed his comeback with her she made him promise he'd be clean this time around and of course he was clean because he'd never break his word to her. Lance saying that the reason he came clean was because he discovered his son was defending him. Yet he has previously claimed that he would never dope precisely because he would not want to do that to his kids and leave them with that sort of shame about their father. And when asked earlier on why he came clean (the first question after the series of 'yes/no' ones) he didn't mention family as the motivation at all. His family continues to be used as a tool to cover things up, a convenient smokescreen.

He nearly choked agreeing that David Walsh deserved an apology.

Question after question he babbled on, throwing in irrelevant information and dancing around the edges. He used his typical deflection tactics of answering a question with a question and trying to point out a minor and irrelevant inconsistency to muddy the waters. Case in point: when asked about the claim by Tygart that he had tried to pay the USADA a bribe he tried to suggest that it couldn't be true because it wasn't in the original USADA report. There are a number of reasons it might not have been in that report including the fact that it is not material to the issue of him doping and the timing of the matter related to what was discussed in the report.

The only times he was genuine was when he was showing how annoyed he was and victimised he felt that other cyclists got off with 6 month bans and he got a lifetime one, when he was expressing his frustration with the fact that he can't compete anymore, the underlying smugness about getting away with it for so long and disappointment at getting caught. He had the same opportunities to mitigate his sentence as they did and he chose not to.

I have to say that by about 5 minutes in I was actually laughing and I couldn't stop. It was just a joke. When he started forcing out his crocodile tears I had real tears rolling down my face from the hysteria.

Oprah was utterly hopeless. She didn't push him on anything. She didn't try to get him to name names about who knew or challenge his version of events despite plenty of material with which to do so. I will say, however, that the skepticism on her face when he gave some of his answers added to how funny it was.

So what's the moral of the story, Lance? I don't know, I need to look up 'moral' in the dictionary.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1522
@ dizlexik, how on earth can you claim I wasn't cheated by Lance because of what he did? I was massively cheated by him, fact.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5529
Asphalt_World wrote:
@ dizlexik, how on earth can you claim I wasn't cheated by Lance because of what he did? I was massively cheated by him, fact.

But the competition was unfair without him too. Most of his rivals officially cheated and you knew it long before Armstrong was convicted by USADA. You watched wrong sport.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1522
dizlexik wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
@ dizlexik, how on earth can you claim I wasn't cheated by Lance because of what he did? I was massively cheated by him, fact.

But the competition was unfair without him too. Most of his rivals officially cheated and you knew it long before Armstrong was convicted by USADA. You watched wrong sport.


Actually I watch the support I love.

Whilst I have traveled to see various pro cycling's races, I chose to spend what little money I had at the time to see Lance in the Tour de France because he was already a multiple winner and on the brink of becoming possible the greatest cyclist ever in tour history. Due to the amount of tours he had already won I was hopeful that if he was a cheat he would have already been caught. Sadly he and his fellow cheats were so well planned in how they carried out the cheating he was not caught at the time. How was I to know this? I was cheated.

You say I watch the wrong sport but actually cyclings drug issue is partly due to its own decision to test athletes more than most, if not all other sports and therefore lots of people are caught. People assume that cycling is the worst sport for drug taking but how do we know this?

By your reconning, everybody watches the wrong sports near enough, they simply don't test enough elsewhere.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5529
Asphalt_World wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
@ dizlexik, how on earth can you claim I wasn't cheated by Lance because of what he did? I was massively cheated by him, fact.

But the competition was unfair without him too. Most of his rivals officially cheated and you knew it long before Armstrong was convicted by USADA. You watched wrong sport.


Actually I watch the support I love.

Whilst I have traveled to see various pro cycling's races, I chose to spend what little money I had at the time to see Lance in the Tour de France because he was already a multiple winner and on the brink of becoming possible the greatest cyclist ever in tour history. Due to the amount of tours he had already won I was hopeful that if he was a cheat he would have already been caught. Sadly he and his fellow cheats were so well planned in how they carried out the cheating he was not caught at the time. How was I to know this? I was cheated.

You say I watch the wrong sport but actually cyclings drug issue is partly due to its own decision to test athletes more than most, if not all other sports and therefore lots of people are caught. People assume that cycling is the worst sport for drug taking but how do we know this?

By your reconning, everybody watches the wrong sports near enough, they simply don't test enough elsewhere.

I'm aware of that other sports weren't clean either. I still enjoyed them, I enjoyed 2000 Olympic Games and watch US team, I enjoyed 2008 Road Cycling race, I enjoyed Tours and cycling and I still do. I don't understand picking one rider and very angrily blaming him for spoiling the your experience, while in reality the sport was more flawed than that. The pursuit behind Armstrong that made the Tour exciting weren't real either.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7502
Location: London
He's blaming Armstrong because he was the very reason he chose to spend his money going to watch the Tour. Asphalt didn't pay to see the others, he paid to see Armstrong make history and now he knows that history was a load of lies. I'd feel hurt and annoyed too if I ever found out something I had invested time and money in was a lie.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1522
Laura23 wrote:
He's blaming Armstrong because he was the very reason he chose to spend his money going to watch the Tour. Asphalt didn't pay to see the others, he paid to see Armstrong make history and now he knows that history was a load of lies. I'd feel hurt and annoyed too if I ever found out something I had invested time and money in was a lie.


Thank you for understanding. I thought my point was clear for all but perhaps not.

I am very aware lots of other cyclists were taking drugs but as you pointed out, that was not the reason I feel cheated, I went specifically to see Lance.

I have gone to lots of other sporting events to see specific people and would feel equally cheated if I found then to have cheated, regardless of others also cheating in whatever sport it was.

I somehow feel some people have been hooked by lance's comment about how he didn't feel he cheated at the time because taking drugs was putting him on a level playing field. Like we are supposed to feel less anger at his crime! Sorry but does not wash with me.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 11:45 am
Posts: 802
Quote:
"Every question in his testimony that he answered no to when I asked him, he answered yes to Oprah Winfrey," he said.

"So it was pretty clear from the first few minutes of the interview he was admitting that he had committed perjury in our legal proceedings in the US."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21102475

_________________
Apparently religious people didn't like my signature, hah! Don't read it if you are so offended by it.

When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
The whistleblower lawsuit has been leaked and is available here in full: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docume ... trong/259/

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1522
Spotted in a library in Sydney.

Image

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 11:45 am
Posts: 802
Asphalt_World wrote:
Spotted in a library in Sydney.

Image


I'm not quite sure 'Lance Armstrong Performance Program' is a work of fiction. ;)

_________________
Apparently religious people didn't like my signature, hah! Don't read it if you are so offended by it.

When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
sultanofhyd wrote:
I'm not quite sure 'Lance Armstrong Performance Program' is a work of fiction. ;)

Depends on what's in it, really. "Train hard and train clean" definitely qualifies as fiction.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:56 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 1398
kai_ wrote:
sultanofhyd wrote:
I'm not quite sure 'Lance Armstrong Performance Program' is a work of fiction. ;)
Depends on what's in it, really. "Train hard and train clean" definitely qualifies as fiction.
Well, it could be argued that he was getting his five a day...

_________________
What did you say... Douglas?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3941
Nephilist wrote:
Lets hope south park do an episode on him. He might be a new candidate for the biggest douche bag in universe award.


Waiting for it.

Cartman doping in his little tricycle!

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5529
SchumieRules wrote:
Nephilist wrote:
Lets hope south park do an episode on him. He might be a new candidate for the biggest douche bag in universe award.


Waiting for it.

Cartman doping in his little tricycle!

There already was episode about it. It was about Stan.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1294
Location: Sydney, Australia
I must admit that I don't quite see why people seem to be totally desimated by this. Hints had been there from his very first Tour de France win. Did anyone really think he was so totally clean that the recent revelations are so overwhelming? Maybe it's an age thing. I grew up in the sex, drugs & rock & roll era so maybe I am not so surprised about the amount of drug taking in sport.

God, I can remember being at a very sophisticated dinner party where every male at the table was either a Doctor, Surgeon, Lawyer etc & they were all doing drugs. They were quite surprised that I, being the youngest person at the table, didn't do any drugs. Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't being an upright citizen, I had been there, done that & didn't particularly like doing anything that meant I wasn't in total control. Besides, I never did like anything going up my nose &, injecting by needle, forget it. And this is someone from a family that didn't even drink alcohol.

I personally don't know anyone that grew up in the USA or the UK 10 years before I did in the real sex, drugs & rock & roll era that didn't do all the drugs you can imagine. Including my husband being in the USA Navy during the Vietnam war & doing so much speed that he was awake for 3 days continuously ironing his uniform. What amazes me is, no one noticed.

I'm not excusing Armstrong just saying that, depending on your age, you may look at things differently, that's all :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1522
DrG wrote:
I must admit that I don't quite see why people seem to be totally desimated by this. Hints had been there from his very first Tour de France win. Did anyone really think he was so totally clean that the recent revelations are so overwhelming? Maybe it's an age thing. I grew up in the sex, drugs & rock & roll era so maybe I am not so surprised about the amount of drug taking in sport.

God, I can remember being at a very sophisticated dinner party where every male at the table was either a Doctor, Surgeon, Lawyer etc & they were all doing drugs. They were quite surprised that I, being the youngest person at the table, didn't do any drugs. Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't being an upright citizen, I had been there, done that & didn't particularly like doing anything that meant I wasn't in total control. Besides, I never did like anything going up my nose &, injecting by needle, forget it. And this is someone from a family that didn't even drink alcohol.

I personally don't know anyone that grew up in the USA or the UK 10 years before I did in the real sex, drugs & rock & roll era that didn't do all the drugs you can imagine. Including my husband being in the USA Navy during the Vietnam war & doing so much speed that he was awake for 3 days continuously ironing his uniform. What amazes me is, no one noticed.

I'm not excusing Armstrong just saying that, depending on your age, you may look at things differently, that's all :)


Yes but we are no talking about him taking recreational drugs (however right or wrong that is) but drugs specifically designed to give him an advantage over his competitors and doing everything in his power to conceal this and indeed ruin other riders career should they not go along with him.

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3941
dizlexik wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
Nephilist wrote:
Lets hope south park do an episode on him. He might be a new candidate for the biggest douche bag in universe award.


Waiting for it.

Cartman doping in his little tricycle!

There already was episode about it. It was about Stan.


Which one? I can't remember it

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5529
SchumieRules wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
Nephilist wrote:
Lets hope south park do an episode on him. He might be a new candidate for the biggest douche bag in universe award.


Waiting for it.

Cartman doping in his little tricycle!

There already was episode about it. It was about Stan.


Which one? I can't remember it

http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/e ... r-applause

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1294
Location: Sydney, Australia
Asphalt_World wrote:
DrG wrote:
I must admit that I don't quite see why people seem to be totally desimated by this. Hints had been there from his very first Tour de France win. Did anyone really think he was so totally clean that the recent revelations are so overwhelming? Maybe it's an age thing. I grew up in the sex, drugs & rock & roll era so maybe I am not so surprised about the amount of drug taking in sport.

God, I can remember being at a very sophisticated dinner party where every male at the table was either a Doctor, Surgeon, Lawyer etc & they were all doing drugs. They were quite surprised that I, being the youngest person at the table, didn't do any drugs. Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't being an upright citizen, I had been there, done that & didn't particularly like doing anything that meant I wasn't in total control. Besides, I never did like anything going up my nose &, injecting by needle, forget it. And this is someone from a family that didn't even drink alcohol.

I personally don't know anyone that grew up in the USA or the UK 10 years before I did in the real sex, drugs & rock & roll era that didn't do all the drugs you can imagine. Including my husband being in the USA Navy during the Vietnam war & doing so much speed that he was awake for 3 days continuously ironing his uniform. What amazes me is, no one noticed.

I'm not excusing Armstrong just saying that, depending on your age, you may look at things differently, that's all :)


Yes but we are no talking about him taking recreational drugs (however right or wrong that is) but drugs specifically designed to give him an advantage over his competitors and doing everything in his power to conceal this and indeed ruin other riders career should they not go along with him.

Yes, I know, but I guess what I am asking, with all the rumours that were going around from the time he won his first Tour de France until he won his seventh, did you really think he was totally clean all that time?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3941
Thanks dizlexik

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 1522
Image

_________________
Going to Spa? Check out my site. http://visit-spa-francorchamps.page.tl/
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world
Oh and Bernie, National flags should be raised not flipped. Sort it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 1622
Location: Secret Volcano Lair
Are people angry because he took drugs or because it lied to the world or because he acted like a douche to some people close to him?

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 2:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:50 am
Posts: 606
Race2win wrote:
Are people angry because he took drugs or because it lied to the world or because he acted like a douche to some people close to him?


I'm not angry he took drugs, one of MANY :(

He lied, when caught out, so, as I said one of many. :(

He went out of his way to DESTROY anyone who did anything to question him. He is not the victim of the sport culture..... he PERSONALLY took it to a new level and lead.

There is a huge difference between a follower and a leader..... SCUM


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group