'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

MPFG

No

Hermy wrote: »

+1:cool:

How about Aaron Eckhart as Armstrong?

Aaron Eckhart certainly looks the part but could he capture the mental ( I will F***king kill you if you don't listen to my poem) mentality that R Crowe has that could fit with cancer jesus

I am on a roll now and think for Pat & Hein it could be James Gandofini & Paul Giamatti...they could capture the mafioso /omerta type overtures of that pair

greenspurs

No

is it true Cheat Armstrong "sold" Livestrong ? and is now just the "figurehead" ?? ( a rumour i heard ?)

hardCopy

No

MPFG wrote: »

Aaron Eckhart certainly looks the part but could he capture the mental ( I will F***king kill you if you don't listen to my poem) mentality that R Crowe has that could fit with cancer jesus

I am on a roll now and think for Pat & Hein it could be James Gandofini & Paul Giamatti...they could capture the mafioso /omerta type overtures of that pair

He can certainly play two-faced characters though.

corny

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

As far as we know; None of those guys bought off the testers. None of those guys tried to destroy the reputations of people who spoke the truth. None of those guys sued people who couldn't afford to fight back. None of them intimidated a witness. None of them took it upon themselves to overtly bully Simeoni or Bassons. Ullrich, Zulle, Riis all admitted to doping in the end, Armstrong still hasn't.

There ARE different levels of cheating and classless behaviour. In this world of cheats, Armstrong was the absolute King. And you CAN single him out for his unrelenting need to corrupt the entire system and destroy everyone who stood in his way.

I was speaking purely on the issue of actual drugs in cycling. The point i responded to said he alone brought it new levels of 'sophistication and specialisation'. There's nothing particularly sophisticated in any of the above you mentioned. I was referring to the micro dosing, the saline drips, the transfusions etc. In that Ferrari led the way.

petethedrummer

No

corny wrote: »

I was speaking purely on the issue of actual drugs in cycling. The point i responded to said he alone brought it new levels of 'sophistication and specialisation'. There's nothing particularly sophisticated in any of the above you mentioned. I was referring to the micro dosing, the saline drips, the transfusions etc. In that Ferrari led the way.

So you're having a semantic argument based on the slight misuse of word in a post when it is clear what the poster meant*. Of course Armstrong wasn't entirely alone, he's not a scientist or blood doctor. You actually think the poster meant to imply that Armstrong was off carrying out research of his own on the merits of subcutaneous vs intravenous injection of EPO? Lord above.


*Edit: Just re-read the original post, the poster didn't even say 'alone'. And I don't think even implied 'alone'. You know what the poster meant.

corny

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

So you're having a semantic argument based on the slight misuse of word in a post when it is clear what the poster meant. Of course Armstrong wasn't entirely alone, he's not a scientist or blood doctor. You actually think the poster meant to imply that Armstrong was off carrying out research of his own on the merits of subcutaneous vs intravenous injection of EPO? Lord above.

I wasn't arguing semantics; i think i was quite clear but since this seems important to you i'll spell it out.

Marienbad said Armstrong brought it to a level of sophistication and specialisation that utterly destroyed it possibly beyond recovery. I was pointing out that given the opportunity (to work with the good doctor) a whole host riders would have led cycling down the same road. In other words Ferrari and an other would have irreparably damaged cycling regardless. Like i said they'd all have bitten your hand off to take it to that level.

A very simple point. This is what i said with extra justification filled in just for you.

"He didn't really. Ferrari did. (brought it to a level of sophistication and specialisation that utterly destroyed it possibly beyond recovery) Armstrong just had the good sense (for him anyway) to ally himself to Ferrari along the way. Given the opportunity Ullrich, Zulle, Riis, Pantani, etc they'd all have bitten your hand off to take it to that level. Thats the point i think was being made.(a148pro's point that cycling was sick before, during and after LA)"

marienbad

No

corny wrote: »

I wasn't arguing semantics; i think i was quite clear but since this seems important to you i'll spell it out.

Marienbad said Armstrong brought it to a level of sophistication and specialisation that utterly destroyed it possibly beyond recovery. I was pointing out that given the opportunity (to work with the good doctor) a whole host riders would have led cycling down the same road. In other words Ferrari and an other would have irreparably damaged cycling regardless. Like i said they'd all have bitten your hand off to take it to that level.

A very simple point. This is what i said with extra justification filled in just for you.

To make you happy lets say LA and Ferrari then - but I did reference the resources Armstrong used in numerous posts and Ferrari was one of those resources- so you are being semantic really. This is a discussion forum not a court of law.

The point I am making is That Armstrong for a brief moment in time was in a unique position post Festina - more so that any other cyclist at that specific time. He had the goodwill , he had unheard of financial resources , he had the ear of athletes administrators, media but he lacked the courage to back his own ability.

Other riders just did'nt have the combination of attributes that he had, so he used those attributes to make himself bigger than the sport and in the process enrich himself, impoverish others and destroy the sport.

You can speculate all you want on what ''a whole host of other riders'' might have done , but history judges people of what they did do and not on what they might have done. We know he was a cheat a liar a fraud and a bully - what others might have been or might have done is fantasy land.

dave2pvd

No

MPFG wrote: »

Kimmage - Gabriel Byrne -> Good. Like it.
Armstrong - Russell Crowe but after 9 months method acting/cycling on Alp d'Huez -> Seems very reasonable!
Hamilton - Ryan Gosling in a wig ( he doesn't sound like Sean Penn...its a cowboy actor) -> Very insightful
Big George - Steven Segal ...After being on a severe diet -> Segal? If he's cast, the movie will bomb. How bout Snoop Dogg?
Big Georges's wife ......Merly Streep in a wig -> No. Are you kidding? How about Bar Rafaeli?
Shane Stokes ......Justin Beiber -> Poor Shane. He'll not be pleased

Responses above.

corny

No

marienbad wrote: »

To make you happy lets say LA and Ferrari then - but I did reference the resources Armstrong used in numerous posts and Ferrari was one of those resources- so you are being semantic really. This is a discussion forum not a court of law.

Are you sure? I feel like my words are being de-constructed yet i'm playing semantics.:rolleyes:

marienbad wrote: »

The point I am making is That Armstrong for a brief moment in time was in a unique position post Festina - more so that any other cyclist at that specific time. He had the goodwill , he had unheard of financial resources , he had the ear of athletes administrators, media but he lacked the courage to back his own ability.

Rubbish. He might have been a little more brazen than some but to suggest he could have led some sort of revolution is ridiculous. After Festina it was only a matter of time before the status quo was re established. Same happened after puerto and the same thing will happen after Armstrong. Its engrained.

marienbad wrote: »

Other riders just did'nt have the combination of attributes that he had, so he used those attributes to make himself bigger than the sport and in the process enrich himself, impoverish others and destroy the sport.

Bad for the sport, absolutely.

marienbad wrote: »

You can speculate all you want on what ''a whole host of other riders'' might have done , but history judges people of what they did do and not on what they might have done. We know he was a cheat a liar a fraud and a bully - what others might have been or might have done is fantasy land.

Its not speculation, they've demonstrated they're cut from the same cloth when it comes to cheating the sport. Its not fantasy. Everyone one of them was after an edge to make them top dog. I mean can you actually imagine lying on a bed with a cold blood bag hooked up to your veins. Imagine what type of person would do that; the lengths they were willing to go to. Evil Lance is the only one not to admit it but he wasn't the only one doing it and he certainly didn't make it mandatory for the peloton. From Riis before him to Contador or Vino after him, they don't need to be led.

marienbad

No

corny wrote: »

Are you sure? I feel like my words are being de-constructed yet i'm playing semantics.:rolleyes:



Rubbish. He might have been a little more brazen than some but to suggest he could have led some sort of revolution is ridiculous. After Festina it was only a matter of time before the status quo was re established. Same happened after puerto and the same thing will happen after Armstrong. Its engrained.



Bad for the sport, absolutely.



Its not speculation, they've demonstrated they're cut from the same cloth when it comes to cheating the sport. Its not fantasy. Everyone one of them was after an edge to make them top dog. I mean can you actually imagine lying on a bed with a cold blood bag hooked up to your veins. Imagine what type of person would do that; the lengths they were willing to go to. Evil Lance is the only one not to admit it but he wasn't the only one doing it and he certainly didn't make it mandatory for the peloton. From Riis before him to Contador or Vino after him, they don't need to be led.

Bad for the sport, absolutely. He was sui generis even before he won a tour . And of course there was a huge opportunity after festina , everyone knew drugs were involved , but even insiders were stunned at the extend of it and national police were forces were involved . There is evidence that even riders were prepared for a new start.

Would it have worked - well will we never know now will we , But to deny that he could have led a revolution is kinds missing the obvious - hi did lead a revolution , just of the wrong kind , he took what was a disorganised team by team cottage industry and turned in into a streamlined operation that developed drug methodology ahead of the testers, influenced admistrators, had contack with drug labs. Lorded it over the media ,decided who got access and who did not. Hounded out riders who refused to conform. He even intimadted News International for C*&%+ts sake - Let get this straight -he prevented one of the most powerful news organistions in the world to print a retraction of what they and he - wait for it- knew to be true, to print a retraction that he and they knew to be a lie , and them made them give him money !


Hi did'ny even have to win that first tour post cancer tour to become an icon - it would have been enough initally to just competed at all. But he choose differently and so we lost the 1999 opportunity and we added verburuggen mcquaid years.

carltonleon

No

walshb wrote: »

I believe Armstrong did dope. But, he won them races. He didn't have a jet engine attached to his bike. He still went through the pain and he still came out on top. I do no condone cheating, but the man never ever tested positive for illegal drugs in sport/cycling!

Yeah but don't forget that his whole team was pretty much juiced. So when Armstrong was on EPO it gave him an advantage but with his whole team on the juice it gave him an unassailable advantage. His team could ride harder and faster for longer.

petethedrummer

No

corny wrote: »

I was pointing out that given the opportunity (to work with the good doctor) a whole host riders would have led cycling down the same road. In other words Ferrari and an other would have irreparably damaged cycling regardless. Like i said they'd all have bitten your hand off to take it to that level.

A very simple point. This is what i said with extra justification filled in just for you.

Well we'll have to disagree on that specific point. Armstrong was not cycling in '97 and most of '98. The other riders had the opportunity to work with Ferrari and no doubt some did. But only one person sought and obtained an exclusive deal with Ferrari for their team. That is the key point. Other cyclists would probably have had more money than Armstrong at that point and could have done it, but they didn't. It doesn't matter who the doctor was, Armstrong would have upped the ante and attempted to maximise the cheating for his own benefit. As he did with the non-medical side of all this.

After reading the reasoned decisioned and Hamilton's book I'm not even sure anymore that Ferrari was the best. If his number one client was not going to get sanctioned by the UCI when he was popped this must mean he had greater scope to push the boundaries.

one man clappin

No

After watching the ABC documentary, the sad thing is that Michael Ashenden came out and said that, there is no test at the moment for blood doping. The dopers will always be ahead of the testers

DirkVoodoo

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

Well we'll have to disagree on that specific point. Armstrong was not cycling in '97 and most of '98. The other riders had the opportunity to work with Ferrari and no doubt some did. But only one person sought and obtained an exclusive deal with Ferrari for their team. That is the key point. Other cyclists would probably have had more money than Armstrong at that point and could have done it, but they didn't. It doesn't matter who the doctor was, Armstrong would have upped the ante and attempted to maximise the cheating for his own benefit. As he did with the non-medical side of all this.

Have to agree with Pete. If one thing comes through all this, it's the personality of Lance: narcissistic, obsessive, competitive and dominant. Lance took doping to the same extremes he took everything, like his "formula 1" approach to cycling sponsors of his teams. I don't think another cyclist would have got the same outcome with Ferrari, which is why Lance "got" his 7 tour wins and no other dopers have got close to that.

Cienciano

No

MPFG wrote: »

Kimmage - Gabriel Byrne
Armstrong - Russell Crowe but after 9 months method acting/cycling on Alp d'Huez
Hamilton - Ryan Gosling in a wig ( he doesn't sound like Sean Penn...its a cowboy actor)
Big George - Steven Segal ...After being on a severe diet
Big Georges's wife ......Merly Streep in a wig
Shane Stokes ......Justin Beiber

I hope it includes a scene with Kimmage (Byrne) in a packed court room saying "You want the truth? *slams fist down* You can't handle the truth"

mcgratheoin

No

marienbad wrote: »

The point I am making is That Armstrong for a brief moment in time was in a unique position post Festina - more so that any other cyclist at that specific time. He had the goodwill , he had unheard of financial resources , he had the ear of athletes administrators, media but he lacked the courage to back his own ability.

Just on this point, I'm not sure that Armstrong had any of the above (bar the goodwill as a cancer survivor) prior to his Tour wins, so it's not really accurate to say that he could have used his profile to usher in a new era for cycling post Festina. If we look at the cyclist he could have been without drugs, he may have been a great classics rider, but even if he won all the monuments in the same year he'd barely get a mention in the USA.

However, you could very easily argue that a new era may well have occurred had Armstrong not begun annexing tour titles and stamping his authority over the peleton. If you believe Rudy Pevenage, (major pinch of salt needed though), Telekom had stopped doping between Festina and 2001, only starting again to catch up with Armstrong.

MPFG

No

Cienciano wrote: »

I hope it includes a scene with Kimmage (Byrne) in a packed court room saying "You want the truth? *slams fist down* You can't handle the truth"

I can see it now ..Tommy Lee Jones as the sleasy Armstrong lawyer in the pivotal role with Gabriel on the stand

Must maybe it should be Jones shouting to Byrne .....You wanted the EPO!!!...you just couldn't get your hands on the EPO!!!

LIke the idea of Snoop Dogg as big george ...(shades of Roots!) ...has oscar written all over it

Bar Rafaeli? ....one for the boys I think......but can she act??/ Remember this character according to Armstrong is a 'a drunk, fat, prossie, mental ugly woman' and she also stands up to bullying , is strong and courageous......Meryl can handle all this ...plus you have to have her to ensure an oscar nod or else Jennifer Anison for box office

dave2pvd

No

MPFG wrote: »

Bar Rafaeli? ....one for the boys I think......but can she act??/ Remember this character according to Armstrong is a 'a drunk, fat, prossie, mental ugly woman' and she also stands up to bullying , is strong and courageous......Meryl can handle all this ...plus you have to have her to ensure an oscar nod or else Jennifer Anison for box office

Big George's wife was a TdF podium girl. are you thinking of Betsy Andreau?
(BTW: doesn't matter if Bar Rafaeli can act or not).

corny

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

Well we'll have to disagree on that specific point. Armstrong was not cycling in '97 and most of '98. The other riders had the opportunity to work with Ferrari and no doubt some did. But only one person sought and obtained an exclusive deal with Ferrari for their team. That is the key point. Other cyclists would probably have had more money than Armstrong at that point and could have done it, but they didn't. It doesn't matter who the doctor was, Armstrong would have upped the ante and attempted to maximise the cheating for his own benefit. As he did with the non-medical side of all this.

After reading the reasoned decisioned and Hamilton's book I'm not even sure anymore that Ferrari was the best. If his number one client was not going to get sanctioned by the UCI when he was popped this must mean he had greater scope to push the boundaries.

Didn't they all do that? Were Ullrich, Hamilton, Mr. 60% not trying to maximise the cheating for their own benefit???? The only difference between them, on the drugs issue, was that Ferrari didn't **** up and give Armstrong someone elses blood like Fuentes. And sure Armstrong gave Ferrari a million quid for exclusive rights because he was the second or third best. That doesn't sound like the ruthlessly efficient Lance, always looking for the edge.

In the early nineties what Ferrari did with Gewiss proves he was the man. 1,2,3 in Fleche Wallone, winnner of the Giro, second in the tour, winner of Lombardia. They set the TTT record average speed at the tour only to be broken by... you guessed it Lance and Discovery 10 years later. What he said about EPO being like orange juice nailed his colours to the mast. He was going to bend the rules to their fullest on his journey with or without Armstrong which was my point before you accused me of being duplicitous.

Its de rigeur to think of Armstrong at the head of affairs leading (Stalinesque) the peloton down the slippery slope but the reality is he was just playing the game with scores of people who thought the same way about drugs in cycling. That was my original point btw, disagree if you must.

MPFG

No

dave2pvd wrote: »

Big George's wife was a TdF podium girl. are you thinking of Betsy Andreau?
(BTW: doesn't matter is Bar Rafaeli can act or not).

Apologies ...yes I was thinking of Betsy Andreau

And what do you mean it doesn't matter if Bar Rafaeli can act or not !!!!
This is a serious project :rolleyes: ...I am already thinking of ringing Harvery Weinstein

Lusk Doyle

No

Cienciano wrote: »

I hope it includes a scene with Kimmage (Byrne) in a packed court room saying "You want the truth? *slams fist down* You can't handle the truth"

It also needs a list of the people who voted "no" and "yes, but he's still great" in the credits.

nerraw1111

RTE reporting: "Lance Armstrong is stepping down as chairman of his Livestrong cancer-fighting charity."

wonderfullife

No

Nike ditch Lance. About time.

Quote:

"due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that Nike terminates its contract with him"

nerraw1111

And NIKE right behind them. Is Lance about to admit everything given the timing?

Statement from Nike on terminating Lance Armstrong's contract: “Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him. Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner. Nike plans to continue support of the Livestrong initiatives created to unite, inspire and empower people affected by cancer.”

letape

No

Cyclist Lance Armstrong is to step down as chairman of his Livestrong cancer-fighting charity.

Reported on skynews -

http://news.sky.com/story/998927/armstrong-to-quit-role-as-livestrong-chairman

wonderfullife

No

it's unravelling pretty fast and i expect the unthinkable to follow soon....an admission of guilt, public grovelling apology and appeals for privacy for his family.

ThisRegard

No

Wow, I don't think Nike would ditch him this quick, I thought they'd at least wait until after the UCI made some sort of statement. the thing is, they've probably made as much money as they can out of him at this stage. There's not a lot to be made from a retired cyclist or if they make much from tri gear.

Re him stepping down as chairman of Livestrong, I wonder where he steps down to ? I would have thought that over in America he still enjoys a huge amount of support and that Livestrong would still be benefitting having him as chairman.

ThisRegard

No

wonderfullife wrote: »

it's unravelling pretty fast and i expect the unthinkable to follow soon....an admission of guilt, public grovelling apology and appeals for privacy for his family.

And don't forget the book. To be honest, if he did write one I would buy it, as long as he was completely honest in it.

It would be interesting to see into the mind of such a powerful personality, no matter how much you dislike that personality, and the machinations behind how he became such a powerful force within the peleton and doping.

wonderfullife

No

This is just classic Damage Limitation being employed by Lance and Nike.

Armstrong steps down as symbolic head of Livestrong, Nike ditch him (but stand by Livestrong), lawsuits will follow - Sunday Times, Walsh, the insurers, etc there will be a queue around the corner to sue him - he'll most likely settle them out of court.

Somehow Lance will come out of this alright. He's built up too much money and false adulation, bordering on a cult, so he'll get through this relatively speaking. All he has to do now is admit to cheating but keep trotting out the cancer charity, put his head in the sand and all will be grand.

Flandria

No

ThisRegard wrote: »

Wow, I don't think Nike would ditch him this quick, I thought they'd at least wait until after the UCI made some sort of statement. the thing is, they've probably made as much money as they can out of him at this stage. There's not a lot to be made from a retired cyclist or if they make much from tri gear.

Re him stepping down as chairman of Livestrong, I wonder where he steps down to ? I would have thought that over in America he still enjoys a huge amount of support and that Livestrong would still be benefitting having him as chairman.

He remains on the board