Lance Armstrong being stripped of all titles.

LuckyLloyd

jive wrote: »

Your argument for how he is a tremendous athlete is horribly flawed. How many clean riders on that hill? Not many, but not all cheaters are created equal are they? Armstrong was a better doper, not a better cyclist; not like that matters, because how many people were left off that hill as a result of all those cúnts cheating a living?

Of his eight TDF podiums, only one rider who stood with him has (of yet) had no doping charges proved against them. Those off the hill made a choice not to dope and make no mistake - the choice was that stark (and probably still is to some extent). Dope and compete or be clean and struggle to hold a decent contract. Armstrong didn't introduce that choice, it was there long before he began his career and remained after he retired in 2005.

It is also inarguable that he was a tremendous athlete, as all of the other dopers in the TDF have been. As we all know, the drugs don't do the work. Cycling is a sport of elite athletes who pursue medical assistance to the limit on top of nutrition and dedicated training. And Armstrong dominated it like no cyclist before him (and likely none after).

In a fully clean era he still would have been the GOAT... my arse. He wasn't exactly great prior to doping, was he? .

He was a World Champion as a clean rider. The dividing line in his career is cancer. He was doping for a couple of years before he was struck down by the illness, during which he was a strong one day racer and major tour stage threat. When he returned, he continued to dope but had become a far stronger climber.

If a sex trafficker made major contributions to charity on the back of money he made illegally would you be singing his praises as well?

Comparing Lance Armstrong to a sex trafficker is ridiculous and isn't worthy of comment.

The guy stole a living off many clean athletes

Lance Armstrong didn't steal a living off clean athletes. Let's be clear on this - the prevailing culture of cycling pre and post Armstrong was doper friendly. That culture stole a living off clean athletes, not Armstrong. If he wasn't around 1999 - 2005 every one of those tours would have been won by dopers, and the top 10 spots each year filled with dopers with rare exceptions.

and is widely regarded as a complete arsehole from anyone that has had any dealings with him.

Read the esquire article in this thread, or watch the interview that rekindled this thread. Not everyone sees him as the devil incarnate. Like many elite sportsmen, he had a ferocious competitive streak that he didn't know how to switch off and he certainly attacked his accusers to an indefensibly inappropriate extent. But the guy clearly has been involved in doing lots of good in the world too.

He pressured others to use drugs and essentially rid the team of anyone unwilling to dope.

Do you think Festina were caught bringing in boatloads of drugs in 1998 because they had a relaxed opt in / opt out doping policy? Anyone unwilling to dope was going to be dropped from the team because their performance level was not up to scratch. It was the realities of cycling at the sharp end in that era.

He's a complete príck I literally can't believe that there are people who defend him, still, despite everything finally being laid out.

I am not defending the fact that he went too far in batting back his accusers over the years, and he was too aggressive and forthright in his denials. However it is utter bull**** to try and pin a broken sporting culture on one man or to pretend that doping was half hearted or amateurish before he came along. Moreover, as much as people might not like it, he has been an inspirational figure to cancer sufferers and survivors and has made a great personal contribution to supporting those affected by the disease.

People want this to be simple and black and white - unfortunately it isn't.

Alf Veedersane

The argument that he wouldn't have been the greatest in a 100% clean field is as pointless as the argument that he would have been because no one will ever know.

I haven't read that Esquire article in full (if someone could throw up some bullet points, that'd be swell...) but he's done many reprehensible things in his career but that revolved around doping/drug-taking. I'm not making excuses for him in any way, shape or form. I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily make him a despicable person.

There are plenty of people in the realm of sport that get away with being c**ts off the pitch without being tarred with the despicable brush.

Figerty

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Of his eight TDF podiums, only one rider who stood with him has (of yet) had no doping charges proved against them. Those off the hill made a choice not to dope and make no mistake - the choice was that stark (and probably still is to some extent). Dope and compete or be clean and struggle to hold a decent contract. Armstrong didn't introduce that choice, it was there long before he began his career and remained after he retired in 2005.

It is also inarguable that he was a tremendous athlete, as all of the other dopers in the TDF have been. As we all know, the drugs don't do the work. Cycling is a sport of elite athletes who pursue medical assistance to the limit on top of nutrition and dedicated training. And Armstrong dominated it like no cyclist before him (and likely none after).




He was a World Champion as a clean rider. The dividing line in his career is cancer. He was doping for a couple of years before he was struck down by the illness, during which he was a strong one day racer and major tour stage threat. When he returned, he continued to dope but had become a far stronger climber.



Comparing Lance Armstrong to a sex trafficker is ridiculous and isn't worthy of comment.




Lance Armstrong didn't steal a living off clean athletes. Let's be clear on this - the prevailing culture of cycling pre and post Armstrong was doper friendly. That culture stole a living off clean athletes, not Armstrong. If he wasn't around 1999 - 2005 every one of those tours would have been won by dopers, and the top 10 spots each year filled with dopers with rare exceptions.



Read the esquire article in this thread, or watch the interview that rekindled this thread. Not everyone sees him as the devil incarnate. Like many elite sportsmen, he had a ferocious competitive streak that he didn't know how to switch off and he certainly attacked his accusers to an indefensibly inappropriate extent. But the guy clearly has been involved in doing lots of good in the world too.



Do you think Festina were caught bringing in boatloads of drugs in 1998 because they had a relaxed opt in / opt out doping policy? Anyone unwilling to dope was going to be dropped from the team because their performance level was not up to scratch. It was the realities of cycling at the sharp end in that era.



I am not defending the fact that he went too far in batting back his accusers over the years, and he was too aggressive and forthright in his denials. However it is utter bull**** to try and pin a broken sporting culture on one man or to pretend that doping was half hearted or amateurish before he came along. Moreover, as much as people might not like it, he has been an inspirational figure to cancer sufferers and survivors and has made a great personal contribution to supporting those affected by the disease.

People want this to be simple and black and white - unfortunately it isn't.

He took drugs to win. Simply wrong. To cover it up he bullied, lied and cheated. If others did it they are as bad.

He tried to destroy anyone that got in his way. The man is a fraud.

LuckyLloyd

Figerty wrote: »

He took drugs to win. Simply wrong. To cover it up he bullied, lied and cheated. If others did it they are as bad.

He tried to destroy anyone that got in his way. The man is a fraud.

He operated in a sport where all the top contenders of his era have been proven to have done it. If he wanted to win he had no choice but to take drugs.

He went too far in attacking his detractors, that is most definitely his worst failing.

The sport of cycling, elite endurance sports, and the majority of sport in general is a fraud. People can continue to believe in fairy tales if they wish of course...

jive

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Of his eight TDF podiums, only one rider who stood with him has (of yet) had no doping charges proved against them. Those off the hill made a choice not to dope and make no mistake - the choice was that stark (and probably still is to some extent). Dope and compete or be clean and struggle to hold a decent contract. Armstrong didn't introduce that choice, it was there long before he began his career and remained after he retired in 2005.

It is also inarguable that he was a tremendous athlete, as all of the other dopers in the TDF have been. As we all know, the drugs don't do the work. Cycling is a sport of elite athletes who pursue medical assistance to the limit on top of nutrition and dedicated training. And Armstrong dominated it like no cyclist before him (and likely none after).

He was a doper, the end. You don't know what kind of natural athlete he was.

He was a World Champion as a clean rider. The dividing line in his career is cancer. He was doping for a couple of years before he was struck down by the illness, during which he was a strong one day racer and major tour stage threat. When he returned, he continued to dope but had become a far stronger climber.

Stronger as a result of what? More advanced doping techniques, msot likely.

Lance Armstrong didn't steal a living off clean athletes. Let's be clear on this - the prevailing culture of cycling pre and post Armstrong was doper friendly. That culture stole a living off clean athletes, not Armstrong. If he wasn't around 1999 - 2005 every one of those tours would have been won by dopers, and the top 10 spots each year filled with dopers with rare exceptions.

The culture didn't steal anything. The culture may have been around before around before Lance but he, and anyone else who chose to dope, effectively stole a living and potentially a living from a clean athlete. Lance did everything he could to preserve said culture.

People want this to be simple and black and white - unfortunately it isn't.

It is fairly black and white. He was the most successful doper and also the most aggressive. Just because he did charity work on the back of fake success doesn't excuse what he did in any way, shape or form.

I think we'll agree to disagree because, as a right minded person, I won't be swayed into becoming a Lance Armstrong fan on the basis that he is arguably the most vile sportsman ever. Plenty of other cyclists have a lot to answer for, and I agree that he is a scapegoat, but he deserves everything he is getting let's be frank.

Figerty

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

He operated in a sport where all the top contenders of his era have been proven to have done it. If he wanted to win he had no choice but to take drugs.

He went too far in attacking his detractors, that is most definitely his worst failing.
The sport of cycling, elite endurance sports, and the majority of sport in general is a fraud. People can continue to believe in fairy tales if they wish of course...

How many honest men had to give up their dreams because they wouldn't bend to the dishonest. His worst failing was taking drugs and thinking he was a hero.

The governing body are a disgrace for allowing this to happen.

Armstrong should be in jail.

Alf Veedersane

Figerty wrote: »

How many honest men had to give up their dreams because they wouldn't bend to the dishonest. His worst failing was taking drugs and thinking he was a hero.

The governing body are a disgrace for allowing this to happen.

Armstrong should be in jail.

On his own or with all the other cyclists that blood doped, took EEPO, etc etc?

dartstothesea

Figerty wrote: »

How many honest men had to give up their dreams because they wouldn't bend to the dishonest. His worst failing was taking drugs and thinking he was a hero.

The governing body are a disgrace for allowing this to happen.

Armstrong should be in jail.

If your honest man's dream was to be the best cyclist (and be clean) then maybe they got their dream regardless? All they have to do is measure themselves against the other honest men only.
If their dream was to be internationally recognised/famous for being the best and make a ton of money, then yeah they got kinda screwed. Sort of silly dream though.
If their dream was just to make a bunch of money then they should've tried a much smarter career than pro sports athlete.

irishguy1983

What do people think of Emma O' Reilly??

Have heard a good few interviews with her and I can't say I really like her. Something not very truthful about her (yes I know she is the main whistleblower).

I find this whole thing strange - I can't say I like any of the people involved - Kimmage and Walsh are annoying assholes too.

Alf Veedersane

Not being likeable doesn't invalidate the truth you tell.

I can't see any problem with EO'R. She doesn't try to demonise LA. She doesn't have to.Her story is what it is.

irishguy1983

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Not being likeable doesn't invalidate the truth you tell.

I can't see any problem with EO'R. She doesn't try to demonise LA. She doesn't have to.Her story is what it is.

Yes she is telling the truth now but lied for years herself. I was listening to her interview on NEWSTALK ydy and she was chatting about herself and Lance - something just doesn't sound right.....

Anyway my point is I even find even the ones telling the truth (Kimmage, Walsh) incredible unlikeable which so strange....Just my point of view....

Alf Veedersane

irishguy1983 wrote: »

Yes she is telling the truth now but lied for years herself. I was listening to her interview on NEWSTALK ydy and she was chatting about herself and Lance - something just doesn't sound right.....

Anyway my point is I even find even the ones telling the truth (Kimmage, Walsh) incredible unlikeable which so strange....Just my point of view....

Given that LA wrote a foreword to her book I'm not entirely sure why you don't believe her entirely

Alf Veedersane

And I wouldn't classify her not telling all and sundry about what was going on the first chance she had as lying.

irishguy1983

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Given that LA wrote a foreword to her book I'm not entirely sure why you don't believe her entirely

Maybe because the most well known liar ever wrote the foreword to her book?? Hardly a ringing endorsement of someone - if the devil wrote the foreword to my book I wouldn't exactly be bragging about it!

I am not sure being honest - I have just listened to a few interviews now and I just don't like her/trust her. Just something about her answers/their make up doesn't seem right....

Dietsquirt

irishguy1983 wrote: »

What do people think of Emma O' Reilly??

Have heard a good few interviews with her and I can't say I really like her. Something not very truthful about her (yes I know she is the main whistleblower).

I find this whole thing strange - I can't say I like any of the people involved - Kimmage and Walsh are annoying assholes too.

Doesn't seem like a very likeable person, always has a puss on her face in interviews.

She deserves credit for coming forward though (albeit pushed a little by Kimmage et al..)

Alf Veedersane

irishguy1983 wrote: »

Maybe because the most well known liar ever wrote the foreword to her book?? Hardly a ringing endorsement of someone - if the devil wrote the foreword to my book I wouldn't exactly be bragging about it!

I am not sure being honest - I have just listened to a few interviews now and I just don't like her/trust her. Just something about her answers/their make up doesn't seem right....

Have a think about that.

He's admitted what he's done but he could be lying about admitting it?

Hmmmm

irishguy1983

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Have a think about that.

He's admitted what he's done but he could be lying about admitting it?

Hmmmm

So he is no longer a liar? Nor is there the possibility he is still lying about certain things?

Call me a bit cautious but I wouldn't exactly trust him nor her...

Fair enough....

Alf Veedersane

irishguy1983 wrote: »

So he is no longer a liar? Nor is there the possibility he is still lying about certain things?

Call me a bit cautious but I wouldn't exactly trust him nor her...

Fair enough....

I'm not saying he's not capable of being a liar anymore. I'm just not sure what you think he'd be lying about in relation to her story.

As for hee, there's nothing outlandish in her story in the context of what's been revealed in all the cases that have come to light

irishguy1983

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'm not saying he's not capable of being a liar anymore. I'm just not sure what you think he'd be lying about in relation to her story.

As for hee, there's nothing outlandish in her story in the context of what's been revealed in all the cases that have come to light

I am agreeing with you in general so stop trying to pick a fight

Tis more a of a gut feeling and I was simply wondering did anyone feel the same about them all (Kimmage, Walsh, LA, O'Reilly) ie they are all incredibly unlikeable regardless of telling of the truth.

O' Reilly could well be telling the truth about herself and LA now - I just sense something is off. It doesn't add up and her interview on NEWSTALK seemed a bit strange really - just my two cents anyway.

Alf Veedersane

irishguy1983 wrote: »

I am agreeing with you in general so stop trying to pick a fight

Tis more a of a gut feeling and I was simply wondering did anyone feel the same about them all (Kimmage, Walsh, LA, O'Reilly) ie they are all incredibly unlikeable regardless of telling of the truth.

O' Reilly could well be telling the truth about herself and LA now - I just sense something is off. It doesn't add up and her interview on NEWSTALK seemed a bit strange really - just my two cents anyway.

Not trying to pick a fight at all fella.

I wouldn't go for a pint with her but I see no reason to doubt her story.

Figerty

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

On his own or with all the other cyclists that blood doped, took EEPO, etc etc?

All of them.

Alf Veedersane

Figerty wrote: »

All of them.

Who funds the building of this super-jail?

Figerty

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Who funds the building of this super-jail?

Id say Lance made a few dollars,, start there..

Maybe he could be sentenced to licking Postal stamps for life!

Alf Veedersane

Figerty wrote: »

Id say Lance made a few dollars,, start there..

Why not any of the others first?

gordongekko

Dietsquirt wrote: »

Doesn't seem like a very likeable person, always has a puss on her face in interviews.

What's that got to do with anything. I'm sure she's sound.

irishguy1983

I don't know jack about cycling.

Is there anyway to kind of decide who was the best cyclist around this time? Was Lance any good? Or is it impossible to say considering they were all on drugs?!

I can't imagine following a sport where you really don't have a clue who is good or not so to speak!

Alf Veedersane

irishguy1983 wrote: »

I don't know jack about cycling.

Is there anyway to kind of decide who was the best cyclist around this time? Was Lance any good? Or is it impossible to say considering they were all on drugs?!

I can't imagine following a sport where you really don't have a clue who is good or not so to speak!

There is no way of knowing who took what and what impact it actually had.

Don't think drugs are limited to the likes of cycling and athletics. For example, Operacion Puerto showed Fuentes had links to footballers and tennis players but that wasn't pursued.

ford2600

irishguy1983 wrote: »

I don't know jack about cycling.

Is there anyway to kind of decide who was the best cyclist around this time? Was Lance any good? Or is it impossible to say considering they were all on drugs?!

I can't imagine following a sport where you really don't have a clue who is good or not so to speak!

Not being smart but what squeaky clean professional sports do you follow with certainty?

irishguy1983

ford2600 wrote: »

Not being smart but what squeaky clean professional sports do you follow with certainty?

Relax!

I am not having a pop at cycling!

I was just wondering is it possible for people who follow cycling to rate the cyclists at all? Was LA any good?! Impossible to decide as one poster pointed out I suppose.

Kev M

irishguy1983 wrote: »

Relax!

I am not having a pop at cycling!

I was just wondering is it possible for people who follow cycling to rate the cyclists at all? Was LA any good?! Impossible to decide as one poster pointed out I suppose.

Well we can say with the drugs he was the best ever. Some of those tours he won easy. Around 2003-2005 I don't think anyone in history would have been at his level. It just depends on the individual viewer as to whether or not they want to merit anything he's done in light of the whole drug situation.

Personally I watch the tour every year to see performance pushed to the limit. I enjoy the team strategy aspects and the breakneck speed risks the riders take. I don't for the most part worry about who's 'clean', but the nature of what it is will have you from time to time going 'yeah, that guy's on something'. Bottom line is you don't know who's on what in any sport, so if you want to enjoy watching it you may have to accept that fact.

aloyisious

irishguy1983 wrote: »

I don't know jack about cycling.

Is there anyway to kind of decide who was the best cyclist around this time? Was Lance any good? Or is it impossible to say considering they were all on drugs?!

I can't imagine following a sport where you really don't have a clue who is good or not so to speak!

Possibly way back beyond the 80's. Some of the cycling pundits cast doubts on Stephen Roche's human ability to do what he did in 1987, winning the World Championship, the TDF and the Giro d'Italia in the one year, only the second cyclist to do so. Check out Eddy Mercyx (the cannibal) or Jacques Anquetil etc from history, or Sean Kelly.

RoboRat

I don't for the most part worry about who's 'clean', but the nature of what it is will have you from time to time going 'yeah, that guy's on something'.

I agree, you can see those who seem to pull a miraculous stage from the hat and it always strikes me as suspicious. Even last year there were some questionable performances and the testing is only as good as the processes they know of.

eyescreamcone

Didn't Sean Kelly test positive way back at some stage?
Missed an Olympics?

Alf Veedersane

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Didn't Sean Kelly test positive way back at some stage?
Missed an Olympics?

Being banned from the Olympics was due to an Irish team racing in South Africa during apartheid.

But yes he tested positive. It was deemed that there was enough doubt in the veracity of the test that the ban was suspended. The other time it was for codeine he claimed was in a cough medicine.

eyescreamcone

Cough medicine 

Dietsquirt

gordongekko wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything. I'm sure she's sound.

You're sure she's sound? 100%? Define sound please..

The poster asked the thread what people's opinion on Emma O'Reilly was, and I voiced mine. No need for the sarcasm.

irishguy1983

Interview on Newstalk with Betsy Andreu if anyone is interested....

dartstothesea

Dietsquirt wrote: »

You're sure she's sound? 100%? Define sound please..

The poster asked the thread what people's opinion on Emma O'Reilly was, and I voiced mine. No need for the sarcasm.

He wasn't being sarcastic in his post. He just asked you how the fact that you don't like the way her face looks is supposed to matter. and it doesn't.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Alf Veedersane

I wonder what Paul Kimmage's blood pressure is like now. If it's gone down after reading what Stephen Roche said about reinstating Armstrong as winnewrs of those TdFs.

To be fair he wasn't the only one - 12 of the 23 former winners that were interviewed reckoned LA should be reinstated as the winner.

LuckyLloyd

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I wonder what Paul Kimmage's blood pressure is like now. If it's gone down after reading what Stephen Roche said about reinstating Armstrong as winnewrs of those TdFs.

To be fair he wasn't the only one - 12 of the 23 former winners that were interviewed reckoned LA should be reinstated as the winner.

12 of 23 seeing it that way should call into question the idea that Armstrong's cheating was unique or unprecedented imo.

Alf Veedersane

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

12 of 23 seeing it that way should call into question the idea that Armstrong's cheating was unique or unprecedented imo.

Well, it certainly suggests that cheating wasn't unique or unprecedented.

But, and this is posibly largely because so much is known about LA's activities, you would have to wonder if anyone else was as dedicated, determined and strategic in their use of doping/drugs.

We may nnever know but with more knowledge on LA (and how easy it is to dislike him) he's likely to be labelled as the biggest cycling cheat of all time.

Duck's hoop

Listening to 'Off the Ball' the other night. I am a fan of this show, quite entertaining.

But they were basically comparing pro cycling to WWF and how it should be renamed bicycle entertainment. While there was some tongue in cheek obviously, they were responding to fans who wanted more coverage.

Their argument being 'well it's full of dope therefore invalid'. The previous night they'd been saying how great the 100 metres is despite the prevalence of doping in that event, and athletics generally.

Not to mention basically every pro sport today.

I was miffed.

Alf Veedersane

Duck's hoop wrote: »

Listening to 'Off the Ball' the other night. I am a fan of this show, quite entertaining.

But they were basically comparing pro cycling to WWF and how it should be renamed bicycle entertainment. While there was some tongue in cheek obviously, they were responding to fans who wanted more coverage.

Their argument being 'well it's full of dope therefore invalid'. The previous night they'd been saying how great the 100 metres is despite the prevalence of doping in that event, and athletics generally.

Not to mention basically every pro sport today.

I was miffed.

Heard that as well.

I like the show but they're liable to come out with some awful tripe. I think Parkinson brings it out in them.

Duck's hoop

Could well be right. He was saying some golfist had no business having 'guns' at 45 years of age. Too old. Didn't suit. And he was only half messing.

Alf Veedersane

Duck's hoop wrote: »

Could well be right. He was saying some golfist had no business having 'guns' at 45 years of age. Too old. Didn't suit. And he was only half messing.

Darren Clarke.

He's a poorer version of Dunphy if Eamo did GAA.