The Armstrong Lie

pelevin

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Only one of the various cyclists that shared his eight podiums hasn't been done for doping offenses. He cheated in an era of cheating. By the 'rules of the road' of the time he did little untoward.

He also pre-cancer gave zero indication of being a grand tour gc rider and then he won 7 TdFs in a row. Whatever rules of the road there were, I think that indicates how empty the 'realities' that were being revealed in the nuclear doping era, & nonsense of the 'level playing-field' notion one sees.

Good extract from Christophe Bassons, the most famous clean rider directly impacted on by Armstrong's bullying reaction to Bassons speaking out about what was going on:

"I believe top-level sport was usurped by people who are not necessarily the most talented or the strongest, but are simply the most determined or the most oblivious to danger. Sorcerers' apprentices who pretend to be doctors are then responsible for providing these kamikaze athletes with the physical means to achieve their goals."

LuckyLloyd

pelevin wrote: »

He also pre-cancer gave zero indication of being a grand tour gc rider and then he won 7 TdFs in a row. Whatever rules of the road there were, I think that indicates how empty the 'realities' that were being revealed in the nuclear doping era, & nonsense of the 'level playing-field' notion one sees.

He was a different rider before cancer. He lost a lot of weight and mass and had a different focus upon his return.

He had formed a relationship with Ferrari before he took ill too don't forget. Armstrong doped before cancer and achieved success commensurate with his physical attributes at the time - as a big powerful cyclist with relatively good engine he was a one day threat.

pelevin wrote: »

Good extract from Christophe Bassons, the most famous clean rider directly impacted on by Armstrong's bullying reaction to Bassons speaking out about what was going on:

" believe top-level sport was usurped by people who are not necessarily the most talented or the strongest, but are simply the most determined or the most oblivious to danger. Sorcerers' apprentices who pretend to be doctors are then responsible for providing these kamikaze athletes with the physical means to achieve their goals."

Again, this was the case in cycling before and after Armstrong's period of dominance.

LuckyLloyd

Koobcam wrote: »

My over-riding thought while watching was that if he hadn't come back in 2009 he would have gotten away with everything. Why did he decide to come back?? What was he thinking?

He wanted the rush of victory again and I think he believed he could still win it (probably while messing around on a mountain bike the previous year he twigged that he was still producing a lot of power). I think he also realised that a return would be of huge benefit to his foundation and could create a new impetus to his sponsorship arrangements, etc.

It was a dreadful decision in the end of course.

pelevin

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You can continue to label the film as 'intellectually shameful' and you are fully entitled to prefer a shallow 'gotcha' piece (or literature) on the topic. It is our privilege to be wrong.

You yourself have said Gibney described himself as a fan, & so helping explain the superhero music to go with Armstrong's amazing recovery podium winning ride. You then say above, "you are fully entitled to prefer a shallow 'gotcha' piece (or literature) on the topic." I don't want a piece of simple hate or adoration, but when the film is being made by "a fan" as reflected in the manner the described scene is presented, then I fail to see how you can tout the above as objective film-making. A fan colours everything with that emotion, as ludicrously Gibney chose to do with the happy-happy music. There's nothing remotely objective about it. It's a film-making technique where the director tries to actually direct, induce and enhance, the emotional response of the viewer to the images. The same as if they showed Tyler Hamilton talking about Armstrong & coupled it with doom-laden sinister music. It's got nothing to do with a serious intellectual intent.

pelevin

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

He was a different rider before cancer. He lost a lot of weight and mass and had a different focus upon his return.

Again, this was the case in cycling before and after Armstrong's period of dominance.

He finished one TdF in his first 4 attempts. Peter Sagan by contrast now - infinitely more impressive & of presumably similar physiological type, zero possibility outside of crashing that he would struggle to finish a TdF. Fignon winning his first TdF and his second. Not, unlike Armstrong & the first hallf of his career, more likely to abandon than finish. And then this guy wins 7 in a row . . .

As you agree above, it was an era of total farce, sorcerers apprentices & kamikaze, & even as in the case of Armstrong,distinctly disturbed young men thriving in a toxic environment - and in fact the more toxic the better for the likes of Armstrong, as the more his extreme type would prevail.

petethedrummer

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

He lost a lot of weight and mass and had a different focus upon his return.

How much weight did he actually lose?

fishfoodie

petethedrummer wrote: »

How much weight did he actually lose?

Well he had a testicle removed

One point to make about LA's cancer, is the discussion he had with the Doctors during his treatment, when the Andreau's were in the room, & the Doctors asked what drugs he was taking .... & Lance listed off all the illegal drugs he was taking _BEFORE_ he was diagnosed.

Now I doubt the Doctors asked this out of idle curiosity, especially when there is a cancer risk associated with both HGH, & Testosterone !

mcgratheoin

12 sprocket wrote: »

Nothing mythical about the fact that he had cancer and nearly died, and I know that this won't go down well with some of you but most fair-minded people would have to respect his courage and spirit in just getting back to such a difficult sport. Also his fundraising and championing of the Cancer issue.

I've posted on this topic before http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80517939 and I really resent the way he hijacked cancer as his own personal issue. What really stands out is his greed and egotism around the whole situation. Had he returned from testicular cancer (which may have been caused by his doping and was definitely ignored in its early stages due to his doping) and ridden the tour it would have been an amazing and inspirational story. But he had to turn it into a superhero fiction - his story is the basic plot of Spiderman/Incredible Hulk or many comic book heroes. Man gets sick/bitten/infected, survives and emerges with superhuman powers - for Lance it was the whole "I can ride through more pain than other riders because it's not as painful as chemo" and the "my body rebuilt itself in a totally different shape/style following the cancer"

I often wonder is that spirit of never say die an American thing, Lemond also made a comeback after being shot and won Tours. I'm not sure a European rider might have done the same.

There was another rider mentioned in LA Confidentiel who had testicular cancer and attempted a comeback but was unable to. Can't remember his name though

a148pro

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Again, this was the case in cycling before and after Armstrong's period of dominance.

I don't hate Lance Armstrong because he doped in a sport riddled with dopers

I hate him because he went about trying to destroy the few honest people who were brave enough to try and stand up to him and that culture

It actually has nothing to do with cycling. He is an awful human being.

RobFowl

a148pro wrote: »

It actually has nothing to do with cycling. He is an awful human being.

A better man than I said judge not lest you be judged.
Armstrong is a man with many flaws but he's far from unique in that.

Lumen

RobFowl wrote: »

A better man than I said judge not lest you be judged.

That was, like, totally before the internet!

petethedrummer

fishfoodie wrote: »

Well he had a testicle removed

And that's about it. The Coyle study this "fact" comes from used estimated weight.

The Noble Nudge

Choochtown

Sorry I haven't followed the Armstrong story as closely as others.
Could someone please explain why or how he would have got away with everything had he not made the 2009 comeback?

petethedrummer

Choochtown wrote: »

Could someone please explain why or how he would have got away with everything had he not made the 2009 comeback?

In 2009 Floyd Landis asked for a spot on the newly formed Radioshack team. They said no. Floyd got annoyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Landis

Landis' admissions were the straw that broke the donkey's back. Armstrong would probably have got away with it other wise.

seligehgit

Rucking_Fetard wrote: »

Is the BBC4 one a better watch?

IMO yes,both excellent but BBC4 doc is more concise and of course has no ad breaks.It's repeated tonight on BBC4 at midnight.

LuckyLloyd

Choochtown wrote: »

Sorry I haven't followed the Armstrong story as closely as others.
Could someone please explain why or how he would have got away with everything had he not made the 2009 comeback?

Attracted new investigations, including an effort by the Federal prosecutor who had chased down BALCO. Pissed off Floyd Landis because he didn't get a ride on Astana. He was also accused of an abnormal blood count after stage 20 of the 2009 tour.

His lifetime ban was ultimately based on a balance of probabilities, and his return in 2009 created a chain of events that allowed enough statements and evidence against him that Armstrong could no longer disprove or fight.

seligehgit

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Only one of the various cyclists that shared his eight podiums hasn't been done for doping offenses. He cheated in an era of cheating. By the 'rules of the road' of the time he did little untoward.

Was wondering who was that lone cyclist??

Alf Veedersane

seligehgit wrote: »

Was wondering who was that lone cyclist??

Andy Schleck was 2nd in 2009.

Chips Lovell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Only one of the various cyclists that shared his eight podiums hasn't been done for doping offenses. He cheated in an era of cheating. By the 'rules of the road' of the time he did little untoward.

There's certainly no doubt that he was cheating at a time when cheating was endemic in the sport.

However, we should be careful to avoid the incorrect assumption that this somehow leveled the playing field. Even at the height of it there were still people who opted not to cheat and tried to compete clean or just dropped out. And even among the cheaters, some people respond better to doping than others. And some were willing to take bigger risks than others.

We can't conclude that the results would have been largely the same, only the times slower. Doping completely skewed the outcomes of races.

petethedrummer

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

However, we should be careful to avoid the incorrect assumption that this somehow leveled the playing field. Even at the height of it there were still people who opted not to cheat and tried to compete clean or just dropped out. And even among the cheaters, some people respond better to doping than others. And some were willing to take bigger risks than others.

...and according to Hamilton some cheaters had vastly more influence over the governors of the sport than other cheaters. the level of cheating by some cheaters were kept in check by the favoured cheater.

ROK ON

Systematic doping on the scale or Armstrong and peers did not medfly alter races, it changed the landscape of the sport.
We dont know who would have won races had only an errant few cheated.
The sad part is we have no evidence for how good people like mark Scanlon and people like him really were. That is the sad part for me.
I don't blame Armstrong at all. He is an end justifies the means type of person. A decent sport should have structures that route out that. IMHO professional sport by and large does not.

Ashbx

Darkglasses wrote: »

The DVD's for sale on amazon now, think I'll get it too.

Its on 4OD for another month! Watched it last night. It was very good!

mikeyjames9

Ashbx wrote: »

Its on 4OD for another month! Watched it last night. It was very good!

what's it about?

a148pro

RobFowl wrote: »

A better man than I said judge not lest you be judged.
Armstrong is a man with many flaws but he's far from unique in that.

Are you for real?

It's really quite simple. You don't call people who are telling the truth whores. You don't insult former friends and their partners. You don't allege former tour winners are drunks and drug addicts, and ring them to mock them about child sexual abuse. You don't sue these and other people in courts around the world on the basis of what you know are lies.

I am perfectly happy to judge such a person because I have not and never would do those things. And I know that only a tiny percentile of the population would. And such people are rightly worthy of contempt.

petethedrummer

mikeyjames9 wrote: »

what's it about?

It's about 2 hours.

LuckyLloyd

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

There's certainly no doubt that he was cheating at a time when cheating was endemic in the sport.

However, we should be careful to avoid the incorrect assumption that this somehow leveled the playing field. Even at the height of it there were still people who opted not to cheat and tried to compete clean or just dropped out. And even among the cheaters, some people respond better to doping than others. And some were willing to take bigger risks than others.

We can't conclude that the results would have been largely the same, only the times slower. Doping completely skewed the outcomes of races.

I have already agreed with your conclusion in the third paragraph. While the second paragraph is correct, it doesn't detract from the reality that Armstrong has been punished to an inappropriate extent, and that those who chased him down have sold an incorrectly utopian version of the cycling world less Armstrong.

mikeyjames9

petethedrummer wrote: »

It's about 2 hours.

does it focus on his achievements?

or just the doping angle?

petethedrummer

mikeyjames9 wrote: »

does it focus on his achievements?

or just the doping angle?

You can't have one without the other.

mikeyjames9

petethedrummer wrote: »

You can't have one without the other.

correct

but pretty much a universal truth in pro cycling

armstrong is just the fall guy

a rolf harris or a jimmy saville if you will

the.red.baron

Stop at Nothing was far superior to the Armstrong Lie.

The Armstrong Lie was a guy making a documentary about the 2009 comeback who was caught out by the scandal and then had to try and fit his film around the new story.

RobFowl

a148pro wrote: »

Are you for real?

I am.
For sure point out the facts and detail what happened but don't be so quick to judge.
How would you react if the choice was dope and win or don't and go on the dole (it was that stark at times).
Armstrong doped, was caught eventually and is paying a far higher price than any other doper caught in any sport I am aware of.
The sport is better off without him but be very careful about labeling anyone a terrible human being.

PS
FWIW I feel he's a very high suicide risk and needs help and support rather than condemnation.

LuckyLloyd

ROK ON wrote: »

Systematic doping on the scale or Armstrong and peers did not medfly alter races, it changed the landscape of the sport.
We dont know who would have won races had only an errant few cheated.
The sad part is we have no evidence for how good people like mark Scanlon and people like him really were. That is the sad part for me.
I don't blame Armstrong at all. He is an end justifies the means type of person. A decent sport should have structures that route out that. IMHO professional sport by and large does not.

I agree that it is a shame. But it is the reality of so much of professional sport.

RTE did a documentary on drugs in sport around 2003 / 2004. What was interesting was the variety of sports Irish athletes feeling hard done by hailed from. But there are levels. Some sports probably have a very low percentage who are cheating. In those sports you potentially are one or two busts away from a clean tournament or Olympic Championship or whatever.

But then there are doper sports. The likes of Cycling and Olympic Weightlifting are doper sports. Yes, there are some clean athletes in both that would potentially do better if the game was fully cleaned up. But they are the minority. Everyone knows what is required to be at the top, it's a choice that must be made and accepted.

The difference between cycling and Olympic Weightlifting for me is that there are those following / administering / commentating / participating on the former who are pretending the sky isn't blue. In doing that they help no one.

Chips Lovell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

While the second paragraph is correct, it doesn't detract from the reality that Armstrong has been punished to an inappropriate extent, and that those who chased him down have sold an incorrectly utopian version of the cycling world less Armstrong.

I'm not sure what you mean about "utopian version of the cycling world".

I'd have to disagree though about the punishment. Doping himself was only part of it. He was one of the ringleaders of a widespread and systematic doping programme, which pressured others into cheating, and attempted to silence and intimidate anyone who looked like speaking out.

He was also given several chances to come clean and co-operate with the investigation in exchange for a reduced sentence that involved keeping some of his Tour victories, but he chose to fight it right until the end.

He pretty much did everything he could do to ensure the book was thrown at him.

Ashbx

mikeyjames9 wrote: »

does it focus on his achievements?

or just the doping angle?

Mainly just the doping scandal (it is called the Armstrong Lie after all). But they show bits about him in his early days, starting the tours, his first tour de france and his cancer treatment etc. Then its basically about him over the years defending his innocence and then the time after he got caught.

It definitely opens your eyes to the man that Lance Armstrong really is and for some people, could really change their opinion of him!

seligehgit

Really thought his treatment of Simeoni was despicable,highlighted his power to impose his bullyboy will on the peloton.He seemed to relish dishing it out.

a148pro

RobFowl wrote: »

How would you react if the choice was dope and win or don't and go on the dole (it was that stark at times).

So you can judge me for judging him but you won't judge him? Hmmm...

I have already pointed out that my issue isn't with his doping but with his attempts to crush people who stood in the way of his lies

How would I react in those circumstances? I certainly wouldn't have doped, though that's not why I dislike him because it was a stark choice

But I absolutely wouldn't have gone around trying to destroy the career and character (Le Monde, O'Reilly, Walsh, Andreu etc etc) of other people who were doing the right thing, suing them in various countries because I could afford to, all on the basis of lies. Appearing in the media on camera on countless occasions telling barefaced lies and attacking the character of these people again. Honestly is fundamental to your own character. You don't do that if you are of any substance. You don't fraudulently invoke the courts' jurisdiction.

How would you react if you had done those things to you? Andreu is the better person for feeling sorry for him, while pointing out that he had ten years of that.

And do people who feel sorry for him not realise that that is exactly how he wants you to feel. He is playing for it. You literally cannot believe a thing that comes out of his mouth.

mikeyjames9

I wouldn't worry too much about walsh

he was only making his own name and $$$ on the back of andreu and lance

Chips Lovell

Indeed. If David Walsh really cared about cycling, he would have worked for free for the past ten years.

seligehgit

mikeyjames9 wrote: »

I wouldn't worry too much about walsh

he was only making his own name and $$$ on the back of andreu and lance

Don't get the lack of love for David Walsh,am I missing something?He has always struck me as an entirely honourable journalist of the highest standard.His Sunday Times columns have always been a must read pour moi.He has won numerous journalistic awards,taking on the thorny subject of doping in cycling was very brave.Currently reading his superb book Seven Deadly Sins....never thought avarice was his own solitary motivation for pursuing the truth.

No relation by the way:)

mikeyjames9

seligehgit wrote: »

Don't get the lack of love for David Walsh,am I missing something?He has always struck me as an entirely honourable journalist of the highest standard.His Sunday Times columns have always been a must read pour moi.He has won numerous journalistic awards,taking on the thorny subject of doping in cycling was very brave.Currently reading his superb book Seven Deadly Sins....never thought avarice was his own solitary motivation for pursuing the truth.

No relation by the way:)

lol

you're him

RobFowl

a148pro wrote: »

So you can judge me for judging him but you won't judge him? Hmmm...

I'm not judging you.

Alf Veedersane

seligehgit wrote: »

Don't get the lack of love for David Walsh,am I missing something?He has always struck me as an entirely honourable journalist of the highest standard.His Sunday Times columns have always been a must read pour moi.He has won numerous journalistic awards,taking on the thorny subject of doping in cycling was very brave.Currently reading his superb book Seven Deadly Sins....never thought avarice was his own solitary motivation for pursuing the truth.

No relation by the way:)

I thought Seven Deadly Sins was the poorest of the lot. It seemed like something put together to in the aftermath of USADA's findings.

But his pursuit of Armstrong and doping predates when it was lucrative to do so.

seligehgit

mikeyjames9 wrote: »

lol

you're him

I was seeking an informative reply to my question,thanks anyway.

SantryRed

Don't believe Armstrong for one second when he said he didn't dope prior to 1995. He's always gonna lie.

mikeyjames9

the.red.baron wrote: »

Stop at Nothing was far superior to the Armstrong Lie.

The Armstrong Lie was a guy making a documentary about the 2009 comeback who was caught out by the scandal and then had to try and fit his film around the new story.

was that the lie?

nc6000

I watched the Channel 4 programme and am now watching the BBC one.

He really is some piece of work. A despicable human being.

LuckyLloyd

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean about "utopian version of the cycling world".

That cycling had a big opportunity to clean itself up in 1999 and Armstrong ruined it, that the sport might have gone down a completely different path if he didn't exist - a contention oft repeated by Kimmage for example.

I'd have to disagree though about the punishment. Doping himself was only part of it. He was one of the ringleaders of a widespread and systematic doping programme, which pressured others into cheating, and attempted to silence and intimidate anyone who looked like speaking out.

You make it sound like US Postal was the first ever team to have a 'medical program'. Do you think Festina were opt in as far as doping was concerned, that they were shipping in large quantities of banned substances on the off chance that one of their riders might want a dose at a random point in the race? As for silence and intimidation, when Armstrong covered Simeone's break on the Tour he had the support of the entire peleton in doing so. Not speaking out wasn't Armstrong's invention, and the idea that he could have prevented the entire peleton discussing dopers openly is nonsense. The culture of silence was well ingrained.

He was also given several chances to come clean and co-operate with the investigation in exchange for a reduced sentence that involved keeping some of his Tour victories, but he chose to fight it right until the end.

He pretty much did everything he could do to ensure the book was thrown at him.

Yeah, he needed to be smarter on that point for sure and he probably would have been better served by not hitting back as hard at those who accused him over the ~13 years. That said, a lifetime ban for a first offense? Utterly unprecedented. The myth spun around that (regurgitated by you above) is that the nature of his cheating was utterly unprecedented, which is nonsense.

LuckyLloyd

nc6000 wrote: »

I watched the Channel 4 programme and am now watching the BBC one.

He really is some piece of work. A despicable human being.

http://www.esquire.com/features/lanc...interview-0814

Alf Veedersane

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

http://www.esquire.com/features/lanc...interview-0814

Not working for some reason.

Here it is.