A Very Bad Morning For Lance


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:50 pm

guru wrote:the man is a psychopath.

"Psychopath"? :? Isn't that word reserved for folks like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy?

For whatever it's worth, here's Oprah's characterization of the interview:
Oprah Winfrey says Lance Armstrong was "forthcoming" in their 2.5 hour interview, a session during which the disgraced cyclist admitted using performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France, NBC News has confirmed.

"I think the entire interview was difficult" for Armstrong, Winfrey said. “He was pretty forthcoming.”

“It was surprising to me," she said of his approach to the interview, adding that "we were mesmerized and riveted by some of his answers.”

Winfrey appeared on CBS Tuesday morning to discuss her sit-down with the disgraced cyclist. When asked if Armstrong was contrite, she demurred.

Advertise | AdChoices"I feel that he answered the questions in a way that he was ready," Winfrey said. "I choose not to characterize. I would rather people make their own decisions about whether he was contrite or not."

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 ... g-use?lite
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:59 pm

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary's website:

The most frequently looked up words on this site:

Past 24 Hours

1.fabrication
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:10 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:the man is a psychopath.

"Psychopath"? :? Isn't that word reserved for folks like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy?



You dont have to be a murderer to be a psychopath. And yeah, he fits the bill.(First sentence hilarious considering your comment)

http://healthland.time.com/2012/11/19/l ... in-dutton/

No sooner is the word out of someone’s mouth than images of [serial killers] like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer come to mind. It doesn’t automatically mean that you’re a criminal or serial killer. When psychologists talk about psychopaths, what we refer to are people with a distinct set of personality characteristics including ruthlessness, fearlessness, mental toughness, a charismatic personality and lack of conscience and empathy.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:56 pm

(Psychiatry) a person afflicted with a personality disorder characterized by a tendency to commit antisocial and sometimes violent acts and a failure to feel guilt for such acts Also called sociopath
psychopathic adj
psychopathically adv

and (subset from Wikipedia:

Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: Factors, Facets, and Items[3] Factor 1 Factor 2 Other items

While some call him a pathological liar, I do not think that is particularly the case. You could say that he told one continuing lie, rather than he lied a lot (about many different things).

Facet 1 Interpersonal

Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth [was his sense way out of line with what others thought?]
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative

Facet 2 Affective

Lack of remorse or guilt
Emotionally shallow
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions [Other than one huge instance, all the stuff around doping, where is the indication here?]

Facet 3 Lifestyle

Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle [No]
Lack of realistic, long-term goals [NO]
Impulsiveness [No]
Irresponsibility

Facet 4 Antisocial

Poor behavioral controls [No, usually very good control]
Early behavioral problems [not unusual as far as I know, especially for a male raised without a father]
Juvenile delinquency [none to speak of]
Revocation of conditional release [no]
Criminal versatility. [no]

Parasitic lifestyle [no]
Many short-term marital relationships [yes]
Promiscuous sexual behavior [? with celebrities that situations are very different, did not get the playboy type of image in the 1989-1995 time frame]
26mi235
 
Posts: 16322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Hil-da » Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:44 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/ja ... -statement
Nicole Cooke, the 2008 women's World and Olympic road race champion, retired yesterday.
If you haven't read the statement she gave yesterday, you really should.
This single handedly demolishes any defence Lance can possibly give.
Hil-da
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:51 pm
Location: Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:13 pm

guru wrote:You dont have to be a murderer to be a psychopath. And yeah, he fits the bill.(First sentence hilarious considering your comment)

http://healthland.time.com/2012/11/19/l ... in-dutton/

No sooner is the word out of someone’s mouth than images of [serial killers] like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer come to mind. It doesn’t automatically mean that you’re a criminal or serial killer. When psychologists talk about psychopaths, what we refer to are people with a distinct set of personality characteristics including ruthlessness, fearlessness, mental toughness, a charismatic personality and lack of conscience and empathy.

I'm not familiar with the Kevin Dutton dictionary, but according to Merriam-Webster:

Psychopath - a mentally ill or unstable person

8-)
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:19 pm

Despite all the revelations, I'm sticking with my gut feel that Armstrong wins in the court of public opinion.

I was going to say this earlier in the dialogue, and cite two things: 1. the number of people I know who had said to me something along the lines of "I don't care what he did; I'm gonna keep wearing my bracelet"; 2. 6 weeks or so ago we put a post on or Facebook that was a link to a "comedy site" that had a fake bracelet that said "Livewrong" or some such pun. Not only did it draw some disapproval, it also generated multiple cancel-my-subscription notices.

And now, tonite, a former national-class trackster whom I know well and consider to be a straight-arrow kind of guy, posted, "If YOU somehow finally decided today to chastise Lance Armstrong, or to cut off your LIVEstrong bracelet in some ceremonious fashion, you're an idiot. Vive le Lance!"

Dude's a folk hero.
gh
 
Posts: 46326
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby polevaultpower » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:22 am

There's speculation that the IOC may drop cycling from the Olympics if Armstrong testifies that the governing body helped him cover things up.
polevaultpower
 
Posts: 4532
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: A Temperate Island

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Daisy » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:36 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:You dont have to be a murderer to be a psychopath. And yeah, he fits the bill.(First sentence hilarious considering your comment)

http://healthland.time.com/2012/11/19/l ... in-dutton/

No sooner is the word out of someone’s mouth than images of [serial killers] like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer come to mind. It doesn’t automatically mean that you’re a criminal or serial killer. When psychologists talk about psychopaths, what we refer to are people with a distinct set of personality characteristics including ruthlessness, fearlessness, mental toughness, a charismatic personality and lack of conscience and empathy.

I'm not familiar with the Kevin Dutton dictionary, but according to Merriam-Webster:

Psychopath - a mentally ill or unstable person

8-)


Merriam-Webster wrote:: a mentally ill or unstable person; especially
: a person affected with antisocial personality disorder
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:16 am

gh wrote:Despite all the revelations, I'm sticking with my gut feel that Armstrong wins in the court of public opinion.

Dude's a folk hero.



Six months ago I would have agreed with you. Now, no way. Back then, Armstrong controlled the dialogue, and most of the "general public"(as well as the general media) truly felt he was a put-upon, unfairly attacked legend. After all, he never failed a test, dontcha know.

Then, that USADA report hit, and everything changed. After his major sponsors - particularly Nike - bailed, the once-adoring media turned on him, and the paradigm shift of public opinion was on. Now, reading the online comment sections of Armstrong stories in the local newspaper, the general consensus is he's a pathetic cheater who is desperate to maintain his position in the spotlight, and they really just want him to go away.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:33 am

My friend's post got 10 likes and these (all negative) comments:

<< Screw Lance...how can you possibly chastise Hesch and then support him?>>

<<Really, [friend's name]?>>

<<Nope. We've all been ripping him for years [friend's name]. Face reality.>>

<<I've been ripping him since he cheated on his wife/mother of his children.
PS: Never wore the plastic bracelet either.>>
gh
 
Posts: 46326
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby az2004 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:46 am

spin this to track, lance got the bigwigs to coverup for his failed drug tests..

so would the lance of track do the same thing..

without him track is dead...

dealing with the devil can lead to strange bedfellows
az2004
 
Posts: 3131
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:21 am

az2004 wrote:spin this to track, lance got the bigwigs to coverup for his failed drug tests..

so would the lance of track do the same thing..

without him track is dead...

dealing with the devil can lead to strange bedfellows

Meanwhile the U.S. Government has turned down Lance's offer of $5 million to make amends with the U.S. Postas Service.
Back home, the U.S. government rejected Armstrong's offer of more than $5 million to make amends for fraud allegedly committed against the U.S. Postal Service, according to CBS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... 83370.html

IMO, Lance's biggest crime is not that he doped since the sport of cycling was infested with a culture of doping before he ever joined the peleton, it's not that he lied about doping which all athletes do until they get caught, it's that he was a tyranical, mean-spirited patron who crossed the line in enforcing the omerta, including going after people who only spilled the beans after being subpoenaed, but had otherwise kept their mouths shut. Now it may be true that none of the previous patrons (Indurain, Hinault, Merckx, etc.) were ever accused of being dopers, but I still doubt they would have been as mean-spirited and vindictive as Armstrong was if they were. The only person I have no sympathy for is Floyd Landis who started ratting out Armstrong and his teammates long before he was ever put on a witness stand to sell books. But there's no justification for going after people like Emma O'Reilly.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:24 am

So it's starting to look like Uncle Sam will join Landis in his whistleblower suit(and why wouldnt they?). A win means treble damages - $90 million. And you can bet with a supposed Armstrong personal fortune of $100 million, the government isn't going to be in a dealmaking mood.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:32 am

Not sure how the whistle-blower suit would work, but if they have to show economic damages from the behavior they will probably not win on that score.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:51 am

tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:01 am

26mi235 wrote:Not sure how the whistle-blower suit would work...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui_tam
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:13 am

Here's the link to Sally Jenkin's column from a month ago. I have a feeling that Conor Dary will appreciate a lot more than guru. :wink:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ot ... story.html

By the way, ESPN's Stuart Scott who has cancer again is also defending Lance.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby lionelp1 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:23 am

Ask Christophe Bassons or Nicole Cooke about that disgusting criminal. :(
lionelp1
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:48 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:31 am

My Facebook friend has responded to the comments on his post

<<You guys are all supporting my statement! I'm talking about people's sudden dismay that Lance was a doper! If you've all hated him for years, then congratulations to you all...you're truly prophets! ....

Lance never fooled me or took anything from me like Hesch....

I'm not defending Lance's doping or anything of the sort! I just personally enjoy his F You attitude, and always enjoyed watching him beat other athletes who were doing the same exact thing. So, for all of those who are so quick to jump on the typical American train of condemnation, I believe they are the ones who should face reality and punish themselves for being so naive. Lance is exactly who I always thought he was.>>
gh
 
Posts: 46326
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Cooter Brown » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:38 am

A sign at a local business yesterday read, "Lance, thanks for having the ball to admit to doping."
Cooter Brown
 
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Austin

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:38 am

<< I'm not defending Lance's doping or anything of the sort! I just personally enjoy his F You attitude, and always enjoyed watching him beat other athletes who were doing the same exact thing. So, for all of those who are so quick to jump on the typical American train of condemnation, I believe they are the ones who should face reality and punish themselves for being so naive. Lance is exactly who I always thought he was.>>

So anyone who thought he was innocent till proven guilty should punish themselves? Yeah, OK. :roll:
I always assumed that MOST top TdF riders HAD to at least be on EPO, but the writer of the above opinion has a very jaundiced view of this situation. Jaundice is an illness, by the way.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:05 am

Marlow wrote:
<< I'm not defending Lance's doping or anything of the sort! I just personally enjoy his F You attitude, and always enjoyed watching him beat other athletes who were doing the same exact thing. So, for all of those who are so quick to jump on the typical American train of condemnation, I believe they are the ones who should face reality and punish themselves for being so naive. Lance is exactly who I always thought he was.>>

So anyone who thought he was innocent till proven guilty should punish themselves? Yeah, OK. :roll:
I always assumed that MOST top TdF riders HAD to at least be on EPO, but the writer of the above opinion has a very jaundiced view of this situation. Jaundice is an illness, by the way.


Explain "jaundiced view" to me, please. I am lousy with symbolic language.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:06 am

his "jaundiced" view is that of a national-class runner looking from the inside out, as compared to your look from the outside in. I know which one I trust.
gh
 
Posts: 46326
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:24 am

gh wrote:his "jaundiced" view is that of a national-class runner looking from the inside out, as compared to your look from the outside in. I know which one I trust.

??!!
It's not a matter of trust, but yes, it a matter of perspective (but certainly you are not thinking just because he is a nat-class runner, he represents ANYone's opinion but his own, which may or may NOT be determined by his nat-class 'prestige'), and yes, his perspective is jaundiced* as evidenced by its content AND tone. I certainly don't expect anyone to 'trust' or 'accept' my perspective, but the exact same thing can be said of his!

*Jaundiced, in this context, refers to his dismissiveness of how STOOPID you must be to have ever had any emotion towards Lance except disgust . . .
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:36 am

Marlow wrote:
gh wrote:his "jaundiced" view is that of a national-class runner looking from the inside out, as compared to your look from the outside in. I know which one I trust.

??!!
It's not a matter of trust, but yes, it a matter of perspective (but certainly you are not thinking just because he is a nat-class runner, he represents ANYone's opinion but his own, which may or may NOT be determined by his nat-class 'prestige'), and yes, his perspective is jaundiced* as evidenced by its content AND tone. I certainly don't expect anyone to 'trust' or 'accept' my perspective, but the exact same thing can be said of his!

*Jaundiced, in this context, refers to his dismissiveness of how STOOPID you must be to have ever had any emotion towards Lance except disgust . . .


Well, let me tell you what Mrs Pego's attitude toward Lance is. I think she is one of the public, outside rabid fans (like us) or talking heads.
Whenever she watches, for example, Tyler Hamilton interviews, this is what she says (condensed and paraphrased). "You have been doing the same as Lance and he whipped your ass. Sour grapes, Tyler."
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:45 am

lionelp1 wrote:Ask Christophe Bassons or Nicole Cooke about that disgusting criminal. :(


But it is possible that Cooke has an incomplete assessment of history (and I cannot remember the timing of her career and the money flows). She decries that the funding is dropping for women but does not seem to realize that the money for the women's side increased with Lance's ascendancy. Thus, it might be that it is just going back to the pre-Lance levels. Of course, she also lost placings etc. due to druggies on her side as well (see discusses Jeanson, but there were others as well, especially for the semi-Grand Tours).


Within cycling, what would have hurt most is not merely racing against someone that is using PEDs but against a whole team that is using PEDs, as the team is such an important element. And Lance developed the 'assisted team'. This makes sense also in terms of one of their strengths, which was to keep almost all the riders in the race through to the end. Correct me if I am wrong (jazz, especially), but the greatest cyclist ever, Eddy Merckx, also had the best team (by far?) during his heyday.


Comment on Sally Jenkins:

Maybe I’m not angry at Lance because more informative than the USADA report was an ESPN interview with his former teammate Jonathan Vaughters, who observed: “There is the huge misconception, though, that this is about Lance. This is about a culture that Lance was a part of, and that he participated in . . . If you want people to be truthful and want to know what actually happened, as opposed to chasing ghosts for the next 10 years, then you have to let them know that we won’t chop your head off.”


Of the major players in the game that have commented on this, the sport, and their role in it, I like Jonathon Vaughters the most. Sure, you could say he has an agenda, but that agenda is possibly the best aligned with the those of the sport than others I know.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:06 am

gh wrote:My Facebook friend has responded to the comments on his post

<< So, for all of those who are so quick to jump on the typical American train of condemnation, I believe they are the ones who should face reality and punish themselves for being so naive. Lance is exactly who I always thought he was.>>

This part of your friends post really resonates with me. I figured out that he was an asshole when he I read his book It's Not About The Bike, and I figured out that the sport was dirty in the late 90's after the Festina affair. By the time I stood on the roadside of the upper slopes of Alpe D'Huez in July 2001 and watched Armstrong pull away from Jan Ullrich in one of the most epic stages in Tour history, the blinders had already taken off my eyes for the most part. As former NFL coach Dennis Green might say, "he is who we thought he was". What I find amazing is how certain folks in the media (eg. Phil Liggett, Al Trautwig, etc) are responding to the confession by doing their best Inspector Renault impressions.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:26 am

Pego wrote:she says (condensed and paraphrased). "You have been doing the same as Lance and he whipped your ass. Sour grapes, Tyler."

There is, of course, merit in that position also! That's why when posters here lament the PEDness of an athlete from (especially) the 70s - 90s, I say: and you KNOW the other athletes were clean because . . . ?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby az2004 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:44 am

lance use of his lawyers to destroy people makes me wonder about justice
az2004
 
Posts: 3131
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby cullman » Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:40 am

Newsflash: Performance enhancing drugs have been a part of competitive cycling for the last 125 years.
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:06 pm

cullman wrote:Newsflash: Performance enhancing drugs have been a part of competitive cycling for the last 125 years.

I bet cocaine worked dandy in the 1880s/90s!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby eldanielfire » Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:47 pm

26mi235 wrote:
lionelp1 wrote:Ask Christophe Bassons or Nicole Cooke about that disgusting criminal. :(


But it is possible that Cooke has an incomplete assessment of history (and I cannot remember the timing of her career and the money flows). She decries that the funding is dropping for women but does not seem to realize that the money for the women's side increased with Lance's ascendancy. Thus, it might be that it is just going back to the pre-Lance levels. Of course, she also lost placings etc. due to druggies on her side as well (see discusses Jeanson, but there were others as well, especially for the semi-Grand Tours).



This is selective. Over Cooke's career many female sports have increased in money due to more acceptance, awareness and more fans enjoying it more seriously as well as people reaslising there is a slowly growing market for female sports. When Cooke was reaching the top as a teenager there wasn't even girl's road racing tournaments in the Uk until she asked for one. Obviously that brings more attention and more money. Or does Lance take credit for better female attention and earnings all sports like Basketball, Netball, Athletics, football etc?
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:26 pm

eldanielfire wrote:Over Cooke's career many female sports have increased in money due to more acceptance, awareness and more fans enjoying it more seriously as well as people reaslising there is a slowly growing market for female sports.

What sports are you talking about? I can't think of a single female sport that wasn't big time seventeen years ago, but is now.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:32 pm

26mi235 wrote:Correct me if I am wrong (jazz, especially), but the greatest cyclist ever, Eddy Merckx, also had the best team (by far?) during his heyday.

Actually, bambam could give you a better answer to this question than I can. I was too young to remember when Merkcx was riding. What about La Vie Claire team that Lemond and Hunault rode on in the mid-80's?

26mi235 wrote:Of the major players in the game that have commented on this, the sport, and their role in it, I like Jonathon Vaughters the most. Sure, you could say he has an agenda, but that agenda is possibly the best aligned with the those of the sport than others I know.

I agree with you about Vaughters. If you look at the circumstances, the timing, the candor and the thoroughness of his confession, he seems to be motivated more out of altruism than any of the other players in this saga. His New York Times op-ed, his Bicycling magazine interview and his posts on the cyclingnews.com message board under username JV1973 are must-read for anyone who wants to get a deeper, nuanced understanding of cycling's doping problem.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:38 pm

Jazz, I have more confidence in my impressions given your comments. I have not been on the Cyclingnews.com message board, so I have missed those comments.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:45 pm

26mi235 wrote:I have not been on the Cyclingnews.com message board, so I have missed those comments.

He starts posting on page five of this thread as JV1973.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18436
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:15 pm

Coach Steve Magness comments on his interactions with Armstrong:

http://running.competitor.com/2013/01/n ... rong_64596
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Dutra5 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:38 pm

gh wrote:My Facebook friend has responded to the comments on his post

<<You guys are all supporting my statement! I'm talking about people's sudden dismay that Lance was a doper! If you've all hated him for years, then congratulations to you all...you're truly prophets! ....

Lance never fooled me or took anything from me like Hesch....

I'm not defending Lance's doping or anything of the sort! I just personally enjoy his F You attitude, and always enjoyed watching him beat other athletes who were doing the same exact thing. So, for all of those who are so quick to jump on the typical American train of condemnation, I believe they are the ones who should face reality and punish themselves for being so naive. Lance is exactly who I always thought he was.>>


He's exactly who I thought he was as well....which isn't necessarily a good thing.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:40 am

By stripping Armstrong of his 2000 Bronze medal, the IOC has undermined their statute-of-limitations rationale for why they can't strip the East Germans of their medals.

The IOC has stripped Lance Armstrong of his bronze medal from the 2000 Sydney Olympics because of his involvement in doping, officials familiar with the decision told The Associated Press on Thursday.

Two officials said the IOC sent a letter to Armstrong on Wednesday night asking him to return the medal. The move came after the International Olympic Committee was notified by cycling's governing body that Armstrong had not appealed the decision to disqualify him.

The officials spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because the decision hasn't been announced.

The IOC executive board discussed revoking the medal last month, but delayed a decision until cycling body UCI formally notified Armstrong he had been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and all results since 1998. He then had 21 days to appeal.

Now that the deadline has expired, the IOC decided to take the medal away. The letter to Armstrong also was sent to the U.S. Olympic Committee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... 94459.html

I hate it when people selectively enforce rules/laws, but I really hate it when people make up rules/laws to punish people after the fact.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests