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 Daisy » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:21 am

Strong words here:

Don't believe a word he says, because not a word he says can be believed. When he looks at Winfrey with the doleful eyes of contrived contrition (carefully coached, because this is the biggest role of his life) and says I did it (he will apparently admit to limited blood doping), know that he did ten times more. When he says he didn’t do it, which I imagine he will do when it comes to threatening other teammates, know that Armstrong is just continuing his lies.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... oping.html
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:56 am

Considering the potential legal jeopardy that he could be facing, it's hard to imagine that Armstrong will answer the question with complete candor.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:00 am

I anticipate something along the line of "I doped as much as all of my accusing competitors did. The playing field was even, I was the best."
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby eldanielfire » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:07 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:But then Oprah isn't about getting to the truth, it's about rich and famous people painting an image and ensuring you have a career after a scandal.

I completely disagree with you on this. I thought Oprah did a good job and it was pretty obvious that she didn't believe her. What else did you expect her to do, waterboard Marion?


She didn't probe one bit of her story. Not a single "But so and so said......are they lying?". The courts have vsaid...........happened. It was Oprah didn't believe her really but she didn't do anything at all but let/encourage Marion to continue with her lies. However I wouldn't have been surprised if their wasn't prior contracts to not ask certain questions, that's pretty standard in many interviews, especially one that would attract interest, ratings and money. Also Marion Jones is a pathlogical liar, she's the sort who convinces herself it's unfair that people don't believe her so it's unikel anbody would get to the bottom in a interview.
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:27 am

eldanielfire wrote:She didn't probe one bit of her story. Not a single "But so and so said......are they lying?". The courts have vsaid...........happened. It was Oprah didn't believe her really but she didn't do anything at all but let/encourage Marion to continue with her lies. However I wouldn't have been surprised if their wasn't prior contracts to not ask certain questions, that's pretty standard in many interviews, especially one that would attract interest, ratings and money. Also Marion Jones is a pathlogical liar, she's the sort who convinces herself it's unfair that people don't believe her so it's unikel anbody would get to the bottom in a interview.

Was Oprah as thorough as Bob Costas would have been which is what I would have liked? No. Would Marion have admitted being a willing doper if Oprah had been more thorough? Not likely. Was is obvious to any reasonably intelligent person that Marion was lying and that Oprah didn't believe her? Yes. The bottom line is that Oprah exposed Marion for all the world to see, though it may not have been to your liking.

Also check out the job the Piers Morgan did on Marion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZw_e_a9jTw]
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:30 am

Pego wrote:I anticipate something along the line of "I doped as much as all of my accusing competitors did. The playing field was even, I was the best."

If it's true that he got the UCI to coverup a failed drug test, it can be argued that the playing field wasn't level, unless he says that so-and-so got the UCI to cover up for him too.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:53 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Pego wrote:I anticipate something along the line of "I doped as much as all of my accusing competitors did. The playing field was even, I was the best."

If it's true that he got the UCI to coverup a failed drug test, it can be argued that the playing field wasn't level, unless he says that so-and-so got the UCI to cover up for him too.


I am a little hazy here on what the reference is to a 'failed test'. There is one case where the expert has repeatedly said that the results were (in my words) consistent but inconclusive but that the USADA has run with it as a positive test despite repeated clarifications by the expert that it was not a 'positive' test result. Not sure if this was the Swiss test (Tour of Switzerland) as I am a bit hazy since there are many details and many allegations. I am pretty sure that, given the circumstances as I understand them in this one case, no court of law in the US would take the evidence in this instance and call it a failed test.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16336
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:56 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Considering the potential legal jeopardy that he could be facing...


He's working on it...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cy ... g/1831665/

All I can say is, good luck with THAT lol
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

LA - Cat's Outta The Bag!

Postby Marlow » Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:29 pm

Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:17 pm

Things about to get real for Armstrong

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cy ... t/1834841/
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 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:15 pm

guru wrote:Things about to get real for Armstrong

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cy ... t/1834841/

This is why I thought it was ridiculous when much of the sanctimonious, hypocritical sports media slammed Mark McGuire for pleading the fifth when he got called before Congress.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Brian » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:19 pm

Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:42 pm

Terrific insider stuff on how the Armstrong/Tygart meeting came to pass, and what went down. Tygart had to be loving every minute of it.

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 ... reno64-wsj
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 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:50 pm

I think that Tygart is engaging in hyperbole when he accuses US Postal of running the most sophisticated doping program in the history of cycling, because I don't think they had anything on Festina and Telekom back in their heyday.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Brian » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:57 pm

guru wrote:Terrific insider stuff on how the Armstrong/Tygart meeting came to pass, and what went down. Tygart had to be loving every minute of it.

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 ... reno64-wsj



Good one; thanks for posting it.

Sort of takes some of the "spec" out of the speculation.
:]
Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:11 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:I think that Tygart is engaging in hyperbole when he accuses US Postal of running the most sophisticated doping program in the history of cycling, because I don't think they had anything on Festina and Telekom back in their heyday.


It is likely that the Postal system WAS more sophisticated; the Festina and Telekom systems were simpler because there was less testing to avoid. I also think that part of the sophistication was how to set up the levels so that they did not get detected given the testing regime. This led to more frequent and more constrained doping.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16336
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:27 pm

26mi235 wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I think that Tygart is engaging in hyperbole when he accuses US Postal of running the most sophisticated doping program in the history of cycling, because I don't think they had anything on Festina and Telekom back in their heyday.


It is likely that the Postal system WAS more sophisticated; the Festina and Telekom systems were simpler because there was less testing to avoid. I also think that part of the sophistication was how to set up the levels so that they did not get detected given the testing regime. This led to more frequent and more constrained doping.

I guess you have a point about Festina since they preceded Armstrong's reign, but Telekom's dominance preceded and coincided with Armstrong's reign, and they won many stages, two Yellow jersey, multiple Green jerseys and consistently put people on the podium without getting their riders busted. If not for Armstrong, they probably would have won four or five more yellow jerseys, and remember, the only reason we know that Bjarne Riis and Erik Zabel were doping is because they admitted to it, not because they were caught.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Master Po » Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:53 am

Didn't he write a book titled It's Not About the Bike? If I'm remembering that correctly, he at least was truthful in that title. It wasn't about the bike at all... :roll:
Master Po
 
Posts: 2643
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: north coast USA

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:45 am

How many folks here remember the Armstrong-Simeoni confrontation on the 18th stage of the 2004 Tour de France?
What does it mean to be a patron of the Tour de France?

Is a patron simply the strongest rider of his era, or is there something more? In the true sense of the word, there is. A patron is not just a champion, but a godfather of sorts, a man who can dictate the moods and mores of the peloton, who can turn even a seemingly meaningless stage to his end. Typically, it is also a benefactor of sorts, a man whose magnanimity can elevate the dignity of the sport through observation of its most time-honored precepts, key among them sportsmanship.

We saw a patron on Tour today, but it was not a benevolent one.

Instead, the ugliest side broke out of the race's grandest champion today when Lance Armstrong bolted out of the pack to join Filippo Simeoni, who had just before broken free himself in an attempt to bridge up to the break.

On reaching the six-rider move, Simeoni said Armstrong looked over at him and smirked, "Bravo. Nice move." When Jose Vicente Garcia Acosta pleaded with Armstrong to drop back and let the break have an honest chance to continue, Armstrong reportedly told them he would gladly do that, under one condition: Simeoni was not to continue in the break, either. Faced with the choice of sinking the chances of six riders or his own, Simeoni drifted back to the pack, accompanied by Armstrong.

In between, the two riders talked, with Armstrong even briefly placing his hand on Simeoni's shoulder. "Armstrong and I spoke as the peloton was catching us but I prefer not to say what he said," Simeoni told BICYCLING's European Correspondent, James Startt, at the finish of stage 18. "It was too serious." Once back in the field, Armstrong spoke and laughed with numerous riders and at one point made the sign of zipping lips.

Simeoni is one of cycling's most anonymous riders. In an 11-year career he has had just one significant win, a stage of the 2000 Regio Tour, and as a career gregario, or helper, he has done little to distinguish himself good or bad. But two years ago Simeoni hurled himself into a most unwelcome and glaring spotlight when he became a key witness in the ongoing trial of Doctor Michele Ferrari, a by-turns acclaimed and notorious physician, who was being tried in the Italian province of Bologna for sporting fraud. Armstrong had publicly disclosed only months earlier that he was one of Ferrari's clients.

Read more here: http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycli ... down-rider

The other thing that I remember about this stage is how all the other riders in the peleton were patting Armstrong on the back for a job well done after he and Simeoni dropped back to the peleton, and even Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwin seemed to be pleased with what transpired.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:51 am

Victor Conte's take on the Lance interview with Oprah (via Twitter):

The bits of the Armstrong interview w/ Oprah that are dribbling out make it seem like they've simply agreed to serve each others' agendas


One of Lance's agendas right now has to be figuring out how to make money. I would imagine the Oprah people are paying him a bundle.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:35 am

tandfman wrote:
One of Lance's agendas right now has to be figuring out how to make money.



Or more to the point, keep the money he has(which seems to be shrinking with each passing day)


http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/15/news/po ... index.html
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 » Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:54 am

from that last piece (bf mine)

<<The exact value of Armstrong's deals with the two companies isn't known, but Nike is the biggest spender on athlete endorsement deals in the world. Its annual report shows it has signed commitments for $3.2 billion worth of endorsement deals over the next five years.>>
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:29 am

guru wrote:Or more to the point, keep the money he has(which seems to be shrinking with each passing day)


http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/15/news/po ... index.html


I've never heard of a sponsor asking for money back after it drops one of its athletes for misconduct. Normally they just void the rest of the contract. Is there any precedent for this?
The cyclist, who has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, is in negotiations to return some portion of the agency's sponsorship money, the source said.

USPS was one of Armstrong's biggest financial supporters during the most successful period of his career, and millions of dollars were paid to finance the team's operations.

While total figures are not available, USPS paid more than $30 million to sponsor the cycling team between 2001 and 2004, according to documents reviewed by ESPN and the Wall Street Journal.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:45 am

Another good Armstrong link. The URL says it all.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/brettsmiley/wat ... times-7n2d
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:33 am

go to the front page, and you can now vote for greatest liar of all time

(speaking of which, local talking head on the radio, not normally a rabble-rouser, says that if it turns out that Lance made the whole cancer thing up, he'd believe it) (that seems a tad harsh)
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:39 am

Oprah was on the CBS morning show, promoting the interview. Link to her comments (fairly lengthy), currently on front page here.

Time planner alert: The interview ran longer than anticipated and so it will be aired over two nights instead of one.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby gh » Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:45 am

greatest liar of all time material moved to separate thread in Things Not Track (where this thread will also end up once the furor dies down)
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby marknhj » Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:53 am

gh wrote:greatest liar of all time material moved to separate thread in Things Not Track (where this thread will also end up once the furor dies down)


I wondered where my post about cycling went.

Nicole Cook, GB 2008 road racing gold medalist, released this statement yesterday on her retirement. Scroll down about half way to, The Dark Side:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/ja ... -statement
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:01 am

tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:05 pm

ESPN an hour-long Outside The Lines today on Armstrong. 3:00 PM ET(now)

Program leads off with the entirety of a Bob Ley / Armstrong OTL interview from 2006 regarding rumors/accusations. Armstrong's comments, in light of current circumstances, leads to no other conclusion than the man is a psychopath.
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 » 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: 10860
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: 15043
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: 16336
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: 10860
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: 46335
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: 4534
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

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests