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
A Very Bad Morning For LanceRe: A Very Bad Morning For Lance
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
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lancefrom 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.>>
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance
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?
Re: A Very Bad Morning For LanceAnother good Armstrong link. The URL says it all.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/brettsmiley/wat ... times-7n2d
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lancego 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)
Re: A Very Bad Morning For LanceOprah 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.
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lancegreatest 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)
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance
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
Re: A Very Bad Morning For LanceESPN 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.
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance
"Psychopath"? For whatever it's worth, here's Oprah's characterization of the interview:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 ... g-use?lite
Re: A Very Bad Morning For LanceFrom the Merriam-Webster online dictionary's website:
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance
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/
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance(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]
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lancehttp://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.
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance
I'm not familiar with the Kevin Dutton dictionary, but according to Merriam-Webster: Psychopath - a mentally ill or unstable person
Re: A Very Bad Morning For LanceDespite 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.
Re: A Very Bad Morning For LanceThere's speculation that the IOC may drop cycling from the Olympics if Armstrong testifies that the governing body helped him cover things up.
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance
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.
Re: A Very Bad Morning For LanceMy 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.>>
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lancespin 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
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance
Meanwhile the U.S. Government has turned down Lance's offer of $5 million to make amends with the U.S. Postas Service.
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.
Re: A Very Bad Morning For LanceSo 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.
Re: A Very Bad Morning For LanceNot 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.
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui_tam
Re: A Very Bad Morning For LanceHere'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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ot ... story.html By the way, ESPN's Stuart Scott who has cancer again is also defending Lance.
Re: A Very Bad Morning For LanceAsk Christophe Bassons or Nicole Cooke about that disgusting criminal.
Re: A Very Bad Morning For LanceMy 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.>>
Re: A Very Bad Morning For LanceA sign at a local business yesterday read, "Lance, thanks for having the ball to admit to doping."
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance
So anyone who thought he was innocent till proven guilty should punish themselves? Yeah, OK. 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.
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance
Explain "jaundiced view" to me, please. I am lousy with symbolic language.
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lancehis "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.
Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance
??!! 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 . . .
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests |