Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Lance Armstrong finally to come clean?

21K views 380 replies 83 participants last post by  kjlued 
#1 ·
#22 ·
Just remember that there is not too much difference between the worst of us and the best of us.
Did the "old time" cyclists cheat?? Probably so. Who knows how the others would have fared with our 24 hour news "cycle"??
As far as the others who turned evidence against Armstrong, in my opinion they are no better than him. They all cheated and took away opportunities from those who even though talented, refused to cheat and would not even get a chance to compete.
Really it matters little what he has to say. The evidence against him is out there and damaging. I admit to enjoying his run over the years. A story that good generally has it's dark side.
Our society is set up to adore or crucify with little in between. There isn't much in life that money hasn't screwed up.
 
#23 ·
I agree, and don't mean to crucify him. There is greatness in what he did, and great deceit as well. The giant has feet of clay. But sadly, it seems he cheated on a grand scale for many years, and now that he's been outed, still regards the truth with contempt.
 
#103 ·


I understand this is a forums and we all can debate and say what we want , but seriously some of you guys need to get your washed up heads out of your ass and go ride . There is no point of being on an internet trying to prove this and that when the case has nothing to do with any of you , your not the jury nor the judge so stfu already . There is doping in all sports , it has been around and will be around , this is not the first nor the last case , GET USED to it . You can say he was a scumbag , a cool guy , whatever you want , but in the end he is just another guy that got busted big deal .

I will give him credit tho for starting the Livestrong foundation , havent seen many other dopers do something of this caliber , im not saying it makes him a better person but at least hes not a full cup of **** right ? Whatever happens happens , but whatever the outcome is it will not affect ANY of you guys on here so relax you dr phil's .

Point being , there are bigger pictures in your life im sure you should worry about and focus on then something thats on the news :thumbsup:

Regarding KJlueds comment , cmon really ? Are you guys that butt hurt and sensitive to words typed over the INTERNET ? lol wow might as well throw on the high heels and lipstick at that rate . Who gives a fuk :madman:
 
#111 ·
...... There is doping in all sports ,... GET USED to it
I expect there is cheating of some sort in many sports, but I don't think I'll GET USED to it. I believe in winning fair. Call me a hopeless idealist.

To make it fair, you'd have to explicitly allow drug usage to enhance performance. Then, you'd have people trashing their lives to win, which happens already in some sports. Winners would be those most willing to trade their futures for some short term glory. In my view, that's not what sport should be about.
 
#109 ·
Armstrong threads always start slow, then build up momentum, until hilariousness ensues. Great thread. :D

I haven't seen this possibility thrown out there, and I don't profess enough knowledge to validate my thoughts, but what if...

...Lance comes out, admits to doping, et al, but spins it to this: the reason why he doped was to ensure that we won the TdF and he knew that he needed to not only win one TdF, but to string enough wins together to immortalize him so that the Livestrong Foundation would have enough brand recognition to generate real tangible assets and money to provide cancer support to the extent that it does.

Maybe his spin will be that he did all of this not for himself, but to ensure that the Livestrong Foundation would solidify its presence to last on its own regardless of whatever outcomes Armstrong the individual would ensue. Give the Foundation a kick start, emboss it in the general public for now and forever, and accept whatever personal risks come out of it. Given his cancer, he possibly thought that his time was limited, so he used his celebrity status to create a lasting testament to the Foundation that would survive his life and give back to those that had gone through cancer such as himself. After all, if you survived cancer, what have you got to lose? You've already faced a life threatening event, I'm sure everything else pales in comparison.

He could have thought that maybe he'd only have ten years to live, so why not cheat, get the Foundation its starting mark, and be damned with the personal consequences. Do you think he really cares what happens to him personally when he's been given a second chance at life anyways? Possibly he thinks his time was up when he got cancer and his life since has just been "extra" and he's using it to do something meaningful (for the Foundation).

Yeah, he'd have to deny all doping accusations to ensure that the Foundation was well established. Couldn't have the Foundation come under scrutiny in the midst of his TdF wins. Years after the TdF wins, the Foundation will live on regardless of what happens to Lance. I haven't yet seen somebody blast the Foundation, only Lance the individual, so in that sense, I think he succeeded.

Just a thought. I'm not defending him, but possibly his mindset earlier was to setup the Foundation based on his TdF wins, and arrogance, et al came later when his second chance at life went longer than he originally thought.

Just a theory, guess we'll see later on.

:p Disclaimer: please don't quote me and challenge me to a dual. I've already confessed that I'm not entirely fluent with all aspects of Armstrong the individual and Armstrong the Foundation. Please don't attempt to rile me up with grammar or spelling errors I may have made, or attempt to present me with evidence to the contrary as I'm not presenting a end-all argument or thesis here.

Yes, I have a mom, and no, I don't have first experience with kangaroos, so hopefully those aspects won't present themselves along with quotations of my post later on.

I have no fear of negative rep, so flame away, although I am more partial to green chiclets than red. :D
 
#110 ·
Disclaimer: please don't quote me and challenge me to a dual. I've already confessed that I'm not entirely fluent with all aspects of Armstrong the individual and Armstrong the Foundation. Please don't attempt to rile me up with grammar or spelling errors I may have made, or attempt to present me with evidence to the contrary as I'm not presenting a end-all argument or thesis here.
That's got 'Signature line' ... written all over it.

:cool:
 
#8 ·
There have been several analysis' of the affect this would have since the story was first floated last week. The consensus seems to be that Lance would open himself to less than 20 million in paybacks and costs (so all in, and maybe as lil as 10) but no jail time (and maybe no criminal charges) as the SOL has run on almost everything. These aren't my conclusions, so I can't vouch for any of it. To me, the more interesting question is what will this do to his legacy/brand.

And of course he might just hold fast with the 'no, no, no it wasn't me' story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wishful Tomcat
#17 ·
And I surmise that Oprah will pay every penny of it for the exclusive. And why not. Her empire is worth billions. Even more incentive for Lance if he can save not being legally convicted, can save at least one or two of his titles and eventually be allowed to compete again.

There have been several analysis' of the affect this would have since the story was first floated last week. The consensus seems to be that Lance would open himself to less than 20 million in paybacks and costs (so all in, and maybe as lil as 10) but no jail time (and maybe no criminal charges) as the SOL has run on almost everything. These aren't my conclusions, so I can't vouch for any of it. To me, the more interesting question is what will this do to his legacy/brand.

And of course he might just hold fast with the 'no, no, no it wasn't me' story.
 
#21 ·
Coming "clean" would be Armstrong just telling the truth for its own sake. Fess up, period. What this is Armstrong trying to finagle something for himself. He regards the truth as something to denied, revealed or twisted to his own advantage.
 
#106 ·
Bwahahaha hook line and sinker, i knew that comparison would get a bite lol and bang his on...

But seriously he is a worse liar than Richard Ramirez, Ted Bundy and David Berkowitz ( the son of sam), thats a fact, as they all come clean after they were caught and didnt try to throw others under the bus, i didnt say he was a worse person than them, just a bigger liar, and infact Lance is a bigger sociopath than all of them,.

Lance is in the John Wayne Gacy class of liar, both of then living in denial, both self serving, both sociopaths, and both try and throw others under the bus to cover their own asses.

I studied forensics for years at night at uni for a hobby, serial killers is a very interesting topic to me thats why im referring to their traits, there are actually a lot of similarities between lances sociopathic nature and a few of them, seeings many sociopaths are serial killers......:thumbsup:
 
#134 ·
SV11 said:
Are you thick?
How the hell do you know that "it didn't bother him AS MUCH"?
It means the same thing, you are assuming on how he feels.
Quit whle you're behind.
kjlued said:
Are you thick?

You obviously care more about it then what he does because you just won't let it go.:rolleyes:

Maybe you should quit while you are behind. :thumbsup:

But ok, if it will help you let it go

Mono, I am sorry I talked about your mamma. :(
so your apology was not because you think you actually did something wrong, but rather is a political move made for your own benefit? little wonder you relate so well to lance.

now it really makes sense why you're so bent on creating sympathy/compassion for him and are on a quest to rationalize/minimize/justify his actions. birds of a feather, and all that...
 
#135 · (Edited)
to everyone suggesting that LA should get a pass due to the Livestrong Foundation (LF), are you aware that it contributes virtually NOTHING to cancer research? no funding. no support. no nothing.

neither LA nor LF has furthered cancer research. the purpose of the LF is cancer awareness and to line the pockets of LA with cash. the IRS has recently become very interested in the LF as well for this very reason.

i'm pretty sure everyone knew cancer sucked before the LF came into existence, so nothing groundbreaking there.

just sayin'....
 
#163 · (Edited)
This first article is a summary of some (by no means all) who have experienced the wrath of Armstrong. This is all old news now, but bears a review. Keep in mind also that there was tremendous wealth to fuel the LA public relations/legal machine that provided the muscle to retain power and control -- this is all about manipulating public perception to protect the image and the brand. So many of the posts to this and many, many other threads speak to the brutal effectiveness of this campaign (and I use campaign in the military, not political, sense).

The wrath of Lance Armstrong: USADA outlines witness intimidation

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency sketched a chilling portrait of a vindictive and ruthless Lance Armstrong in its files Wednesday, painting the seven-time Tour de France winner as a peloton bully, capable of intimidating rivals both on the bike and at the bar.

The USADA report details confrontations or issues with Filippo Simeoni, Tyler Hamilton, Levi Leipheimer, Betsy and Frankie Andreau and Jonathan Vaughters, among others. The Armstrong character drawn isn't a kind illustration of the disgraced champion, instead conveying the Texan as someone determined to keep those who would shed light on doping in cycling subdued.

At the 2004 Tour de France, Armstrong famously chased down Simeoni when he was in a breakaway group. Simeoni had testified against Dr. Michele Ferrari, who was Armstrong's trainer.

"You made a mistake when you testified against Ferrari… I can destroy you," Simeoni says Armstrong told him. Armstrong forced Simeoni back to the peloton, with a sinister "zip the lips gesture" that was replayed constantly on television, though at the time commentators claimed to have no idea what it really meant.

One journalist recalled Simeoni's face - it was wet with both his tears and the spit of the peloton.

"Mr. Armstrong's statement to Mr. Simeoni in which he referred directly to Mr. Simeoni's testimony in a legal proceeding and said 'I can destroy you,' and Mr. Armstrong's actions in connection with his threatening statement, constitute acts of attempted witness intimidation," the USADA report reads.

Full text here.

I think the key to thinking about this is there is a very long and consistent pattern of the behavior that speaks to the man's character and this does not even begin to touch intimidation through lawsuits.

Article from Daily News UK (scroll down to about half way through the article).

If you're finding it difficult to sympathize with those - including many reporters - who cowed before the threats of Armstrong's army of white-shoe lawyers and high-end agents and publicists, consider that Armstrong was probably the most litigious athlete in the history of sports.

He set a precedent for other athletes who would go on to use guerilla tactics to attempt to intimidate the media or silence accusers.

As the Daily News wrote in 2008, Armstrong unleashed a shotgun blast of litigation at virtually everyone involved with "L.A. Confidential: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong." Just as the book was hitting shelves in Europe, Armstrong sued the authors, the publisher, the sources (including Emma O'Reilly), a magazine that ran an excerpt, and the Sunday Times of London, the British newspaper that ran a preview of the book. Armstrong announced the suit at a splashy Maryland press conference on June 15, 2004, then quietly dropped it in 2005, withdrawing his claims before a trial could begin, a tactic similar to the ones athletes Roger Clemens and Shane Mosley would later use against their own accusers.

"In France, we say it had l'effet d'annonce," Paris attorney Thibault de Montbrial, who defended the book's publisher and authors, told The News. "He makes the announcement, but when the emotion goes away, no one realizes that he didn't go to court."

Armstrong's message was heard: his army of lawyers effectively scared away American publishers from translating the French-language book.

"In a sense, it was an effective play," Walsh said then. "The American publishers were frightened. Why would you take on a book that you knew was being sued in France?"

Armstrong had also filed a bevy of suits in France and even initiated a special emergency hearing with a French court in Paris, where he tried to get a disclaimer inserted into the book calling its allegations defamatory. The judge sided with the publishers, hitting Armstrong with a small fine for abusing the French legal system.

"Our lawyer told the judge it would be the death of investigative journalism," Walsh said. "It would have been very convenient for all the rogues of the world to ignore uncomfortable questions and then just silence their accusers afterwards."

Armstrong withdrew all of his French defamation cases shortly before they were to go to trial in the fall of 2005.

Full text here.

Ironically (but not incidentally), Radio Shack was running a large ad in the side bar of this article and I kept accidentally triggering the pop up window. Kinda funny that Radio Shack has found a way to keep getting their money's worth from LA -- no publicity is bad publicity. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gasp4Air
#165 ·
Ironically (but not incidentally), Radio Shack was running a large ad in the side bar of this article and I kept accidentally triggering the pop up window. Kinda funny that Radio Shack has found a way to keep getting their money's worth from LA -- no publicity is bad publicity. :D
I was in Radio Shack a month ago and employees were still wearing Live Strong stuff but it seemed anything with a Live Strong logo on it was being deeply discounted.

Got some neoprene armbands for the iphone reg price $20 for $2ea lol
 
#227 ·
no matter dude, I just forgot a smiley ! arf I still suck in the art of Smileyless

Well after 10 pages of nose eating, I think people here need to be happy. They look sad, and I will teach you all to be happy, I will teach your grandmas to suck an egg

It's the Ren and Stimpy show........Happy happy joy joy, happy happy joy.........wouhou !
 
#238 ·
All i want to know is where are the total muppets, all 10% of them from the do you believe lance is clean thread that voted 'no he never doped', these people take the award for the stupidest human beings on planet earth, you all should be ashamed of yourselves for being so stupid, you let down the human race and should not be allowed to breed, and if you have, i feel sorry for your children......

Carry on....
 
#239 ·
Yeah, I'd like to see exactly how all the true believers will get out of their blind devotion to Lance now.
In my mind, the doping isn't quite as bad as how he systematically (and cynically) tried to destroy, threaten and cajole all those who tried to speak out against him. He may be a driven individual, but boy is he a complete ****** (insert favourite swearword)
 
#358 ·
Oh, it's just Lance !!!
It's not like he's gonna be affecting a lot of people, like that Bernie Madoff character ;)

Olympics could drop cycling over Lance Armstrong revelations
Fallout from Lance Armstrong's revelations of doping, to be disclosed in an Oprah Winfrey television interview on Thursday, could end up costing cycling a spot in future Olympic Games.
SNIP

And they (Olympic Committee) just recently got around to accepting MTB style stuff and snowboarding :madmax:
 
#360 ·
Everyone is dishonest some of the time with the right incentive Telling someone you have another call to end the one you're on; taking office supplies home are some examples. In the video I posted a couple pages back, it explains these seemingly little things have massive effects on a global scale.

The difference is, some of us would either not do it or admit to it when we are found out.

The question here is, would anyone cheat and break the rules of a professional sport to personally enrich themselves at the expense of others?

The answer for me is no. If your answer is anything other than no, you are a person of low moral character.

Before my dad died, he told me, "son, character and integrity are what you show youself when no one is looking."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top