French still bitter that Lance Armstrong is better than them.

I'm frustrated with various media reports that all the "good" Armstrong did far far outweighs anything so minor as "cheating".. I'm on board if Lance lived in a very humble home and had up to today donated the vast majority of his wealth to the Livestrong charity. Certainly kudos to him for building Livestrong.. but somehow I think he still used his cheating to build a very lavish lifestyle for him.

I'm sorry, but do we, collectively as a nation, really still care?

Farscry wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

When is the Oprah interview? I'm assuming everyone reading this thread has heard about it.

It's unavoidable apparently. On the radio news in my part of Iowa because of Lance's prior annual participation in RAGBRAI.

My annoyance is profound.

It's on the OWN network Thursday @ 9PM EST and part 2 is on Friday @ 9PM.

farley3k wrote:

So really what is the lesson we are supposed to learn? That cheaters never win? He did? That cheaters never prosper? He did.

I just don't get what we are supposed to get from this.

Hopefully, it's that cheaters/liars eventually will be exposed. He may have made quite a nice living, but his legacy will be as a liar and cheat - regardless of what else he has accomplished. If he's ok with that - so be it. But I'm willing to bet he's not.

What bothers me is that he is doing this to be let back into the sport. Really? Shouldn't that mean a super ultra go eff yourself perma-ban? I guess if there's money in it...

I think he's having trouble paying his bills these days, that's all.

farley3k wrote:

So really what is the lesson we are supposed to learn?

From the interview? That Oprah and Lance both really love making money, apparently. Shocking, I know.

Bill Harris has a pretty good take on Mr. Armstrong

TheGameguru wrote:

I'm frustrated with various media reports that all the "good" Armstrong did far far outweighs anything so minor as "cheating".. I'm on board if Lance lived in a very humble home and had up to today donated the vast majority of his wealth to the Livestrong charity. Certainly kudos to him for building Livestrong.. but somehow I think he still used his cheating to build a very lavish lifestyle for him.

+1

PaladinTom wrote:

What bothers me is that he is doing this to be let back into the sport. Really? Shouldn't that mean a super ultra go eff yourself perma-ban? I guess if there's money in it...

I know right? Frankly, given the scope of his doping, I'm amazed that the triathlon governing body is even considering letting him race in tri. What happens when he wins races? His competitors are forever going to be wondering if he was clean or not. It's not like having Lance at your race is good PR at this point.

I heard somewhere that one of conditions to signing off on him racing was that he comes clean about the whole issue, and that's what prompted his Oprah interview. Could be hearsay, I dunno.

Agent 86 wrote:

Bill Harris has a pretty good take on Mr. Armstrong

Point 1 of that post is the main reason I have no sympathy for him and think he deserves everything's he's getting. Aside from the fact that he cheated and lied about it, the guy's a massive douchebag and always has been. Now he's doing a carefully choreographed interview with Oprah (which is just as much about getting ratings for her largely bombing network as him trying to "redeem" himself) hoping to get back in the public eye. He's a disgrace to his sport and should remain so. The frustrating part is that after this interview, I expect a lot of people to sympathise and support him again. Many are already saying so from what I've read. It's just so gross that he'll largely be able to market his way out of this.

TheGameguru wrote:

I'm frustrated with various media reports that all the "good" Armstrong did far far outweighs anything so minor as "cheating".. I'm on board if Lance lived in a very humble home and had up to today donated the vast majority of his wealth to the Livestrong charity. Certainly kudos to him for building Livestrong.. but somehow I think he still used his cheating to build a very lavish lifestyle for him.

I don't even give him kudos for Livestrong. By many accounts, the organization is more of an Armstrong marketing firm than anything to do with cancer "awareness." Btw, is there anyone there who isn't aware of cancer?

edit: Agent86's link covered a lot of this and was excellent. I particularly liked Ta-Nehesi Coates' take on it:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...

Ta-Nehesi Coates wrote:

I'm not sure what I think about drugging when everyone else around you is drugging. I don't think lying is a very good idea. I think trying to destroy people for telling the truth is a good deal worse. It's that all-out war that really sets Armstrong apart. This isn't just a "doping scandal." It's something much creepier.

kazooka wrote:

I don't even give him kudos for Livestrong. By many accounts, the organization is more of an Armstrong marketing firm than anything to do with cancer "awareness." Btw, is there anyone there who isn't aware of cancer?

If I hadn't heard and read a bunch of testimonials from cancer survivors about the power of Livestrong and how much it helped them get through that experience, I'd be right on board with you. So I have a mixed-bag of feeling about it. It seems like an Armstrong marketing firm that also does a whole lotta good for folk suffering from cancer.

There's definitely an argument that perhaps a similar organization that wasn't linked to Armstrong could do more good with the same amount of money, but there's also a counter-argument that it's precisely Armstrong's celebrity that gave Livestrong the reach to do that good in the first place.

I honestly don't know which side of that argument I fall on.

At the very least, Livestrong gave us the early It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia classic "Charlie Has Cancer."

On Slate, Emily Bazelon and Will Saletan made, I feel, a pretty strong case for cutting a deal with Armstrong to go after his helpers in the UCI, equating it to a corrupt cop case. Read at: http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/jurisprudence/2013/01/lance_armstrong_confession_he_s_a_cheater_and_a_bully_but_letting_the_champ.html

I chalk Livestrong up under "it was a good thing while it lasted". I found the hype and wristbands obnoxious, but people who needed certain kinds of support were getting it there, and that's swell. But I think the mortal blow has been struck by extension, even if it's not the nonprofit's own books under examination.

farley3k wrote:

So really what is the lesson we are supposed to learn? That cheaters never win? He did? That cheaters never prosper? He did.

I just don't get what we are supposed to get from this.

Nothing really, can't remember who but there was a comedian a while back who said something along the lines of "You can take away his medals, shun him, whatever, but you can't take his money back and you can't make him un-**** Sheryl Crow."

Personally, I've hated the guy ever since his divorce. How you gonna leave the lady who was there for you through cancer? I realize I don't really know a lot about that situation, but leaving the person who stood by you through that... only thing that seems worse is leaving the person going through cancer (way to go Newt).

Or I dunno, we could teach ourselves and kids to not worship mere fame and money? Is that just lunacy talking though? Maybe let it sink in that life is not fair, that bad guys can win, and that working hard and playing by the rules will rarely get you ahead?

Demosthenes wrote:
farley3k wrote:

So really what is the lesson we are supposed to learn? That cheaters never win? He did? That cheaters never prosper? He did.

I just don't get what we are supposed to get from this.

Nothing really, can't remember who but there was a comedian a while back who said something along the lines of "You can take away his medals, shun him, whatever, but you can't take his money back and you can't make him un-**** Sheryl Crow."

Personally, I've hated the guy ever since his divorce. How you gonna leave the lady who was there for you through cancer? I realize I don't really know a lot about that situation, but leaving the person who stood by you through that... only thing that seems worse is leaving the person going through cancer (way to go Newt).

Yah, this guy is a total dick.

SallyNasty wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
farley3k wrote:

So really what is the lesson we are supposed to learn? That cheaters never win? He did? That cheaters never prosper? He did.

I just don't get what we are supposed to get from this.

Nothing really, can't remember who but there was a comedian a while back who said something along the lines of "You can take away his medals, shun him, whatever, but you can't take his money back and you can't make him un-**** Sheryl Crow."

Personally, I've hated the guy ever since his divorce. How you gonna leave the lady who was there for you through cancer? I realize I don't really know a lot about that situation, but leaving the person who stood by you through that... only thing that seems worse is leaving the person going through cancer (way to go Newt).

Yah, this guy is a total dick.

I'm not sure if this is in jest or not. I will say this, hate's a strong word and was a poor choice. Really, I don't care and am wondering when we'll all realize that sports are theater/drama now, and what people want to see are the big plays, the crazy events, etc... and everyone can dope if they're dumb enough to think that the side effects are worth it.

Lance Armstrong, always heard he was a prick, labeled him in my brain as similar to Barry Bonds and figured sooner or later, I'd hear something about how they shot themselves in the foot.

He got his, good to hear, but it doesn't change what he has. I really wish humans didn't consistently worship at the idol of celebrity and fame... as really all I want to know from a celebrity is can you do your job well by whatever means necessary? Yes, you're psychotic, can you act still? Good. Yes, you're a dumbass, can you still hit that ball and make me cheer for my team? Cool. Everything else, just keep it to yourself and I'll let you have your home time and we can be done at that. Instead, we have whole shows, websites, etc... that are nothing but tracking those people.

No, I was seriously agreeing with you. Guy seems to be a monstrous bastard whose success was built on lies.

Demosthenes wrote:
farley3k wrote:

So really what is the lesson we are supposed to learn? That cheaters never win? He did? That cheaters never prosper? He did.

I just don't get what we are supposed to get from this.

Nothing really, can't remember who but there was a comedian a while back who said something along the lines of "You can take away his medals, shun him, whatever, but you can't take his money back and you can't make him un-**** Sheryl Crow."

Personally, I've hated the guy ever since his divorce. How you gonna leave the lady who was there for you through cancer? I realize I don't really know a lot about that situation, but leaving the person who stood by you through that... only thing that seems worse is leaving the person going through cancer (way to go Newt).

Didn't he get cancer, have it go into remission, then leave his wife, then marry Crow, only to leave her when she developed cancer?

I might be making a lot of this up, so by posting here I am hoping someone else will do the research. I seem to also remember him dating one of the Olsen twins. Which made ME feel dirty.

I think the difference between Armstrong and Bonds is that Bonds, to the best of my knowledge, didn't have an army of lawyers suing the living snail snot out of anyone that dared intimate that he did performance enhancing drugs.

Not only is Armstrong a lying, cheating bastard. He is a bully and a sociopath.

I can almost tolerate the former. I can never abide the latter.

edit: It just about makes you want to kick him in his latex balls.

Psych wrote:

I seem to also remember him dating one of the Olsen twins.

Ew.

Psych wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
farley3k wrote:

So really what is the lesson we are supposed to learn? That cheaters never win? He did? That cheaters never prosper? He did.

I just don't get what we are supposed to get from this.

Nothing really, can't remember who but there was a comedian a while back who said something along the lines of "You can take away his medals, shun him, whatever, but you can't take his money back and you can't make him un-**** Sheryl Crow."

Personally, I've hated the guy ever since his divorce. How you gonna leave the lady who was there for you through cancer? I realize I don't really know a lot about that situation, but leaving the person who stood by you through that... only thing that seems worse is leaving the person going through cancer (way to go Newt).

Didn't he get cancer, have it go into remission, then leave his wife, then marry Crow, only to leave her when she developed cancer?

I might be making a lot of this up, so by posting here I am hoping someone else will do the research. I seem to also remember him dating one of the Olsen twins. Which made ME feel dirty.

All of that is true.

Spoiler:

Also - totes Republican, eww.

Spoiler:

Just kidding, right-wing friends:)

Spoiler:

Kinda.

Spoiler:

Mostly just kidding.

Spoiler:

I think there is bipartisan support for the fact that he is a bastard.

SallyNasty wrote:
Psych wrote:

Didn't he get cancer, have it go into remission, then leave his wife, then marry Crow, only to leave her when she developed cancer?

I might be making a lot of this up, so by posting here I am hoping someone else will do the research. I seem to also remember him dating one of the Olsen twins. Which made ME feel dirty.

All of that is true.

Ugh, I looked it up. He dated Ashley Olsen. And there was another woman in there too. Not sure what happened to her. Probably something wonderful given his history.

Ew.

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/Michelle_Tanner.jpg)

This blog by Fat Cyclist is an interesting point of view on the whole topic.

Paleocon wrote:

Ew.

How wude!

Farscry wrote:
farley3k wrote:

So really what is the lesson we are supposed to learn?

From the interview? That Oprah and Lance both really love making money, apparently. Shocking, I know.

If you care to watch, there's apparently a live stream somewhere on Oprah's website. I don't care to give them my time, but in case you're interested, details here: http://www.cyclingfans.com/oprahs-la...

ETA:

The Onion[/url]]Seven Lucky Oprah Guests Find Tour De France Titles Under Their Chairs

You can learn everything you need to know on the subject from this tweet:

Shorter Lance Armstrong: "I'm just so very, very sorry I didn't get away with it."

I suppose my biggest issue with the whole "it is no big deal" or "everyone was doing it" argument is that scale matters. Though it may be true that others lied or cheated, taking it to the scale to which he did and the lengths to which he was willing to protect his empire matters. There is a moral difference between simply poisoning your own body and ruining the lives of others who dared speak the truth.

I hope they nail him for coercion and racketeering.