Lance Armstrong ADMITS to doping on Oprah.

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by ArMaP

 

We all have hundreds if not thousands of role models, almost all of them people we have no conscious memory of. Why do I wear the type of shoes I like to wear? Part my hair a certain way? Use one word instead of another either in speaking or writing? Either I'm copying some long ago fad or friend, or I'm emulating some politician I liked as a child, etc. Then some people are giants in our lives and we know almost exactly had they've influenced us. For lots of people who bike for exercise Lance Armstrong was a role-model and a hero, a bigger than life record-breaker (7 Tour de'France wins!),

Agreed. No one person lives in a vacuum. We live in a social world and that's what has kept us going since the beginning. It gets so annoying to constantly read people insinuating that you're of weak character because some other person has inspired you. and i'm not talking impersonating.

why confess it now? why not years ago...

reply to post by Helmo


My guess is that some contract ran out that could of held him accountable.

I really wish someone would admit to Doping Oprah...

reply to post by abeverage


With what? Mac and Cheese?

WORD!

reply to post by CALGARIAN


Then almost every professional cyclist, let alone professional athletes, are punks.

It's not really cheating if everyone is doing it, it is simply maintaining competitiveness. It's not the fault of the cyclists but the management, coaches, and the culture of competitive, for profit, sports.

reply to post by ANOK


You know, that reminds me of something Maynard James Keenan said. It was essentially "You can call me a sell out, but everyday you get up and go to work, every day you buy something you are a sell out". It's not the people themselves who are the problem, it's the nature of the beast, it's the nature of the system itself which encourages this behavior. How do you fault the players for "cheating" when the very world they live in so richly rewards it?

Like it or not we are selling out everyday we live in this system, so how are you going to fault Lance for taking a little EPO to get a bit more out it?

reply to post by antonia


Exactly.

It is the system, be that the economic or political system, that encourages extreme competition, in every facet of life, that leads people to acting in undesirable ways to get an edge.

It's the cause of the majority of property crime, and all drug crime.

Lance is just being used as a scapegoat. His extremely high competitiveness was taken advantage of by the teams management etc.

This has been bugging me for a while...

I was a fan since post-college when I picked up cycling as a past-time. I admired him just so damn much, especially after he beat Cancer.

...But then he left his wife. First "WTF!?" moment.

I tried to discount all of the rumors.

Then he left Sheryl Crow when she was diagnosed with cancer. Second and more profound "WTF!?" moment.

Still, I tried to discount all of the rumors despite his team mates being outed all aroundhim and the reports of bullying

Then he started dating one of the Olsen twins. No words beyond creepy and gross. He's just too old for that.

And now he has come out and - supposedly - admitted to doping. But he did it in the most self-serving, attention-whoring way...an Oprah interview. She's mostly retired for cripe's sake and thus garners even more attention!

There is just NOTHING redeemable about this jackass. He is a first rate narcissist or worse. I hope people sue the bejeezus out of him, especially Emma O'Rielly

That said...I think all of the corporations that kept giving him endorsement deals should be SOL. They knew the allegations, gave him endorsements anyway and reaped the benefits. It's not like they didn't also profit from the lies...

reply to post by kosmicjack


He is extremely competitive, narcissistic, and egoistical. An all round typical professional athlete.

But still he did overcome stage three testicular cancer that had spread to his lungs and brain and won 7 tours, doped up or not, that's pretty impressive and shouldn't be forgotten imo.

reply to post by ANOK


You make valid points, for sure, all of that is true...and given what we know about the sport, most - if not all - of the other cyclists were doping too.

reply to post by kosmicjack


Well, the allure of celebrity is very hard for certain personalities to resist. Some people are able to stay normal (Tom Hanks comes to mind), most of the time...Nope.

I'm not in anyway saying he isn't a jackass, I'm saying we live a system that breeds jackasses.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Anyone wonder why the runner ups weren't given the Tour De Frace title?

Because they were doping too.

If everyone is doping, than no one has an edge. The whole thing is overblown.

You know, the more I think about it...that mentality probably played a large part in why he carried on with the lie so long.

Is it wrong?

IMHO, the answer is "no" if you are just looking at the field of athletes at the time...everyone was doing it.

But.."Hell yes!" if you are taking into account people like me, who looked up to him or, worse, kids and young athletes who were pushing themselves to the extreme to emulate him.

Originally posted by antonia
I'm saying we live a system that breeds jackasses.

No argument here! LOL!

I just saw on Euronews that they are thinking of removing cycling from the Olympic games if it's proved that the ICU knew what was happening.

Other cyclists have been proven guilty of using forbidden substances and had their titles removed also, I don't see why we should have special treatment for some.

Blatant cheat and of course he should be stripped of his titles - not just the Tour de France vistories but all titles he won during this period. I see there are already calls in Victoria (Australia) to return his race fee for riding there whilst doped up.

The issue though is that it really was widespread during this period. The very real fear is that any newly appointed victor for those years would actually have been below 20th position!

I have to say though, it is a lot cleaner these days. The evidence is more in the times now being clocked on the various stages - they are upto 10% slower on some stages than what Armstrong was achieving whilst doped to the eyeballs. Sports Scientists believe these are the sorts of times that would be possible through clean, non doped but extremely rigorous and professional training so it is looking good in the cycling world (compared to the past).

However, there is a part of me that would like to see separate sports for doped athletes. They could have their events and organisations, for example instead of the IAF (International Athletics Federation), they could have the IDAF (International Doped Athletics Federation). Yes it is wrong, but who here can honestly say their wouldn't be fascinated by super doped athletes running 100m in 5 seconds!

Maybe even a third category for "recreationally doped" athletes. I would be highly impressed (or amused, can't decide) by things like archery (or triple jump!) where all the athletes are off their faces on magic mushrooms!

Originally posted by Flavian

I have to say though, it is a lot cleaner these days. The evidence is more in the times now being clocked on the various stages - they are upto 10% slower on some stages than what Armstrong was achieving whilst doped to the eyeballs. Sports Scientists believe these are the sorts of times that would be possible through clean, non doped but extremely rigorous and professional training so it is looking good in the cycling world (compared to the past).

Yeah, and sports like football, baseball etc would never be as exciting after seeing the level doped athletes perform. Everyone hates a cheater but that doesn't eliminate the public's desire to see huge guys blowing away records. Take bodybuilding for example. There's the supposedly clean (more popular) level and then there's the all natural competitions and the difference is ridiculous.

Originally posted by homeskillet

Yeah, and sports like football, baseball etc would never be as exciting after seeing the level doped athletes perform. Everyone hates a cheater but that doesn't eliminate the public's desire to see huge guys blowing away records. Take bodybuilding for example. There's the supposedly clean (more popular) level and then there's the all natural competitions and the difference is ridiculous.

I disagree with that assessment.

Sports like baseball, are actually better to watch without the dopers.

Since MLB cleaned up the game after the juice-ball era, we see a game played by athletes that have the skill and hustle that makes the sport great. There is once again 'small-ball', stealing bases, pitching duels, sacrifice bunts, strategy, etc. The way the game SHOULD be played.

Not by behemoths whose biceps need to just swat at the ball and it goes over the fence.

Post juice-ball era baseball is a faster, tighter, and cleaner game and I like it. Maybe to the casual fan it's not but for purists it is.

reply to post by Goldcurrent


I disagree with that. The MLB is worse than before and still plagued with all forms of doping, if you and other people would like the believe that MLB is "safe" and "all secure" that's fine with me but reality has to kick in sometime. That goes for every sport.

Link

And whoever said that thing about Natural Bodybuilding comps, 80% of them are juicing too. The contest is not who has the best drug free physique but who can beat the drug tests.