Lance Armstrong and His Future in Politics, page 1

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:40 AM

link

Why did Lance come out to Oprah? Did he feel guilty? Did simple feelings of guilt compel Lance to admit to the attacks of his pundits, that indeed, despite his years of lying, he was doping?

Lets look at this from a psychological angle. Some things about Lance:

Despite having experienced being on his own deathbed, disturbingly, Lance didn't seem to grow more humble and appreciative towards life, as would be the expected response from someone who came so close to death.

Lance has expressed a deep interest in politics; he has many politician friends, George W Bush and Bill Clinton, among others. He's expressed interest in running for governor of Texas.

Given that his current predicament - his being stripped of his 7 tour de france championships, his being barred from competition in any international sport - would most likely yield nothing in terms of future prospects, he would, if he still cared to gain back peoples sympathy and so find a foothold into American politics, admit to all the allegations made against him. By doing so, if carefully crafted, Lance could gain that sympathy he sorely needs to salvage a hope he expressed very long ago.

How is the media interpreting Lances interview with Oprah?

Many articles are repeating the statement "I told my son not to defend me anymore" - a rather sanguine heading which would prefers to emphasize Lances nobility in wanting his own son to speak truthfully about his father instead of defending him. A piece from the National Post (toronto) article:

Armstrong was near tears at that point, referring to 13-year-old Luke, the oldest of his five children. He blinked, looked away from Winfrey, and with his lip trembling, struggled to compose himself.

It came just past the midpoint of the hourlong program on Winfrey’s OWN network. In the first part, broadcast Thursday, the disgraced cycling champion admitted using performance-enhancing drugs when he won seven straight Tour de France titles.

Critics said he hadn’t been contrite enough in the first half of the interview, which was taped Monday in Austin, but Armstrong seemed to lose his composure when Winfrey zeroed in on the emotional drama involving his personal life.

“What did you say?” Winfrey asked.

“I said, ’Listen, there’s been a lot of questions about your dad. My career. Whether I doped or did not dope. I’ve always denied that and I’ve always been ruthless and defiant about that. You guys have seen that. That’s probably why you trusted me on it.’ Which makes it even sicker,” Armstrong said.

And uh, I told Luke, I said,” and here Armstrong paused for a long time to collect himself, “I said, ’Don’t defend me anymore. Don’t.’

“He said OK. He just said, ’Look, I love you. You’re my dad. This won’t change that.”

Every writer has to choose an angle when he writes. Why are so many wishing to present Lance in a way which incites feelings of sympathy towards him? Why a loss of focus and context?

It's a simple question. If he was ruthless enough to play and manipulate people to cheat and win - and if he did, what kind of philosophy of life did he work from? And why wouldn't he be doing the same here? This reminds me of a recent American Dad episode where Roger repeatedly tricks Francine into thinking he can win something honestly; over and over again she naively misjudges Rogers basic ingrained emotional tendencies; by the end, typical of mcfarlene comedy, Francine begins to accept Rogers 'novelty' and 'effort' in terms of his penchant for trickery and deception. Here, in my opinion, we have a man who doesn't believe in right and wrong. Lance is an intellectual guy. His interests in politics is likely connected to a personal philosophy or ideological agenda he cares to support. Like many politicians, particularly those on the left, morality is a containment; "laws" apply only in an exoteric sense; but for him, he is "beyond" the law. This is a philosophical attitude which rejects morality on grounds of its relativity, and particularly, in it's devaluation relative to the "primacy" of the feelings. If he wants to be champion and have a glorious career - he HAS to break the rules to get there. Again, Lance got exposed. What he deserved came his way. Now he's trying to pull another one, this time a highly emotional, and thus, demagogic angle. This after all being the name of the politicians game. Bill Clinton said with such ardor in his voice: "I did not sleep with that woman". Most people probably believed him. But, for Clinton, the lie was as good as the truth. No qualitative difference. It may have happened, but for Americans, it didn't happen - shouldn't happen. The sheer force of political necessity subjugates the general truth of what he in fact did. So back to Lance: is he simple, or is he shrewd? If he were shrewd - and as unscrupulous as I believe him to be - he is attempting another swindle. This one is designed to resurrect his reputation: perhaps he believes, and maybe the liberal spinners of his interview may also believe, that portraying Lance in this sympathetic light encourages a society to learn to forgive - that love should trump hate.

Unfortunately, and sadly, those who believe thus suffer from an incurable naivete about human nature. That love should not be handed out indiscriminately, that it's unconditionality is conditioned by the characteristics of the individual in question; no right minded person would "forgive" the past offenses of a child molester simply because he "admitted" and "regretted" having acted that way. Reason compels us to distrust not only him, but the strength of his resolve to commit to a new way. Lance could be acting honestly. But I think given his widely known interest in politics, he is probably acting out of SELF INTEREST by admitting to things he otherwise wouldn't be feeling guilty about.

In short, you are a total gull if you think Lance should be forgiven.

Wrabbit2000

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:06 AM

link

I was very supportive of Lance Armstrong, personally and really thought he was a good guy getting a bad shaft by the Government on shaky evidence at best. In short, I believed the bastard.

Now it comes out by his own words that all those protests of innocence....ALL that fighting for his "good name" and reputation was for nothing? He was scumbag cheater?!

Yeah... I wouldn't elect him head of the committee for keeping the porta-potties stocked and cleaned. Maybe he can find some pocket of morally bankrupt losers who can actually overlook his betrayal of those who believed at least one guy left in sports may have been FALSELY accused and actually had above average natural ability.

Silly me..... Sports? pfft.. All of it above about High School ..and I don't even know how clean and free of cash and corruption that level is anymore. Heck with all of them. Hockey, Football, Baseball.....even Tennis lately. They've all got demonstrations of why they are nothing to look up to and frankly. nothing to bother spending a dollar on or a moment of time with. Armstrong though???? Last straw for me. It's all rigged and bogus.

edit on 19-1-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

ThinkingCap

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:15 AM

link

Yeah, like athletes don't "dope."

... It's a business, it makes lots of money... They pump a lot of them full of steroids to keep the game going.

They even like to hoist up athletes as "heroes", provide them offers they can't refuse, and then expose their wrong choices in front of everyone... A great jaded story about how "there aren't any heroes left".

... I'm thinkin' good on him for coming clean... That's bad politics though (the truth)

Thurisaz

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:25 AM

link

reply to post by dontreally

politics would be the next best job for him... he is a dishonest bastard and that is one of the requirements set out in the selection criteria for politicians.

Wrabbit2000

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 09:30 AM

link

reply to post by ThinkingCap

Good for him for coming clean. I'll agree with that. We now KNOW he's someone with no honor, character, integrity or sense of values.

He comes clean when he's lost everything ...has NOTHING more he can realistically lose here...and actually thinks he may have some gain from it.

I started the topic with him a long time ago from the position that he was a guy who'd faced incredible challenges...physical and otherwise.... and served as a real inspiration to what can be done and overcome. Now, we have it confirmed that he's nothing but an inspiration to those who believe in the betterment of man through modern chemistry.

Sure, I appreciate that he came clean... I'd have felt foolish having delusions of honesty or honor left for ANY of the sports. I am thankful he helped remove that last silly fantasy that any of it still carries anything like that. Now I can feel more confident that they are *ALL* Over-paid prima-donna punks playing children's games and school sports to enrich themselves and..oh, yeah, entertain people as a side benefit.

littled16

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:32 AM

link

reply to post by dontreally

Given that Lance Armstrong has shown that he can consistently lie to the media and the public in general, as well as federal investigators, over an extremely lengthy period of time and has been able to do so with a straight face and demonstrating "just the right amount" of self-righteous indignation- I would say that he is PERFECT for politics!

edit on 19-1-2013 by littled16 because: Atrocious grammar

cahlmac

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:58 PM

link

reply to post by littled16

Absolutely,..

He would be perfect for politics,.. a cheat and a liar.

And I have absolutely no sympathy even after he finally admitted what he did.

The people I do have sympathy for are those who were saying he was a cheat all along. The problem was, too many people had the guy up on a pedestal as being this great sportsman who battled against cancer and came back to win the tour de France.
Just a pity the whole thing was based on him being a cheating, lying, bullying, egotistical piece of filth who thought because he was Lance Armstrong no one would ask any questions!

www.independent.ie...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Anyway, enough said.