# Armstrong: If I was the carpenter, Pantani was the artist



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Armstrong: If I Was The Carpenter, Pantani Was The Artist | Cyclingnews.com

*American remembers great rivalry*

excerpt:

_If I could go back I would handle quite a few relationships differently and the one with Marco is no different. My fundamental mistake was that while it was fine to be competitive with your rivals on the bike, when you step off the bike we're all humans and we all deserve to be treated with respect. I never switched off and while that killer mentality worked on the bike, it didn't work well when you're having a coffee or having a press conference. That was my mistake._


----------



## Retro Grouch (Apr 30, 2002)

Shouda...woulda...coulda done things differently...if I could have kept the lie going.

Is this Lance's attempt and a 12 step program?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Until Armstrong is willing to make a detailed confession, I don't have much interest in what he has to say. Its waaaay to early for redemption.

He's a doper, but also a bully who is only sorry he got caught. 

He is now on a PR apology tour, saying the right stuff as scripted by his PR guy. It don't believe it, any more than I believe it when football players make canned statements about not caring about their stats, or respecting the Cleveland Browns. Its press, its image - not reality. 

I do think Armstrong can find redemption, I think all people can. I just don't think it happens through fake PR stuff.

Now maybe if he spent 10 years volunteering as a carpenter, building homes in third world countries, without any publicity - that might bring him some redemption.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Still, it is a rather good read.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

Lance had loads of time to back out of this disaster project he constructed, but he didn't. My give-o-sh1t-o-meter is running on fumes with him.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Agree or disagree:

_How fans should view Pantani nowadays is a complex question, but one that needs a certain level of context and understanding, before reflection. I think that if you watch those performances you should view them with great appreciation and great admiration. When you name all the other winners from those days, all the riders, he was geared up in just the same way and he still ****ing won. That's going to frustrate some people to hear, but you have to remember that he came into a program and that was that. He wasn't going to change the system and everyone in that peloton that he beat played by the same rules._


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Agree or disagree:
> 
> _How fans should view Pantani nowadays is a complex question, but one that needs a certain level of context and understanding, before reflection. I think that if you watch those performances you should view them with great appreciation and great admiration. When you name all the other winners from those days, all the riders, he was geared up in just the same way and he still ****ing won. That's going to frustrate some people to hear, but you have to remember that he came into a program and that was that. *He wasn't going to change the system* and everyone in that peloton that he beat played by the same rules._


Damn right he wasn't going to change the system, Lance and the rest were making sure of that. More 'level playing field'/ 'the best cheat won' sophistry. Enough already. OK, that's 'Elephantino' dealt with, I suppose it's Simioni next...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Shouldn't we be celebrating how Pantani about caused Lance to implode?


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Only Lance knows what Lance is thinking. I'm hoping he is starting to regret his past and understand what he did was wrong. He can't go back and change the past, but he can try to make amends and apologize. 

Not sure if he regrets the doping, as it was the culture in pro racing, right or wrong, it was the way it was at that time.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

In this article, as self-serving as it may be, Armstrong claims to regret being a jerk. 

The question to Armstrong's haters is this: Do you hate him for doping or for being a jerk?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

love4himies said:


> Only Lance knows what Lance is thinking.


or if he is


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

love4himies said:


> Only Lance knows what Lance is thinking. I'm hoping he is starting to regret his past and understand what he did was wrong. He can't go back and change the past, but he can try to make amends and apologize.
> 
> Not sure if he regrets the doping, as it was the culture in pro racing, right or wrong, it was the way it was at that time.


...yeah, about that. I don't really think they've all stopped.


----------



## Harley-Dale (Sep 2, 2011)

No hate here. I respect his skills as a cyclist, and he does have skills and talent. I hate what he did, however, by cheating. That can never be acceptable, whether everyone was doing or just him. Glad he can no longer participate in sanctioned events, the ban was correct...no more black clouds in the sport from him (tho, I am sure there will be others to take his place as a cheater).

No hate for him, but glad he is no longer cheating deserving cyclists their opportunity to win legitimately.

An aside, while I think he had/has great talent, I am not sure sure he would have won many races without cheating. There were/are a lot of racers with more pure talent that didnt have to resort to cheating, who would have beat him.

JMO.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Until Armstrong is willing to make a detailed confession, I don't have much interest in what he has to say. Its waaaay to early for redemption.
> 
> He's a doper, but also a bully who is only sorry he got caught.
> 
> ...


Would you forgive Armstrong if he visited your home or called you on the phone, admitted his crimes against you and apologized to you personally?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Agree or disagree:
> 
> _How fans should view Pantani nowadays is a complex question, but one that needs a certain level of context and understanding, before reflection. I think that if you watch those performances you should view them with great appreciation and great admiration. When you name all the other winners from those days, all the riders, he was geared up in just the same way and he still ****ing won. That's going to frustrate some people to hear, but you have to remember that he came into a program and that was that. He wasn't going to change the system and everyone in that peloton that he beat played by the same rules._


Oh poor poor Lance. All he was trying to do was level the playing field. He's _such a victim._


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Would you forgive Armstrong if he visited your home or called you on the phone, admitted his crimes against you and apologized to you personally?


I've covered this before in the 'are you still mad at Armstrong thread.'

He didn't do anything to me, personally. So he doesn't owe me an apology. 

What you seem to fail to grasp is that talk is cheap. Who cares if he sends me a [email protected] Hallmark card? Thats a worthless gesture. 

But it would mean something if he rolled on Hein, explained if / how they compromised the UCI, settled with SCA, admitted Betsy was right, etc... Those things wpuld actually help clean up cycling. Then he should get the [email protected] out of the spotlight for awhile and quietly did something positive for a good long time. 

I'm not impressed with the media [email protected] continued [email protected]


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm no fan of Armstrong's, but I'm happy to see him be so generous toward the memory of Marco Pantani. For sure, Armstrong may be gratuitously blowing smoke here, but it is possible that he's beginning to find shading and perspective when it comes to the sport and his fellow human beings.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> In this article, as self-serving as it may be, Armstrong claims to regret being a jerk.
> 
> The question to Armstrong's haters is this: Do you hate him for doping or for being a jerk?


Ahhh, the haters strawman.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Mapei said:


> ... but it is possible that he's beginning to find shading and perspective when it comes to the sport and his fellow human beings.


There's a chance.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> He didn't do anything to me, personally. So he doesn't owe me an apology.


Oh OK.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

Lance is a bully, waah, boo hoo, me me me.... Get off your high horse people. He owes you nothing!

"Are you not entertained!?!?"

Lance already did something positive, it's called Livestrong.

Thats what you get. Deal with it.

What did Pantani do for you?

Heh, like rolling on a bunch of people and making more enemy's to satisfy less then 1% of recreational cyclists will amount to anything.

Just being real but hey, fantasize away.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

So we don't like lying, vindictive, fraudulent, manipulative ass hats. So sue us.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

carbonLORD said:


> Lance is a bully, waah, boo hoo, me me me.... Get off your high horse people. He owes you nothing!
> 
> "Are you not entertained!?!?"
> 
> ...


Now I don't follow Armstrong as much as some of the people who claim that they don't care, but I have not heard him mention Livestrong much lately. 

For Armstrong to say, "Yes I did some bad things but I tried to do some good too" is not what I am talking about. I think he still says that sort of thing post confession. Pre confession he would use Livestrong as his human shield -- any accusation against him would trigger its mention: Attacking Armstrong was an attack against Livestrong! _You don't like Armstrong? You must LOVE cancer! _That canard has not come up lately. 

The fact that he no longer uses this defense is somewhat telling in my eyes. It feels like what he says is less defensive and more honest, since he does not play that card he played for so many years. 

Of course, the guy could mention the charity tomorrow and what I just said would go out the window.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Now I don't follow Armstrong as much as some of the people who claim that they don't care, but I have not heard him mention Livestrong much lately.
> 
> For Armstrong to say, "Yes I did some bad things but I tried to do some good too" is not what I am talking about. I think he still says that sort of thing post confession. Pre confession he would use Livestrong as his human shield -- any accusation against him would trigger its mention: Attacking Armstrong was an attack against Livestrong! _You don't like Armstrong? You must LOVE cancer! _That canard has not come up lately.
> 
> ...


He got asked to resign from Livestrong. Their donations are down about 30% this year and Nike won't renew the Livestrong marketing deal. The doping scandal hurt them. 

So I'm not sure what he'd say. I started a cool charity but then risked its credibility by shamelessly using it as my shield? It hired lobbiests to go to Washington and try to undermine the USADA? It just reminds people of all the crappy stuff Armstrong did to hide his doping. 

He's digging around trying to find a PR message, thats all.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Fireform said:


> So we don't like lying, vindictive, fraudulent, manipulative ass hats. So sue us.


I'm gonna sue you for being a hater.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> I don't have much interest in what Armstrong has to say.


Oh.


Bluenote said:


> He got asked to resign from Livestrong. Their donations are down about 30% this year and Nike won't renew the Livestrong marketing deal. The doping scandal hurt them.
> 
> So I'm not sure what he'd say. I started a cool charity but then risked its credibility by shamelessly using it as my shield? It hired lobbiests to go to Washington and try to undermine the USADA? It just reminds people of all the crappy stuff Armstrong did to hide his doping.
> 
> He's digging around trying to find a PR message, thats all.


OK.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Even if he was being totally sincere nobody would take him at his word.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> So we don't like lying, vindictive, fraudulent, manipulative ass hats. So sue us.


You've described about 1/2 of the people I've worked for at one time or another.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> In this article, as self-serving as it may be, Armstrong claims to regret being a jerk.
> 
> The question to Armstrong's haters is this: Do you hate him for doping or for being a jerk?


IMHO; That's a valid/good question (And not a strawman by any means).


Pharmstrong is unique in the cycling doping sense. While all other dopers (Both admitted and those caught) showed humility and civility throughout the course of their plight, Pharmstrong was exact opposite. He was a seething pissed off Tasmanian Devil (I was going to use the term 'badger' but that bring visions of Bernard Hinault!). 

Not only did Pharmstrong go after companies via law suits and media interviews, he went after individuals the same way and was unrelenting for _years_!

As we've seen over the past 20+ years with other dopers, the human conscience can wreck havoc on a person's soul as all riders that were faced with doping evidence against them eventually broke down and admitted it. 

But not Pharmstrong. IMHO; He easily continued to deny all doping accusations for 13+ years simply because he has no conscience. And he handled his attacks on individuals the same way; He has no conscience.

Normal people couldn't do that; not even if they allowed their representatives (Meaning lawyers) to do it for them simply because normal people have a conscience. Pharmstrong personally attacked individuals via the media and the only reason he didn't do it in court was because he wasn't a lawyer. But he did as a witness, though. He was very much the captain of his scorched-earth ship.

And I was a big-time, dyed-in-the-wool, fanboi of Pharmstrong as well. The only reason I didn't wear the Livestrong bracelet was because my wrists are the size an adult male ankle!


To answer your question:
Regarding the cycling community; The above mentioned is why Pharmstrong is in such a negative league all his own. While all other dopers were CatIV and CatIII liars/deniers, Pharmstrong was at the pro/elite level liar/denier as well as a character assassination expert. 

And it is my opinion that is why Pharmstrong was/is being dealt with the way it played out. The USADA gave him every opportunity (And more) to come clean/cooperate with them and he turned them down, so USADA called his bluff. 

I'm sure USADA told him what was going to happen if he didn't cooperate so Pharmstrong, being the captain of his ship, brought on everything that has happened to him since the release of 'Reasoned Decision' because of decisions he made. To hear/read him whine about it now is truly pathetic and sad.


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> In this article, as self-serving as it may be, Armstrong claims to regret being a jerk.
> 
> The question to Armstrong's haters is this: Do you hate him for doping or for being a jerk?


Why can't we do both? 

I never liked him, even when he was like 21 and riding for Subaru Montgomery. Just came off as an egotistical, brash, braggart. Long before any of the doping allegations were being whispered.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

So I skimmed the article this morning before work, and I just looked it over again... but I still don't understand why he wrote about Pantani or why Pantani is the "artist", other than very nonspecific "he had panache" and "he was like a rockstar" statements. I admired Pantani's climbing too, but he seems to be just piggybacking off of Pantani's unfortunate death to help with his own image... and again, why now? Everything he wrote is generic. There's no compelling or specific reasons why he admired Pantani other than for the guy being famous and winning. So if Pantani hadn't doped and just finished mid pack, it would seem he would not even know who Pantani was and wouldn't give a ****? I don't get it.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Oh.
> OK.


Being interested in Livestrong is different from being interested in Armstrong. 

Though I guess you haven't figured that out yet. 

And yes, I follow Livestrong in the news. Will / can they rebrand themselves? Can / how do they cope with the loss of all that Nike revenue?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Even if he was being totally sincere nobody would take him at his word.


Good point.



It is my opinion that Pharmstrong completely and utterly lacks empathy. 

Probably not caused by environmental but more likely by physiological reasons. As in a narcissist manner or quality. 

Because of what I outlined, I don't think Pharmstrong is being sincere because feeling sorry is completely foreign to him due to the complete lack of empathy. What's ironic is that I also think he's not being malicious or conniving either in regards to the article and after the release of Reasoned Decisions. He's probably being instructed by his advisers on what to say and write that implies empathy and humility because he just does not know so he has to fake it. It's something Pharmstrong will probably never personally experience due to the physiological reasons.

The closest he would come to understanding empathy or feeling sorry is if it only applied to him. For example; I think he is truly sorry he didn't take the USADA deal because he saw that it would have benefited him better than the path he ended up choosing. He is unable to take his own feelings and apply it to others and realize people have those same feelings. That absolutely does not compute with him as his focus is absolutely 100% on himself. 


Working at a psyche hospital for 3 years; It is truly an eye-opener when you come across a person with narcissist personality including the complete lack of empathy. To talk to them and see the world through their eyes is a little scary and very, very sad.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> Good point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Narcissists without empathy? Surly most of you guys deal with them constantly. That describes most former band mates and a heck of a lot of bosses.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

rufus said:


> Why can't we do both?
> 
> I never liked him, even when he was like 21 and riding for Subaru Montgomery. Just came off as an egotistical, brash, braggart. Long before any of the doping allegations were being whispered.


True; That would be more accurate.

But I would still say 15% due to doping and 85% due to him being a supreme DB.


It's interesting you mention when he was 21. That's how old he was when he won the UCI Road World Championship Race back in 1993.

Right after he won said race his mom went up to visit and seek advice from Greg and Kathy LeMond. Sitting on the back porch, Pharmstrong's mom asked questions regarding what to do with the money he had just won and options regarding his career path. After Greg and Kathy gave her some advice they all got up to go into the house; Pharmstrong's mom asked as an afterthought question, "What could I do to make him a nicer person? He is _such_ an a$$hole; he just doesn't care about anyone." Greg replied, "That; I can't help you with."

That direct quote by Pharmstrong's mom calling him an A-hole cemented/solidified my opinion of him regarding his narcissist personality. 

Pharmstrong was only 21 years old and was already a high achieving, highly motivated, and successful in his field yet still earned the title 'A-hole' from his very own mother. That speaks volumes about his personality, IMHO.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> True; That would be more accurate.
> 
> But I would still say 15% due to doping and 85% due to him being a supreme DB.
> 
> ...


Some racers are a-holes. Does anyone give a crap about the race? It's a sporting event, not a date.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

carbonLORD said:


> Lance is a bully, waah, boo hoo, me me me.... Get off your high horse people. He owes you nothing!
> 
> Lance already did something positive, it's called Livestrong.


Where do you get the assumption that members poasting in this thread feel owed by Pharmstrong  ?


And if your definition of positive was/is defined by Lance and Livestrong, you're either unaware of the realities of Livestrong or you simply aim low or have minimal expectations.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Some racers are a-holes. Does anyone give a crap about the race? It's a sporting event, not a date.


A fanboi still, I take it  ?



Your poast reads more like excuses than anything else. 

What am I missing?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cda 455 said:


> A fanboi still, I take it  ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Isn't fanboi considered an insult, name calling, and generally against the rules?

As for what you're missing, probably the bike race. This is where I get neg Rep'd, reported, and/or a PM from an angry MAMILS.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

My take is Armstrong admired Pantani in his own way. We've pretty much cataloged Lance's character flaws over the years, so there's no need to trot them out yet again. I think Lance was asked for his memories of him, and he responded. Agree with his perception or not, I think this is how he saw (and sees) things. I don't see it as a PR-enhancing stunt on his behalf, because it would have been much more ham-handed. It's how he saw his role as a professional cyclist, and how he perceived his peers. Warped as it is, it's right in line with his personality.

I could be wrong, though.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> In this article, as self-serving as it may be, Armstrong claims to regret being a jerk.
> 
> The question to Armstrong's haters is this: Do you hate him for doping or for being a jerk?


Here we go again with the 'hate' verb. He was a doper, he still is a jerk. I have contempt for his lies and bullying towards those who were after the truth. Jerks are two a penny, I don't lose sleep over jerks. Hate? No.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Alaska Mike said:


> My take is Armstrong admired Pantani in his own way. We've pretty much cataloged Lance's character flaws over the years, so there's no need to trot them out yet again. I think Lance was asked for his memories of him, and he responded. Agree with his perception or not, I think this is how he saw (and sees) things. I don't see it as a PR-enhancing stunt on his behalf, because it would have been much more ham-handed. It's how he saw his role as a professional cyclist, and how he perceived his peers. Warped as it is, it's right in line with his personality.
> 
> I could be wrong, though.


Politics and Armstrong's flaws make up 90% of posts. Then there a few bike questions and critique in how kits look this year.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

cda 455 said:


> IMHO; That's a valid/good question (And not a strawman by any means).
> 
> 
> Pharmstrong is unique in the cycling doping sense. While all other dopers (Both admitted and those caught) showed humility and civility throughout the course of their plight, Pharmstrong was exact opposite. He was a seething pissed off Tasmanian Devil (I was going to use the term 'badger' but that bring visions of Bernard Hinault!).
> ...


Prior to his unraveling, most of what you describe are the very reasons so many Americans loved him. He was defiant in a sport/culture that didn't want him. He talked big, he won big. His persona was more NFL than UCI. That's why people who didn't care about cycling watched (the cancer story made us look).

I don't believe any of the caught dopers are sorry for doping, not one of them. Most all were smart enough not to grenade their images with their antics.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Isn't fanboi considered an insult, name calling, and generally against the rules?
> 
> As for what you're missing, probably the bike race. This is where I get neg Rep'd, reported, and/or a PM from an angry MAMILS.


Well; I described myself specifically as a former Pharmstrong fanboi in an earlier poast here by using it as an adjective in the neutral sense and, more importantly, I had no intention of insulting myself in the process.

With that said; No, I don't see the term fanboi as an insult so chances are great that I used it to describe you in the same neutral sense that I used it to describe myself.


Regarding what I'm missing; The bike race wasn't my point. I was focusing on *Pharmstrong* in a race at a *specific time period* and what *specific event* happened after the race with a *specific group* of people.


As I understand it, this thread isn't about you but about Pharmstrong and his article on Pantani. So I don't understand why you're describing what happens to you in certain threads or topics  .


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

carbonLORD said:


> Lance already did something positive, it's called Livestrong.
> 
> Thats what you get. Deal with it.


$6 million parties are always positive


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Agree or disagree:
> 
> _How fans should view Pantani nowadays is a complex question, but one that needs a certain level of context and understanding, before reflection. I think that if you watch those performances you should view them with great appreciation and great admiration. When you name all the other winners from those days, all the riders, he was geared up in just the same way and he still ****ing won. That's going to frustrate some people to hear, but you have to remember that he came into a program and that was that. He wasn't going to change the system and everyone in that peloton that he beat played by the same rules._


And this was why he "wrote" the article. Gotta push the "Level Playing Field" "Everyone was doing it" "True Champion" Nonsense. 

Using the death of Pantani to push his redemption crusade, what would you expect?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

davidka said:


> Prior to his unraveling, most of what you describe are the very reasons so many Americans loved him. He was defiant in a sport/culture that didn't want him. He talked big, he won big. His persona was more NFL than UCI. That's why people who didn't care about cycling watched (the cancer story made us look).
> 
> I don't believe any of the caught dopers are sorry for doping, not one of them. Most all were smart enough not to grenade their images with their antics.


I see your point.


But I think it was his winning, in addition to what you described, is what ultimately helped him in his popularity here in the U.S. The idea that an American continuously winning a non-American sport was also a big part of the attraction of Lance.

You bring up a good point regarding his persona. It was in the same American spirit as Patton, as McEnroe and Connors, and even Greg LeMond.


I agree that the dopers not being sorry for doping. I do think they were sorry for the stress and strain that was caused as a result of it. And I think said dopers had enough conscience and humility, not just smarts, to not grenade their image or make matters any worse. Some tried, but eventually broke down under pressure.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

tl;dr

but anyway, I missed it when Valverde, Schleck, and Contador came clean. And all the other early aughts stars like JaJa, Virenque, and Vino and on and on.

Re: this article. I read some regret for acting like a classless jerk and insulting Pantani, but nothing close to an apology. He actually said he thinks the main problem with their relationship was the language barrier, and that they were able to come to some reconciliation over lunch, while still speculating that Pantani had a Napolean Complex. Yeah, that was a classy apology.



cda 455 said:


> IMHO; That's a valid/good question (And not a strawman by any means).
> 
> 
> Pharmstrong is unique in the cycling doping sense. While all other dopers (Both admitted and those caught) showed humility and civility throughout the course of their plight, Pharmstrong was exact opposite. He was a seething pissed off Tasmanian Devil (I was going to use the term 'badger' but that bring visions of Bernard Hinault!).
> ...


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> ...yeah, about that. I don't really think they've all stopped.


I don't think so either, however, I think back in the Lance era it was much more prevalent and "socially accepted" in the peloton.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

love4himies said:


> I don't think so either, however, I think back in the Lance era it was much more prevalent and "socially accepted" in the peloton.


I think they've just switched drug / method. I think some teams and riders have the new wonder drugs and some don't. 

I give people the presumption of innocence, but Sky's stable of shockingly thin TdF contenders seems odd.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Using the death of Pantani to push his redemption crusade, what would you expect?


Redemption crusade? I don't think that's even feasible. Besides, he and Pantani were rivals hence a rivalry.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Bluenote said:


> I think they've just switched drug / method. I think some teams and riders have the new wonder drugs and some don't.
> 
> I give people the presumption of innocence, but Sky's stable of shockingly thin TdF contenders seems odd.


It does to me too, and the only thing that makes me think it may be possible they are clean is that it's not the same rider. To me, riders who don't have consistency of being in the top 10 in GT year after year, like Lance, is an indication of clean riding. I don't believe that any one human can sustain what it takes to be the best for years unless they are doping. It just would take too much out of their body.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Redemption crusade? I don't think that's even feasible.


Using his current strategy I would agree with you.... not feasible. Lance, however, thinks he can pull it off


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

love4himies said:


> To me, riders who don't have consistency of being in the top 10 in GT year after year, like Lance, is an indication of clean riding.


You mean like Cobo?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

love4himies said:


> It does to me too, and the only thing that makes me think it may be possible they are clean is that it's not the same rider. To me, riders who don't have consistency of being in the top 10 in GT year after year, like Lance, is an indication of clean riding. I don't believe that any one human can sustain what it takes to be the best for years unless they are doping. It just would take too much out of their body.


I think Wiggans cracked under the celebrity pressure. He seems really freaked out with all the stuff that went with being a TdF winner, Britians new star, etc... 

I think it is a little early to tell if there will be a Sky dynasty or not. 

I agree with you that doped riders don't seem to 'crack' today like riders of yester year. Riders in the past doped too, but todays doping seems to even out those bad days / years.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

sir duke said:


> Here we go again with the 'hate' verb. He was a doper, he still is a jerk. I have contempt for his lies and bullying towards those who were after the truth. Jerks are two a penny, I don't lose sleep over jerks. Hate? No.


Thanks for your response. 

Re: the word "hate" -- we cannot deny that there is a lot of hate for the man. 

But if people think "hate" is too emotionally-laden to describe the emotionally-laden responses to Armstrong's actions then "contempt" is a suitable substitute. Let's not get hung up on semantics. 





Bluenote said:


> What you seem to fail to grasp is that talk is cheap.





Bluenote said:


> Though I guess you haven't figured that out yet.


Please stop.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)




----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Don't know if this has been posted, and I sure don't want to start another Wonderboy thread!

My Call With Lance | Steve Tilford


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Perhaps the timing of Armstrong's writing has something to do with this: 

Pantani: The Accidental Death of a Cyclist (Trailer) - YouTube


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

The Tedinator said:


> Don't know if this has been posted, and I sure don't want to start another Wonderboy thread!
> 
> My Call With Lance | Steve Tilford


Interesting read. 

The comments are also interesting, especially the one about NPD -- narcissistic personality disorder. The commenter described how those with the disorder often cause wreckage in their lives and later complain that the outcome is unfair. The commenter argued that this fairness argument is not particularly cathartic, that it's a construct people with NPD cling to once they are busted, as a continuation of their disease. This internet psychologist argued for acceptance. 

For what its worth, this anonymous comment by a dime store internet psychologist seems reasonable. Maybe Armstrong was treated unfairly. At this point the most healthy thing for him to do is just ACCEPT it as just desserts. 


On the flip side, I wonder if Armstrong ever thought life was unfair between 1999 and 2005.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> On the flip side, I wonder if Armstrong ever thought life was unfair between 1999 and 2005.


Expectation of favorable treatment is another trait associated with NPD. :wink:

There's a real problem with acceptance on the part of people with NPD. It may be due to another classic NPD trait, lack of empathy. In the psychological sense, that means that they can't step outside of themselves, and see a situation through another person's eyes. It's all about them. He sees all of his contemporaries who doped just as much, many of whom escaped scot-free, and the handful who got caught walking away with reduced sanctions, intact results, and still being able to compete. Seeing it as his "just desserts" is damn near impossible, if indeed he suffers from NPD (and I'm not trying to make an armchair diagnosis. Just speaking about narcissists in general). Most of my clients come from the box of misfit toys, psychologically. I can certainly see his thought process there. I hear stuff like that every day---"why is so-and-so getting probation for what he did, and they wanna give me 5 years for the same thing?"


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

mpre53 said:


> Expectation of favorable treatment is another trait associated with NPD. :wink:
> 
> There's a real problem with acceptance on the part of people with NPD. It may be due to another classic NPD trait, lack of empathy. In the psychological sense, that means that they can't step outside of themselves, and see a situation through another person's eyes. It's all about them. He sees all of his contemporaries who doped just as much, many of whom escaped scot-free, and the handful who got caught walking away with reduced sanctions, intact results, and still being able to compete. Seeing it as his "just desserts" is damn near impossible, if indeed he suffers from NPD (and I'm not trying to make an armchair diagnosis. Just speaking about narcissists in general). Most of my clients come from the box of misfit toys, psychologically. I can certainly see his thought process there. I hear stuff like that every day---"why is so-and-so getting probation for what he did, and they wanna give me 5 years for the same thing?"


I don't think Armstrong got treated unfairly. He doped for most, if not all of his career. He has no place in the sport. 

A lot of the damage he has suffered has been his own making, though he mostly fails to see that. Using his charity as a shield against doping allegations. Using his charity to try and lobby against the USADA. Some questionable dealings between the charity dot org and dot com. His Oprah interview was a disaster. His general jerky behavior has been exposed in multiple books / articles / TV segments. 

IMO had he not used his charity as a shield, I think he could have staid involved with it. Not as the face, but take a hiatus, then come back on the board and be engaged. I think people would have been willing to say 'he's a human being with faults, but he clearly cares about cancer survivors.' But because of the way he used his charity, he became too much of a liability to it. 

He created a lot of other bad situations for himself and is now reaping what he sowed. 

That being said, I do think the WADA Code could use a bit of a rewrite. When riders get caught by evidence after the fact, I'd like more rules on how punishment gets carried out. Does one year of doping equal 'one offense?' What do you give riders who get caught after years and years of doping, one count? Two counts? 

I'd also like to see more clarity on what counts as a conspiracy, aggravated circumstances. What circumstances extend the 8 year SOL and what don't? I mean, most cyclists who get caught after the fact were somehow going to great lengths to dope / conceal. What becomes so serious that it extends the SOL? 

I'm not a fan of an unlimited SOL. I'd like to see something like 8 years, 16 if there were aggravated circumstances, no SOL for Doctors, trainers, Directors.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Thanks for your response.
> 
> Re: the word "hate" -- we cannot deny that there is a lot of hate for the man.
> 
> But if people think "hate" is too emotionally-laden to describe the emotionally-laden responses to Armstrong's actions then "contempt" is a suitable substitute. Let's not get hung up on semantics.


Yes, let's get hung up on semantics.

On the contrary I'm not sure we can say with certainty there is a lot of hate for the man. Scorn, disdain, loathing, and the word I used 'contempt'. I'm not aware that anyone has made any physical threats against Armstrong or any members of his family. Is anyone sending him anthrax in the mail, running to the press with accusations that he fathered their child, shot their dog, sneered at them in a supermarket?
He's not even a pariah within the cycling community. So please, let's stop with lazy definitions that fit with your agenda, the agenda in which you see the guy as a victim, swinging in the wind whilst the slavering 'haters' tear at his tattered lycra. 
If you want to lecture people on semantics at least take the trouble to understand that there are others around who choose their words with rather more care and consideration than you do. And since when do _you_ get to decide what is a 'suitable substitute' or not?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> Yes, let's get hung up on semantics.


There isn't a doping forum regular that can complain about semantics. Fact.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> There isn't a doping forum regular that can complain about semantics. Fact.


Is this a variant of the everyone's a hater strawman? 

The everyone's a word mincer strawman? 

A nice trifecta with the everyone was doing it strawman, don'tcha think?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> Is this a variant of the everyone's a hater strawman?
> 
> The everyone's a word mincer strawman?
> 
> A nice trifecta with the everyone was doing it strawman, don'tcha think?


What is the greek word for this specific type of argument against an argument against an argument?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> What is the greek word for this specific type of argument against an argument against an argument?


Keep up the good work. Keep hammering away on the key talking points:
- everyone was / is doing it.
- Lance is a victim of all the haters.
- Level playing field. 

C'mon, your hero needs you. Spread his message. Start that group. Rally the troops.

Pharmacists for Pharmstrong!!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

That kind of post would get me in trouble if I said something like that.

Is there an "incident" in your past that involves pharmacists? Besides, you've proven that I'm not a pharmacist because I won't post my license, social security number, and bank account.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

sir duke said:


> Yes, let's get hung up on semantics.
> 
> On the contrary I'm not sure we can say with certainty there is a lot of hate for the man. Scorn, disdain, loathing, and the word I used 'contempt'. I'm not aware that anyone has made any physical threats against Armstrong or any members of his family. Is anyone sending him anthrax in the mail, running to the press with accusations that he fathered their child, shot their dog, sneered at them in a supermarket?
> He's not even a pariah within the cycling community. So please, let's stop with lazy definitions that fit with your agenda, the agenda in which you see the guy as a victim, swinging in the wind whilst the slavering 'haters' tear at his tattered lycra.
> If you want to lecture people on semantics at least take the trouble to understand that there are others around who choose their words with rather more care and consideration than you do. And since when do _you_ get to decide what is a 'suitable substitute' or not?


Mulling this over, the big thing I have observed is the dramatic change in opinions on Armstrong pre-Oprah and post-Oprah. 

Post-Oprah, people were throwing out very serious words about Armstrong. 'Narcissist' was one, 'psychopath' or 'sociopath' were others. And 'only sorry he got caught' got said a lot. There were even articles written about what traits of narcissim, etc... Armstrong displayed. 

Now - I'm not arguing that Armstrong is mentally ill, I'm in no way qualified to make that assessment. I'm just making an observation about other people's opinions of him.

Post-Oprah lots of people seemed to believe that something was wrong with Armstrong. Sometimes people expressed this technically 'narcissist' and some times colloquially 'broken toy.' Others focused on his remorselessness 'we sued so many people,' 'never called Betsy Fat,' 'doping is like putting air in your tires...'

I mean, what is a jerk, exactly other than someone who doesn't care about anyone but themselves? 

I'm not sure that people call Armstrong names like that because they 'hate' him, are 'angry' at him, feel some sense of personal injury. Rather, I think people are trying to describe what they saw on Oprah - a guy who didn't see much wrong with what he did and only seemed sorry that he got caught.

And I'm not sure that people want Armstrong 'banned for life' or 'to just go away' because they hate him. Nor do I think people are glad Armstrong 'got his just desserts' out of rage. I sense that people think Armstrong is the kind of guy who can't / won't really change and therefore doesn't merit a second chance. That they're glad he is no longer in a position to 'bully' or 'smear' others. 

It might be a very painful assessment, but it does seem to be how lots of people see Armstrong.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)




----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> That kind of post would get me in trouble if I said something like that.
> 
> Is there an "incident" in your past that involves pharmacists? Besides, you've proven that I'm not a pharmacist because I won't post my license, social security number, and bank account.


Well, you started the 'poster not post' line of argument by claiming everyone on the doping forum is a word mincer. So now I don't think you get to pull back and say 'woah, woah we can't go around criticizing posters here.' 

I don't take the Armstrong-is-a-scapegoat-everyone was / is-doing-it talking points very seriously. Sorry if that gets your panties in a twist.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I don't wear underwear.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

90% of pharmacists don't wear underwear


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> There isn't a doping forum regular that can complain about semantics. Fact.


So a sweeping generalisation is now a fact? Um yeah, OK.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

sir duke said:


> So a sweeping generalisation is now a fact? Um yeah, OK.


If the shoe fits, it's probably Lance's fault.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

sir duke said:


> So a sweeping generalisation is now a fact? Um yeah, OK.


You're arguing with the guy who responds with stuff like "I don't wear underwear."

The haters strawman is just part of the poor-Lance-is-a-victim narrative. It paints him as being at the mercy of unfair forces beyond his control. By implication it ties into the everyone-was / is doing-it narrative. 

_Everyone was doing it, but only poor Lance got sanctioned. He lost his titles, his sponsors, everything. All this because the haters are jealous of Lance. And evil Tygart wanted a scalp to hang on his wall. _

I don't see much point in arguing against strawmen. Just point out that they are strawmen and move on.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Nobody in this forum really has room to talk about that, either. 

Y'all seem to have problems with equal opportunity offenders.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Bluenote said:


> You're arguing with the guy who responds with stuff like "I don't wear underwear."
> 
> The haters strawman is just part of the poor-Lance-is-a-victim narrative. It paints him as being at the mercy of unfair forces beyond his control. By implication it ties into the everyone-was / is doing-it narrative.
> 
> ...




I see a mouse, I play with it. Kind of cat I am...meeow!


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> *Nobody in this forum really has room to talk about that, either. *
> 
> Y'all seem to have problems with equal opportunity offenders.


Man, you really seem to have the pulse of the forum at your fingertips. You know how everyone talks, how they argue, what they think. Do you also know what everyone had for breakfast? 

So how did you sort that all out? Polling? Focus groups? Applying word analysis software to people's posts? Hours studying "everyone's" responses? 

Pretty fantastic that we can't agree on anything else in RBR, but man - we all march in perfect step in doping. Like mind control or something. 

You spend a lot of time putting strawman positions in other poster's mouths, then shooting them down. Y'know, everyone else on the forum is a naive bumpkin, or hypocritical zealot. But you are the only one to see the true state of affairs!

Granted, such a position gives you a lot of easy fish. You can post stuff like 'everyone stopped in 2006!' 'They only used cortisone!' And feel like its a big revelation, fantastic comedy or something. Great fodder for lots of snark. 

And don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of snark. Snark away on doping - it deserves it. 

However, when you flip the snark from attacking pro cyclists or anti-doping authorities, to attacking other posters here - why are you surprised that some have issues with it? You instigate stuff by claiming 'everyone here is a word mincer' and 'everyone here has problems with strawmen' then try to claim victim status. 'I'm an equal oppurtunity offender, don't pick on me.' Pretty much like throwing spitballs, then complaining when you got chased off the playground. 

If you're gonna make a bunch of snarky arguments, call out "everyone" in the forum and put strawmen positions in "everyone's" mouth, then you only have yourself to blame if you don't get taken seriously. 

I don't see you as a victim, persecuted for your stance on doping. Sorry if that gets your panties in a twist.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Please go back to trying to school me with medicine.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Please go back to trying to school me with medicine.


Awfully thin skinned for a guy who called out "everyone" else, aren'tcha?

You're happy to dish it out, but cry pretty hard when people give it back. Aww, you once got neg repped, that's so sad. Here, internet hug. ((((Spade))). 

For a guy who pretends not to take this all very seriously, you sure act like it really hurts you. Maybe if this stuff hurts you so much, you shouldn't instigate it and should stay away from calling out "everyone" else.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> Awfully thin skinned for a guy who called out "everyone" else, aren'tcha?


Have you ever given up in an argument? 

Remember when I made that Sandlot joke and you got super offended? Now you are implying that I wear ladies undergarments to imply I am less masculine.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Have you ever given up in an argument?
> 
> Remember when I made that Sandlot joke and you got super offended? Now you are implying that I wear ladies undergarments to imply I am less masculine.


Jeez, I had forgotten all about that. What was that, like 2 years ago? Man, you really do carry grudges. *whistles*


----------

