# Ran Into Endangered Species Today– The Great North American Lance-Defender™



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Wow, there's still some of these left, and they're purty funny. 

Ran into one at the bike shop today. He brought up Lance.

Me: Wow, is he ever going to eat some major crow on Oprah tomorrow.

Him: Well, I still think he's the man.

Me: ???

Him: Think about it... he was doping but he beat EVERY SINGLE OTHER guy who was doping too, so he's still the champ in my book.

Me: Yeah well, that's why I don't give a crap about pro racing anymore, and haven't for years.


What I thought about adding, but didn't, because I was being diplomatic...

Me: So, basically, Lance and all those other dopeheads have ruined the sport for me and many others. But yeah, you're right, in his heyday he beat all the OTHER dopeheads, so he's the most successful liar and cheater out there. Whoo-eee.

But hey, lots of sports dope, so if that's his only sin... but, oh wait. Let's add the fact that Lance sicced his lawyers on EVERYONE and ANYONE who dared to TELL THE TRUTH about him and his doping, and that he not only dragged them through court but also tried to DESTROY their reputations, and systematically intimidated MANY others, all to protect what Lance KNEW. WAS. A. LIE. :skep:

So, your guy is not only a liar, a cheater, and ruiner of a sport I used to love, but he's also an inveterate SCUMBAG, whom you, in your ignorance, have decided to still worship. 

So, yay. Good job. :thumbsup: :shocked:



So yeah, I'm happy I can be diplomatic sometimes. He seemed like a very nice kid, other than his poor choice in role models.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

First.

And IBTM


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

tihsepa said:


> First.
> 
> And IBTM


I actually don't think this is that controversial anymore. 

Then again, I've had PG-13-rated posts deleted recently.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

systemshock said:


> he was doping


no spoliers!!!!!


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Creakyknees said:


> my fix of your poast doesn't really capture what you were talking about!!!


Fixed yer fix™.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

I posted this in a Graham Watson thread that talked about his resonse, but it definately states my opinion even after the confession on Oprah.

_Like mentioned above. Without Lance, he (Graham Watston) had no meal ticket with exclusive access like he always had. Also without lance, there is no Paul Sherwin, Phil Ligget, or Bob Roll still in broadcasting. Americans would have lost interest long ago and it would still be a niche sport like it was when Lemond raced. Also will go as far as saying no Tour of California, Utah, or Colorado. Call him the villain all you want, but there are a lot of American pro teams racing in the States with pretty high profile UCI teams these days and making decent money. Remember when Philly, Sommerville, and San Francisco Grand Prix were the highlights of US pro races? Coors Classic was long gone and US pro racers scraped by, not sponsored personal Gran Fondo's._


----------



## wabasso (May 18, 2012)

spookyload said:


> I posted this in a Graham Watson thread that talked about his resonse, but it definately states my opinion even after the confession on Oprah.
> 
> _Like mentioned above. Without Lance, he (Graham Watston) had no meal ticket with exclusive access like he always had. Also without lance, there is no Paul Sherwin, Phil Ligget, or Bob Roll still in broadcasting. Americans would have lost interest long ago and it would still be a niche sport like it was when Lemond raced. Also will go as far as saying no Tour of California, Utah, or Colorado. Call him the villain all you want, but there are a lot of American pro teams racing in the States with pretty high profile UCI teams these days and making decent money. Remember when Philly, Sommerville, and San Francisco Grand Prix were the highlights of US pro races? Coors Classic was long gone and US pro racers scraped by, not sponsored personal Gran Fondo's._


And your point is?


----------



## Retro Grouch (Apr 30, 2002)

Also endangered (perhasp extinct): The black and yellow Livestrong kit, matching Giro commemorative helmet and Oakley Jawbone shades worn by a pudgy cyclist.


----------



## JohnnyTooBad (Apr 5, 2004)

I don't like him either. To me, he's sort of in that Tiger Woods camp. Hate the guy, but he was good for the game. What Spooky quoted above is very true. Lots of people owe careers to him. And from a personal standpoint, I still recall how much I enjoyed watching the last 6 of his 7 winds (I didn't see the 1st one). Can't take that away from me, and I won't hate on him enough to take away the good memories. Why make myself unhappy just so I can be a hater?

So in this case, hate the playa, not the game. (But don't hate the playa enough to hate the game)


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

Lance? I enjoyed his racing career a great deal, including before he won his first TdF.

Lance as a human being? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

I quit following pro cycling after Floyd Landis was caught doping in the TDF. It is dead to me. Either they are all doping, or some are doping and making the races unfair. Either way, I don't care anymore. 

My main cycling interests now center around bike commuting and touring. No cheating involved with either, as far as I can tell.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Retro Grouch said:


> Also endangered (perhasp extinct): The black and yellow Livestrong kit, matching Giro commemorative helmet and Oakley Jawbone shades worn by a pudgy cyclist.


I told you to STOP PICKING ON ME! 

And I'm not pudgy, I'm big-hematocrit. It's genetic!


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

did he have a cut-out saddle so he can ride with the head up his ass?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

wabasso said:


> And your point is?


That shitty selfish people can actually have a positive legacy. Look at the Robber Barons of the turn of the Century that TR eventually got anti-trust laws passed to stop, basic worker protection laws etc. When in business they were selfish asses who exploited the workers and literally bought elections. They were worth HUNDREDS of Billions in adjusted Dollars when currently the worlds richest man is not worth 70 billion. BUT they also left lasting legacies in terms of making the US an Industrial power, building the rail roads that allowed the country to grow, paid for the developement and construction of our electrical grids and telegraphs etc.

They were cheating a-holes but they left behind a mixed legacy, some of which we still benefit from today.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

SystemShock said:


> But hey, lots of sports dope, so if that's his only sin... but, oh wait. Let's add the fact that Lance sicced his lawyers on EVERYONE and ANYONE who dared to TELL THE TRUTH about him and his doping, and that he not only dragged them through court but also tried to DESTROY their reputations, and systematically intimidated MANY others, all to protect what Lance KNEW. WAS. A. LIE. :skep:
> 
> So, your guy is not only a liar, a cheater, and ruiner of a sport I used to love, but he's also an inveterate SCUMBAG, whom you, in your ignorance, have decided to still worship.
> 
> ...


So, next time don't forget to say this to his face :thumbsup: Instead of posting about it here... where he can't say anything... at all... :skep: 

So yeah, you'll just need to figure out a way to use the smiley face emoticon stuff in RL :shocked:

So, yay. Good job. :thumbsup:


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

The dingbat Lance fanatic that was haranguing me in FB mail a few months ago has changed her profile picture to...a shot of her with LA. People like this are mostly saying that it was noble of Lance to dope in the name of the fight against cancer. The human capacity to deny and rationalize is amazing.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

*Let It Be*

Yes, an endangered species no doubt...but as illustrated by posts here, emails and call-ins to various sports programs etc....not extinct, yet.

Just as people suddenly seem to discover a winnig pro baseball or football team here in the States, and everyone and his uncle are wearing caps and jerseys to match - those same caps and jerseys seem to disappear the next season when that team tanks. Team Lance was an exception to this maxim because he just kept on "winning" - his fans became "invested" long term in his success and the myth built around him. It's a hard thing indeed to look your delusions in the eye, recognize them for what they are, and move on. I feel kind of sorry for them actually.

I suspect out-ward Lancism will decline as you decribe (fewer Livestrong jerseys etc. - falling Trek sales) - but there will always be a hard core of supporters who will not give up on thier "hero" - either for his "achievements" in the sport or for his work with The Livestrong Foundation. They do not care how he won, they do not care what he did to cover it up, they do not care who else got hurt -nor do they care about the long-term impact he had and to some degree continues to have on the sport. He's an American hero and all you whinny cyclists need to shut yer pieholes!

1) You can choose to debate these issues with them - good luck with that.

2) Or you can let them hold on to thier illusions until they feel safe enough to let them go.

I'll go for option #2.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

wabasso said:


> And your point is?


That Lance is responsible for those idiots Sherwin, Liggett and Roll being on TV. I should hate him for that alone.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

So, Dick Pound (still like that name...) is saying that if the UCI is implicated, the IOC (of which he is now a member) would consider dropping cycling from the Olympics which in turn would have it dropped from the sports overseen by WADA and, more to the point, the USADA. So, more to the point, Armstrong would be free to compete in cycling, or baseball or billiard or any other sport that didn't sign the WADA charter. Essentially, his conduct in the sport would cause so much damage the he could continue to compete in it which I find the ultimate irony. Someone with more insight can probably correct this is I'm way off base. I'm the first to admit that it is probably flawed.

It's now reported that Verbruggen held a brokerage account or accounts with Weisel Partners back in 2001-4 so Pound's statements may not be too far out of line.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

I view (and have always viewed) Lance-worshippers the same way I view the morons who believe the Sandy Hook mass-murder was created by the White House to take away our guns... 

Semi-functional, mostly-crazed lunatics and conspiracy-fearing idiots who might or might not be dangerous to others.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

PlatyPius said:


> I view (and have always viewed) Lance-worshippers the same way I view the morons who believe the Sandy Hook mass-murder was created by the White House to take away our guns...
> 
> Semi-functional, mostly-crazed lunatics and conspiracy-fearing idiots who might or might not be dangerous to others.


The problem is confusing people who *don't hate* him as straight up *worshippers*. Maybe the guy in the OP is a worshipper, but it seems you can't give Lance any positive credit for anything without someone jumping on you for being a blind fanboy. For some people apparently you're supposed to either think he's Hitler or Jesus... and if you say anything that *isn't* derogatory, well then you must think he's Jesus and boy you're a fool!


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

LostViking said:


> 1) You can choose to debate these issues with them - good luck with that.
> 
> 2) Or you can let them hold on to thier illusions until they feel safe enough to let them go.
> 
> I'll go for option #2.


This. I'm not interested in beating Lance supporters over the head. Their idol is falling, and continues to fall. Who am I to kick them while they're down? At one time I believed too. Maybe not to that extent, but at some point the more I heard, the less I bought it. Maybe it was all of the accusers, maybe it was so many of his contemporaries getting popped, but eventually I just accepted that Lance was on something besides his bike. Hopefully they'll get to the same point in their own time, without me beating them over the head with the Reasoned Decision.

When you get right down to it, riding a bike is a pretty silly thing to dedicate your life to. An awesome, life-enhancing, world-bettering, silly thing to dedicate your life to. If professional cycling was all there was to the sport, I would have been done with it a long time ago. I'm not an observer as much as a participant, so no matter who their heroes are, pretty much every guy on a bike is a kindred spirit, at least in a small way.

To be honest, I didn't want them to take Lance down, not because I didn't think he was guilty (and had thought that for years), but because I didn't like the shape cycling was in during the economic downturn. Teams like Columbia were folding because of a lack of sponsors, races were having problems coming up with money... I just didn't see the upside.

I was wrong. While several sponsors have used this as an excuse to bail, overall I am hopeful that long-term good will come of this. When large numbers of sponsors, fans, and cyclists are calling for management change in the UCI, it's a very good sign. I'd like to see it continue. I'd like to see the culture change, so that dopers are seen as such pariahs in the peloton that social stigma acts as a powerful deterrent. I won't be crushed if it doesn't happen, though. I'm a pragmatist.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Cableguy said:


> So, next time don't forget to say this to his face :thumbsup: Instead of posting about it here... where he can't say anything... at all... :skep:
> 
> So yeah, you'll just need to figure out a way to use the smiley face emoticon stuff in RL :shocked:
> 
> So, yay. Good job.


I thought so, actually. 

I restrained myself from getting into an argument, which is something I don't always do successfully. 

Additionally, the kid was half my age and maybe 145 lbs soaking wet. So me ripping him a new one= me being a bully. I don't need to do that. Plus he seemed like a nice guy.

Let's just say I don't have any problem whatsoever saying things to ppl's faces. 
Rather, it's kind of the opposite problem.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

LostViking said:


> Yes, an endangered species no doubt...but as illustrated by posts here, emails and call-ins to various sports programs etc....not extinct, yet.
> 
> Just as people suddenly seem to discover a winnig pro baseball or football team here in the States, and everyone and his uncle are wearing caps and jerseys to match - those same caps and jerseys seem to disappear the next season when that team tanks. Team Lance was an exception to this maxim because he just kept on "winning" - his fans became "invested" long term in his success and the myth built around him. It's a hard thing indeed to look your delusions in the eye, recognize them for what they are, and move on. I feel kind of sorry for them actually.
> 
> ...



Sums it up. And, well said. :thumbsup:


----------



## HOOKEM (Apr 4, 2004)

tw2- 
I'm with you. Mostly into commuting and MTB now. I just wish I could find a way to make panniers look sexy on my litespeed. ;-)


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

*Re: Ran Into Endangered Species Today– The Great North American Lance-Defender™*



Cableguy said:


> The problem is confusing people who *don't hate* him as straight up *worshippers*. Maybe the guy in the OP is a worshipper, but it seems you can't give Lance any positive credit for anything without someone jumping on you for being a blind fanboy. For some people apparently you're supposed to either think he's Hitler or Jesus... and if you say anything that *isn't* derogatory, well then you must think he's Jesus and boy you're a fool!


Pretty much. One thing makes it worse though. Some people feel like they somehow own a bit of their hero. If that hero falls from grace these people feel betrayed. Betrayal often leads to hate.

Those of use who don't hate or love him but just kinda shrug are either the only realists or we are cynics. Still trying to figure that one out.


----------



## DrD (Feb 5, 2000)

badge118 said:


> Some people feel like they somehow own a bit of their hero. If that hero falls from grace these people feel betrayed. Betrayal often leads to hate.


I think you hit the nail on the head.

Personally, I enjoyed watching Armstrong in his comeback from cancer - in terms of it's impact on the sport in the US, the "Armstrong Show" got a whole lot of folks who previously paid no attention to cycling to embrace the sport, which is also good. Now, was the doping wrong? Absolutely! Does that change the fact that I enjoyed watching him race? Nope - not at all. Do I harbor some sort of hate for him for what he did? Not really - it's almost sad how many, many riders have been implicated for doping, but somehow Lance is the only villain... even in that incredibly damning report, it's apparently ok that other folks admitted to doping, helping cover up whatever was going on, etc. in an effort to force Armstrong to admit he cheated - only Armstrong matters - as enablers, they clearly were insignificant...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

DrD said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head.
> 
> Personally, I enjoyed watching Armstrong in his comeback from cancer - in terms of it's impact on the sport in the US, the "Armstrong Show" got a whole lot of folks who previously paid no attention to cycling to embrace the sport, which is also good. Now, was the doping wrong? Absolutely! Does that change the fact that I enjoyed watching him race? Nope - not at all. Do I harbor some sort of hate for him for what he did? Not really - it's almost sad how many, many riders have been implicated for doping, but somehow Lance is the only villain... even in that incredibly damning report, it's apparently ok that other folks admitted to doping, helping cover up whatever was going on, etc. in an effort to force Armstrong to admit he cheated - only Armstrong matters - as enablers, they clearly were insignificant...


I would disagree. I think the 'Lance hatred' – if you can really call it 'hatred', rather than simply stating the fact that Lance is a POS – stems not only from Lance's repeated lying and cheating, but also the fact that he belligerently, arrogantly and systematically tried to DESTROY anyone who got in his way, i.e. anyone who told the truth about him.

It was like he was the Wicked Witch of the West, sending his flying monkeys... err, lawyers, spokespeople, and PR flacks - out to wipe out anyone who dared tell the truth. A comical image yes, but it is what he did. 

Obviously, doping matters, no matter who does it... though Lance is going to be the highest-profile doper due to his seven TDF wins, and thus his doping will, logically, attract the most attention. I don't feel sorry for him on that.

But, the arrogant, aggressive and vicious WAY that he went about all this sets him apart. Lance tried to RUIN ppl who got in his way. 

So, yes, the guy is a POS, and it isn't 'hatred' to note the fact. 

Maybe we should all remember that Lance made his own bed and then some, and stop trying to equivocate, rationalize, or feel at all sorry for the guy. 

Because I'm sure he didn't feel sorry for any of the ppl he tried to wreck in order to maintain his lie.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> I would disagree. I think the 'Lance hatred' – if you can really call it 'hatred', rather than simply stating the fact that Lance is a POS – stems not only from Lance's repeated lying and cheating, but also the fact that he belligerently, arrogantly and systematically tried to DESTROY anyone who got in his way, i.e. anyone who told the truth about him.
> 
> It was like he was the Wicked Witch of the West, sending his flying monkeys... err, lawyers, spokespeople, and PR flacks - out to wipe out anyone who dared tell the truth. A comical image yes, but it is what he did.
> 
> ...


You are right with some. I know more than a few however that were still fans right up until they heard about the interview. Their support turned to hatred specifically because they personally felt betrayed. My wife is another type. She has NO interest in cycling at all. Her views towards Lance were solely based on Livestrong and the assistance they gave a family member. She is now PISSED but not because of what he did but rather the effects it will have on the foundation. 

The situation is a lot more complicated that those focused on just the sporting aspect see.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> I would disagree. I think the 'Lance hatred' – if you can really call it 'hatred', rather than simply stating the fact that Lance is a POS – stems not only from Lance's repeated lying and cheating, but also the fact that he belligerently, arrogantly and systematically tried to DESTROY anyone who got in his way, i.e. anyone who told the truth about him.
> 
> It was like he was the Wicked Witch of the West, sending his flying monkeys... err, lawyers, spokespeople, and PR flacks - out to wipe out anyone who dared tell the truth. A comical image yes, but it is what he did.
> 
> ...


There it is right there. A lot of people have known he (and everyone else) was doping for so long, that the EPO and all of that is a non-issue. The people he destroyed along the way... they are the issue. Lance even got Lemond bikes sh1tcanned by Trek because Greg accused him of doping. His team of lawyers sued people right and left if they thought there was any kind of insult (reminds me of Specialized...). Lives and careers were ruined by this loser.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

PlatyPius said:


> There it is right there. A lot of people have known he (and everyone else) was doping for so long, that the EPO and all of that is a non-issue. The people he destroyed along the way... they are the issue. Lance even got Lemond bikes sh1tcanned by Trek because Greg accused him of doping. His team of lawyers sued people right and left if they thought there was any kind of insult (reminds me of Specialized...). Lives and careers were ruined by this loser.


+eleventy!


----------



## DrD (Feb 5, 2000)

SystemShock said:


> But, the arrogant, aggressive and vicious WAY that he went about all this sets him apart. Lance tried to RUIN ppl who got in his way.


I wonder how much was Armstrong himself, in terms of the specifics of what was done, and how much was his legal council as well as that of his sponsors (the latter of which also stood to lose quite a bit if he got taken down). I think most egomaniacal sports figures tend to be about the same in that they want to win, and they work as hard as they possibly can to get there, and if you are in the way, you are going to get trampled... Armstrong was wrong - of that there is no doubt - but he was hardly alone, even though many folks want to paint a picture of him as some sort of evil super-villain ... Armstrong knows how to race, but he is hardly capable of developing and implementing the elaborate doping strategy - that takes folks far more skilled in the medical area than him. Odds are it was the same deal with the legal stuff - he and his sponsors had issues with folks, so they threw money to the legal staff and told them to make the problems go away. While I don't know many of the details associated with what his legal team did to the folks who tried to knock him out of the saddle, so to speak, I think it's also fair to say the folks doing the accusing were trying to take him down, and even though they were clearly in the right, Armstrong fought back, and evidently they got the short end of the stick.


----------



## F350Lawman (Jan 14, 2013)

_"Her views towards Lance were solely based on Livestrong and the assistance they gave a family member. She is now PISSED but not because of what he did but rather the effects it will have on the foundation."_

Its tough, without doping there probably is no Livestrong, and now the dope may kill (or at least) hurt Livestrong badly... All in all, in terms of helping people medically, you still have to say overall his effect was extremely positive. You can't take way the benefit of hundreds of million$, no matter what personal demons he has. People got help, you cant deny that, perhaps that is what Lance is hanging his hat and self-respect on now.

For me, its like Joe Paterno ( although much diff. circumstance) from hero to zero FAST!... Terrible, and just impossible to undo.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

DrD said:


> I wonder how much was Armstrong himself, in terms of the specifics of what was done, and how much was his legal council as well as that of his sponsors (the latter of which also stood to lose quite a bit if he got taken down). I think most egomaniacal sports figures tend to be about the same in that they want to win, and they work as hard as they possibly can to get there, and if you are in the way, you are going to get trampled... Armstrong was wrong - of that there is no doubt - but he was hardly alone, even though many folks want to paint a picture of him as some sort of evil super-villain ... Armstrong knows how to race, but he is hardly capable of developing and implementing the elaborate doping strategy - that takes folks far more skilled in the medical area than him. Odds are it was the same deal with the legal stuff - he and his sponsors had issues with folks, so they threw money to the legal staff and told them to make the problems go away. While I don't know many of the details associated with what his legal team did to the folks who tried to knock him out of the saddle, so to speak, I think it's also fair to say the folks doing the accusing were trying to take him down, and even though they were clearly in the right, Armstrong fought back, and evidently they got the short end of the stick.


Absolutely none of which changes the fact that Lance is a POS.

Btw, his lawyers work for HIM, not the other way around.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

SystemShock said:


> Absolutely none of which changes the fact that Lance is a POS.
> 
> Btw, his lawyers work for HIM, not the other way around.


Exactly. If a lawyer picks up the phone and talks to a client for 5 minutes, he bills the client for 15 minutes of his hourly rate. The second a lawyer lifts a finger on behalf of a client, the meter starts running. Hence, lawyers don't do sh!t unless their clients authorize it.


----------



## DrD (Feb 5, 2000)

SystemShock said:


> Absolutely none of which changes the fact that Lance is a POS.


Like I said, folks made accusations and he fought back - does that make him a POS? He's done quite a bit of good for many more folks than the few he "ruined" via his legal defense... some have argued that it's not as much as he could have done, but it's still vastly more than what other pro cyclists have done... it's unfortunate that the foundation he started was so closely tied to him in name, etc. Hopefully folks can see it as something other than an incarnation of Armstrong and it will soldier on. So what would be fitting punishment for him? He has gone through a fairly severe stint with cancer, where he came quite close to not making it... if what I have read is true, while at his lowest point, he was abandoned by his team/sponsor... that had to be unpleasant... anyway - he's a pretty polarizing person nowadays, to some, no matter what he does or what he has done, he'll always be a "POS", to others, he's a typical pro-athlete - he was entertaining to watch (even on this site, folks were more than a little enthusiastic back when he was winning the tdf...), did some good things for cancer research, then went down in a ball of flames...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

DrD said:


> Like I said, folks made accusations and he fought back - does that make him a POS?


If by "fought back" you mean "did everything in his power to intimidate, ruin, and destroy anyone who dared to tell the truth about his lying and cheating", then yes, it most definitely does make Lance a POS.

Or to put it another way: "Well, duh." :shocked:


----------



## DrD (Feb 5, 2000)

SystemShock said:


> If by "fought back" you mean "did everything in his power to intimidate, ruin, and destroy anyone who dared to tell the truth about his lying and cheating", then yes, it most definitely does make Lance a POS.


So what would you do if you had a career, with sponsors, etc. depending on you, and someone was trying to take you down? just knuckle under and lose everything, or would you fight back? If you had the resources to get rid of a threat, what would you do? Would you take a half-assed approach, or commit to getting the job done? Intimidation is a no brainer - get them to back down and go away - hurts neither party in the long run - if they persist, you fight back. If someone is accusing you, discrediting them is one of the more effective ways to accomplish that. It's easy to look from the outside and say what they did makes them a POS, but most folks would take a pretty similar approach if placed in the same situation. To say he did "everything in his power to..." is pretty silly - he eliminated the threat, then moved on. If he really wanted to do "everything in his power", he would keep at it, even once the they were no longer a concern in terms of the viability of his livelihood (and that means until they stop trying to cause problems for him - if that means after you take them down once, you have to do it again, then that's what you do)


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

As someone mentioned, a lawyer works for the client. A lawyers job is to advocate for his client. If Lance was my client and he told me that all of these people were lying and he did not dope (and I believed him) my job would have been to explain all of his options from one extreme of doing nothing to the other extreme of trying to bury these people. Do not for one moment think that Lance did not approve of all the actions that were taken. To me it is clear from the interview with Oprah (plus all the other things we have heard about him in the past) that he is a sociopath. His one and only goal in life is to win. He has been knocked down a few pegs by all of the evidence and is trying to figure out how to get back. As one of the Bicycling Magazine editors said last night on CNN, Lance knows that he should be trying to apologize but he doesn't know how to do it. As any parent knows, when you have kids your whole perspective on life changes and it sounded like Lance had a revelation when he realized that is own son was defending his lies. Unfortunately, it seemed in the context of the whole interview that the revelation was only a crack and he was/is more concerned about the money that he has lost or is about to lose. Don't feel sorry for Lance - his actions put him in this situation and only his actions can get him out of this situation. We'll see what happens.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Beck said:


> As someone mentioned, a lawyer works for the client. A lawyers job is to advocate for his client. If Lance was my client and he told me that all of these people were lying and he did not dope (and I believed him) my job would have been to explain all of his options from one extreme of doing nothing to the other extreme of trying to bury these people. Do not for one moment think that Lance did not approve of all the actions that were taken.


And as you probably know, in every state that I'm aware of, lawyers are required to send clients periodic, detailed accountings of how they're spending their clients' money. Whether it's billing or debiting a retainer. I would never spend a cent of any of my clients' funds without authorization. If I got that authorization verbally, say over the phone, I would send a confirmatory CMA letter to the client.


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

In my opinion, this is a very calculated way of trying to save what, if any, positive impression of Lance is still out in the public. Based on what we know from his past actions his public image is very important. He is very adamant that he did not dope after 2005. I don't know what the statute of limitations are in all of the potential cases that may arise from his actions but I am guessing that most if not all have past. He knows exactly how much money he has. If what has been written is accurate it is somewhere between 100 -150 million. He has an idea of what it will cost him to pay off the insurance company and the London Times and the whistleblower suit. Subtract what he will owe from what he has and maybe he has figured out that he can live quite well for the rest of his life as well as his children. At this point, I believe it is all for what is better for Lance. As I mentioned earlier, it all depends on Lance's actions from this point forward whether he is sincere or not.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Beck said:


> In my opinion, this is a very calculated way of trying to save what, if any, positive impression of Lance is still out in the public. Based on what we know from his past actions his public image is very important. He is very adamant that he did not dope after 2005. I don't know what the statute of limitations are in all of the potential cases that may arise from his actions but I am guessing that most if not all have past. He knows exactly how much money he has. If what has been written is accurate it is somewhere between 100 -150 million. He has an idea of what it will cost him to pay off the insurance company and the London Times and the whistleblower suit. Subtract what he will owe from what he has and maybe he has figured out that he can live quite well for the rest of his life as well as his children. At this point, I believe it is all for what is better for Lance. As I mentioned earlier, it all depends on Lance's actions from this point forward whether he is sincere or not.


There is talk of the US Postal Service mulling over a lawsuit to recover treble the amount they spent on sponsorship. If they succeeded it would bankrupt Lance. BUT this is very unlikely, so my only point is that he's not 100% safe from financial ruin. Given how many lawyers he can/has hired, I agree that he will likely come out with at least some money in the bank. Then again the upkeep on his Foothill Terrace mansion is liable to bleed him dry judging by his water bill...

The Top 25 Water Users in Austin | StateImpact Texas


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

Nice article on Sports Illustrated.CNN.Com on Lance and the endangered species known as the Lance Fan:

Doping made Lance Armstrong who he was - More Sports - Michael Rosenberg - SI.com


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

LostViking said:


> Nice article on Sports Illustrated.CNN.Com on Lance and the endangered species known as the Lance Fan:
> 
> Doping made Lance Armstrong who he was - More Sports - Michael Rosenberg - SI.com


The article has me very confused... There is a difference between a Cannondale and a Trek?


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

DrSmile said:


> The article has me very confused... There is a difference between a Cannondale and a Trek?


We know Cannondales are good bikes, not so sure about Treks...


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

DrSmile said:


> The article has me very confused... There is a difference between a Cannondale and a Trek?


in the spirit of the article: trek? never heard of them.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

DrD said:


> So what would you do if you had a career, with sponsors, etc. depending on you, and someone was trying to take you down? just knuckle under and lose everything, or would you fight back?


"Okay, so you're Hitler during WW2. So what would you do if you had the Fatherland to defend and the Allies are trying to take you down? Just knuckle under and lose everything, or would you fight back?"

:lol: :skep:

Extreme example, sure, but I think it shows that you're over-empathizing with the bad guy here. Perhaps you should try over-emphatizing with some of his victims instead. Ever thought of that?

Additionally, you're not getting that your rationalizations aren't really changing the central fact of the matter one iota... which is that Lance is a POS. Heck, the Oprah interview just further confirms this, as he's still shuckin' and jivin' even during it. 

As Kathy LeMond said, "Lance isn't sorry, he's just embarrassed." Too true. 

I know it's tough when you find out that the world is different than you thought it was and that someone you looked up to is, in fact, a POS... but NO ONE should make excuses for the guy. LA's a big boy who knew that what he was doing was wrong, and was willing to do ANYTHING to ANYONE in order to not get found out. 

And that, my friend, is the very DEFINITION of a POS. Hope that helps.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

Did a charity ride up here in Seattle last weekend. Most people were in MTB clothes, but some of us were in racing kits.
I saw one guy in a Trek/USPS kit and thought "really?!?"
I briefly debated asking him "what's up with that?" but thought better of it.


----------



## DrD (Feb 5, 2000)

SystemShock said:


> "Okay, so you're Hitler during WW2. So what would you do if you had the Fatherland to defend and the Allies are trying to take you down? Just knuckle under and lose everything, or would you fight back?"
> 
> :lol: :skep:
> 
> ...


Comparing Armstrong to Hitler? Really? I must have missed the whistle-blower concentration camps he set up... Armstrong doped - which is absolutely wrong, no doubt - he's in the same company of many, many other high profile cyclists (Anquetil, Mercx, Fignon, Landis, Contador, Pereiro, Ulrich, Indurain, Zoetemelk, etc. to name a few). His recent "coming clean" is nothing more than a feeble attempt to get back into the sport he has been part of for so long. He's being punished as he should be (lost his titles and I am sure there will be a whole string of civil cases where he'll get his clock cleaned). You're implying that Armstrong's mindset is somehow different than any of the other dopers out there, which is wrong - any one of them would do whatever they could to protect themselves and what they were trying to accomplish. Armstrong had greater resources, and was also the subject of a much more vigorous witch hunt than the others. One difference though is that Armstrong tried to use some of what he earned to do some good - which matters in my book.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

DrD said:


> Comparing Armstrong to Hitler? Really? I must have missed the whistle-blower concentration camps he set up... Armstrong doped - which is absolutely wrong, no doubt - he's in the same company of many, many other high profile cyclists (Anquetil, Mercx, Fignon, Landis, Contador, Pereiro, Ulrich, Indurain, Zoetemelk, etc. to name a few). His recent "coming clean" is nothing more than a feeble attempt to get back into the sport he has been part of for so long. He's being punished as he should be (lost his titles and I am sure there will be a whole string of civil cases where he'll get his clock cleaned). You're implying that Armstrong's mindset is somehow different than any of the other dopers out there, which is wrong - any one of them would do whatever they could to protect themselves and what they were trying to accomplish. Armstrong had greater resources, and was also the subject of a much more vigorous witch hunt than the others. One difference though is that Armstrong tried to use some of what he earned to do some good - which matters in my book.


So it was good that he lied to all those sad cancer victims too? Took money to support a foundation that he used to stifle the truth? Used that money to fuel his private jet and live a rockstar lifestyle while banging the olsen twins?

The bad that Pharmstrong has done FAR outweighs any good he may have inadvertently caused. There's not a single "good guy" bone in his body.


----------



## texasnewb (May 22, 2011)

*Ran Into Endangered Species Today– The Great North American Lance-Defender™*

I stayed with some friends out of town this weekend. We watched the second half of the interview together friday evening. (They had watched the first half too). Neither one is a cyclist, but the guy is a big sports fan and had been a lance-supporter for a long time. His wife was just really curious about the whole situation. They asked me my opinion knowing I probably have more knowledge about the story than they do...I said IMO he's still full of sh*t and is lying about a lot. When asked "about what", I brought up (among several other things) him claiming to be clean in '09 and '10....my friend was incredulous.."BUT he said he was clean those years!". Wow!

The point of this anacdote (I realize it's just that), is that I wonder how much of the general public will have this or a similar viewpoint? They admitted he seemed callous and not really sorry about what he did...but yet were perfectly willing to believe anything he said now at face value. Makes me wonder if Lance will actually win back his public image like he seems to think he can?

What opinions have you guys gotten from your non-cycling friends?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

texasnewb said:


> I stayed with some friends out of town this weekend. We watched the second half of the interview together friday evening. (They had watched the first half too). Neither one is a cyclist, but the guy is a big sports fan and had been a lance-supporter for a long time. His wife was just really curious about the whole situation. They asked me my opinion knowing I probably have more knowledge about the story than they do...I said IMO he's still full of sh*t and is lying about a lot. When asked "about what", I brought up (among several other things) him claiming to be clean in '09 and '10....my friend was incredulous.."BUT he said he was clean those years!". Wow!
> 
> The point of this anacdote (I realize it's just that), is that I wonder how much of the general public will have this or a similar viewpoint? They admitted he seemed callous and not really sorry about what he did...but yet were perfectly willing to believe anything he said now at face value. Makes me wonder if Lance will actually win back his public image like he seems to think he can?
> 
> What opinions have you guys gotten from your non-cycling friends?


The non-cycling people I deal with basically all feel that he's full of crap and a giant douchebag. 

That makes me smile just a bit.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

DrD said:


> Comparing Armstrong to Hitler? Really? I must have missed the whistle-blower concentration camps he set up...


Yeah, I think you missed this part immediately following:



SystemShock said:


> Extreme example, sure, but I think it shows that you're over-empathizing with the bad guy here. Perhaps you should try over-emphathizing with some of his victims instead. Ever thought of that?


Obviously and explicitly an extreme example, because normal examples don't seem to be getting through to you. 

The rest of your post is just more equivocations and Lance-defending: "Okay, so Lance is a POS, but so's everyone else in cycling!"... "It's okay that Lance is a POS because he helped in the fight against cancer!"... "It's okay that he did what he did because any other doper in his position would have done the same thing!"

Uhh, no. Sorry, does not work that way. I mean, what, it's okay to ruin and intimidate ppl so long as you give to charity? LOL. The ends do NOT justify the means, and there is a big difference between *understanding why* a sociopath does the things he does and having those actions being somehow okay and justified.

Just because you tell us what you think POS Lance was thinking while he was pulling all this crap, does NOT make what he did any better. He still lied. Repeatedly. He still cheated. And he still did everything he could to ruin ppl for telling the truth. He's still lying and equivocating even now. And he's still a POS for doing all that. 

Get it? :skep:

I'm not sure why you want to try to split hairs and explain the guy. We all KNOW why he did it, you don't have to try to 'explain Lance' to us. My guess is that you're not really trying to explain Lance to us so much as you're trying to explain Lance to yourself. To make yourself feel better about what he did and who he really is.

Like I said, some illusions die hard. But I think it's time to let go of this one. Lance isn't an okay guy, he's a POS. And possibly mentally ill to boot. He certainly has a very hard time empathizing with his victims, I hope you do not fall into that same trap.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Lance fans go to bike shops? I would have figured they all quit riding or following cycling 4-5 years ago.


----------



## DrD (Feb 5, 2000)

SystemShock said:


> "It's okay that Lance is a POS..."


So show me where I said it was ok - pretty much said I thought what he did was wrong in all of my posts. What I was trying to discuss was what he did and why, and to point out that he was not the only one behind everything. So here's a question - what do you know about what transpired other than what you have read in the media? Anything? Were people really ruined? They are no longer able to lead a normal life? really?


> Uhh, no. Sorry, does not work that way.


What doesn't work that way? You are really that myopic in your viewpoint that you can't see anything other than the things he did you don't like?


> it's okay to ruin and intimidate ppl so long as you give to charity?


Wow - you have an astonishing ability to read between the lines! So where exactly did I say what he did was ok? That's coming from you.


> does NOT make what he did any better. He still lied. Repeatedly. He still cheated.


Agreed - and I stated as much above.


> He's still lying and equivocating even now.


So how do you arrive at this conclusion? Because other folks said he's lying? I guess it's just that if a person lies once, then they must always be doing that, right? Am I getting your point of view correctly?


> My guess is that you're not really trying to explain Lance to us so much as you're trying to explain Lance to yourself.


Is that what I am doing? Wow - again, your ability to assess things with little to no information truly is staggering!


> Lance isn't an okay guy ... and possibly mentally ill to boot.


Again - based upon what? Do you know him as a person, or only via what you have read, or the conclusions which you have drawn from that info?


> He certainly has a very hard time empathizing with his victims


The ability to understand what the folks his camp was pushing aside were going through, and actually giving the go-ahead to do the pushing are pretty much unrelated - you understand that, right? Again, you are taking how you feel, and expressing it as though it were a well established fact. Sort of sad, really.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Dr. D = Dogged Lance Defender™. And in severe denial. :skep:

Ya hate to see it.




Dr. D said:


> Sort of sad, really.


Yeah. You kinda are.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

DrD said:


> So how do you arrive at this conclusion? Because other folks said he's lying? I guess it's just that if a person lies once, then they must always be doing that, right? Am I getting your point of view correctly?


I resent the implication that Lance only lied once or even only a few times, just like "we" do in daily life. He lied UNDER OATH. He lied to the press in front of millions of viewers repeatedly. These were not white lies. These were despicable, self-aggrandizing, vicious and selfish lies designed to discredit anyone who was telling the truth. Lance is trying to make a confession without taking blame or showing any remorse, which in my view is even worse than no confession at all. It shows how despicable he really is as a human being.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

He tried to make it sound like his podium speech at the end of the 05 tour was just what popped into his head when someone unexpectedly handed him a microphone. What a load of BS.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> The non-cycling people I deal with basically all feel that he's full of crap and a giant douchebag.


I think some of that showed in the Oprah interview, but not to the extent that pro cycling fans know. The general public would likely forgive him if the story was simply that he doped, but the truth of his character and the amount of damage he did to others is starting to be realized by the average American. I hope that it gets out that he even lied to Oprah and that will really show that he is a very, very dishonest person. He is not sorry about any of this, only that he was caught. The whole thing is just sad.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

Fireform said:


> He tried to make it sound like his podium speech at the end of the 05 tour was just what popped into his head when someone unexpectedly handed him a microphone. What a load of BS.


Yeah, there was a lot that was pretty douchey in that broadcast, but that one was ridiculous.



texasnewb said:


> What opinions have you guys gotten from your non-cycling friends?


I hate to say it, but most buy completely into the "level playing field" argument he put forth.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

RRRoubaix said:


> I hate to say it, but most buy completely into the "level playing field" argument he put forth.


Well beyond it not being entirely without foundation (when you look at the fact that the top 5 from like 1993 either tested positive, later admitted to doping or alla Kloden paid money to get a prosecutor to drop a case) look at US sport.

Only a blind a deaf moneky buys the NFL argument that they are mostly clean. People that big simply do not do 40's in a combine that fast without something. Andy Reid's kid Garret gets hired to work for the Strength and Conditioning coach, dies of a heroin overdose and in his room 47 syringes, 64 needles and 19 vials of steroids are found by police. Is this investigated by the NFL? Nope. The press? Nope. The cops? nope. The DA just says there is no evidence he was selling. Of course not. No one is going to talk and he is freaking dead. Were any of the players tested? Nope and when the press was actually asked about it by a commentator on the local NPR station 3 weeks ago, the reporters said "the time for investigating it had come and gone."

Garrett Reid had steroids in room when he died - Philly.com

We have all the baseball players who have been caught out as well. US Pro Sports is the wild west compared to Cycling.

Hell just look at what Spector said when he called for the baseball hearings. He was my Senator at the time. He did NOT say "doping in sport is cheating so you need to show up and do something about this dishonest and unsportsman like conduct." He did not even mention how it is technically against Federal drug laws. He spoke about how it was a bad influence on America's youth as the athletes are role models and kids may be hurt emulating them. 

Here is actually a good example of Joe Six Packs views on dope. The threat mention was Spector threatening to remove the anti-trust exemption.



> In the meantime, Leahy and Spector get to look concerned and in tune with their constituents, and all through the emptiest threat they have. Pandering 101, down to the last furrowed brow.
> 
> The other object of Congress' interest is, of course, baseball, and more specifically, baseball's latest flirtation with performance enhancing drugs. The Mitchell Report has come and gone, a few fresh names have been thrown into the grinder (William Roger Clemens, you're it!), and now the boys uptown need a new piñata session with the usual suspects -- Bud Selig, Don Fehr, Clemens ...
> 
> ...


'Tis the season for meaningless posturing in Congress - CBSSports.com

Most American fans say out of their mouths that PEDs are wrong BUT in the interest of bigger thrills, home run races, harder hits on the grid iron etc are more than happy to ignore subjective "fairness". Never forget, this is the nation that produced the motto

"winning isn't everything it is the only thing."


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

Did he really ruin the sport? Pro cyclists were doping before him and will continue to dope long after he's gone until the UCI and such stop turning the blind eye. The testing methods are improving so there is a chance the sport will get cleaned up at some point. I'm hopeful (maybe a little naive too).


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

RRRoubaix said:


> Yeah, there was a lot that was pretty douchey in that broadcast, but that one was ridiculous.
> 
> I hate to say it, but most buy completely into the "level playing field" argument he put forth.


Another problem is that some are forgetting that doping - and repeatedly lying about it - were but part of Pharmstrong's trangressions. 

He also tried to ruin, intimidate and destroy a good many ppl, in order to protect the lie. But I'm sure POS Lance and his PR crew would LOVE to reduce the whole thing to a "Sure, I doped, buuuut.... everyone else was doin' it too!!!" -type dodge. :skep:

(Hey, when someone's kid tries to use that excuse to get away with something bad, don't parents usually smack them, and rightfully so?)

Lance didn't just lie and cheat (as if that wasn't bad enough), he was positively vicious to anyone who got in his way. But those inclined/naive enough to look the other way will try to forget that, no doubt.



.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Another problem is that some are forgetting that doping - and repeatedly lying about it - were but part of Pharmstrong's trangressions.
> 
> He also tried to ruin, intimidate and destroy a good many ppl, in order to protect the lie. But I'm sure POS Lance and his PR crew would LOVE to reduce the whole thing to a "Sure, I doped, buuuut.... everyone else was doin' it too!!!" -type dodge. :skep:
> 
> ...


Looks liks Douchestrong isn't fairing well in the public eye these days...



> Choosing to admit his doping first to Oprah Winfrey rather than a show like 60 Minutes was interpreted by many as a sign that he was trying to salvage his public image, but if that was the case it appears that Lance Armstrong’s plan has backfired.
> 
> Polls carried out by SurveyUSA have revealed a worrying result for Armstrong, in that he has suffered a sharp drop in public support after the two broadcasts. A total of 63% of people contacted believe that he can no longer restore his reputation, seeing it as a lost cause, when contrasted to just 21% who see it as possible.
> 
> Read more: Polls say Armstrong


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Looks liks Douchestrong isn't fairing well in the public eye these days...





> _Choosing to admit his doping first to Oprah Winfrey rather than a show like 60 Minutes was interpreted by many as a sign that he was trying to salvage his public image, but if that was the case it appears that Lance Armstrong’s plan has backfired.
> 
> Polls carried out by SurveyUSA have revealed a worrying result for Armstrong, in that he has suffered a sharp drop in public support after the two broadcasts. A total of 63% of people contacted believe that he can no longer restore his reputation, seeing it as a lost cause, when contrasted to just 21% who see it as possible._
> 
> Polls say Armstrong



Yup. Like Tony Soprano famously said, "With guys like us, the hustle never stops."

Most people seem to be recognizing this about Pharmstrong. Which is a little surprising to me, I thought a few more ppl might be fooled. 

Probably didn't help that his body language and general demeanor during the interview didn't come across as sincere or open. Unless it's your chosen profession, you can be a good actor only up to a point.






.


----------



## DrD (Feb 5, 2000)

SystemShock said:


> Dr. D = Dogged Lance Defender™. And in severe denial. :skep:
> Ya hate to see it.
> Yeah. You kinda are.


Wow - that's a strong comeback... pretty sad when you have to resort to name-calling... Is the problem that not all folks have the same point of view as you? Pretty clear you've read more or less nothing that I wrote. Am I defending his actions as "right"? Nope. I stated as much in pretty much every reply. How exactly am I in denial? Oh wait, I'm not - it's coming from you again...


DrSmile said:


> I resent the implication that Lance only lied once or even only a few times, just like "we" do in daily life. He lied UNDER OATH. He lied to the press in front of millions of viewers repeatedly. These were not white lies .... It shows how despicable he really is as a human being.


As I said before, Armstrong doped - which is absolutely wrong, no doubt - he's in the same company of many, many other high profile cyclists (Anquetil, Mercx, Fignon, Landis, Contador, Pereiro, Ulrich, Indurain, Zoetemelk, etc. to name a few). His recent "coming clean" is nothing more than a feeble attempt to get back into the sport he has been part of for so long. He's being punished as he should be (lost his titles and I am sure there will be a whole string of civil cases where he'll get his clock cleaned). His actions are no different than any of the other performance-enhancing drug users who lied to the media and when questioned (some of the baseball or football ones were actually in a congressional hearing, iirc). Folks seem to want to put him on a pedestal as an example of something worse than we've ever seen before, which simply isn't true. Was he wrong? Yup. Is he being punished for it? Yup. All the folks who "lost" to him legally are now free to have at it in civil court, where he should be easy pickings. But will they?....


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

DrD said:


> Wow - that's a strong comeback... pretty sad when you have to resort to name-calling... Is the problem that not all folks have the same point of view as you? Pretty clear you've read more or less nothing that I wrote. Am I defending his actions as "right"? Nope. I stated as much in pretty much every reply. How exactly am I in denial? Oh wait, I'm not - it's coming from you again...
> 
> As I said before, Armstrong doped - which is absolutely wrong, no doubt - he's in the same company of many, many other high profile cyclists (Anquetil, Mercx, Fignon, Landis, Contador, Pereiro, Ulrich, Indurain, Zoetemelk, etc. to name a few). His recent "coming clean" is nothing more than a feeble attempt to get back into the sport he has been part of for so long. He's being punished as he should be (lost his titles and I am sure there will be a whole string of civil cases where he'll get his clock cleaned). His actions are no different than any of the other performance-enhancing drug users who lied to the media and when questioned (some of the baseball or football ones were actually in a congressional hearing, iirc). *Folks seem to want to put him on a pedestal as an example of something worse than we've ever seen before, which simply isn't true.* Was he wrong? Yup. Is he being punished for it? Yup. All the folks who "lost" to him legally are now free to have at it in civil court, where he should be easy pickings. But will they?....


As we point out yet again for those who haven't been paying attention:

None of the previous dopers did NEARLY as much to attempt to ruin their detractors. None of the previous dopers spent years undermining and silencing their critics.

The way he went about it and the damage he did to so many people puts him in a class all to himself.


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

I agree with Rob. He is a level above all the other liars.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

When you are on your bike 6 hours a day, busting your azz, you have a lot of time to scheme and fabricate lies!


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

It would have been interesting to see what these guys could have done without the drugs. Maybe they would have looked like the rest of us trying to climb up a hill.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Beck said:


> It would have been interesting to see what these guys could have done without the drugs. Maybe they would have looked like the rest of us trying to climb up a hill.


Jan Ullrich said that without doping he was getting dropped going over railroad overpasses. That made me feel a lot better about my pathetic abilities!


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

*Re: Ran Into Endangered Species Today– The Great North American Lance-Defender™*



robdamanii said:


> As we point out yet again for those who haven't been paying attention:
> 
> None of the previous dopers did NEARLY as much to attempt to ruin their detractors. None of the previous dopers spent years undermining and silencing their critics.
> 
> The way he went about it and the damage he did to so many people puts him in a class all to himself.


And again, some of us only care about what can be proven and punished. I would have an ulcer now and be in therapy if I raged and freaked out over every son of a ***** I know got away with messing with and in more than a few case ****ed up peoples lives in a manner that makes Armstrong look like freakin Gandhi. 

Sometimes you just have to say "arrest ya later" or as in this case, "we can't make everybody whole but at least he is no longer in a position to do it to someone else." Pragmatic to the point of cynicism? Maybe. Or maybe just realistic and living in the real world.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

Beck said:


> It would have been interesting to see what these guys could have done without the drugs. Maybe they would have looked like the rest of us trying to climb up a hill.


When you say "us" if you're referring to the typical amateur... nah, there still would not be much of a resemblance. Still super human efforts, just a bit slower with not as many surges.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> As we point out yet again for those who haven't been paying attention:
> 
> None of the previous dopers did NEARLY as much to attempt to ruin their detractors. None of the previous dopers spent years undermining and silencing their critics.
> 
> The way he went about it and the damage he did to so many people puts him in a class all to himself.


+1000. But sad little Lance apologists (a vanishing breed) such as Dr. D usually seem to ignore, rationalize or minimize that, somehow, thus placing them in the 'douche-sympathizer' category. Ya hate to see it. Or sad nonsense such as this:

_*Dr. D:* "So what would you do if you had a career, with sponsors, etc. depending on you, and someone was trying to take you down? just knuckle under and lose everything, or would you fight back? If you had the resources to get rid of a threat, what would you do? Would you take a half-assed approach, or commit to getting the job done? Intimidation is a no brainer - get them to back down and go away - hurts neither party in the long run - if they persist, you fight back. If someone is accusing you, discrediting them is one of the more effective ways to accomplish that. It's easy to look from the outside and say what they did makes them a POS, but most folks would take a pretty similar approach if placed in the same situation. To say he did "everything in his power to..." is pretty silly - he eliminated the threat, then moved on. If he really wanted to do "everything in his power", he would keep at it, even once the they were no longer a concern in terms of the viability of his livelihood (and that means until they stop trying to cause problems for him - if that means after you take them down once, you have to do it again, then that's what you do)_."


Didja catch it? He's saying what he really thinks/feels, which is significant empathy with a sociopath (Armstrong) and little to none with his victims. How about focusing on what THEY think or feel, instead of what a douchebag was thinking while doucheing it up?

And he's wondering why nobody seems to like him or his POV? Wow. ut:

For the hard-of-thinking: Lance tried very, VERY hard to ruin a great many good ppl for telling the truth. 
He did this for many years. 
He is not remorseful, just caught.
He is a POS. 

What more really needs to be said? How complicated and nuanced does one want to make this, and why? Seems pretty clear to anyone who's been paying attention most of what was going on and who Lance really is.

In the end, all the hand-waving apologista crap doesn't matter. History will render it's final verdict on Douchestrong, and it won't be a pretty one. 

Sucks to back a turd, don't it? :skep:


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

SystemShock

I agree with you and I disagree with you. I agree with you that Armstrong did some awful stuff and deserves his ban, lawsuits, etc. 

I disagree that the worst thing Armstrong did was 'try to ruin people.' 

I disagree that we really even need to talk about if LA is 'the worst.' 

I think the worst thing Armstrong did was pressure others to dope. My biggest issue with doping is the health impacts - to individual athletes and the general public as more people dope. We all pay if some college kid fries his liver trying to get cut. 

Armstrong apologists say 'why should he be punished worse than other dopers?' 

The response has become 'because he is a POS who tried to ruin people.'

I think this is a wrong turn. I think the answer should be 'Because we now know the dangers of doping and take it more seriously. Because he passed up his chance to confess. because he was a ringleader who pressured others to dope. Because he left behind a lot of evidence and therefore got caught. Because he may have used taxpayer money to do it.'

Maybe Indurain and Lemond were chronic dopers. But there isn't evidence to prove it. Just speculation.

The Chicken doped his whole career. But, he confessed to it and he was not a ringleader. 

I would like to see all ringleaders, doping Doctors and dirty managers banned for life, too. 

Bjane Rhiis is a likable personality, but if he was a ringleader if team doping, I hope he gets permabanned. 

It's stupid to take taxpayer money and do shady stuff with it. Armstrong to a risk and lost. 

I don't feel rage at Armstrong. He broke rules, he deserves his punishment.


----------

