# Will you forgive?



## philoanna (Dec 2, 2007)

This may have been asked. But if Lance admits (to doping and bullying) and apologizes to fans, Tyler, Floyd, LeMond, etc. and financial backers, teammates and everyone, will you forgive him? I am a huge supporter of people who have made mistakes and admit fault and /or apologize, but this is too much. I kinda bought into the whole thing back in the day and thought that we really had someone to follow who was for real.

I have a feeling I am not the only one who feels this way, but are we as forgiving of a society as some of these mental-midgets out there saying that "America will forgive Lance" like ESPN.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

philoanna said:


> This may have been asked. But if Lance admits (to doping and bullying) and apologizes to fans, Tyler, Floyd, LeMond, etc. and financial backers, teammates and everyone, will you forgive him? I am a huge supporter of people who have made mistakes and admit fault and /or apologize, but this is too much. I kinda bought into the whole thing back in the day and thought that we really had someone to follow who was for real.
> 
> I have a feeling I am not the only one who feels this way, but are we as forgiving of a society as some of these mental-midgets out there saying that "America will forgive Lance" like ESPN.


When he stands on the Champs Elysses at the end of the 100th Tour , retracts his BS victory speech, burns his yellow shirts and kisses Lemond's arse. Then I might start to _think_ about forgiveness. Nah, I want him to crawl under a rock when this circus is finally over.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

philoanna said:


> This may have been asked. But if Lance admits (to doping and bullying) and apologizes to fans, Tyler, Floyd, LeMond, etc. and financial backers, teammates and everyone, will you forgive him? I am a huge supporter of people who have made mistakes and admit fault and /or apologize, but this is too much. I kinda bought into the whole thing back in the day and thought that we really had someone to follow who was for real.
> 
> I have a feeling I am not the only one who feels this way, but are we as forgiving of a society as some of these mental-midgets out there saying that "America will forgive Lance" like ESPN.


I think actions speak louder than words. Sure, if he did all of the above with feeling in his voice, that would be a great start toward redemption. 

Even better would be if he volunteered information instead of merely confirming what his teammates testified to...I'm sure none of them knew the entire story. But because this is Lance, I am guessing it will be more of the same...admitting to as little as possible, trying to define himself as just another PED user like "everyone else" in the peloton while ignoring the rest of what he was sanctioned for, wrapping himself in the cancer flag, he was singled out, couldn't let down the Livestrong effort, it happened a long time ago, blah blah blah. Also, it wouldn't surprise me even if Oprah has the balls to ask him some of the tough questions, his response will be, "Sorry, my attorneys won't let me go there due to ongoing legal actions."

My opinion is he wants to tap into this ease of forgiveness mentality in the general public so that USADA will feel pressure to let him compete, and so he can continue to claim to be the 7 time TDF winner with a wink and a nod. I think those are the most important things to him at this point.


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

Sure. He confesses to being a cheat, no ifs, no buts, and then he can go to Heaven. 
BUT! 
He must not be allowed to participate in any sport as a competitor again.

To show that he is really sorry, he must pay back every penny/cent of his winnings to charity and he spend the rest of his days working for an honest wage in his own shop in Austin which should become a Workers' Co-operative.

What's that? Pigs flying through the air?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I want his flesh to be burned eternally in hell!


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I wouldn't forgive him, as I have nothing much to forgive. He didn't really hurt me personally. 

I knew cycling was dirty, so he didn't "fool me." (That doesn't excuse his doping.)
I didn't give money to Livestrong.
I didn't read his books. 

I think he did hurt people - Lemond, the Andreus, etc. those are the people who would need to forgive him. But not me. 

However, I won't forget what he did. I think he largely is about Lance. I would be very cynical that his actions would be self serving. Even carefully choreographed, I'd be cynical.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Exactly my thoughts. Nothing to forgive. We only have a duty not to forget.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

Lance should be a good little cowboy and ride off into the sunset so Pro Cycling can do the work of healing and improving.

Is he going to say anything on Oprah that will assist that process? No - he's been smoked out because he's hurting - lost sponsorships, lost victories, lost foundation, lost ability to compete, pending law suits etc. - he is attempting to win back public support. Not fix the damage.
He is morally incapable of doing the right thing (ie. just go away and shut up) - it's got to be all about Lance and what he wants and what he needs - after all he has done to this sport!

No - no forgiveness.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

I followed hIs entire career and he doesn't owe me an apology. Anyone who knew anything about pro cycling had their doubts, even as far back as 99. I'd say that most of us got our money's worth. It was a pretty awesome story and every Tour that he won had plenty of great moments. It was like watching a good movie, so what if the lead actor was using a drug that allowed him to perform better. As for the Andreu's, Hamilton, Landis, etc. it's not for us to say whether or not Lance owes them an apology...only Lance knows that. A lot of these people don't exactly have clean hands and only came out with the truth when the lies stopped working.

Also, a lot of people seem to be forgetting the good things that Lance has done. Yes, he's an egomaniac and has done a lot of crazy stuff, but he's also done a lot to promote cancer awareness. There are a lot of people, their families, and friends who used Lance as an inspiration when they were fighting cancer and used Livestrong as a resource in the fight. Some of those people survived, some of them lost the fight, but I bet there were a whole bunch of people who used It's Not About the Bike as a reason to get up in the morning and go to that next chemo treatment when the willpower to continue fighting had started to fade.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

He only cares about himself... this his is LAST option and he is only doing it for self serving reasons.. so NO... (I posted the below in another thread, but below is what it would take for me to forgive)

If he were to really ADMIT to being the ring leader of Omerta, bulling and trying to ruin lives of any one who spoke against him; like Lemond, Betsy & Frankie, Simoni, Kimmage, O'Rielly, Anderson, etc., etc., And show true remorse for all the lies he hurled in their direction. 

AND.... give back ALL money back he gained from his deception, and admit that Betsy Andrea was NOT lying on what she heard in that hospital room.. 

AND.... not competing at these sporting events, but actually working them at the registration table, being a corner marshall, work a rest stop and encourage others.. Basically GIVE BACK to others and NOT compete for himself. 

AND... step up and help get Dr. Ferrari and the other Dr. thugs put away and be part of a solution of stopping the Omerta. 

If he did all of the above I would I would then have a 'little' sympathy. 

But, if he did the above that is WHEN HELL WOULD FREEZE OVER... IMO.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

Forgiveness, yes. But justice would be for him to be banned from competitive sports for life. He ruined the lives and careers of others, why should be be allowed to continue on when others have no shot?


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

I see the situation more as human drama than crime drama. There is a lot within the human psyche that moves us to perhaps bend the rules a little bit in our favor, and modern science has given a suitably competitive, motivated endurance athlete a means of accomplishing this a little bit. It's not as if Lance is the only bicyclist that might have bent the rules. It's only that Lance bent the rules with a cleverness and guile that surpassed his rival bicyclists, and that Lance was already a strong enough athlete to be able achieve championship caliber with the rule-bending. The fact that he was able to get away with the rule-bending for so many years reinforces how masterful he was at the game.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

There seems to be a lot of over dramatization of what actually went on. To say that Lance Armstrong "ruined the lives" of the above mentioned people is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure that they all knew what they were getting into when they became involved in professional cycling and could have exited much earlier than any of them did. It's been quite some time since I've read anything of substance in regards to the world of professional cycling, but from my recollection, even Frankie Andreu admitted to purchasing and using EPO and I find it hard to believe that Betsy's supposed morality was as just as she claims, yet she waited as long as she did to start pulling skeletons out of the closet. Paul Kimmage is a journalist, who's job it is to stir up the pot and Filippo Simeoni was one of Michele Ferrari's "patients". I'm sure that these guys are living comfortably and that their lives are not ruined.

Either way, Armstrong used the celebrity profile he'd created to push an agenda that had a positive affect on a lot of sick people. Yes, he screwed a lot of people over but I think that giving positive energy to cancer stricken people is more profound than screwing over a handful of other shady people, most of whom were involved in the same business that he was.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Mapei said:


> I see the situation more as human drama than crime drama. There is a lot within the human psyche that moves us to perhaps bend the rules a little bit in our favor, and modern science has given a suitably competitive, motivated endurance athlete a means of accomplishing this a little bit. It's not as if Lance is the only bicyclist that might have bent the rules. It's only that Lance bent the rules with a cleverness and guile that surpassed his rival bicyclists, and that Lance was already a strong enough athlete to be able achieve championship caliber with the rule-bending. The fact that he was able to get away with the rule-bending for so many years reinforces how masterful he was at the game.


Sorry Mapei, but that's the kind of rose-tinted sophistry I'd expect from a junior counsel on Lance's legal team. He didn't bend the rules, he ignored them, or when not ignoring them he spat on them the way he spat on Simioni. He wasn't competitive until he started down the doping route. He doped to be in the game. It wasn't cleverness and guile so much as wilfullness and contempt for anyone in his way. It's a little late in the day for the kind of wishful thinking your view of Armstrong clearly displays.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> I want his flesh to be burned eternally in hell!


'L'enfer, c'est les autres' and yer man is proof positive of that. (Pun intended). 
As an atheist he has that base covered...


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

BAi9302010 said:


> Also, a lot of people seem to be forgetting the good things that Lance has done. Yes, he's an egomaniac and has done a lot of crazy stuff, but he's also done a lot to promote cancer awareness. There are a lot of people, their families, and friends who used Lance as an inspiration when they were fighting cancer and used Livestrong as a resource in the fight. Some of those people survived, some of them lost the fight, but I bet there were a whole bunch of people who used It's Not About the Bike as a reason to get up in the morning and go to that next chemo treatment when the willpower to continue fighting had started to fade.


I think people were pretty aware of cancer before Lance came along and reminded us every 10 minutes that he survived it. I agree that he has helped people, but he also happened to conveniently profit and get a lot of good publicity from it all. 

Given the self serving behavior of his other actions, he has lost the benefit of doubt in my mind. I'm left very cynical about the man.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

BAi9302010 said:


> There seems to be a lot of over dramatization of what actually went on. To say that Lance Armstrong "ruined the lives" of the above mentioned people is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure that they all knew what they were getting into when they became involved in professional cycling and could have exited much earlier than any of them did. It's been quite some time since I've read anything of substance in regards to the world of professional cycling, but from my recollection, even Frankie Andreu admitted to purchasing and using EPO and I find it hard to believe that Betsy's supposed morality was as just as she claims, yet she waited as long as she did to start pulling skeletons out of the closet. Paul Kimmage is a journalist, who's job it is to stir up the pot and Filippo Simeoni was one of Michele Ferrari's "patients". I'm sure that these guys are living comfortably and that their lives are not ruined.
> 
> Either way, Armstrong used the celebrity profile he'd created to push an agenda that had a positive affect on a lot of sick people. Yes, he screwed a lot of people over but I think that giving positive energy to cancer stricken people is more profound than screwing over a handful of other shady people, most of whom were involved in the same business that he was.


BA- I disagree with you. First, I don't think "rights" justify wrongs. If someone messes up, they fix it by making IT right. You don't fix it by hiding from responsibility or self reflection behind other good deeds. 

I don't think everyone hurt by Armstrong was shady. Rather, I think a number if them were naive bit players in cycling. According to them, they were suddenly caught up in this thing that was much bigger than them. It's one thing to know that some cyclists dope. It's another thing to allegedly be told to take stuff across borders.

Kimmage, Walsh, etc.. Are journalists. Their job is to tell the truth, not "stir the pot." They also got sued, had to retract, cancel publishing, etc... For that. 

I'm a big believer in free speech and I find it objectionable for someone to be sued into submission for saying what they reasonably believe to be true.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

BAi9302010 said:


> There seems to be a lot of over dramatization of what actually went on. To say that Lance Armstrong "ruined the lives" of the above mentioned people is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure that they all knew what they were getting into when they became involved in professional cycling and could have exited much earlier than any of them did. It's been quite some time since I've read anything of substance in regards to the world of professional cycling, but from my recollection, even Frankie Andreu admitted to purchasing and using EPO and I find it hard to believe that Betsy's supposed morality was as just as she claims, yet she waited as long as she did to start pulling skeletons out of the closet. Paul Kimmage is a journalist, who's job it is to stir up the pot and Filippo Simeoni was one of Michele Ferrari's "patients". I'm sure that these guys are living comfortably and that their lives are not ruined.
> 
> Either way, Armstrong used the celebrity profile he'd created to push an agenda that had a positive affect on a lot of sick people. Yes, he screwed a lot of people over but I think that giving positive energy to cancer stricken people is more profound than screwing over a handful of other shady people, most of whom were involved in the same business that he was.


Okay, so you put your name on a Cancer Foundation - use thier money to fly around on private jets etc. - and you have a free-pass to screw over everyone around you?
Cool, BTW I'm launching Lost Vikings for the Cure...wanna rubber braclet?


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

sir duke said:


> Sorry Mapei, but that's the kind of rose-tinted sophistry I'd expect from a junior counsel on Lance's legal team. He didn't bend the rules, he ignored them, or when not ignoring them he spat on them the way he spat on Simioni. He wasn't competitive until he started down the doping route. He doped to be in the game. It wasn't cleverness and guile so much as wilfullness and contempt for anyone in his way. It's a little late in the day for the kind of wishful thinking your view of Armstrong clearly displays.


+1 Yes - I too held out in an attempt to give Lance the benefit of the doubt, but there is no longer any doubt. Come on people, wake-up and smell the scandel! You can not rationalize Lance's criminal activities away - no amount of hemming and hawing detracts from what he did (doping is illegal in most countries, he intimidated witnesses in on-going investigations, he bribed the UCI and attempted to bribe the USADA, he lied under oath, he slandered and attempted to ruin numerous other riders and journalists, he was the King-pin or "Patron" of the post-Festina Omerta) - get your heads out of the sand! Until we admit what went wrong, we can't fix it.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

LostViking said:


> +1 Yes - I too held out in an attempt to give Lance the benefit of the doubt, but there is no longer any doubt. Come on people, wake-up and smell the scandel! You can not rationalize Lance's criminal activities away - no amount of hemming and hawing detracts from what he did (doping is illegal in most countries, he intimidated witnesses in on-going investigations, he bribed the UCI and attempted to bribe the USADA, he lied under oath, he slandered and attempted to ruin numerous other riders and journalists, he was the King-pin or "Patron" of the post-Festina Omerta) - get your heads out of the sand! Until we admit what went wrong, we can't fix it.


If he bribed the UCI, aren't they partly to blame for accepting the bribe?


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

spade2you said:


> If he bribed the UCI, aren't they partly to blame for accepting the bribe?


No doubt. Plenty of blame to go around.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I think the chances of him taking responsibility and showing real contrition are nil. So no.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

Oddly, I really hated Lance _until_ all his dirtiness began to surface. It was his saintliness that drove me mad. Now that the halo is knocked off his head, I admire him a lot more.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

.......


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> If he bribed the UCI, aren't they partly to blame for accepting the bribe?


YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And even more so, IMHO.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

love4himies said:


> YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And even more so, IMHO.


Part of me wonders if demonizing LA is to distract us from things like that. I have no doubt he'll go down as some sort of doping mastermind and whatever Leiprichan, Hamilton, and Landis will stick. Most mortals in that position would possibly bend the truth to add a little revenge. I'm not saying that certain parties don't deserve revenge. 

Call me crazy, but Lance never struck me as someone who could be smart enough to be the mastermind. Mean enough? Sure. Pulling this off required a certain evil element, but there's a lot more to blood doping than people who aren't oncologists would need to know. Throw in means of fooling testing equipment and you've got some highly educated people in the mix.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

He hasn't done anything to me for me to forgive him for. I don't think he's done the worse thing in the world, many people have done a lot worse so his doping and lying has not been high on my "evil person" radar.

There are a lot of ruthless and unethical people who have ruined many lives to get to the top; Lance is not the first, nor will he be the last. He didn't invent doping, nor will he be the last to cheat in sports. IMO he did what he had to do to be a winner and then to stay a winner in the eyes of the public because if he fell, it was a very long drop. None of us know what we would have done in his footsteps had we been put on such a high pedestal.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Careful. Talk like that will get you labeled as a LA fanboy.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Part of me wonders if demonizing LA is to distract us from things like that. I have no doubt he'll go down as some sort of doping mastermind and whatever Leiprichan, Hamilton, and Landis will stick. Most mortals in that position would possibly bend the truth to add a little revenge. I'm not saying that certain parties don't deserve revenge.
> 
> Call me crazy, but Lance never struck me as someone who could be smart enough to be the mastermind. Mean enough? Sure. Pulling this off required a certain evil element, but there's a lot more to blood doping than people who aren't oncologists would need to know. Throw in means of fooling testing equipment and you've got some highly educated people in the mix.


Don't know the man, so I have no idea how intelligent he is, or how much he's paid for advice. I do think he has the drive to win at all costs.

I agree, he didn't do this by himself, he had the support of a lot of people in the sport, including team managers, doctors, riders, and probably some officials. They all took advantage of his popularity and cashed in on for as long as they could.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Careful. Talk like that will get you labeled as a LA fanboy.


I know, it was scary to post, then I went on the Politics Forum and read how the Conservatives were fighting for our freedoms, so I thought I would exercise my freedom of speech. I mustered up all the nerve I had and put on my "big girl" pants and went for it.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

If Lance can hook me up with a Trek full suspension 29er, I'll not only forgive him; I will become his #1 fanboi!


I'll prolly get neg repped or reported for that!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

The smallest thing LA did wrong was dope imo. If you follow pro cycling, then you know they pretty all dope to survive and compete in the tour and most likely you have know for quite some time. It is what it is. Sounds crazy saying that, but it simply is/was the culture.

The way he bullied and intimidated other human beings is a personality trait that he simply has. He is NOT a different PERSON today imo. HIS PERSONALITY is my biggest gripe and is now the major source of frustration with him.

No, I will not forgive LA if he apologizes for doping only. 

*If one day I find that he sent sincere unsolicited letters to people like John Kerry, Floyd, Tyler, Tygart, B and F Andreau, Levi etc, then I would definitely reconsider.*

Everyone makes mistakes. He has A LOT of apologizing to do. A LOT.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

what is all this bs about 'forgiveness'....wtf?

pro cycling is an entertainment industry, no more, no less. just watch the faux drama and enjoy it for what its worth...

it's a business that generates money for sponsors...don't take this stuff so personally, it doesn't affect your daily life.


----------



## King Arthur (Nov 13, 2009)

He has to admit to wrong doing before forgiveness can be rendered.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Sure, why not. Anybody can regain the public's trust simply by going on Oprah and acting kinda sorta sincere.

View attachment 273703


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

I don't hate Lance or love Wiggins, neither of them has ever put money in my pocket or food on my table. Lance wouldn't merit a footnote in my Bumper Book of All-Time Scumbags.
Whereas this wretch deserves a whole chapter, a fellow Englishman, and I hate to say it, from the same city, Leeds. Up until he died, admired and respected, (and knighted) for, guess what, _charity work_:

BBC News - Jimmy Savile scandal: Report reveals decades of abuse

Something to reflect on, who knows the whole story about any of us?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Call me crazy, but Lance never struck me as someone who could be smart enough to be the mastermind. Mean enough? Sure. Pulling this off required a certain evil element, but there's a lot more to blood doping than people who aren't oncologists would need to know. Throw in means of fooling testing equipment and you've got some highly educated people in the mix.


You're not crazy. It's a fact. Lance isn't much more than an averagely intelligent jock who stumbled upon the ways and means to rook the house. His talent lies in spotting an opportunity, realising it's potential and exploiting it to the max. Just like any other successful criminal. Not too many have that gift, otherwise I'd be a multi-millionaire boffing starlets, not hanging around on doping forums. Plus he made all the right connections: Mercx hooked him up with Ferrari, Verbruggen and McQuaid took a bung and looked the other way, his Nike and Trek people made sure nobody got too close to their golden nugget, Bruyneel bossed the others on U.S.Postal, he had Hincapie as a willing lapdog plus sundry other go-fers along for the ride on the Armstrong gravy train. Best of all there were the hagiographers in the media and the Livestrong cancer shield. Add a sh!tload of government finance and you have a pretty unbeatable team. Dude was fireproof!
Getting cancer (and surviving it) was the best thing that ever happened to him. Landis and tenacious journalists possibly the worst. As you can see, his rise and fall could most easily be attributed to outside factors rather than to any outstanding native wit or legend-making physical prowess. He was no fitter, faster or stronger than anyone else in the peloton. The truth is Armstrong is really just _vin ordinaire_ who found the right hustle at the right time and rode it all the way to fame, infamy and a tacky Oprah slot.


----------



## majorbanjo (Dec 12, 2010)

It's cycling as a sport I hold responsible for creating Lance Armstrong and all the other dopers......that's who should garner forgiveness....something's wrong if the message boards about your sport need a "doping forum"


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

sir duke said:


> You're not crazy. It's a fact. Lance isn't much more than an averagely intelligent jock who stumbled upon the ways and means to rook the house. His talent lies in spotting an opportunity, realising it's potential and exploiting it to the max. Just like any other successful criminal. Not too many have that gift, otherwise I'd be a multi-millionaire boffing starlets, not hanging around on doping forums. Plus he made all the right connections: Mercx hooked him up with Ferrari, Verbruggen and McQuaid took a bung and looked the other way, his Nike and Trek people made sure nobody got too close to their golden nugget, Bruyneel bossed the others on U.S.Postal, he had Hincapie as a willing lapdog plus sundry other go-fers along for the ride on the Armstrong gravy train. Best of all there were the hagiographers in the media and the Livestrong cancer shield. Add a sh!tload of government finance and you have a pretty unbeatable team. Dude was fireproof!
> Getting cancer (and surviving it) was the best thing that ever happened to him. Landis and tenacious journalists possibly the worst. As you can see, his rise and fall could most easily be attributed to outside factors rather than to any outstanding native wit or legend-making physical prowess. He was no fitter, faster or stronger than anyone else in the peloton. The truth is Armstrong is really just _vin ordinaire_ who found the right hustle at the right time and rode it all the way to fame, infamy and a tacky Oprah slot.


Good post.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

love4himies said:


> Don't know the man, so I have no idea how intelligent he is, or how much he's paid for advice. I do think he has the drive to win at all costs.
> 
> I agree, he didn't do this by himself, he had the support of a lot of people in the sport, including team managers, doctors, riders, and probably some officials. They all took advantage of his popularity and cashed in on for as long as they could.


No doubt he's a sociopath. On a basic level, the odds of winning the TdF is obviously very small. The odds of successfully/temporarily eluding the lab or complex bribery schemes probably has better odds. Both in one person is pretty slim odds IMHO. 

I'm on the fence with what might happen. Part of me thinks that he'll reveal that the UCI was in on it. Since he's public enemy #1 and could potentially be the 1st athlete to get the death penalty (that part is a joke), he probably understands he has little credibility and simply keeps his mouth shut. I have no doubt that Landis et al will probably lie/exaggerate to make it sting and extract some well deserved payback. 

All in all, he kinda reminds me of a professor I once had. Horrible teacher. Even more horrible of a person. Eventually his class was removed from the program and he was forced into early retirement. If you're not any good, be nice.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Pulling this off required a certain evil element, but there's a lot more to blood doping than people who aren't oncologists would need to know. Throw in means of fooling testing equipment and you've got some highly educated people in the mix.


Yup, and they are called Doctors.

He paid his doctors to be smart for him - he merely needed to be an enforcer - doesn't take much brain to do that.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

sir duke said:


> You're not crazy. It's a fact. Lance isn't much more than an averagely intelligent jock who stumbled upon the ways and means to rook the house. His talent lies in spotting an opportunity, realising it's potential and exploiting it to the max. Just like any other successful criminal. Not too many have that gift, otherwise I'd be a multi-millionaire boffing starlets, not hanging around on doping forums. Plus he made all the right connections: Mercx hooked him up with Ferrari, Verbruggen and McQuaid took a bung and looked the other way, his Nike and Trek people made sure nobody got too close to their golden nugget, Bruyneel bossed the others on U.S.Postal, he had Hincapie as a willing lapdog plus sundry other go-fers along for the ride on the Armstrong gravy train. Best of all there were the hagiographers in the media and the Livestrong cancer shield. Add a sh!tload of government finance and you have a pretty unbeatable team. Dude was fireproof!
> Getting cancer (and surviving it) was the best thing that ever happened to him. Landis and tenacious journalists possibly the worst. As you can see, his rise and fall could most easily be attributed to outside factors rather than to any outstanding native wit or legend-making physical prowess. He was no fitter, faster or stronger than anyone else in the peloton. The truth is Armstrong is really just _vin ordinaire_ who found the right hustle at the right time and rode it all the way to fame, infamy and a tacky Oprah slot.


Agreed.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

love4himies said:


> I know, it was scary to post, then I went on the Politics Forum and read how the Conservatives were fighting for our freedoms, so I thought I would exercise my freedom of speech. I mustered up all the nerve I had and put on my "big girl" pants and went for it.


FanGurl!


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> I wouldn't forgive him, as I have nothing much to forgive. He didn't really hurt me personally.
> 
> I knew cycling was dirty, so he didn't "fool me." (That doesn't excuse his doping.)
> I didn't give money to Livestrong.
> ...


My feelings exactly. I couldn't care less about Lance's "reconciliation", he's just some millionaire athlete. I wasn't personally "invested" in him at all, there's nothing to forgive. I'm interested in watching the show only because I'm a cycling fan and it will be interesting to watch Lance squirm.

I've found that the people I know who are most judgemental and furious about Armstrong seem to know absolutely nothing about cycling's (distant and recent) history. It's as if Armstrong invented doping.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

love4himies said:


> He hasn't done anything to me for me to forgive him for. I don't think he's done the worse thing in the world, many people have done a lot worse so his doping and lying has not been high on my "evil person" radar.
> 
> There are a lot of ruthless and unethical people who have ruined many lives to get to the top; Lance is not the first, nor will he be the last. He didn't invent doping, nor will he be the last to cheat in sports. IMO he did what he had to do to be a winner and then to stay a winner in the eyes of the public because if he fell, it was a very long drop. None of us know what we would have done in his footsteps had we been put on such a high pedestal.


I may have doped, but I know I would not have done the rest of the nastiness he did, which, IMHO is much worse than the doping itself. We cannot look at his doping as if it was in a vacuum.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Hiro11 said:


> It's as if Armstrong invented doping.


Much agreed. Having worked for some shady people and been lied to a "few" times, busting Armstrong seems to be a bit of a diversion tactic. Yup, we're in control. No more doping. Everything is fine. Nothing more to see here. We got him. It's all good. 

Say, wasn't Ryder on Discovery?


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

spade2you said:


> Much agreed. Having worked for some shady people and been lied to a "few" times, busting Armstrong seems to be a bit of a diversion tactic. Yup, we're in control. No more doping. Everything is fine. Nothing more to see here. We got him. It's all good.
> 
> Say, wasn't Ryder on Discovery?


Any individual or organization under the illusion that busting Armstrong will change anything needs to change from wool to cotton/poly.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Say, wasn't Ryder on Discovery?


Hey there now, there will be no dissing our Canadian hero.


----------



## Old Man (Apr 8, 2012)

As a human, it is not hard to understand the rather simple ways in which Lance has touched all pro cycling fans. This does not mean that he personally did something to warrant a personal forgiveness, however, I would be naive to think that I never shared any emotional connection to what he has provided me over the years. That in of itself is one reason you could use to determine culpability, therefore deciding whether or not forgiveness is justifiable... 

I am not able to forgive in this case...


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Ryder reminds me a bit of Cadel and Sastre. Withdrawn, quiet, never talking too much about their performance. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The fact that he beat Rodriguez isn't a good sign lol. 

Apologists would do well to remember that Armstrong isn't pursued so diligently for his doping itself, but rather for the mafia-like nature of his organization and control over pro cycling, including the necessary "enforcement" when needed.
I agree with Bluenote more in the sense that it is not up to us to decide if he should be forgiven. It's up to us (fans) to educate ourselves a bit, know what happened, and remember it for the future.

I still thought the Giro was by far the best grand tour of the year btw. Cheering on Ryder every step of the way


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Mapei said:


> Oddly, I really hated Lance _until_ all his dirtiness began to surface. It was his saintliness that drove me mad. Now that the halo is knocked off his head, I admire him a lot more.


Lance is the first bad guy I haven't been able to bring myself to root for. I usually always root for the bad guy. They are invariably more interesting and complex than the good guys, a lot funnier too. Disney can kiss my azz.

Some bad guys...and none of them doped.

View attachment 273783


View attachment 273784


View attachment 273785


View attachment 273786


View attachment 273787
One more here:


----------



## Crank-a-Roo (Mar 21, 2003)

He was the rider that was put on the top of the podium by a group of people who want to increase popularity of the sports in the US. HE is guilty of using the drugs, but I doubt that he really is the mastermind behind the whole operation. He is only a pawn.. but I may just forgive him if the apology is sincere.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

Nice article:

Lance Armstrong's reported admission to Oprah Winfrey only proves he is a fraud, selfish and calculating - News | FOX Sports on MSN

Crank-a-Roo: So Lance was just an innocent victim of a corrupt system and therefore - if he weeps enough on Oprah - all is forgiven? Please consider what such an attitude would allow for, not only in our little bubble of Cycling, but the world at large. "I was just following orders" is an exstension of that reasoning - and has been used to justify and seek forgiveness for unspeakable crimes. Ofcourse, Lance's misdeeds do not rise to that level - he was just a fraud and a bully who profitted mightily from the system you seem to think he was only "a pawn" in, I would suggest that Lance's leading role in cycling made him much more than a mere pawn - next to the President of the UCI, I would argue that Armstrong was perhaps the most powerful person in Pro-Cycling - he was a Leader - not a pawn - and as any leader, he needs to be responsible for what he did. And these actions went beyond just doping himself to win, they included criminal acts including but not limited to drug trafficing, witness cooersion and intimidation, defrauding federal funds, lying under oath - the list goes on.
Do you honestly believe a "sincere" apology should be enough to make all of that go away? If you do, please watch Oprah - because you are the audiance Lance is trying to reach.


----------



## Charlie the Unicorn (Jan 8, 2013)

Athletes and politicians can do just about anything and get away with it. If I had done something like this (or even 1/100000 of this) I'd lose my job and everything else that went with it. I have no sympathy for him, he's a genuine POS.


----------



## Chaz955i (Mar 13, 2006)

BAi9302010 said:


> There seems to be a lot of over dramatization of what actually went on. To say that Lance Armstrong "ruined the lives" of the above mentioned people is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure that they all knew what they were getting into when they became involved in professional cycling and could have exited much earlier than any of them did. It's been quite some time since I've read anything of substance in regards to the world of professional cycling, but from my recollection, even Frankie Andreu admitted to purchasing and using EPO and I find it hard to believe that Betsy's supposed morality was as just as she claims, yet she waited as long as she did to start pulling skeletons out of the closet. Paul Kimmage is a journalist, who's job it is to stir up the pot and Filippo Simeoni was one of Michele Ferrari's "patients". I'm sure that these guys are living comfortably and that their lives are not ruined.
> 
> Either way, Armstrong used the celebrity profile he'd created to push an agenda that had a positive affect on a lot of sick people. Yes, he screwed a lot of people over but I think that giving positive energy to cancer stricken people is more profound than screwing over a handful of other shady people, most of whom were involved in the same business that he was.


Perfect!

"I own a bicycle, Lance owes me an apology!!" Is it easier for these people to point at Lance than accept they were too much a fool to recognize what was right in front of their eyes for a decade plus? Many involved in professional cycling for years made piles of money off of Lance, they knew he was doping, did nothing and said nothing. It isn't a matter of "they should have know better". They knew exactly what was going on. When the cash was flowing it was easy to turn a blind eye especially in the case of his teammates who kept cashing checks and granting interviews that would never have materialized had they not had an association with Armstrong. Lance didn't make a fool out of anyone who wasn't a little foolish to begin with.


----------



## Kestreljr (Jan 10, 2007)

Hiro11 said:


> I've found that the people I know who are most judgemental and furious about Armstrong seem to know absolutely nothing about cycling's (distant and recent) history. It's as if Armstrong invented doping.


I am fairly judgmental on LA, largely because of his ruining the lives of others who were often cornered or forced to testify against him. 

I guess I am asking for honor among thieves, which is crazy, but LA using his money and power (and therefore lawyers) to ruin others is my problem.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

majorbanjo said:


> something's wrong if the message boards about your sport need a "doping forum"


No doubt, but I would counter with "Something's wrong if the message boards about your sport don't have a "doping forum" because I suspect most, if not all, sports do have a doping problem - Cycling's merely gets more airplay. If your sport's boards do not discuss doping, I would venture that you are living in denial. Don't worry though, you'll get an awakening as did we. When that happens, I'll refrain from dropping by and posting "I told you so!" - cause I'm bigger than that!


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Hey now- Vader was totally Dark Side doping. If the Jedi Counsel had a decent testing program, they wouldn't have all ended up dead.


----------



## Russtopher (Jan 8, 2013)

I can only pity the fool.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Since his TdF wins and determination encouraged me to get my fat ass back on a bike, I'll give him a pass. But I'm not a fan anymore (haven't been for a while actually).


----------



## ptr1 (Jan 4, 2013)

lance armstrong is a cheat full stop.... no questions asked...and tbh he is'nt in the same league as the likes of nibali,wiggins or purito


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

Like many, I always thought he used but it didn’t really bother me. I also saw a few documentaries on him and some had a segment that focused on his youth and how kids didn’t really like him and all that. I felt bad for him because it svcks to not be accepted and not have a place, especially when you are young.

But the more that comes out about him and the more he talks, the more I understand why people didn’t like him. It makes me sad because I want to like him but it seems he’s simply not a likeable person. 

I have much more respect for good people than good athletes. 

Meh, whatev. I don’t know what to think yet so I’ll just let the media shape my mind.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

*Ultimately one has to or....*

Be illogical and a hypocrite... Let me explain.

The issue we should have with doping if we have one is simply that people doped. The minute you allow how someone acted you end up entering a shadowy area where justice can not exist.

Lance Armstrong's ruthless attitude was in support of his doping this is true. However many others doped, relied on Omerta and on the ruthless tactics of coaches, Directors, managers and Riders like Lance. 

This is what annoys me. There are a multitude of riders that benefited heavily from the doping at US Postal, Telekom (then T-Mobile) Rabobank, Liberty Seguros (and thus likely Once), Cofidis etc. These riders are largely either forgiven or even over looked, even if they have never apologized or clearly admitted wrong doing.

LA however rather than being in the vein of Big Mig (yes everyone he doped like a freaking fiend), nice, quiet unoffensive etc. wore his ruthlessness on his sleeve. I thought LA was a ruthless, egotist yeah. To get to the top of any sport you need to be both. The problem rises when you don't put on the nice gentle smile for the cameras. So he became a polarizing figure. People who like what some call the "stereo typical American Athlete" attitude, "winning isn't everything it is the only thing", liked him. People who look to cycling as the last sport representing an allegedly more civilized time did not. This however is COMPLETELY irrelevant to what he should, or should not be forgiven for. 

So in the end you have one of two choices if you want to look at the situation logically and not with personal like or dislike...

1. Forgive Lance
2. Damn all doping athletes of his generation and demand they too get live time bans.


----------



## zedXmick (Mar 2, 2008)

FU$* LANCE and all the asshat dopers!! life time ban and PAY BACK all the money they STOLE......then crawl into a DIRT hole and DIE... instead they cry about HOW bad they had it and they had to cheat to race....blah....blah...blah...sniff...sniff...sniff...


HTFU (drug free) or get out of the sport.....


----------



## dmaciel (Oct 10, 2012)

Hiro11 said:


> I've found that the people I know who are most judgmental and furious about Armstrong seem to know absolutely nothing about cycling's (distant and recent) history. It's as if Armstrong invented doping.


Amen, to this!


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

zedXmick said:


> FU$* LANCE and all the asshat dopers!! life time ban and PAY BACK all the money they STOLE......then crawl into a DIRT hole and DIE... instead they cry about HOW bad they had it and they had to cheat to race....blah....blah...blah...sniff...sniff...sniff...
> 
> 
> HTFU (drug free) or get out of the sport.....


While I appreciate the sentiment when WADA Publically says they can't stop doping and that they catch maybe 2% of dopers it does beg a few questions regarding insanely rapid anti-doping penalties.

Also... Not justifying lance by ANY stretch but here are the realities (if you believe Lemond). 

1. 1989--Lemond comes back after his injury and blames his up and down performance on, among other things of course, the fact that everyone and their grand mother is using EPO and other PEDS. Somehow PEDs were unheard of when he was riding.. even though they were used in the 30's go figure.

2. Lance signs his first pro contract in 1992.

SO if you believe Lemond everyone was doping, starting between 1986 and 1989. This means that if you sign a pro contract in 1992 your choices are to dope and keep your contract or not dope and lose it.

Again not saying doping is right BUT if the choice between continuing a promising career that started when you were 16 and most likely not doping (since it was in Lemonds "we were clean era") and losing it all because you won't get with the program, I think Lance, and all the others that came in in the early to mid 90's did what 98% of the rest of the human race would have done. This namely being rationalizing something you know is morally wrong outside the sport because most if not everyone inside the sport is doing it.

We forget morality is subjective. It is fine for my wife to wear short shorts and a tank top where we live. If she did the same thing in places in the middle east she would be called an immoral *****, possible arrested or even assaulted/killed. Why because the majority of the people there say it is so and the majority of the people here say it is not so.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Steven A. Smith tore Lance a new one on sportscenter today. He showed surprising insight into the moral issues involved. The doping is the least of it.


----------



## ratherBclimbing (Apr 2, 2007)

Well, I for one won't forgive, because I'm pissed. How dare he! After the USADA report came out I invested heavily in Liestrong memorabilia - t-shirts, bracelets, whatnot. Now he can't even lie strongly. WTF? The stuffs pretty much worthless. LieforawhilethenconfessonOprah just doesn't have the same ring to. Plus it wouldn't fit on a bracelet.


----------



## thighmaster (Feb 2, 2006)

As in the movie Breaking Away, everyone cheats. I'm not sure I hold anything against him to forgive. I've been around long enough to expect the very least of people, and hope for the best. I'm more sad of an activity I've participated in isn't all it should be. So it goes, invest more in the ones you love and you'll come away less empty.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

ratherBclimbing said:


> Well, I for one won't forgive, because I'm pissed. How dare he! After the USADA report came out I invested heavily in Liestrong memorabilia - t-shirts, bracelets, whatnot. Now he can't even lie strongly. WTF? The stuffs pretty much worthless. LieforawhilethenconfessonOprah just doesn't have the same ring to. Plus it wouldn't fit on a bracelet.


Unless your wrist was really big from doping. Well played, btw.


----------



## bayAreaDude (Apr 13, 2012)

badge118 said:


> Be illogical and a hypocrite... Let me explain.
> 
> The issue we should have with doping if we have one is simply that people doped. The minute you allow how someone acted you end up entering a shadowy area where justice can not exist.
> 
> ...


2 of course - this question shouldn't even need to be asked. The personal attacks are far worse than the doping for me.


----------



## ratherBclimbing (Apr 2, 2007)

badge118 said:


> 2. Damn all doping athletes of his generation and demand they too get live time bans.


So now we're accepting that there was an entire generation of dopers/cheaters? Well, that's progress from just Lance I suppose. When did this generation start and stop?


----------



## ratherBclimbing (Apr 2, 2007)

bayAreaDude said:


> The personal attacks are far worse than the doping for me.


Agreed. I'd love to see an interview that just pounded this point, but I don't have much faith in Oprah to really throw this at him, repeatedly, ad nauseum - like he did to everyone else.


----------



## bayAreaDude (Apr 13, 2012)

Mapei said:


> Oddly, I really hated Lance _until_ all his dirtiness began to surface. It was his saintliness that drove me mad. Now that the halo is knocked off his head, I admire him a lot more.


Calling his masseuse a prostitute WAS pretty admirable, gotta say.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

badge118 said:


> While I appreciate the sentiment when WADA Publically says they can't stop doping and that they catch maybe 2% of dopers it does beg a few questions regarding insanely rapid anti-doping penalties.
> 
> Also... Not justifying lance by ANY stretch but here are the realities (if you believe Lemond).
> 
> ...


Great, another simplified and naive take on what really happened. Just so every "they all doped" adherent understands, I 100% TOTALLY FORGIVE LANCE FOR DOPING! Yes, 100% forgiveness and understanding. I forgive Lance and every other doper that comes clean. As to the rest of what Lance did, I am, and the rest of us should be, absolutely disgusted. Shame on Lance for being one of the biggest losers in modern sport history.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I thought this was pretty well put. 

Washington Post


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Tschai said:


> Great, another simplified and naive take on what really happened. Just so every "they all doped" adherent understands, I 100% TOTALLY FORGIVE LANCE FOR DOPING! Yes, 100% forgiveness and understanding. I forgive Lance and every other doper that comes clean. As to the rest of what Lance did, I am, and the rest of us should be, absolutely disgusted. Shame on Lance for being one of the biggest losers in modern sport history.


Actually I believe you need to look up the definitions of simple and naive because you seem to have no knowledge of their definitions. It would be simple to just say "they are doping SOBs hang em." It would be naive to say that when confronted with a culture that has been buried in doping virtually since it was created that somehow a majority of people would "rise above" it all and stay clean. 

Yes we should be disgusted with what was and is being done today. To believe however that history and culture have no effect on decisions though (actually more than most other factors) is to... well igonore history and sociology.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

badge118 said:


> Actually I believe you need to look up the definitions of simple and naive because you seem to have no knowledge of their definitions. It would be simple to just say "they are doping SOBs hang em." It would be naive to say that when confronted with a culture that has been buried in doping virtually since it was created that somehow a majority of people would "rise above" it all and stay clean.
> 
> Yes we should be disgusted with what was and is being done today. To believe however that history and culture have no effect on decisions though (actually more than most other factors) is to... well igonore history and sociology.


I am not sure if your response is an ad hominem or a vague and ineffective history lesson. In any case, it still fails to address the points so many of us have made about Lance's doping versus the rest of his related behaviors.


----------



## scryan (Jan 24, 2011)

BAi9302010 said:


> There seems to be a lot of over dramatization of what actually went on. To say that Lance Armstrong "ruined the lives" of the above mentioned people is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure that they all knew what they were getting into when they became involved in professional cycling and could have exited much earlier than any of them did. It's been quite some time since I've read anything of substance in regards to the world of professional cycling, but from my recollection, even Frankie Andreu admitted to purchasing and using EPO and I find it hard to believe that Betsy's supposed morality was as just as she claims, yet she waited as long as she did to start pulling skeletons out of the closet. Paul Kimmage is a journalist, who's job it is to stir up the pot and Filippo Simeoni was one of Michele Ferrari's "patients". I'm sure that these guys are living comfortably and that their lives are not ruined.
> 
> Either way, Armstrong used the celebrity profile he'd created to push an agenda that had a positive affect on a lot of sick people. Yes, he screwed a lot of people over but I think that giving positive energy to cancer stricken people is more profound than screwing over a handful of other shady people, most of whom were involved in the same business that he was.


This.
Really, the only thing that has been shown is that you can get away with this **** for over a decade.

I dont know how we outright know that the people Lance "owes" an appology to are clean? 

Give our runner up 13 years of scruitanny, and when they come.out clean we can talk about what a bastard lance is.

But I have not seen anyone investigated with even half the vigor of lance. If the past decade is not proof enough that lance is clean (and I am certainly not saying it is) how can you hold up anyone who hasn't been looked into for even a quarter of that.time?

I think you either admit that the drugs are ahead of the testing and deal with the fact that a lot of guys out there have some help...

Or your mourn for the state of pro-cycling and the loss of any possibility of legitimate competition. 
But I dont see how you can have it proven to you the testing for performance enhancing drugs absolutly fails, and take that to mean only the guy who won a metal did wrong.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Some time ago a renter stole a fair amount of cash from my room. I had actually known the guy for about eight years but had only been renting to him for six months. He was struggling for cash and I had given him a break on rent a few times as well as bought him food. 

When I realized that the cash was missing from my room I confronted him. He pleaded with me and confessed that he was a heroin addict. At that point I told him to get out of the house within 24 hours -- he was gone the next day. 

I told him that he should expect to pay me back. He kept apologizing and saying that his drug addiction had destroyed his family relationships, his other friendships, etc. He really wanted sympathy from me, saying that he would have to sleep in his car. I explained that being a drug addict is no excuse to be an a-hole or steal from friends and he should probably be sleeping in jail.

Of course this parallels the ruthless, selfish, addictive behavior of dopers. 


We all know someone who got mixed up with drugs or alcohol. I cannot be the only one who was financially injured by an addict. Yet culturally we are expected to forgive them once they get clean. I would consider forgiving my former friend after his 9th step or whatever, after he pays me back.


----------



## ratherBclimbing (Apr 2, 2007)

Local Hero said:


> Some time ago a renter stole a fair amount of cash from my room. I had actually known the guy for about eight years but had only been renting to him for six months. He was struggling for cash and I had given him a break on rent a few times as well as bought him food.
> 
> When I realized that the cash was missing from my room I confronted him. He pleaded with me and confessed that he was a heroin addict. At that point I told him to get out of the house within 24 hours -- he was gone the next day.
> 
> ...


Wow. You were one of those people that took Reefer Madness seriously, weren't you.

Sorry, your analogy has nothing to do with the doping culture in cycling. And plenty of people had money/things stolen from them by roommates who weren't heroin addicts, they were just *******s.


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

I will consider it only if he comes completely clean and, in the process, burns pro cycling, USA Cycling, and the UCI to the ground. I'm afraid that is what it will take to put cycling right and to get leadership that truly loves it and has the passion to keep it clean.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Well, according to CVV, Tommy D., George, Levi, and the other rats, it all ended in 2006. And I have some beach property here in the Blue Ridge Mountains of N.C. that I need to sell too.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

scryan said:


> I dont know how we outright know that the people Lance "owes" an appology to are clean?
> 
> Give our runner up 13 years of scruitanny, and when they come.out clean we can talk about what a bastard lance is.


Many of the people/companies Lance owes an apology to are clean because they were never racers. Some, among others, are Betsy Andreu, Emma O’Reilly, Mike Anderson, David Walsh, SCA Promotions and Livestrong.

So no, Lance is a bastard now. There is no need to wait and see if Ullrich or anyone else comes clean. That is 100% irrelevant.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

bayAreaDude said:


> Calling his masseuse a prostitute WAS pretty admirable, gotta say.


C'mon, that was just part of his guile and cleverness. He didn't mean anything by it.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> Hey now- Vader was totally Dark Side doping. If the Jedi Counsel had a decent testing program, they wouldn't have all ended up dead.


Vader would've passed those tests, the most tested warlord in the galaxy!


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

The only thing that I wouldn't forgive him for, if if he had Floyd killed.......Beat up, no problem, but I draw the line at killing.

As for everything else, Meh, he was just better at it than the other top 25 riders.
.
.
.


----------



## Blue Sugar (Jun 14, 2005)

Only when he makes financial restitution to all the people he hurt like the Andreu's, Emma O'Reilly, LeMond, Hamilton, Landis, et al.


----------



## Blue Sugar (Jun 14, 2005)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> As for everything else, Meh, he was just better at it than the other top 25 riders.
> .
> .
> .


Really? Then why did he get caught?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Blue Sugar said:


> Only when he makes financial restitution to all the people he hurt like the Andreu's, Emma O'Reilly, LeMond, Hamilton, Landis, et al.


In the US you can act like a complete ass hat. Being and arrogant jerk is completely legal. So unless one can prove he did something more... such as actively use his influence to prevent someone from getting a job there is no restitution to be paid.

The only thing that matters as far as rules and laws are concerned is what USADA got him on and the "whistle blower"/US Postal Fraud suit. Even then when a whistle blower gets paid it's largely just for bringing the fraud to light. That is why their payment is based on a fraud finding, not personal injury.

This is all important because for rules to be fairly applied it CAN NOT take the personality of the accused into account. The fact people want it to apply makes me sad actually because it shows a general lack of respect for the rule of law.


----------



## Blue Sugar (Jun 14, 2005)

BAi9302010 said:


> To say that Lance Armstrong "ruined the lives" of the above mentioned people is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> Well he cost Andreu his broadcast career, and had a hand in bringing down LeMond's bike company. This are big things that cost them a lot of money.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

badge118 said:


> So unless one can prove he did something more... such as actively use his influence to prevent someone from getting a job there is no restitution to be paid.


He did exactly this many times, and used his influence to have people effectively blackballed. Not just riders but people in related businesses. Also, you may consider libel/slander/ defamation of character to fall in the category of just being an arrogant jerk, but legally they are civil crimes.

You could really save us all a lot of time by reading up on his history before you post more of your uninformed assertions.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Fireform said:


> He did exactly this many times, and used his influence to have people effectively blackballed. Not just riders but people in related businesses. Also, you may consider libel/slander/ defamation of character to fall in the category of just being an arrogant jerk, but legally they are civil crimes.
> 
> You could really save us all a lot of time by reading up on his history before you post more of your uninformed assertions.


Slander etc is almost unactionable in the US (unlike Europe.) You MUST prove real, not emotional harm. Eg. You need to show statements are 1. Untrue (done) BUT most importantly you must prove directly that these statements cost you money. Btw it's not "may have", you basically need someone to testify "I would have hired them BUT I heard LA say this and so I didn't." So slander in a US court is out.

Also it is NOT a crime for LA to have a team he is in management of not hire someone. The whole "Landis looked to LA for a life line and LA said no" is not actionable. You would need to prove that he say had Trek or Giro tell a sponsored team "hire him and we walk."

Why do you think LA went after the Walsh and O'Reilly in British and French Courts? Because the burdens for these things in the US are almost impossible high. Then here is the other issue. The USADA had a much easier time beating the SOL. They operate under more liberal rules than civil court AND were able to put the case forward without first winning a court battle on the SOL. Civil law in the US typically has a 2 year SOL in some cases 5. Before a suit can be brought forward for adjudication a motion would have to be made regarding SOL since these cases are outside it. So first you have an insanely high burden and this is after you get a Judge in a real court to throw out the SOL. I am NOT saying this is right, it is just how the US legal system works. 

You say I need to read history. I know the history. The difference is unlike you I also know the law.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Your point was that his jerk behavior was not against the law. My point is that much of it in fact was. Understand now?


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Blue Sugar said:


> Really? Then why did he get caught?


There was this one big Rat. Every other rider knew the "Rules". You never saw a rider rat on Miguel, Bjarne, Marco, Oscar, Alberto, or Jan, ...............
.
.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Fireform said:


> Your point was that his jerk behavior was not against the law. My point is that much of it in fact was. Understand now?


There is nothing that I have seen in terms of his treatment of the people named that would rise to the level of illegality in the US.

Then please tell me a specific incident that you believe rises to a level of proof of illegality in the US? Where can it be proven that his statements or influence directly (important bit that) influenced said action in the following manner...

Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession" 

Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness) 

Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women) 

Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)

AND that occurred within the SOLs of the below noted jurisdictions?

http://www.dancingwithlawyers.com/freeinfo/defamation-statute-limitations.shtml

So since he did NOT do any of the last three noted standards for defamation we are left with the first. Where is there a case where proof can be shown the statements harmed business....even with Trek and Lemond it will be DAMN difficult because of the contract Lemond signed.

So please I am all ears, or should I say eyes. I am suspect I will get some brief response long on hyperbole and short on fact.


----------



## rideorglide (Dec 3, 2005)

> Details
> 2012	Bradley Wiggins	Never tested positive
> 2011	Cadel Evans	Never tested positive
> 2007
> ...



Anquetil, Mercx, Fignon, Landis, Contador, Pereiro, Ulrich, Indurain, Zoetemelk, whatever...

See the list of bustees above.

One TdF champ after another eventually got busted, with few exceptions. 

Most of them still retained their legendary status, doping bust or confession after the fact, notwithstanding. 

They all doped and lied —*why should Armstrong be treated any different, he did the same thing, just more effectively and was maybe a better cyclist.

If all his fellow racers in the field and ont he various teams had all been clean, he'd have probably still won a slew of TdFs. The overall speeds would just have been slower all around. 

As a casual racing fan who got more into following it and reading about it, in the last 10 years, it took me until Floyd Landis to truly come to terms with the fact that the top TdF pro cycling scene was a win-at-all cost situation, with doping being the rule rather than the exception. 

And the cyclists, who know their history, pretty much all know it has pretty much has been part of the territory for 110 years in one form or another. 

These guys know their sports' history and the rules they play by are the old rule —don't get caught and if you do, lie, since that's what 8 out of 10 of the top guys around you are also doing — to them it's a matter of playing on a level playing field for a career-making stage win or high tour placement. 

I don't think they care too much what the average guy thinks, and they know the aficionados of cycling know the history of what they are really looking at under the surface — guys doping harder and at the same time pushing it harder to win. It's a great race, but it's not pretty if you hate doping, and it probably ain't gonna change anytime soon.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

rideorglide said:


> Anquetil, Mercx, Fignon, Landis, Contador, Pereiro, Ulrich, Indurain, Zoetemelk, whatever...
> 
> See the list of bustees above.
> 
> ...


I think the issue people have is assuming their morality applies to all cultures and make no mistake pro-athletes operate in a different culture. All you have to do is watch the evening world news and listen to politicians to see the reality that far to often we put blinders on to anything we can't relate to.

Now this does not mean times do not change and people should not be punished. Of course times change and if the change requires punishment then so be it. Understanding becomes important to effect change beyond punishment. You will never stop people from doping...hell WADA specifically said it is an unwinable war. What we can hopefully do is reduce doping and part of that is acknowledging the history of doping and studying the why's of doping. You change what why's you can and then maybe you can effect change. The problem is that no one wants to deal with the whys. The organizers want insane courses, the UCI and the sponsors want their ridiculous minimum salaries etc. The very foundations of the sport conspire to encourage a doping culture. The more I think about it the more bankrupt I think the whole system is.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

badge118 said:


> There is nothing that I have seen in terms of his treatment of the people named that would rise to the level of illegality in the US.
> 
> Then please tell me a specific incident that you believe rises to a level of proof of illegality in the US? Where can it be proven that his statements or influence directly (important bit that) influenced said action in the following manner...
> 
> ...


Badge, I think you need to back up your claim that you know the law by providing the basis for such knowledge. From my perspective it looks like you fall into the category of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." As to me, I am an attorney, but I don't practice in the areas of law discussed herein. Nonetheless, just thinking about things off the top of my head, I suspect Lemond has or had a fairly good claim for tortious interference. There are other people and entities that may also have colorable claims.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Tschai said:


> Badge, I think you need to back up your claim that you know the law by providing the basis for such knowledge. From my perspective it looks like you fall into the category of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." As to me, I am an attorney, but I don't practice in the areas of law discussed herein. Nonetheless, just thinking about things off the top of my head, I suspect Lemond has or had a fairly good claim for tortious interference. There are other people and entities that may also have colorable claims.


Police Officer for 15 years. You have NO idea, especially thanks to Facebook, how many times people come in demanding legal action be taken because of nasty things posted on social media. As such most States I know of have given specific training for officers to actually know how to address such complainants. Is it a police matter? If not is it a civil matter? Is it just a suck it up and move on with you life matter?

Even without a legal background. also to be honest there are hundreds of legal articles on the web published by various law schools and journals on the issue. It is also widely covered in the popular media on occasion such as when Armstrong initiated his LA Confidential related suits in Europe but not in the US.

The First Amendment is a POWERFUL tool. Hell if you do not want to sit through a boring as hell legal update class just google United States Defamation law. Even better add "and the first Amendment."


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

badge118 said:


> Police Officer for 15 years. You have NO idea, especially thanks to Facebook, how many times people come in demanding legal action be taken because of nasty things posted on social media. As such most States I know of have given specific training for officers to actually know how to address such complainants. Is it a police matter? If not is it a civil matter? Is it just a suck it up and move on with you life matter?
> 
> Even without a legal background. also to be honest there are hundreds of legal articles on the web published by various law schools and journals on the issue. It is also widely covered in the popular media on occasion such as when Armstrong initiated his LA Confidential related suits in Europe but not in the US.
> 
> The First Amendment is a POWERFUL tool. Hell if you do not want to sit through a boring as hell legal update class just google United States Defamation law. Even better add "and the first Amendment."


Don't you know that the First Amendment is not more powerful than Lance Armstrong? In any case, Lance did a ton of things that were not protected by the First Amendment. O'Reilly, Anderson and Lemond to name three. His actions went beyond defamation.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Tschai said:


> Don't you know that the First Amendment is not more powerful than Lance Armstrong? In any case, Lance did a ton of things that were not protected by the First Amendment. O'Reilly, Anderson and Lemond to name three. His actions went beyond defamation.


One of the other things I keep noting however is the Staute of Limitations as well. I linked earlier a list of the SoLs by State. This needs to be overcome. The issues with O'Reilly were primarily, if I remember right (Statements etc) were in Europe. Please note I know in the EU they are much more plaintiff friendly. I don't have a lot of knowledge regarding EU law so I am only discussing the US.

Anderson and Armstrong had a court settlement for a fair amount of cash and it's outside the SoL.

For Lemond you would need to prove that Trek did what they did at Armstrong's insistence and not based on the contract the had the language regarding statements that hurt the brand. You need that direct causal relationship to show the intent. Lemond obviously had a good case against Trek, Trek settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, making a direct connection from Trek's action (the harm needed under US law) and direct Armstrong influence is a different matter. Also you have the SoL. I would have thought as an attorney you would understand how important it is in such cases to show that the defendant themselves to an active and substantial step in furtherance of the questionable act as well as the relevance of SoLs.

See the SoL has nothing to do with when you get the proof, it has to do when you know the harm was done. So if you are harmed in 2005 and you know it and the SoL is 2 years, the case needs to be brought before 2007. If the bad guy was just too slick and no evidence is found until 2012 you are usually stuck with the other "SOL" (**** out of luck.)


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

The post is titled "Will you forgive?". That would imply that Lance did something to me that deems forgiving. Why any of you are personally invested is beyond me.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Tschai said:


> Badge, I think you need to back up your claim that you know the law by providing the basis for such knowledge. From my perspective it looks like you fall into the category of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." As to me, I am an attorney, but I don't practice in the areas of law discussed herein. Nonetheless, just thinking about things off the top of my head, I suspect Lemond has or had a fairly good claim for tortious interference. There are other people and entities that may also have colorable claims.


I appreciate your use of legalese. Can you explain the specific tort?


----------



## HolyBull (Nov 27, 2008)

He said he was sorry and made no excuses.

I feel sorry for the guy, he's got some screws loose.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

HolyBull said:


> He said he was sorry and made no excuses.
> 
> I feel sorry for the guy, he's got some screws loose.


On the most general things, stuff he essentially did to himself. When asked about things he said about others though, he refused to answer. Atm it seems like he is trying to salvage a legacy of some sort. A LOT of people will forgive violations that are seen as "victimless" but if he acknowledges how he treated others... then you will have victims. Joe Six Pack probably does not know the names Walsh, Andrieu, O'Reilly etc. so dodging those questions could well be an attempt to prevent those names from entering Joe Six Packs consciousness.


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

carbonLORD said:


> The post is titled "Will you forgive?". That would imply that Lance did something to me that deems forgiving. Why any of you are personally invested is beyond me.


Yes, exactly – he did do something to you that deems forgiving.

He lied to you and tried his best to deceive you. He made every attempt to make you believe he was something that he’s not. And BTW, if he knew you questioned him, he probably would have hired someone to hack into your bank account and drain it to punish you. 

Of course he did something to you that warrants a decision on forgiving or not, that’s why he’s apologizing – just like many others (Clinton, Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, and many other public figures).


----------



## aliensporebomb (Jul 2, 2002)

Some of my friends have come out saying they hope he is imprisoned with "bubba".

Honestly, the man has done more harm to himself than anything we might say.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

badge118 said:


> One of the other things I keep noting however is the Staute of Limitations as well. I linked earlier a list of the SoLs by State. This needs to be overcome. The issues with O'Reilly were primarily, if I remember right (Statements etc) were in Europe. Please note I know in the EU they are much more plaintiff friendly. I don't have a lot of knowledge regarding EU law so I am only discussing the US.
> 
> Anderson and Armstrong had a court settlement for a fair amount of cash and it's outside the SoL.
> 
> ...


I find it hard to understand what you are saying as your spelling and grammar are so poor. In any case, all I am saying is that Lance did a lot of things to people and/or companies that were at the time, or are now, actionable in a civil case either here or in Europe. All this fuss about statutes of limitations and the like merely confuse the fact that Armstrong is, or was, highly exposed.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Local Hero said:


> I appreciate your use of legalese. Can you explain the specific tort?


Tortious interference is when a person damages another person’s contractual relationships or other business relationships on purpose. Although the case settled, my guess is that Lemond had a good claim that Armstrong jacked up Lemond's business relationship with Trek.


----------



## DrD (Feb 5, 2000)

BostonG said:


> He lied to you and tried his best to deceive you.


I dunno - I honestly enjoyed watching him win, so he entertained me. He doped and lied about it - that's certainly true - but then, did any of the riders who doped admit to doping prior to testing positive? Any of them walk off the podium and say, "you know what, I don't deserve this because I cheated"?

Armstrong was able to accomplish more than others who doped because he had a lot of talent, and a far more capable team behind him (and the most important members of his "team" were not his fellow riders - not by a very wide margin)


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Tschai said:


> I find it hard to understand what you are saying as your spelling and grammar are so poor. In any case, all I am saying is that Lance did a lot of things to people and/or companies that were at the time, or are now, actionable in a civil case either here or in Europe. All this fuss about statutes of limitations and the like merely confuse the fact that Armstrong is, or was, highly exposed.


You are such a troll. Such ad hominem attacks however are typically evidence of an eroding position. Btw using smart phone so punctuation will often be off. 

You keep saying it is BUT have yet to say how and have yet to address the Statute of Limitations issue and demonstrate what rose to the legally required level of harm to all of the parties involved. 

Also not everyone has issues that can be raised in Europe. Walsh and O'Reilly yes. Lemond and Andrieu no. Lemond's contract with Trek is under US jurisdiction. In that case you have refused to address not only how you prove Trek did not just do it to protect their interests, but how Trek only took said action at Armstrong's direct insistence. This would be necessary in order to bring action. It is not enough to say "Lemond trashed LA in public statements. Trek used a contract clause against him as punishment for said statements. Ergo Armstrong took a substantial step to knowingly and intelligently used his influence with Trek to hurt Lemond."


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

badge118 said:


> You are such a troll. Btw using smart phone. You keep saying it is BUT have yet to say how and have yet to address the Statute of Limitations issue. Also not everyone has issues that can be raised in Europe. Walsh and O'Reilly yes. Lemond and Andrieu no. Lemond's contract with Trek is under US jurisdiction. In that case you have refused to address not only how you prove Trek did not just do it to protect their interests, but how Trek only took said action at Armstrong's direct insistence. This would be necessary in order to bring action. It is not enough to say "Lemond trashed LA in public statements. Trek used a contract clause against him as punishment for said statements. Ergo Armstrong took a substantial step to knowingly and intelligently used his influence with Trek to hurt Lemond."
> 
> Sir if you are an attorney in PA please PM me you name. I wish to ensure I never employ you and tell my friends the same. To be honest I am doubting you are an attorney at this point because you have made no statements that, even in a vague way, show evidence of legal knowledge, beyond that found in a dictionary.


Smartphone is no excuse. In any case, the original thought to which you responded was that Armstrong needed to make restitution to those he harmed. Your responses brought up a bunch of nonsense about statutes of limitation, burdens of proof and how defamation is virtually not actionable. Big deal. We are not litigating any lawsuits in this thread. Simply put, I explained that there are probably lots of people and companies that had, or have, valid claims against Lance. Again, no litigation. It seems you have this great need to show us how vast your knowledge of the law is. In the process, you have shown me that you do in fact fit into the category of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." As an FYI, learning the law and practicing the law are two very different things. As with most attorneys, I learned most of what I know about practicing law from actually practicing law. Books and police seminars help very little.


----------



## Jetmugg (Sep 22, 2010)

It's not important for Lance's sake that you forgive him. It's important for your sake to forgive Lance.


----------



## philoanna (Dec 2, 2007)

I was a fan boy for the first couple of Tour wins. I then realized he was a dork. I started this thread not feeling like I was going to lose sleep if he didn't confess. I don't feel like I need to forgive him like Betsy, Greg, Floyd, etc. etc. may someday forgive him. But I do find it hard to believe that anyone reading and participating in this thread doesn't feel some sort of personal connection to the situation. And to say that he didn't do anything to you personally makes no sense. Sure most of us were just fans, but man I think we all bought into it back in the day. To say it didn't hurt on some level when it all hit the fan, isn't being honest with yourself imho.


----------



## OneGear (Aug 19, 2005)

This question assumes that he gives a rat's ass about anyone other than himself. Why the hell would he care if the average cycling fan forgives him?


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Tschai said:


> Simply put, I explained that there are probably lots of people and companies that had, or have, valid claims against Lance. Again, no litigation.


A claim is something that one party owes another. To have a valid claim as a plantiff or tort liability as a defendant means. To be able to make this allegation you need some sort of proof and it needs to be within the Statute of Limitations. 

One could argue that "if it could be proven" or "if it was within the SoL" that such a claim could be made BUT you NEVER said IF. I am simply pointing out that due to legal technicalities such cases are most likely NOT going to see the light of day. Basically unless you can bring it to court there is no valid tort claim. That is all I am trying to say.

Even then you have not demonstrated the actual harm that Armstrong himself directly did to Andreu or Lemond that would rise to the level of claim. He said nasty things about Betsy... as you said "big deal" **** happens and just saying bad things alone is NOT actionable. We know Trek messed with Lemond (and I thought that was wrong believe me) but there is no proof that Lance had the direct involvement necessary. To state Lemond would have a claim, as you did, means you need to show this. A claim does not exist without proof so you can not allege a claim exists without some small measure of it. 

As for Practicing the Law, in my State I do. Unlike many States I am not required to seek an Assistant District Attorney's permission to file for Search Warrants or Arrest Warrants. I actually represent the State in Court proceedings as if I was an Assistant District Attorney up to and including Preliminary Hearings. I am also certified as an Expert witness in 2 fields so the practice of law vs the book knoweldge of law is something I am intimately familiar with. I know a number of attorneys who have told me bluntly that I and the officers I work with have more litigation time than most attorneys because we are litigating cases on an almost daily basis because of our case loads.

I am not defending Armstrong. What I am saying is that like some Criminals he managed to get away with certain acts. It sucks big time no doubt but stuff like that happens all the time as you should know. So please stop with passive aggressive attacks based on assumptions, it is wholely unconstructive.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

philoanna said:


> I was a fan boy for the first couple of Tour wins. I then realized he was a dork. I started this thread not feeling like I was going to lose sleep if he didn't confess. I don't feel like I need to forgive him like Betsy, Greg, Floyd, etc. etc. may someday forgive him. But I do find it hard to believe that anyone reading and participating in this thread doesn't feel some sort of personal connection to the situation. And to say that he didn't do anything to you personally makes no sense. Sure most of us were just fans, but man I think we all bought into it back in the day. To say it didn't hurt on some level when it all hit the fan, isn't being honest with yourself imho.


I said I don't feel the need to forgive him anything and I meant it. I never felt any sort of attachment to LA, or his tour wins. And I know that he never cared one bit about me, even in the abstract (nameless fans). 

I think we need to acknowledge that what LA did is wrong. I think we need to try and clean up cycling. 

Ive been through a lot of nasty [email protected] in my life; I really don't feel the need to be all butthurt when it turns out the guy is a doping lying prick.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

badge118 said:


> A claim is something that one party owes another. To have a valid claim as a plantiff or tort liability as a defendant means. To be able to make this allegation you need some sort of proof and it needs to be within the Statute of Limitations.
> 
> One could argue that "if it could be proven" or "if it was within the SoL" that such a claim could be made BUT you NEVER said IF. I am simply pointing out that due to legal technicalities such cases are most likely NOT going to see the light of day. Basically unless you can bring it to court there is no valid tort claim. That is all I am trying to say.
> 
> ...


Whatever dude. As to any SOL, I said have or had claims. As you also know, a SOL is never a given, especially in civil cases that involve issues of when the tort was discovered. As to Lemond, my pointing out that Armstrong could have been exposed to liability does not mean that I believe Lemond would have won the case. Such issues are decided by discovery and litigation. Neither you nor I have the knowledge to conclusively state the outcome of such a lawsuit. That is, we really don't know at this time what he did and did not get away with.

As to your "law practice", it seems to me it has nothing to do with litigating civil cases.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Tschai said:


> As to your "law practice", it seems to me it has nothing to do with litigating civil cases.


Hmmmm lets see the trend here...

"what is your legal background a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"

ooops he has one...

"well pracicing law and book law are different things"

ooops in his State he does practice the law....

"well civil and criminal law are different."

I could go on with more reasoning and I am sure I would see yet another excuse raised. I have something better to do...time to ride.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

badge118 said:


> Hmmmm lets see the trend here...
> 
> "what is your legal background a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
> 
> ...


I guess you win. You out-lawed me. Ha ha.


----------



## Chase15.5 (Feb 17, 2005)

badge118 said:


> Hmmmm lets see the trend here...
> 
> "what is your legal background a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
> 
> ...


very rarely can you convince someone of something in a forum. your last comment was very observant and well played.


----------



## cohiba7777 (Jul 6, 2006)

He is bile in the back of my throat and unworthy of any more attention - I think that's the only way he's really made to pay - bury him in insignificance - his ego couldn't manage it.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

Of course I forgive him. What good does it do not to?


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

Hiro11 said:


> My feelings exactly. I couldn't care less about Lance's "reconciliation", he's just some millionaire athlete. I wasn't personally "invested" in him at all, there's nothing to forgive. I'm interested in watching the show only because I'm a cycling fan and it will be interesting to watch Lance squirm.
> 
> I've found that the people I know who are most judgemental and furious about Armstrong seem to know absolutely nothing about cycling's (distant and recent) history. It's as if Armstrong invented doping.


Well stated cycling has had a long history of using performance enhancing issues.
Most should take a look at the wiki on it
List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my case, I didn't watch the show, I have better things to do with my time. As to forgiving LA, I'm also not wasting any more of my time (after this post) on the topic, hate is a wasted emotion, I have no reason to judge him or all the other athletes.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Chase15.5 said:


> very rarely can you convince someone of something in a forum. your last comment was very observant and well played.


And what is your legal background? Lance owes restitution to those he harmed. He was more than just a bully.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Tschai said:


> Tortious interference is when a person damages another person’s contractual relationships or other business relationships on purpose. Although the case settled, my guess is that Lemond had a good claim that Armstrong jacked up Lemond's business relationship with Trek.


LeMond has a very good case for Tortious Interference, Greg knows it, Lance knows it, Trek knows it. When the Trek case was settled it was made clear that it only settled the case between Greg and Trek, he could still go after Lance. 

At this point Greg has moved on. While Lance launched an organized smear campaign that painted Greg as bitter and vindictive the fact is he is neither. He just wants to ride his bike


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> LeMond has a very good case for Tortious Interference, Greg knows it, Lance knows it, Trek knows it. When the Trek case was settled it was made clear that it only settled the case between Greg and Trek, he could still go after Lance.
> 
> At this point Greg has moved on. While Lance launched an organized smear campaign that painted Greg as bitter and vindictive the fact is he is neither. He just wants to ride his bike


This makes sense.


----------



## singlespeedbuss (Aug 6, 2009)

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged!
and
Let Him Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone. Okay so enough of that. People have been doping and covering it up a lot longer than Lance. These whiners complaining are the ones that got caught then sang like canaries to take the heat of themselves. Lance was the last hold out. If anyone thinks this is the last of cheating or bending the rules in any sport you are all sadly mistaken. Lance can`t make anyone do what they don`t want to do and I`m sure he was not the total ring leader in the whole mess. Lance was just able to hold out longer. If lance came clean when he had the chance this whole mess would be over now and his suspension would be over.

Yes, I am over it all ready. No harm no foul to me!


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Lets see:
500 clean tests
Witch hunt
All those witnesses were liars / dopers / disgruntled types
Everyone was doing it
You can't make an adult do anything

Other people don't have to be angels for what Lance did to be bad. I'm not saying he's the anti-Christ, but I actually believe in trying to clean up the sport and I think he deserves his life time ban and to repay his prize money, some of the damages, etc.


----------

