From Lance to Landis: Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France (H



Status
Not open for further replies.

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
fscyclist said:
Since we are all confessing, I'll throw my hat in as well. I dislike Armstrong, not because of doping but because of his gross narcissism. I never liked him prior to cancer (he was just an outright *****), but after cancer he was portrayed as someone who changed. So I picked up a copy of his book and could barely stomach it. They should issue it to Psych 101 students as the textbook case of a narcissist.

But that's just the beginning, and I know I'll take a lot of heat from some for what I'm about to say. What really got me about his book and his statements afterwards was his true belief that he 'beat' cancer. He thinks that through his mental and physical ability or desire, he was able to defeat cancer. This of course implies that those who don't survive cancer are somehow less strong than those who survive. I've seen and known a lot of people with cancer and there is no rhyme or reason to who survives. We can give some predictions, but some of the best, hardest fighting people die and some who don't give a **** about anything, including their own life, survive. For Armstrong to believe he could defeat cancer out of his own willpower is the ultimate in hubris, and to imply that those who can't defeat it are weak is the ultimate insult. Apparently he has offered hope to some, and for that I am grateful. However, to me, I find his pontificating nauseating.

The other issue that I found disgusting was the way he used his family as a prop to develop his PR image and make lots of money, then cast them aside. Remeber all those commercials with Kirsten and the kids. Those things are what sold him and created the multi million dollar asset he is. To toss them aside for Crow was disgusting. Now I know some people will bring out the old mantra of "it's his personal life and not relevant", but it is. It's relevant because Armstrong brought them into the limelight, made money off them, and put his family in a public forum. If he never mentioned them and didn't play himself up as the ultimate family man who would never be like his derelict father, then I wouldn't say anything about it.

I'm sure there's more, but those are the two big issues from me. Of course these two issues all stem from his narcissism, which of course leads me back to your original point that the guy thinks he can be president. Laughable....
+1

You touch on some good points. Just like you I did not really care for Armstrong early on. He was an asshole. That impression comes from a lot of incidents. He and his supporters have alleged that the euros hate him because an American won _their_ race, but I remember when he won the U.S. nationals. After the race he told the press he was looking forward to going over to Europe and sticking the jersey in their faces. He brought the dislike on himself.

Then there was the time he blew snot on Fondriest or Argentin, I forget which, and instead of apologizing, he starts with the "I'm Lance Armstrong, who are you?" ****. As fscyclists mentions, he seemed to have an incredible narcissism. After he abandoned triathlon for cycling, the young Miles Stewart was getting a lot of press. Armstrong showed up at a triathlon and strutted around, putting down Miles. I always found that odd. Why should he care what was going on in triathlonr? He just could not stand that he was no longer being talked about in tri circles.

I could go on and on but I concluded that he was a ***** with a giant chip on his shoulder. Pro athletics, due to its competitive nature, attracts a lot jerks; so the fact that Armstrong was one was not enough to hate him. He just was not a rider I would cheer for.

It's the various ways he has portrayed his cancer that really gets me. I went through the same treatment. The rubes can buy the story he is selling, but it does not fool me.

First off, fscyclist mentions that you don't "fight" cancer. True. I became a great believer in luck, or fate as I sometimes think of it. It's like the doctor takes a die, writes death on a number of sides, and throws it. If you are lucky, you live; if you are not, you die. It is completely random. Armstrong building himself up by saying he beat cancer, unlike the other poor schmucks who did not, is disgusting.

Second, I don't much like people describing themselves as survivors or victims. It often seems to me to be a attempt to gain sympathy. Oh, look at poor me. It's often used as a way to make any accomplishment seem better. The American cult of victimhood does not have any traction with me. Things are tough all over. Everyone has problems.

Third is the thing that really gets me. Cancer is a horrible way to die. One conclusion that I came to is that suicide is a perfectly honorable cure for terminal cancer. Armstrong has used this to fool people. Many people have a mother, or a family member, a neighbor, or whoever who has slowly wasted away and died from cancer. Armstrong implies that he went through the same thing and triumphed. He has sometimes said that he was able to win a Tour stage because it was nothing compared to surviving cancer. But this is a cynical
lie.

Modern treatment for testicular cancer is almost a piece of cake. Not to say it is fun by any means, but it is not that bad. If treatment works out then it bears no resemblance to dying from cancer. The surgery is mostly out-patient surgery. You can be walking around later that day at home. Chemo is not fighting cancer; it's more like fighting boredom. You sit in a chair and have **** dripped into your veins while reading books or magazines. That only occurs for a week of a cycle. The rest of the cycle you are mostly free to kill time. Nausea varies. At worse it is like bad flu.

Personally, I find Armstrong's deceiving people over this offensive. Just as offensive is doping to win the Tour and then portraying himself as heroic for surviving cancer and then winning the Tour. Perpetrating a fraud upon people with cancer and their loved ones is simply despicable, especially when he does not need the gain.

I can understand Hamilton and Landis deceiving people to fight their doping cases. I don't agree with it, but I can understand how it must be to get popped for what everyone else is doing. They are fighting for their professional lives, but there is no reason for Armstrong to commit his fraud other than his ego and to make more money. For whatever reason I find what Armstrong has done is far worse than what other doping cyclists have done.

There are other issues that involve the corruption of American society and what it might hold for the future when the way to get ahead is to cheat or steal your way to the top, but that is something more appropriate for the soapbox.
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
davidbod said:
Why over the past X years has Armstrong been the focus of such an obsessive crusade to bring him down as a doper, while all these previous winners who are obvious dopers as well get a free ride?
The other recent Tour winners are not selling books and making huge marketing $$$ saying that they are the only rider that trains, that cares about their food and equipment, that wants it etc.

This is highly insulting to all the other highly trained and highly doped cyclists.
 

alibat

New Member
May 3, 2005
154
0
0
52
fscyclist said:
Since we are all confessing, I'll throw my hat in as well. I dislike Armstrong, not because of doping but because of his gross narcissism. I never liked him prior to cancer (he was just an outright *****), but after cancer he was portrayed as someone who changed. So I picked up a copy of his book and could barely stomach it. They should issue it to Psych 101 students as the textbook case of a narcissist.

But that's just the beginning, and I know I'll take a lot of heat from some for what I'm about to say. What really got me about his book and his statements afterwards was his true belief that he 'beat' cancer. He thinks that through his mental and physical ability or desire, he was able to defeat cancer. This of course implies that those who don't survive cancer are somehow less strong than those who survive. I've seen and known a lot of people with cancer and there is no rhyme or reason to who survives. We can give some predictions, but some of the best, hardest fighting people die and some who don't give a **** about anything, including their own life, survive. For Armstrong to believe he could defeat cancer out of his own willpower is the ultimate in hubris, and to imply that those who can't defeat it are weak is the ultimate insult. Apparently he has offered hope to some, and for that I am grateful. However, to me, I find his pontificating nauseating.

The other issue that I found disgusting was the way he used his family as a prop to develop his PR image and make lots of money, then cast them aside. Remeber all those commercials with Kirsten and the kids. Those things are what sold him and created the multi million dollar asset he is. To toss them aside for Crow was disgusting. Now I know some people will bring out the old mantra of "it's his personal life and not relevant", but it is. It's relevant because Armstrong brought them into the limelight, made money off them, and put his family in a public forum. If he never mentioned them and didn't play himself up as the ultimate family man who would never be like his derelict father, then I wouldn't say anything about it.

I'm sure there's more, but those are the two big issues from me. Of course these two issues all stem from his narcissism, which of course leads me back to your original point that the guy thinks he can be president. Laughable....

Well put. Living in the UK, I was saved seeing all the adverts and other stuff you mention. But I saw (more than) enough of him so come to the same conclusion. On top of all that, he's also an arrogant bully. Not someone to get on the wrong side of given his power and influence.
 

whiteboytrash

New Member
Mar 9, 2005
5,402
0
0
fscyclist said:
The other issue that I found disgusting was the way he used his family as a prop to develop his PR image and make lots of money, then cast them aside. Remeber all those commercials with Kirsten and the kids. Those things are what sold him and created the multi million dollar asset he is. To toss them aside for Crow was disgusting. Now I know some people will bring out the old mantra of "it's his personal life and not relevant", but it is. It's relevant because Armstrong brought them into the limelight, made money off them, and put his family in a public forum. If he never mentioned them and didn't play himself up as the ultimate family man who would never be like his derelict father, then I wouldn't say anything about it.
...I think you should also mention they way he also paraded Crow around at the 2005 Tour with his kids then dumped her 3 months later ! I just had a bad feeling about the entire episode..... more so for his former wife who had to watch her children been loved up on TV by another woman... it would have been heartbreaking for her......
 

wolfix

New Member
Mar 11, 2005
2,756
0
0
Of course LA had to have a book written about him. He saw the success Lemond had with the book that was written about him where he told of working harder then other riders. It's the American way. A trip to the local library and looking in the "celebrity Bios" section you will notice names of people who "did what?" Of course, LA"s story with the cancer survival and then winning one of the world's toughest sporting events is one of, if not the greatest sporting story of the past 100 years. That story alone thrust him into the world of media coverage here in America.
And by keeping himself in the news, he just followed the rules of publicity. And along the way, he used this publicity for raising money for cancer.
People jump on him for what he did to Kristen? That's a joke. Again if you have followed his career you will see her for what she is. She is the one who jumped his bones when he was involved with a women who was by his side during his cancer. She simply got what was coming to her.
Ego's ???? LA's was small compared to Hinaults and Fignon's. If you read TDF history, only Indurain was silent when speaking into a microphone. Ullrich maybe. One of the main ingrdients of making a champion in sport is selfishness. When sporting champions are looked into beyond their hype, that becomes noticable. If a rider with great talent does not want the world to revolve around him, he will never win the big ones very often. A Hampsten is an example of this. He was truly a nice guy. He never really won much considering his talent. His Giro win was somewhat of a fluke, but he was capable of more. "Nicenesss' held him back.
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
filmarmstrong2.jpg

Does the Armstrong's life movie dope his popularity ?

If the truth explodes, he will wince ...
 

davidbod

New Member
Oct 7, 2003
717
0
0
59
patch70 said:
The other recent Tour winners are not selling books and making huge marketing $$$ saying that they are the only rider that trains, that cares about their food and equipment, that wants it etc.

This is highly insulting to all the other highly trained and highly doped cyclists.

That's completely lame. I don't care that you choose to aim all that is wrong with cycling at Armstrong, that is your choice to make just as it is my choice to defend him when you do so. What is telling is that you do it while ignoring the fact that all the other riders are just as guilty yet you give them a free ride.
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
davidbod said:
That's completely lame. I don't care that you choose to aim all that is wrong with cycling at Armstrong, that is your choice to make just as it is my choice to defend him when you do so. What is telling is that you do it while ignoring the fact that all the other riders are just as guilty yet you give them a free ride.


Jan Ullrich got a free ride???? Interesting!
 

Leafer

New Member
Apr 11, 2006
317
0
0
davidbod said:
That's completely lame. I don't care that you choose to aim all that is wrong with cycling at Armstrong, that is your choice to make just as it is my choice to defend him when you do so. What is telling is that you do it while ignoring the fact that all the other riders are just as guilty yet you give them a free ride.
Who, exactly, is getting a free ride around here? Ullrich? Basso? Indurain? Riis? Pantani?

Take off the Armstrong blinkers, bud. You get a much better view.
 

davidbod

New Member
Oct 7, 2003
717
0
0
59
Yes Ullrich has mostly a free ride from the Armstrong hate camp, as do most other riders. Not everyone on the forum is in the Armstrong hate camp. There are plenty of posters here who are objective. It just seems to me that those who profess the loudest against Armstrong are the ones who turn a blind eye towards their idols like Ullrich, Indurain, etc. Again, who is it that has their heads in the sand.

How many times have we seen threads like the "Zabel admits doping" thread turn into an Armstrong bash? What has this got to do with Zabel? How many threads have turned into an Ullrich or Indurain bash??

Its like Walsh. He writes a book about his obession with Armstrong, and now he needs to transcend that to Landis. Except that all the while the past X winners were doped also and he turns a blind eye. No mention of Op as if it didn't happen.

So why does this happen? maybe its because they are more easy to hate, will sell more books, who knows. But in the end if you bring down Armstrong and ignore the rest what has been achieved? Nothing, other than selling some books or satisfying some petty hatred.
 

davidbod

New Member
Oct 7, 2003
717
0
0
59
jhuskey said:
I am talking about real life and not this forum.

Sorry I didn't make it clear. I was speaking about the Armstrong haters on this forum. Ullrich has certtainly not had a free ride via the media, nor in particular his countrymen.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
This is tedious, wolf.
And if I might add very bizzare.

wolfix said:
People jump on him for what he did to Kristen? That's a joke. Again if you have followed his career you will see her for what she is. She is the one who jumped his bones when he was involved with a women who was by his side during his cancer. She simply got what was coming to her.

You take a shot at Armstrong's ex-wife.
Why?
I don't know his wife, I've no knowledge of her.
You take exception to his wife.
"you'll see her for what she is....."

And there's a pattern here.
Some weeks back you criticised Frankie Andreu's wife too.
You took exception to his wife.
 

helmutRoole2

New Member
Jul 7, 2006
1,948
0
0
58
davidbod said:
...How many times have we seen threads like the "Zabel admits doping" thread turn into an Armstrong bash?
It's just that, well, he's so bashable.

Look, I'm not going to list the linty of ****ed up things the guy has done over the years, but if I sensed an ounce of coolness then maybe I wouldn't bash. With Ulrich, Indurain, Lemond (to a certain degree), there's a cool factor, but Lance is the Paris Hilton of the sports world. Hell, he even dated her. For **** sake, does it get any worse?

Dave, the guy's a tool. That's why we cap on him.

Best guy to concentrate on the Tour? Sure. Rare cycling talent? Yes. Total **** head? Gotta check that box too.

Sorry brutha. Stroke on over to dailypeloton. There's plenty of Lance-o-philes over there, probably including Armstrong himself.
 

helmutRoole2

New Member
Jul 7, 2006
1,948
0
0
58
Originally Posted by wolfix
People jump on him for what he did to Kristen? That's a joke. Again if you have followed his career you will see her for what she is. She is the one who jumped his bones when he was involved with a women who was by his side during his cancer. She simply got what was coming to her.
Yeah. This makes Armstrong look good.

So you're saying he dumped the woman who stayed by his side during chemo to be with the future ho of his children only to dump her too for a rock singer who he then dumped after she contracted cancer so he could date Paris Hilton?

Class act.
 

Wayne666

New Member
Jun 4, 2007
454
0
0
helmutRoole2 said:
Total **** head? Gotta check that box too.
I agree that's how he comes across from media reports. He seems to have some pretty serious charactar flaws (egomaniac, the way he turns on former friends for seemingly minor things, the chip on his shoulder, vindictive, etc.) but maybe he is OK in person. I have a relation that has apparently become pretty good friends with him over the last couple of years but I've not seen him at a family function yet to get his view on what he's like as a real person.
 

wolfix

New Member
Mar 11, 2005
2,756
0
0
This is tedious, wolf.
And if I might add very bizzare.



You take a shot at Armstrong's ex-wife.
Why?
I don't know his wife, I've no knowledge of her.
You take exception to his wife.
"you'll see her for what she is....."
The deal with Kristin is this....... When LA was in the hospitol with cancer, his girlfriend of many years was there at all times. It wasn't Kristin. Kristin was a publicist or a sales rep with a company that was dealing with LA. She very openly pursued LA [And LA pursued her] after meeting him knowing he had a girlfriend. Now, LA is a dog that would do that to a woman who was always by his side. But Kristin was also guilty.
Neither one of those deserve respect in this manner.. What Crow did to Kristin was exactly what Kristin did to LA's former girlfriend. Did she expect LA to treat her any different then he treated the first one?


And there's a pattern here.
Some weeks back you criticised Frankie Andreu's wife too.
You took exception to his wife.
F Andreu's wife went public with allegations of doping. And doping was what the thread was about. Even the insurnace company she wanted to work with considered her a pest that was rather obsessed with the numerous phone calls between her and the Lemonds.
 

wolfix

New Member
Mar 11, 2005
2,756
0
0
helmutRoole2 said:
So you're saying he dumped the woman who stayed by his side during chemo t
Wrong .....She was there at the end of his chemo, right when he was finished. She jumped his bones when the woman who was with him during chemo was still with him. She got what she deserved with LA. They were married within 5 months after meeting.
And now she writing books airing her laundry in front of Oprah, Diane Sawyer, and others. A religious book ......
She admitted what she saw in the relationship that led to marriage was the ring, not the relationship.
 

patch70

New Member
Jun 19, 2003
1,682
0
0
52
davidbod said:
That's completely lame. I don't care that you choose to aim all that is wrong with cycling at Armstrong, that is your choice to make just as it is my choice to defend him when you do so. What is telling is that you do it while ignoring the fact that all the other riders are just as guilty yet you give them a free ride.
You seem to misunderstand me. I don't ignore the other dopers. I pay them all out. I think they're all wrong. I don't single out Armstrong as the one thing that is wrong about cycling, but as the most successful doper, he'll end up getting the most attention in anti-doping discussions.
 

davidbod

New Member
Oct 7, 2003
717
0
0
59
patch70 said:
You seem to misunderstand me. I don't ignore the other dopers. I pay them all out. I think they're all wrong. I don't single out Armstrong as the one thing that is wrong about cycling, but as the most successful doper, he'll end up getting the most attention in anti-doping discussions.

That's fair enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
Replies
6
Views
185
Road Cycling
Fred Fredburger
F