+1fscyclist 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....
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.