Restoration of Armstrongs titles?



Originally Posted by AyeYo


This is what made the difference and what all the Lance fans keep overlooking. The guy was a total douche so they slapped his peepee hard. Everyone else was cheating, he was cheating and being a completely obnoxious **** about it.
Rules should not be subjective, they should be rules. The losers wined, the winner upheld the agreed code of silence and eventually when it was all out in the open, he still would not implicate anyone else, but himself. He was a winner and a true champion, did what was needed to win within what the game was at that time. Some folks just cannot handle the Viking A personality types.

Anyways, today he has just short of 24,000 followers on Strava and they all seem to love the man, different folks, different strokes.
 
The rules are not subjective. The rules says no PED and he broke the rules. There's no subjectivity there. He broke the rules and was disciplined for it. What is subjective is the discipline he received, and that's normal. The law is subjective too, but how you're punished is up to the judge. Had he only used PED, I don't think you would have seen him stripped of all titles. However, there was much more to the story than his use of PED, and he was disciplined in accordance with what he deserved for his all-around shitty behavior. If you give the judge a middle finger salute before your sentencing and tell him you banged his wife, don't expect to be let off with the minimum penalty.
 
Originally Posted by AyeYo
The rules are not subjective. The rules says no PED and he broke the rules. There's no subjectivity there. He broke the rules and was disciplined for it. What is subjective is the discipline he received, and that's normal. The law is subjective too, but how you're punished is up to the judge. Had he only used PED, I don't think you would have seen him stripped of all titles. However, there was much more to the story than his use of PED, and he was disciplined in accordance with what he deserved for his all-around shitty behavior. If you give the judge a middle finger salute before your sentencing and tell him you banged his wife, don't expect to be let off with the minimum penalty.
Who was the judge? Travis Tygart?

In the end I just believe there was a better way to clean up cycling and protect the sport at the same time. A lot of damage done and we all still talk about it and it is still an issue several years after the last tour Lance rode. Travis was not interested in cleaning up the sport, his ego was his primary objective. Lance had and still has a lot of litigation issues, preventing him from revisiting the past with a view to improve the future. Lance still had a lot to offer to both cancer and cycling, but it was destroyed and the sport now has a cancer as a result.
 
Originally Posted by WillemJM
Who was the judge? Travis Tygart?

In the end I just believe there was a better way to clean up cycling and protect the sport at the same time. A lot of damage done and we all still talk about it and it is still an issue several years after the last tour Lance rode. Travis was not interested in cleaning up the sport, his ego was his primary objective. Lance had and still has a lot of litigation issues, preventing him from revisiting the past with a view to improve the future. Lance still had a lot to offer to both cancer and cycling, but it was destroyed and the sport now has a cancer as a result.
Lance's performance bonuses, the cancer foundation (livestrong.org), and the publicity organ (livestrong.com), were all highly leveraged.

Doping has been pro cycling's cancer, but it hasn't proven lethal. Pro cycling has been living with it for over 100 years.

Livestrong.com and livestrong.org are still going, the latter albeit without Lance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bikeraph
Originally Posted by WillemJM
Who was the judge? Travis Tygart?

In the end I just believe there was a better way to clean up cycling and protect the sport at the same time. A lot of damage done and we all still talk about it and it is still an issue several years after the last tour Lance rode. Travis was not interested in cleaning up the sport, his ego was his primary objective. Lance had and still has a lot of litigation issues, preventing him from revisiting the past with a view to improve the future. Lance still had a lot to offer to both cancer and cycling, but it was destroyed and the sport now has a cancer as a result.
I think that you're giving Armstrong more credit than he deserves, and making a pretty lopsided assessment of Tygart's motivation for going after him in the process. Whether or not Armstrong still had a lot to offer cycling (and cancer awareness) is debatable, but even that point has been rendered moot by Armstrong's decision to look after his own interests first, even at the expense of innocent people and the truth. He's always done that. He'll always do that. If he had really cared about the future of the sport, he would have cooperated well before his time finally ran out.
 
Originally Posted by bikeraph

I think that you're giving Armstrong more credit than he deserves, and making a pretty lopsided assessment of Tygart's motivation for going after him in the process. Whether or not Armstrong still had a lot to offer cycling (and cancer awareness) is debatable, but even that point has been rendered moot by Armstrong's decision to look after his own interests first, even at the expense of innocent people and the truth. He's always done that. He'll always do that. If he had really cared about the future of the sport, he would have cooperated well before his time finally ran out.

Exactly.
 
Everyone has merit, try to understand, and try to give more tolerant, the world would be better.
 
Originally Posted by bikeraph

I think that you're giving Armstrong more credit than he deserves, and making a pretty lopsided assessment of Tygart's motivation for going after him in the process. Whether or not Armstrong still had a lot to offer cycling (and cancer awareness) is debatable, but even that point has been rendered moot by Armstrong's decision to look after his own interests first, even at the expense of innocent people and the truth. He's always done that. He'll always do that. If he had really cared about the future of the sport, he would have cooperated well before his time finally ran out.
I will admit that I am biased towards personality types who will play the game to win, no matter what.

What I did not respect from those Hamilton, Andreu and others is that when they decided to spill the beans, they implicated everyone who were involved. Hamilton is a whiner by nature, one has to just look at how he reacted when caught for doping. Armstrong was smart enough not to get caught almost 99.9% of the times, but he refused to implicate anyone but himself. He would not implicate Bruyneel, Ferrari any one else who was involved and did only what he had to once placed under oath. No matter what Lance did, that is a value I respect, same goes for George Hincapie.

About Tygart, personally I would not pursue someone years later, no longer competing in the sport, no longer a threat and pursue it relentlessly. Rather, I would have recognized we have an issue that needs to be fixed and form a reconciliation commission to do that.

Because of doping, a long time ago I had to make a choice. Stay in Pro-Cycling or get a college degree and pursue a professional career. I chose the latter and experienced many wins. Should I have chosen the former though, I would have done what I had to, in order to succeed.
 
Originally Posted by WillemJM

Because of doping, a long time ago I had to make a choice. Stay in Pro-Cycling or get a college degree and pursue a professional career. I chose the latter and experienced many wins. Should I have chosen the former though, I would have done what I had to, in order to succeed.
Would you have recruited your swanny to go get your dope? Would you then later use your financial might to sue her and try to take everything away from her? Would you have your lawyer threaten to "take care of her dog"? How about calling her an alcoholic ***** at a press conference on tv? Does that sound like a "winner" in your book? If some clown called my girlfriend a drunk ***** I'd call him out on his front lawn and knock him the **** out or get my ass kicked trying... like a Viking.

Lance didn't just keep his mouth shut, he played his little game and tried to bury people and then he got knocked the **** out, proverbially speaking of course.

Judging from the epic crowds that kicked off the Tour in Leeds it looks much of the damage that was done has apparently run its course.
 
Originally Posted by danfoz
Would you have recruited your swanny to go get your dope? Would you then later use your financial might to sue her and try to take everything away from her? Would you have your lawyer threaten to "take care of her dog"? How about calling her an alcoholic ***** at a press conference on tv? Does that sound like a "winner" in your book? If some clown called my girlfriend a drunk ***** I'd call him out on his front lawn and knock him the **** out or get my ass kicked trying... like a Viking.

Lance didn't just keep his mouth shut, he played his little game and tried to bury people and then he got knocked the **** out, proverbially speaking of course.

Judging from the epic crowds that kicked off the Tour in Leeds it looks much of the damage that was done has apparently run its course.
She was a bit more forgiving than you though. They made up and all is good today.
 
Originally Posted by WillemJM
She was a bit more forgiving than you though. They made up and all is good today.
Please provide the source that "all is good today".

In the last interaction I viewed Emma looked very uncomfortable:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2508983/Lance-Armstrong-meets-Emma-OReilly--watch-video-Matt-Lawton.html#v-2846568679001

I have no forgiveness for Lance, or lack thereof. I don't know him. The mistake many who still have their noses up Lance's ass make is that they think those who aren't preaching for his forgiveness hate Lance. The fact is, I don't personally know any of the players, don't have any real feelings for or against him, probably know as much as any other through public media, and am somewhat indifferent to his sanctions. If you read any of my posts you'd see that I think the penalty against Lance was somewhat excessive, and that I still consider him the undeniable Tour champ, a great cyclist, but the quintessential douche of recent times. I held out to the bitter end for this guy and if all he was was a cheater he'd still be in my heart, like Jan Ulrich, another cheater, who I have no bad words for. Lance was a ****, plain and simple.

But I asked you some questions, is that how you would have conducted your business? Is that an honorable man in your opinion? Would you have kept your mouth shut if someone called your wife or daughter because she wanted to do the right thing out as a drunk and a *****? If someone disrespected a woman in my life the way this clown did they'd get the the ****ing horns.
 
Looking at my last post I gather I do have some feelings one way or the other. I have grown up through the modern communication explosion most recently culminating in the evolution of social media and I think this availability of information is a double edged sword. We've heard everything from Lance is no different than all the other cheaters and was simply leveling the playing field to Lance is a miserable excuse for a person and deserves to have everything stripped away.

As an on and off competitive cyclist since the 80's I've had some interest in most of the cycling doping scandals that have been reported on. From the US Olympic team blood doping scandal to Fignon to Zabel's teary admission of guilt, the Festina scandal, Riis, Ulrich, the list is endless. Possibly among all those other names mentioned Lance was the one I looked up to the most. I became an instant fan when he rode away from the field on that rainy day in '93.

I remember the day I found out. I got out the subway and went to my local breakfast deli before work for my usual egg sandwich breakfast and while waiting on line glanced over at the newspaper rack. My jaw dropped slightly at the headline. I didn't really surprise me but I felt a little disappointed especially having defended Lance in conversations surrounding his potential doping over the past year with friends and colleagues.

Then the story really emerged, the first of a truly punitive individual. A guy who would redefine what it really meant to sink to a new level. Were the others just as bad, or is it just modern communication that unfairly painted Lance as the supreme villain of cycling? I don't know, but what I do know is that just when I'm ready to give him a pass someone else comes forward to claim he was no worse than the rest, or that in the same situation we would have done the same thing. I cheated on a physics test in the 11th grade. Would I have doped given the opportunity? Possibly. I've done some recreational drugs in my time too. Would I send a friend out to score on my behalf and not only risk their well being but drag them into my illicit activity because I was afraid of getting busted? Not a chance. That's the behavior of an addict who has little regard for anyone but himself.

In Lance's defense, before all this went down he apparently told Emma she deserved better when her boyfriend at the time went out to a strip club instead of hanging out with her. That's the guy I looked up to, that's my team captain. That's the guy who I'd stay up late at night for prepping his gear and musette. That's the guy I'd destroy my legs dragging to the finish line, the guy who looks out for his team. That guy left the building a long time ago. Maybe he'll come back one day.
 
Originally Posted by danfoz

In Lance's defense, before all this went down he apparently told Emma she deserved better when her boyfriend at the time went out to a strip club instead of hanging out with her. That's the guy I looked up to, that's my team captain. That's the guy who I'd stay up late at night for prepping his gear and musette. That's the guy I'd destroy my legs dragging to the finish line, the guy who looks out for his team. That guy left the building a long time ago. Maybe he'll come back one day.
Lance could be a real stand-up guy to people who were loyal to him. He was also a ***** to those who never owed him anything, or those who were once loyal but chose to end the relationship. It was more about control over people rather than friendship. There's nothing wrong with controlling people with acts of generosity, but you have to see it for what it is, not what it feels like. Read Machiavelli's The Prince.
 
Originally Posted by WillemJM
I will admit that I am biased towards personality types who will play the game to win, no matter what.
There is more to life than winning. That's not to say that winning isn't great, but to win, no matter what? People who cheat to win are just losers in the first place. They've just learned to rationalize that they're not doing anything wrong. That's a very disappointing way to live.
 
^Exactly. Doing anything to win means busting your ass and going the extra mile to get better. Sending Big Lou to break your competition's knees before the event doesn't qualify as "doing anything to win" because it's not a legitmate win at that point. Real winners that are really driven do everything possible within the rules to win. When you start breaking rules, you aren't really winning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bikeraph
Originally Posted by danfoz
Please provide the source that "all is good today".
The Guardian

Quote:

“My relationship with Lance was and still is a human one,” says O’Reilly. “Lance became a friend who happened to be a rider, we both looked out for each other on the road. We would spend up to 18 hours a day together for up to a few weeks, that creates a deep bond. So throughout the bad times I tried to remember his good side.
“I don’t know if I’d have been able to cope if I focused on the negative attacks. I also tried to remember that the reason I spoke out was bigger than Lance ever was; people were dying and lives were being destroyed. Now it’s nice again between Lance and I, we speak regularly and it’s gone back to how easy it used to be between us.”
They were reconciled at the end of last year; the foreword to the book is written by Armstrong himself, the ultimate twist in the tale perhaps. “The legal stuff and its impact is I feel only now being lifted,” says O’Reilly. “I knew in my heart of hearts that I had done the right thing morally, but I felt I deserved some punishment for breaking the omertà.

Unquote:
Link
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jul/02/emma-o-reilly-lance-armstrong-cyclist-doping
In short, I don't really believe in judging, degrading, defamation of character based on what I read in the press. People are complex beings, with different personalities and values. It is not my place to be the judge based on evaluating two sides of every story, by a press industry designed to report what makes money.
That's just my values, and if someone treats me that way, it is like **** off a duck's back. I don't really care being the better person.
 
Originally Posted by WillemJM
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jul/02/emma-o-reilly-lance-armstrong-cyclist-doping
In short, I don't really believe in judging, degrading, defamation of character based on what I read in the press. People are complex beings, with different personalities and values. It is not my place to be the judge based on evaluating two sides of every story, by a press industry designed to report what makes money.
That's just my values, and if someone treats me that way, it is like **** off a duck's back. I don't really care being the better person.
Thanks for the link. I'm glad to see some reconciliation.

I'm mostly able to let stuff roll off my back too. The problem comes up when someone tries to roll **** off a loved one's back, which is wherein my hypothetical lay.