Professional Dopers - Forum Archive

Jan 27, 2015 at 02:01 AM

Jules said:

I hate to say it but I think he's right - the charity argument is a strong one.

He was the biggest a-hole, and the biggest (well one of them) beneficiary.

He is a deserving target, and this town loves a villain. Plenty of other guys had their hands in cookie jar, and plenty of them somehow come out of this clean.

I thought the reporter gave him a harder time than most.

What's incredible to me is that it's *only* been two years. Feels like forever ago.

I think what sort of rubs me the wrong way about all of this, is that, (and I'm speaking as a guy who chose to believe Armstrong was clean until he wasn't) as Jules mentions, plenty of other folks got off EASY compared to LA. All those guys, including a former favorite of mine in Christian VandeVelde, got to keep or get jobs because "they only doped a little?" What kind of bull shit is that?

At least Levi couldn't ever get a job after his brief suspension. Which incidentally, probably lends more credence to the general thought that he is in fact an asshole too, considering Vandvelde and lots of others got cycling industry gigs no problem after their suspensions.

Jules

Jan 27, 2015 at 02:08 AM

Look if they were interested in being comprehensive they'd give Trek a fucking six year ban. Of course they can't which speaks to the overall absurdity of the sport with the least financial independence and stability being the vanguard for anti-doping.

As a "professional" athlete who makes 9/10ths of his money through sponsorships it is natural that Lance would align himself with his peers; Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Schumacher etc.

Tell me again about the doping consequences for the biggest earners in the NBA, NHL, NFL, Tennis, Golf, Indy500, MLB... oh right, there are none.

Yes he's an asshole but he's right.

mugwump

Jan 27, 2015 at 02:03 PM

Marc Bertucco said:

I think what sort of rubs me the wrong way about all of this, is that, (and I'm speaking as a guy who chose to believe Armstrong was clean until he wasn't) as Jules mentions, plenty of other folks got off EASY compared to LA. All those guys, including a former favorite of mine in Christian VandeVelde, got to keep or get jobs because "they only doped a little?" What kind of bull shit is that?

No one official claims "they only doped a little." That isn't why VDV, etc., had only six-month bans and Lance got a lifetime ban.

They got that because when they got the call from USADA, they went in and sang.

What did Lance do? He ignored USADA, he denounced them, he tried to have congress shut them down, he kept on proclaiming his innocence until three and a half months after the reasoned decision was made public. Then he went on Oprah to admit, 'yeah, I lied. I was a doper the whole way through.'

Had he gone in to USADA and sang when he got the call, he'd have ended up with an eight-year ban at worst. But he didn't want that. He figured, once again, he could cheat and win. And every interview Lance does is about him trying to figure out a way to cheat his way back in.

While I think six months was too little for the others, I have a hard time arguing that Armstrong doesn't deserve the lifetime ban. And I think the lifetime ban was worth giving the others six months.

The "not fair" argument about Lance is itself not fair. Armstrong never gave a rats ass about fairness, and doesn't still. His success wasn't fair either, but he didn't have a single qualm with it.

As for the others, I'm not happy with the way almost none of them seemed to take responsibility for their doping and I don't like how any of them seemed to have stopped doping within a few months of each other, and somehow all went on to winning ways after. I'm not happy the way Danielson is still around. I hate that Michael Barry wrote two memoirs where he didn't mention doping and now has a third--and this guy didn't take any responsibility for his doping when he knew it was wrong, how he pretends it didn't help, how he took Tramadol on Sky when he already had been through all the doping before and claimed it was wrong.

With Levi, he's still getting love from Specialized and several other bike companies, even if he doesn't have a "job." And his showing up and winning local bike races, then donating the money to charities rubs me the wrong way.

Jules

Jan 27, 2015 at 02:19 PM

I don't think for a second Armstrong is contrite, but I do think it's too simple to say he tried to cheat his way out while the other sang.

He was the most influential power broker in the sport, and it had been his job for the better part of a decade to resist/fight with anti-doping authorities. Not only was it the exact same behavior that had worked for him in the past, you could also make an argument that in some sense he and his backers (cough, cough, Oakley, Trek, Nike, etc...) was doing what was expected of him to do on behalf of all their other athletes. Shit, McQuaid wanted him to keep doing it. It's also impossible (not necessary, but we have to admit it's impossible) do untangle Livestrong and it's motivations from all this. Yes LS was a beard and a huge source of income for him, but is also a legitimate charity that has helped millions.

There is something deeply unfair those involved in this single charity that is backed by a high profile doping athlete when dozens of other high profile doping (or worse) athletes continue to support other charities.

Can you imagine the dumb luck? Perhaps only Ralf Hinkley can truly relate...

Armstrong was far from a 'lone gunman' in all this. He was the frontman, and he took the hit as such, but it is amazing that NONE of the band got so much as a drop of mud on them.

As for "he wasn't fair so he doesn't deserve fair treatment'... well come on - the defendant's remorse is relevant for sentencing not for the application, enforcement and pursuit of the law.

Marc Bertucco

Jan 27, 2015 at 02:30 PM

mugwump said:

Marc Bertucco said:

I think what sort of rubs me the wrong way about all of this, is that, (and I'm speaking as a guy who chose to believe Armstrong was clean until he wasn't) as Jules mentions, plenty of other folks got off EASY compared to LA. All those guys, including a former favorite of mine in Christian VandeVelde, got to keep or get jobs because "they only doped a little?" What kind of bull shit is that?

No one official claims "they only doped a little." That isn't why VDV, etc., had only six-month bans and Lance got a lifetime ban.

They got that because when they got the call from USADA, they went in and sang.

What did Lance do? He ignored USADA, he denounced them, he tried to have congress shut them down, he kept on proclaiming his innocence until three and a half months after the reasoned decision was made public. Then he went on Oprah to admit, 'yeah, I lied. I was a doper the whole way through.'

Had he gone in to USADA and sang when he got the call, he'd have ended up with an eight-year ban at worst. But he didn't want that. He figured, once again, he could cheat and win. And every interview Lance does is about him trying to figure out a way to cheat his way back in.

While I think six months was too little for the others, I have a hard time arguing that Armstrong doesn't deserve the lifetime ban. And I think the lifetime ban was worth giving the others six months.

The "not fair" argument about Lance is itself not fair. Armstrong never gave a rats ass about fairness, and doesn't still. His success wasn't fair either, but he didn't have a single qualm with it.

As for the others, I'm not happy with the way almost none of them seemed to take responsibility for their doping and I don't like how any of them seemed to have stopped doping within a few months of each other, and somehow all went on to winning ways after. I'm not happy the way Danielson is still around. I hate that Michael Barry wrote two memoirs where he didn't mention doping and now has a third--and this guy didn't take any responsibility for his doping when he knew it was wrong, how he pretends it didn't help, how he took Tramadol on Sky when he already had been through all the doping before and claimed it was wrong.

With Levi, he's still getting love from Specialized and several other bike companies, even if he doesn't have a "job." And his showing up and winning local bike races, then donating the money to charities rubs me the wrong way.

I was referring to an article where Vaughters said he felt comfortable hiring Danielson and Vandevelde because he knew how deep they were into the doping, and new what they were capable of clean.

But yeah, I know the 6 months was a legal thing and fair in that sense.

It really rubs me the wrong way that Vandevelde has a gig commenting on the sport alongside Phil and Paul and all those dudes. I know he's articulate, and knowledgeable, but how many clean cyclists could also fill that role but would never have a chance because they did not have dope-fueled outstanding performances captured on TV to put on their resume?

mugwump

Jan 27, 2015 at 02:41 PM

Jules said:

I don't think for a second Armstrong is contrite, but I do think it's too simple to say he tried to cheat his way out while the other sang.
As for "he wasn't fair so he doesn't deserve fair treatment'... well come on - the defendant's remorse is relevant for sentencing not for the application, enforcement and pursuit of the law.

From everything I've read thusfar, the anti-doping rules were applied fairly to both Armstrong and his session players.

Armstrong doesn't address this issue directly. He claims it's unfair because he's the one who lost the most.

I find any reference to Livestrong a bit of a joke. It wasn't funding cancer research. It was helping people with "survivorship." It's questionable at best whether or not this was a need of cancer survivors, let alone society. Much of the money went to Armstrong, in terms of travel and housing. And they ran a ethically questionable game of having a for-profit website with the same name where the money didn't really support the non-profit.

Jules

Jan 27, 2015 at 04:46 PM

Nobody is arguing about the rules per se; but it's clear to anyone they targeted a kingpin to send a big message, and were willing to let lesser offenders off easily; it's a common practice but not the only way to enforce the rules.

I don't think it's fair to characterize Livestrong as a "joke" unless you think palliative care is a joke. There are millions and millions of people who were materially helped in their struggles with cancer, and millions more who were inspired and had their lives bettered.

Again though, it's not the question "was it shady/evil" but rather "why THIS shady/evil over all others?"

eloy

Jan 27, 2015 at 06:41 PM

Again though, it's not the question "was it shady/evil" but rather "why THIS shady/evil over all others?"

It shouldn't matter.

He even seem perplexed when the interviewer explains it "no, is not because of USADA, it is because of your cheating"

The argument that he can't do the Boston Marathon for charity is absolutely crazy. It is his fault, he is the reason he can't do it.

What I find terrifying on this thread, is the simple realization that we live in a world where few in politics, few in business, and few in sports accept moral responsibility anymore.

Jules

Jan 27, 2015 at 07:04 PM

eloy said:

He even seem perplexed when the interviewer explains it "no, is not because of USADA, it is because of your cheating"

I thought this was where the interviewer looked best; unwilling to let him off the hook.

The argument isn't about *why* he can't run the marathon, it's about the opportunity cost, which is fair game IMHO.

I don't think he's dodging moral responsibility - quite the contrary I think he's making a statement that is consistent; everyone was complicit in the fraud from the soigners up to the head of the UCI. In that context the greater moral transgression was being such a complete a-hole to eveyrone at every turn.

It's a fair argument to discuss: "if there are no referees what constitutes cheating?" or even "what does it mean to be 'fair' in professional sport?"

Both of these questions have been poorly answered, but it *is* very clear what constitutes immoral behavior - and belief aside, he's owning up to that without qualification.

mugwump

Jan 27, 2015 at 07:40 PM

Jules,

I wrote "a bit of a joke."

Millions and millions? There are fewer than 15 million cancer survivors in the US today. I'd be surprised if Livestrong has directly helped, in any way, more than several thousand.

The organization is probably legit today. But it started as a way to burnish Lance's image. It had an unclear mission and it spent way too little on doing good works for many years, and too much on salaries and offices. And even when they initially got everything in order, it still was a way to keep Lance as Cancer Jesus.

Even well after they focused on survivorship, they still weren't making their mission clear to the public at large and benefitting from the confusion.

Cutting ties to Lance might destroy the organization. But at least the organization doesn't have the goal of promoting a single person. And it can spend more on helping people.

Sure, he inspired people, but the world didn't need Livestrong for that.

Jules

Jan 27, 2015 at 09:50 PM

mugwump said:

Millions and millions? There are fewer than 15 million cancer survivors in the US today. I'd be surprised if Livestrong has directly helped, in any way, more than several thousand.

JP, roughly 1/2 million people die per year from Cancer.

I doubt the charity was started with the express purpose of burnishing Lance's image - and that's conjecture at best. Nobody argues that it wasn't convenient for that.

Millions of people have used Livestrong as a resource to deal with a devastating illness and millions more will do so.

Come on, "at best several thousand?"

Just because the guy was a jerk doesn't mean the foundation was a total sham.

What's distressing to me is this black & white approach where bad people cannot do good and vice versa. He's an asshole, a sore loser and a bully (probably a felon too) but that dosen't mean Voldemort.

twoyacks

Jan 28, 2015 at 01:35 AM

I don't know where to begin...every time Lance lifts his head out of his hole, he provides an opportunity to get his head stepped on. I am neither a psychologist nor a pr director...but I am a student of life and I can tell you that what he has done...there ain't no coming back from. He lied to men, women and children who have cancer. He could have just denied ever taking ped's once and then refused to ever answer the question again...but being the pathological narcissist he his, couldn't resist. What he did to those people who attempted to speak the truth is unspeakable. I love when claims that he was treated inequitably compared to his peers...where was this obsession with parody when he was negotiating monetary compensation? Since when do Tour de France winners garner $15-20 million in endorsements. Oh that's right there was the whole cancer thing...makes his story sooo much more compelling and easier to monetize. Did Lance take home the kind of money any tour winner would and then donate the rest to Live Strong? Ummm...no. Did he use Live Strong to fly anywhere in the world on a Gulfstream and then charge the charity?...Ummm...yes. Did he intentionally set up a Livestrong.org & a Livestrong.com thus blurring the line between his for profit venture and his charity?...Ummm...yes.
Lance has clearly left the reservation as any PR person worth their salt would not let him near a microphone. Usually when people tell the truth...they find forgiveness. But Lance's truth is so ugly he can't even find pity. His inflated sense of self importance is once again on display. What he should do...but what he can't bring himself to do, is go away and stay away. What the world wants is for him to live out the rest of his years in quiet anonymity on his own island of Elba. His latest protestations have damaged his brand further and become his Waterloo moment. yacks

twoyacks

Jan 28, 2015 at 03:15 AM

And I am marooned in Florida...Le sigh

mugwump

Jan 28, 2015 at 08:33 PM

Jules said:
Just because the guy was a jerk doesn't mean the foundation was a total sham.

What's distressing to me is this black & white approach where bad people cannot do good and vice versa. He's an asshole, a sore loser and a bully (probably a felon too) but that dosen't mean Voldemort.

Never wrote it was a total sham. I've seen very little evidence that Livestrong did much more than "inspire" people for years, and started to get their act together around the time Lance returned to racing. As I wrote early, they seem legit now.

The millions claim I looked into. By 2012 they hit 2.5 million people served, 15 years in. And, by their accounting, they helped more people than ever that year. Actually, the timeline on their website makes me feel more confident in being very cynical about the first several years of the org.

Never wrote he was Voldemort. Don't see it as black-and-white. But it's hard to see Livestrong as altruistic on Lance's part. And much of the money they raised was certainly people wanting to touch the hem of his jersey. Not that many good things can't come out of such mechanistic interactions. They can.

twoyacks

Jan 28, 2015 at 09:31 PM

When Lance was King he insisted on preferential treatment...as soon as they rolled out the guilletein, he wants to shelter amongst the minions. Contrition is a condition of forgiveness = Sr shit bird ain't showin O gettin none of it.

eloy

Jan 28, 2015 at 09:50 PM

Jules said:The argument isn't about *why* he can't run the marathon, it's about the opportunity cost, which is fair game IMHO.
I don't think he's dodging moral responsibility - quite the contrary I think he's making a statement that is consistent; everyone was complicit in the fraud from the soigners up to the head of the UCI. In that context the greater moral transgression was being such a complete a-hole to eveyrone at every turn.

It's a fair argument to discuss: "if there are no referees what constitutes cheating?" or even "what does it mean to be 'fair' in professional sport?"

It is fair for us to have that conversation, specially over beers, or on this board, or on a ride. But it really isn't Armstrong's place anymore. "I cheated, got caught, penalty is a lifetime ban. I don't think is fair"

Whatever dude.

"But it is not fair, because if we all just look away, and just make it look like I'm a nice guy, like I wasn't a mobster, then I can collect money running the Boston Marathon"

I mean, Jules, c'mon, I know we wont agree on this. But I find it ridiculous.

The end do not justify the means.

Lance Armstrong is a liar and a cheat, and headed what WADA called the single most sophisticated doping program in the history of sport. There were others involved, but Armstrong was the boss. He is lucky he is not in jail.

His arguments in this BBC interview, suggest a guy who is not taking responsibility. That it was circumstantial, that somehow it wasn't his fault. He would do it again.

He is distorting morals and sport. There are ton of riders that choose not to do it at all.

There will be plenty of murders and robberies in the world today. Not one of them makes it ok for us to do it too.

eloy

Jan 31, 2015 at 07:03 PM

The rest of the Armstrong BBC interview:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/31072462

Jules

Jan 31, 2015 at 07:52 PM

"But it is not fair, because if we all just look away, and just make it look like I'm a nice guy, like I wasn't a mobster, then I can collect money running the Boston Marathon"
I mean, Jules, c'mon, I know we wont agree on this. But I find it ridiculous.
The end do not justify the means.

Maybe the forum isn't the best, er, forum for this but isn't everything he's saying about how he was a reprehensible person, most definitely not a nice guy?

The heart of his argument is that he was a savage immoral reckless person and he regrets that more than cheating at bikes at a time when said cheating was rampant.

I don't think he's dodging responsibility for being a bad person - I think he's dodging responsibility for cheating at sport when the sport wasn't seriously interested in preventing cheats.

Now he's clearly got 100million bucks on the line and is likely more the same person he was for the first 45 years of his life than some new "kinder gentler dude" but all that said there are as big or bigger culprits out there (starting with Verbuggery and McQuibble and ending with huge complicit corporate sponsors) that were as effective and complicit as Lance, and I think he has a point.

Jules

Jan 31, 2015 at 07:53 PM

^Lance may have been the biggest, dirtiest pig in the pen but he wasn't the farmer.

eloy

Feb 01, 2015 at 04:10 AM

^Lance may have been the biggest, dirtiest pig in the pen but he wasn't the farmer.

We do not agree.

There are others that were complicit and benefited greatly, trek, nike, shimano, oakley, the UCI. But Armstrong was the boss, i'l capo, the godfather. He acted like it then, and still acting like it now. Definitelythe farmer. And a jerk.

--- I don't want to blow this conversation by introducing an exaggeration, but Escobar made similar arguments on how Medellin benefited from his leadership. When no jail or penalty worked, he was eventually shot.

Armstrong should be compared to other hardcore criminals, not athletes.

The Oprah and this BBC interview are fascinating. Brilliant psychopath argues. Convincing at least some. Literally crazy.

twoyacks

Feb 01, 2015 at 05:07 AM

at 32:50...reporter points out that epo was not a level playing field that the team needed resources and the correct dr's. Let us remember that Lance retained Ferrari as his exclusive tour dr. None of his competitors had access to him during his 7 year reign. Had he not attempted the comeback...he'd still be king laughing on his way to the bank...instead he got greedy....then he got pimp slapped by Contador and had Floyd jam a crow bar in his financial spokes. He misses his celebrity more than his income...

twoyacks

Feb 01, 2015 at 02:35 PM

Lance Armstrong...the next Steve Jobs

http://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-invoked-steve-jobs-regarding-livestrong-2015-1

Jules

Feb 01, 2015 at 08:31 PM

Does anyone's steak actually taste better for someone else's hunger?

Who.Cares.

Are we concerned with doping in sport or that this one guy gets put through the blender? As I've said above, he earned his fate, and he all but admits it with a very, very important caveat.

It's a peculiar thing to heap all the blame on one chicken and kill it. Cheating is a human thing and it's been with us since way before the White Sox and will be long after somebody coughs up evidence on Usain Bolt.

Hate Lance or Hate Lance (take your pick) the bigger question remains - how are you going to discourage let alone prevent cheating when nobody is following the money beyond the first villain?

twoyacks

Feb 01, 2015 at 09:33 PM

So many vexing, philosophical questions...Jules the punishment has to fit the crime...crime being the operate word. Professional doping needs to be criminalized. As long as it is a civil case that entails fines and claw backs on ill gotten gains, people are going to do a cost benefit analyses and cheat. However, tell someone they will go to jail for doping and the algorithm shifts dramatically towards the "fuck that ain't doing it" option.

Now Lance is out there again to help himself. Holding the interview in HIS bike shop...that HE owns...with HIS 7 yellow jerseys flying in the background informs the viewer that A. crime pays & B. Lance has no contrition. That second one requires little deduction as Lance tells us he would cheat again...his only real regret was being such an asshole about it. See I'd prefer if he flipped the script on that one and he were a HUGE cantankerous asshole who competed on bread and water.

Yacks

Jules

Feb 01, 2015 at 10:42 PM

Yaks I think you're being shortsighted about the crime. Lance took the biggest portion from the trough of doping but who fills the trough?!?

Nike, Oakley, Trek, ASO, UCI, Tailwind, etc were the sources of the dough, and stood to benefit even more from the coverup.

My point is that the crime is bigger than this guy, and that's what I think he's saying. I don't think he's saying it out of the goodness of his heart - he has 100 million riding on this - but that also doesn't mean there isn't a kernel of truth in it.

I agree that civil-law motivations aren't sufficient, but there should be plenty of felonious activities to go after him for (starting with perjury and going through interstate drug trafficking) but the bigger problem is that the real actors (sponsors, ASO, UCI, etc) are still looking for mules to carry their wares to the podiums and they have precious few incentives to make sure their poster boys & girls are clean.

twoyacks

Feb 01, 2015 at 11:21 PM

Jules...tour riders should be sequestered like Korean track racers...they clearly can't be trusted alone in their hotels...it's a start.

David Yang

Feb 02, 2015 at 03:59 AM

Hey hey hey, no need to drag my peoples into this!

David Yang

Feb 03, 2015 at 07:53 PM

Oh come on...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ARMSTRONG_HIT_AND_RUN

mugwump

Feb 03, 2015 at 08:39 PM

Oh come on...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ARMSTRONG_HIT_AND_RUN

What's the Korean angle? I'm not seeing it.

twoyacks

Feb 03, 2015 at 09:02 PM

When asked if he could go back to January if he would do anything differently?, Armstrong was quoted as saying..."I would probably lie about hitting those parked cars again". Nice guy...let the mother of your children take the heat and I'm sure he wasn't shit faced when he was driving...