Lance Armstrong

[NorthernDancerColt]

Floyd Landis still clicking in the shoes?

Lance transcended the sport at the time with dominance. Cycling is a niche sport and the guy was approaching Tiger level. Crazy how high he got, high enough to be a top-shelf penis.

Speaking of Tiger, just curious who would win this douche contest...Tiger's former caddie Steve Williams or Lance Armstrong? 

Stevie didn't just take your camera or cell phone, he'd smash it to bits. Lived off Tiger's greatness, riding his coattails to the heights of douche-dom.

[🏀]

Speaking of Tiger, just curious who would win this douche contest...Tiger's former caddie Steve Williams or Lance Armstrong? 

Stevie didn't just take your camera or cell phone, he'd smash it to bits. Lived off Tiger's greatness, riding his coattails to the heights of douche-dom.

Stevie and Jason Day didn't last long.

[NorthernDancerColt]

Stevie and Jason Day didn't last long.

Yep. Thanks for reminding me, totally forgot about that....had to google it lol.

Two months.  Day said it was a bit of a clash between "old school" and "new school." 

[Billy Hoyle]

Lance was an American hero. Dominated in a sport the US sucked in as a cancer survivor.

His story marked all the boxes of great All-American. He ended up being a cheating, lying, hypocrite; just a regular American.

Yep. How many people wore a LiveStrong bracelet and believed in him as a person, not as an athlete? Nobody ever did that with A-Rod, who was reviled by opposing fans even before the steroid stuff surfaced. Nobody hated Lance, he was a survivor and American hero during a time of hyper patriotism too.

[MU82]

Just finished Lance. Very well-done, learned a lot.

One thing I learned was that not only did Armstrong lie for decades about his doping, but he filed many lawsuits against those who said he did.

In other words, he sued people for telling the truth.

So that's one way he is/was worse than most.

Playing devil's advocate ...

Cycling was a sport where pretty much everybody did it (and who knows ... might still be doing it). If you wanted to be able to compete, you literally had to do it. If you didn't, you had no chance of winning. So I can understand those cyclists justifying it by saying, "We aren't doping for a competitive advantage. We're doing it so we're not at a competitive disadvantage."

Obviously I don't condone the cheating, but it was the suing of those who were telling the truth where Armstrong really separated himself.

And, as others have said, he became a transcendent athlete whose I-beat-cancer-and-did-the-impossible story captured the hearts of America. So when the king fell off the throne, it was a very loud thud.

[Not A Serious Person]

Cycling was a sport where pretty much everybody did it (and who knows ... might still be doing it). If you wanted to be able to compete, you literally had to do it. If you didn't, you had no chance of winning. So I can understand those cyclists justifying it by saying, "We aren't doping for a competitive advantage. We're doing it so we're not at a competitive disadvantage."

In the documentary Bobby Julich noted that doping (particularly EPO) can make a 10% difference and in a Tour de France, which is 100 hours of riding over 21 days, the difference between winning and last place is 2 hours or 2%.  So, yes it makes that big a difference.

The Jonathan Vaughters noted he had a team-mate from Siberia.  He noted that this team-mate lived in Italy, had a wife and two kids, and his job was professional cyclists traveling the world.  If he did not dope, he might very well be back in Siberia working in a mine.  Implied in this is how do you tell this guy to "do the right thing?"  Right for who?

The point is doping is tremendously effective in cycling and that is precisely the problem.  So, yes, everyone in the tour is still doping.  Because those that are not doping are out of the sport. It is that simple


----

Doping, especially EPO, are legal drugs.  Many can be bought at GNC.  Doping is merely using legal drugs in ways not approved. 

Doping was completely legal until the early 1980s.  Go back and look up training methods from the 1960s and 1970s and drugs were an accepted and reasonable part of all sports.  So why not make it legal?

Because it is dangerous?  They addressed that too in the documentary.  The final sprint to the line and harrowing descents in the mountains are incredibly dangerous.  Cyclists have died from these crashes (including Lance's team-mate Fabio Casertelli in 1995).

As Vaughters said, they are riding at 40 MPH essentially in their underwear inches from other riders.  No one expresses concern about rider safety over this activity because it is an exciting part of the sport that attracts fans. These aspects of the sport have hurt and killed more riders than doping.  So, remind me again why doping is the real danger?

[Not A Serious Person]

Cycling was a sport where pretty much everybody did it (and who knows ... might still be doing it).

The argument about doping now is the current speeds in the peloton today are as fast, if not faster than they were in the 1990s and 2000s when all the riders were doped up to their eyeballs.

No one thinks that the last 15 years have seen such quantum leaps in training, diet, and equipment that would allow clean riders today to match the speeds of doped up riders in 2005.

Pedro Delgado won the tour in 1988 and comments on the tour for Spanish TV.  A few years ago he got in hot water for saying that the sport of cycling needs doping.  He said it is so insanely hard that without drugs the riders would have a hard time just staying upright in the third week.  This would make for a bad sport to watch.

[GooooMarquette]

One thing I learned was that not only did Armstrong lie for decades about his doping, but he filed many lawsuits against those who said he did.

In other words, he sued people for telling the truth.

So that's one way he is/was worse than most.

The lawsuits and blackballing of people who spoke against him were the main things that set Lance apart the most from other fallen superstars. When it first became clear in the press that he had lied all those years, I lost any respect I had for him. In particular, his treatment of Emma O'Reilly, Floyd Landis and Betsy and Frankie Andreu was despicable.

Lying is simply part of the game when you cheat to begin with, and cheating in cycling was (and may still be) pervasive. So I can get past the cheating. But Lance ruined other peoples lives simply to try to keep himself on his pedestal. Totally inexcusable.

Given the truth that ultimately emerged, the comeback may have been the dumbest decision in sports history. He would have gotten off scot-free if he had simply taken his seven titles and gone home. But the comeback caused people to start sniffing around again and ultimately did him in. I guess he he had gotten away with it so long that he thought he was invincible.

[MU82]

The lawsuits and blackballing of people who spoke against him were the main things that set Lance apart the most from other fallen superstars. When it first became clear in the press that he had lied all those years, I lost any respect I had for him. In particular, his treatment of Emma O'Reilly, Floyd Landis and Betsy and Frankie Andreu was despicable.

Lying is simply part of the game when you cheat to begin with, and cheating in cycling was (and may still be) pervasive. So I can get past the cheating. But Lance ruined other peoples lives simply to try to keep himself on his pedestal. Totally inexcusable.

Given the truth that ultimately emerged, the comeback may have been the dumbest decision in sports history. He would have gotten off scot-free if he had simply taken his seven titles and gone home. But the comeback caused people to start sniffing around again and ultimately did him in. I guess he he had gotten away with it so long that he thought he was invincible.

This is what Ryan Braun did, too. Not as bad as Lance, of course -- Lance was Braun on steroids, if you will -- but it still was despicable. I used to really like and respect Braun, but as you say with Armstrong, that respect is gone. He's a Class A d-bag.

As far as the comeback ... you're right. Lance needed more adulation and money, and it bit him in the arse. Good!

[Keithtisbarf]

The lawsuits and blackballing of people who spoke against him were the main things that set Lance apart the most from other fallen superstars. When it first became clear in the press that he had lied all those years, I lost any respect I had for him. In particular, his treatment of Emma O'Reilly, Floyd Landis and Betsy and Frankie Andreu was despicable.

Lying is simply part of the game when you cheat to begin with, and cheating in cycling was (and may still be) pervasive. So I can get past the cheating. But Lance ruined other peoples lives simply to try to keep himself on his pedestal. Totally inexcusable.

Given the truth that ultimately emerged, the comeback may have been the dumbest decision in sports history. He would have gotten off scot-free if he had simply taken his seven titles and gone home. But the comeback caused people to start sniffing around again and ultimately did him in. I guess he he had gotten away with it so long that he thought he was invincible.

It's horrible how human beings can be so selfish when their web of lies is exposed, doubling down with more lies, ruining others lives and reputations to save himself.

[Not A Serious Person]

In case you are not aware of another interesting Armstrong story ...

Estimates are his fall from grace took his net worth from an estimated $125M to $150M at his height, down to close to zero. Armstrong claims that his downfall cost him over $110m.

But in 2009 he gave Chris Sacca of Lowercase Capital (and Shark Tank judge) an initial investment of $100k.  Sacca supposed at least half of it in a tiny start-up called Uber.  That initial investment is up about over 250x. Estimates are that investment is now worth between $20m and $50m.

Armstrong will not give details other than to say that investment "saved his family."

[Litehouse]

The lawsuits and blackballing of people who spoke against him were the main things that set Lance apart the most from other fallen superstars. When it first became clear in the press that he had lied all those years, I lost any respect I had for him. In particular, his treatment of Emma O'Reilly, Floyd Landis and Betsy and Frankie Andreu was despicable.

Lying is simply part of the game when you cheat to begin with, and cheating in cycling was (and may still be) pervasive. So I can get past the cheating. But Lance ruined other peoples lives simply to try to keep himself on his pedestal. Totally inexcusable.

Given the truth that ultimately emerged, the comeback may have been the dumbest decision in sports history. He would have gotten off scot-free if he had simply taken his seven titles and gone home. But the comeback caused people to start sniffing around again and ultimately did him in. I guess he he had gotten away with it so long that he thought he was invincible.

This is a great summary.  I was big a Lance fan at the time for a lot of reasons.  The documentary made me respect his cycling achievements a little more, and respect him as a person a lot less.

[MU82]

The documentary made me respect his cycling achievements a little more, and respect him as a person a lot less.

That's a good point. Regardless of what he was on -- and by all accounts, it wasn't different from what most of his peers were on -- his athletic performance was incredible, especially after recovering from an affliction that almost killed him.

[GooooMarquette]

That's a good point. Regardless of what he was on -- and by all accounts, it wasn't different from what most of his peers were on -- his athletic performance was incredible, especially after recovering from an affliction that almost killed him.

Agreed - he was a phenomenal athlete.

Even before his battle with cancer, he was a very solid cyclist; possibly the second best American cyclist ever behind Greg LeMond. And he was still young enough to improve.

After the cancer, he started at a significant health disadvantage. Therefore, regardless of any amount of doping he might have done, his comeback was phenomenal. And FWIW, even his harshest critics don't allege that he doped any more than anybody else did.

It's just too bad that he had the scorched-earth policy with regard to his treatment of human beings.

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

I agree about the anger toward Armstrong.

Why not A-Rod?  He essentially did the same thing, in baseball.  But now A-Rod is as big a star as ever, and the color man of Sunday Night Baseball on ESPN.

What is the difference?

Not sure ARod was in the headlines on a continual basis attacking everyone in his sport as liars trying to defame him. 
These baseballers seemed to hide and hope it would go away, some when they felt the time was right admitted some havent or havent needed to.
With all that said, lance was doping as was everyother rider.  To say he wasnt the best is sillly they were on a level playing field.

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

The lawsuits and blackballing of people who spoke against him were the main things that set Lance apart the most from other fallen superstars. When it first became clear in the press that he had lied all those years, I lost any respect I had for him. In particular, his treatment of Emma O'Reilly, Floyd Landis and Betsy and Frankie Andreu was despicable.

Lying is simply part of the game when you cheat to begin with, and cheating in cycling was (and may still be) pervasive. So I can get past the cheating. But Lance ruined other peoples lives simply to try to keep himself on his pedestal. Totally inexcusable.

Given the truth that ultimately emerged, the comeback may have been the dumbest decision in sports history. He would have gotten off scot-free if he had simply taken his seven titles and gone home. But the comeback caused people to start sniffing around again and ultimately did him in. I guess he he had gotten away with it so long that he thought he was invincible.

Agree 100%