Can anyone really defend Lance anymore? Other than his attorney, who calls this a witch hunt. Lance appears to have some serious problems with honesty and morality. As, imo, do those who insist on defending him.
I have never been a fan of Lance Armstrong because I find riding around on a bike to be boring. That being said, biking gets some of the blame for letting the sport become a cheatathon. Its like saying you don't like an SEC coach for recruiting dirty. How else would you win in that league? Also, who is defending Lance Armstrong now?
I agree, at this point pretending he didn't cheat is just absurd. Why would his whole team contradict him and how in the world could you get them to if it wasn't true? I mean maybe a few nut jobs would lie, but this is almost universal agreement that they were cheating.
I wonder if Armstrong is a sociopath? From all accounts he is a master at manipulating people and seems to have very little if any conscience.
On the CBS interview, Tyler Hamilton said the majority of the peloton was 'using.' The comments across ESPN yesterday mimicked my view: that Armstrong and the Radio Shack team simply were the best at what everybody was doing. Is UCI going to condemn the entire tour for the past 20 years? This is being hailed as a victimless crime. Colin Cowherd's exact words. All were in on it. It was a level field for the most part. Lance simply beat everyone at their own game. Or did I mis-hear on that? If I heard correctly, then all we need do now is finish ratting out the rest of the peloton. And everyone in UCI and "the Tour" that has ever been complicit or just 'looked the other way.' Tell you what... if you gave me a choice of a best friend ... Lance or Tygart... I'd take Lance in a heartbeat. Tygart looks to me like he's one step from being sidekicks with Loki.
From one angle of it... Modern medicine -- as I view it in the West, can't say for Traditional Chinese Medicine or Ayurvedic practices -- but western medicine has wrestled with cancer for years now. If Lance and his team engineered the discipline and drive to out-do the rest of the peloton in a high stakes game -- I would just as soon put my money on him as a leader to go after a disease such as cancer. Put that drive and resolve to good use. Is anti-doping just a rules 'thing' on the order of pine tar on bats? Is it that, and the fact it can be harmful to your health? Me personally, I would be more inclined to do blood doping than take male enhancement pills. Our society is shoving all kinds of junk down their throats these days. Pharmaceuticals for every need, and I consider all of it dangerous to one's health. Was doping just against the rules of fair play? Or was it that, and a danger to one's health and a bad example for younger athletes? Is Viagra and Cialis any different, culturally speaking?... Popping pills for performance? So here's old Tygart setting everybody straight (sic!) with millions in federal funding behind him. Don't dope to ride your bike, but head for the drugstore to win the dating game and keep your marriage full of spark. At times I question our whole society when it comes to faces and masks.
but those are all just very lame excuses for a guy who had no integrity. it doesn't matter that many others didn't either. it's like saying slavery wasn't a big deal because everyone was doing it. or beating your wife in Saudi Arabia doesn't count because everyone is doing it. But more than that, he is continuing to lie about it, which is a bit unnerving.
Lance Armstrong made cycling in the US. Personally, my wife and I probably cycle because of him. I see no need to destroy him regardless of whether or not he is an ***.
LA's work on helping cancer patients goes a long way for me. I don't make excuses for cheating, but the man does do a lot of good in his life for the sake of strangers in need. That matters. His sport, at the level of the Tour de France, is in shambles. The entire peloton cheated. And yet he was the 7 time champion of the cheaters. For that messed up reason, I wouldn't take away his titles. It's different than baseball where we compare the stats of the steroid era to the stats of the non-steroid era. In Lance's time, he competed against other men on the same steroids, and was faster.
I can only say what I know from first-hand experience. I've ridden with him several times at the Tuesday nighter in Austin. I've actually seen him get beat by local Cat 1s. He was always nice enough to me. His foundation provided a great deal of help/relief to the mother of a former co-worker of mine when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. I am not sure she would have survived without it. My former co-worker is a huge Lance Armstrong fan. Other than that, I got nothing.
Lance Armstrong has done a lot of good, but he's not the effusive nice guy. Obviously, he's a tough competitor willing to do things that people who don't win won't do. Like every other rider in the Tour De France, he knew the winners would be those using illegal chemistry. It's like football and baseball players back when steroid enforcement was a joke. Do you do what you can to be competitive with the very best, or do you preserve your honor, cost your team and your career? When you know your competitors are juicing, do you just compete poorly, refuse to compete or hope against hope that you can build enough musle mass in offseason workouts to keep up with Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clements, Lyle Alzado and Mark Gastineau?
Did he take drugs...probably. The problem I have with this thing, and it is a witch hunt, is that the only evidence the USADA has is hearsay. The USADA is changing the rules YEARS after the guy left the sport. Lance probably took some drugs, but he has not failed a drug test. THAT is the problem. You're using second hand info from guys that have failed drug tests, and going after a man who doesn't compete in that sport anymore. Why? So you can try and make a name for your agency and get more federal funding! The whole peloton should be able to dope if they want to. That way you would never have this problem. Why take away his chance to race in Ironman triathlon events? Has he cheated in that sport? Failed a drug test in that sport?
I don't know what you are talking about. They have a mountain of evidence, including 33 blood samples that they went to incredible length to trace back to his DNA.
The problem I have with this thing, and it is a witch hunt, is that the only evidence the USADA has is hearsay. That's absolutely not true at all. You have obviously not been following this issue very closely.
Why is this still a big deal overall? Guy cheated, finally got caught...move on. I guess I'm underestimating the popularity of Armstrong. I was happy when he won, but it wasn't that BIG.
How much money was spent on Lance's investigation? A lot. Was it a waste? That depends. How much would have been spent if Lance had been honest from the start? If you're really mad about the money spent, you'd be better served by placing the blame where it belongs: Lance.
Since the USADA is funded by multiple organizations to (per its website): "Strive to systematically identify and sanction those individuals who are engaged in the effort to gain an advantage over athletes who are competing clean;" then I do think the organization had no choice but to investigate Lance Armstrong. It is what the organization is designed to do.
