OT: Lance Armstrong admission

Submitted by TruBluMich on

He finnally admitted to it (According ot the AP), do you feel as if this is the right direction for him to clean his image.  Having lost my father in law to cancer and having a parent who just beat cancer, I really think of him as more than just a cyclist, what he did with his fame is far more important to me than what he did on a bicycle.

http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8844549/lance-armstrong-admits-doping-interview-oprah-winfrey-report-says

 

 

Lance Armstrong confessed during an interview Monday with Oprah Winfrey that he used performance-enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France, a person familiar with the situation told The Associated Press.

cozy200

January 14th, 2013 at 7:53 PM ^

Who gives a shit? On the scale of important life focuses... This is not one. The dude rides a bike, donated a metric ton of money to research and the media as usual makes it out to be a major event.

Swazi

January 14th, 2013 at 7:58 PM ^

It's not that he used.  Because that sport is one of the dirtiest in the world.  It's how arrogant he was about lying that he was clean.

Shakey Jake

January 14th, 2013 at 7:59 PM ^

Having followed cycling for the longest time, there is no doubt that he did because they all did! I don't blame him for it when everyone was cheating. He just did it better than others.

 

What I do blame him for is for his brutal take down of anyone that got in his way. Lance is a royal douche if there ever was one. The only way I'd ever forgive him is if he financially repays those he financially screwed over with his lies.

 

The problem is that the vast majority of athletes use or have used. I just wish they'd be honest about it.

 

M-Dog

January 14th, 2013 at 8:07 PM ^

Two thoughts on Lance Armstrong:

- I used to say to myself, "Do I think he's guilty?  Yeah, I do.  Does it matter?  No.  If you take his trophies away, who are you going to give them to?  The second and third place guys? They cheated too, just not as well."

- What does bug me about Lance Armstrong more than the cheating in a sport where they all cheated, is that he was so F-ing self-righteous about his denials.  if you're going to lie, just do it and quietly slink away.  I will never forgive the deceitful way he grandstanded his denials as if to even question him was to doubt Mother Theresa.  Slimeball.

 

gustave ferbert

January 14th, 2013 at 8:11 PM ^

who wants to be a hero nowadays?  So much scrutiny.  Whether he took PHD's or not.  How many cancer patients looked at him as source of inspiration to just keep going? 

Mr. Rager

January 14th, 2013 at 8:14 PM ^

... but wait here comes the uppercut:

Lance is just like 90% of anyone that rose to prominance in their field, and they all did it with hard work, determination, "knowing the right people", and getting people to believe in them.

It just so happened that Lance "knew the right people" that could give him steroids / do his blood doping.  

Is what he did wrong?  Yes.  Unquestionably.  But those people shouting "OH MY GAAWWDDD HE IS THE DEVIL!!" are even worse.  

State Street

January 14th, 2013 at 8:17 PM ^

He sued a British press outlet for 1.5 million bucks after they printed an accusation from an associate accusing him of doping.  He won, though he knew he did it.  That cash went straight in his pocket.

If that's not the work of a crazed, sociopathic "devil," what is?

inthebluelot

January 14th, 2013 at 8:55 PM ^

on this topic, but I gotta call you out on this because it's this attitude that grinds my ass as an American with civil liberties and unalienable rights.  If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, there is a huge effing problem with your stance.  Are you telling me that it's OK for a newspaper, be it traditional, tabloid or otherwise, to publish stories that are not backed up by proven facts?  If you are, then I give up.  But if you believe that everyone is entitled to defend themselves, guilty or not, to the media, then your position is one based upon personal disdain for Lance Armstorng and not upon the belief that he didn't have the right to defend his reputation.  If the British press had proof that he doped, he wouldn't have won the lawsuit that you claim... right?  That's the problem here.  Journalism has become a joke, and newspapers have no right to publish things that are not backed up by facts, which are backed up by more facts.  If they had done their job properly, he wouldn't have won any money, making your argument moot.

It's really no different than someone who committed a crime having the right to hire an attorney to defend himself.  OJ (alledgedly) killed that waiter and his own ex-wife, we all know it, we all hate that he got away with it, but in the end, he had the right to defend himself and he did.  These freedoms are what make our country great.  While Lance may be a scumbag in your eyes, there are far worse figures in the world of sports alone, who have done far less for humanity.

Right or wrong, he has the right to sue those who libel him.  He did, and he won.

State Street

January 14th, 2013 at 9:08 PM ^

I never mentioned anything about unalienable rights.  The outlet had a story from Lance's masseuse that described in precise detail his doping regimen.  They ran with the story.  How is that any different than ESPN running a story citing sources?  A recruiting reporter claiming that a recruit is leaning towards one school based on hearsay?  The original NYTimes story last week that claimed Lance was nearing an admission?

Armstrong didn't need to sue.  He could have publicly dismissed the accusations, called them a farce (as he was known to do).  But he didn't.  He went after people's cash, dignity, and careers and tanked them.  Because he could.  And he was malicious.  I have no idea what this has to do with unalienable rights.  

Heinous Wagner

January 14th, 2013 at 8:26 PM ^

The question of whether this is the right move to "clean his image" is irrelevant to those of us who never bought into the image in the first place. Our ability to detect bullshit is what needs serious repair. You can't go wrong invoking The Principle of the Path, which says that direction, not intention, determines destination. "I'm a good guy because I fight cancer" is the exception; his deceptive behavior has been the rule.

 

 

maizenbluedevil

January 14th, 2013 at 8:38 PM ^

*yawn*

It's a bunch of guys riding bikes around France, who cares.  

To me, cycling is no more appealing than Nascar, which is just a bunch of dudes driving around in circles.

STW P. Brabbs

January 14th, 2013 at 11:46 PM ^

I'm sure you're not trying to get a cheap laugh with a non-joke about a car killing innocent bystanders because you heard something on the TV about French people sucking that one time and you have the same level of intellectual creativity and overall sense of humor as a scrotum.

You probably know a lot of French people and that's why you have that opinion. I have faith.

jmblue

January 14th, 2013 at 8:47 PM ^

You knew this was going to happen.  The circumstantial evidence was pretty damning.  He just should have come clean years ago instead of trying to destroy everyone who dared ask legitimate questions.

 

MosherJordan

January 14th, 2013 at 8:48 PM ^

As with many outed liars, it's the cover-up that turns out to be the more serious crime than the underlying act itself. Cycling is a weird sport to begin with, where it takes the support of a team to win, but the the champion is celebrated like as an individual feat. It's like Tom Brady saying he, and only he, is super bowl champion. Like most Americans, I don't care about cycling, or speed skating, or cricket, or a bunch of other sports Euro types get all worked up about. I couldn't care less if Lance cheated. What I do care about, is how he profited and behaved after the fact, like a total douchebag.

vablue

January 14th, 2013 at 9:12 PM ^

So you think that whole raising 500 million to fight cancer thing was a douche move? Was he perfect, no. But the guy has been far from a douche. After the USADA thing came out his first move was to protect the foundation, not himself. I think that people who share your opinion know very little about Armstrong.



Also, for those that take issue with people taking PEDs, you must have an impossible time watching pro or college football because it is pretty rampant there as well.

jmblue

January 14th, 2013 at 9:29 PM ^

But if what's been posted above is true, that foundation really didn't donate much to actually fight cancer and actually was more about "raising awareness" and giving Armstrong good PR.  

BILG

January 14th, 2013 at 8:56 PM ^

Tressel cheated for a decade

Urban Meyer is a morally bankrupt sleaze

The SEC oversigns and pays players

The sky is blue

Water is wet

Smoke/Fire

 

 

Slamdo

January 14th, 2013 at 9:06 PM ^

Most of us know the difference between right and wrong by our 5th birthday. In a sport where the rules clearly state doping is illegal, he knowingly violated the rules. If it is wrong, it is wrong, period. As in other sports and aspects of life, we need to quit feeling sorry for cheaters simply because something good came out of their cheating. Lance Armstrong epitomizes all that is wrong in our society. Cheating should never be rewarded.

lhglrkwg

January 14th, 2013 at 9:09 PM ^

I mean, it's obvious that this apology is only driven by the fact that he got caught which makes this one of the least compelling and least believable apologies in the history of apologies. He's a loser

turtleboy

January 14th, 2013 at 9:30 PM ^

I know my ex Katie and her father was very proud to participate in his charity bike rides before they both died of cancer. Honestly I'm glad they don't know about it.

As an aside I wonder what possible good it would've done the federations to pursue him and others for so long. They basically have a 10-15 year blank page in their history books where nobody won anything. Since everybody cheated when he was racing I feel like he's the best cyclist among equals.

snarling wolverine

January 14th, 2013 at 9:52 PM ^

The good it does is to show that cheating doesn't pay off.  There was a ton of testimony linking him to PEDs.  He happened to be using ones for which there wasn't a reliable test at the time, which is how he "passed" the tests.  He conveniently got out of Dodge when the drug-testing standards were stepped up.  

No one deserves to have won the Tour those years.  That was at the height of the sport's dirtiness and vacant records should serve as a cautionary tale to riders going forward.

markusr2007

January 14th, 2013 at 10:19 PM ^

And he denied it for years.
Tonight he finally admitted to lying, and that the French authorities' suspicions were right all along.
That must have been difficult, but it was a foregone conclusion, and a little late.

I don't think he deserves congratulations for finally giving in to honesty and integrity.
Some will remember only the cheating and the lies. Others will remember Armstrong's good deeds and courage to fight a death sentence.
To me the Tour de France joins Major League Baseball and the Olympics in terms of things I have learned to care a whole lot less about because its all jammed packed with cheaters and substance abuse deniers.

MMB 82

January 14th, 2013 at 10:34 PM ^

and why these athletes ended up using EPO, testosterone, blood doping, etc., I recommend Tyler Hamilton's recent book, The Secret Race: Inside the Hidden World of the Tour de France: Doping, Cover-ups, and Winning at All Costs 

He goes into great detail as to why he did it, how he did it, and what happened (including almost dying from a transfusion reaction)- not to mention giving specific details of many of his fellow athletes including Lance. Probably one of the reasons the whole Armstrong charade came down.

I am a cyclist and an enthusiast, and am way past the "say it ain't so, Joe!" phase. The entire apple was rotten from the skin to the core. 

treetown

January 14th, 2013 at 11:48 PM ^

Historically cycling has always been suspect. BEFORE there were synthetic steroids available (pre-World War II) it was openly known that the top cyclists would fortify themselves with alcohol, cocaine, pep pills and strychnine - which was believed to help "loosen" up the muscles. So is it really that shocking ("Gambling at Rick's?!, I"m shocked - Inspector Renault, Casablanca) that once steroids, blood doping, etc. became available that it wouldn't be used?

In strength and endurance sports, the advantages are obvious - but even in so-called "skill" sports, these agents allow quicker recovery and more intense training.

Most people don't benefit - so most of the high school kids shooting up or loading up, are just wasting their money, time and threatening their future health for nothing.

But for a few top percent, the small but significant improvement can be the difference between 10th place and 1st place, gold and never-was, scholarship and high-school flame out.

Because of the secrecy we don't even know how PEDs could be used medically. When the whole BALCO affair developed the real push should have been aimed not just at Barry Bonds and Victor Conte, but at their biochemists - that is why BALCO was based there - it wasn't because Bonds was in SF. It is because UCSF, Berkley (U of California) and Stanford are around the corner. It takes more than a passing knowledge of biochemistry to design drugs and know the testing protocols to create structures to evade these tests. Notice that no one was charged in that regard? Where were the labs? Who was doing their synthesis? Who was running the initial trials to figure out the dosing programs and how to evade the testing? Designer PEDs are not off the shelf products - it isn't a met-amphetamine cooking receipe that someone cooks up on a cooktop in a trailer. If the sports governing bodies are serious about PEDs, they have to start here and understand how they are being created and how they are circumventing the testing process.

 

treetown

January 16th, 2013 at 9:38 PM ^

Yes, I think if the so called governing bodies really want to be serious about PEDs they need to investigate how they were synthesized, tested and distributed. Catching Victor Conte and Marion Jones is like catching the corner pusher and drug crack addict - they aren't the masterminds or the cartel lab people.

I don't mean there is some secret group of "rogue chemists" on campus - but I do mean that you need to be somewhere there are recent grads who work in the biochemical and pharmaceutical industry nearby. Just like if you need to workup a gizmo which which is digital and can be computer driven, then the Silicon Valley is the place to be or if you want to do a civil aviation startup perhaps Wichita, Kansas would be a better place than downtown Ann Arbor due to the number of aeronautical engineers, project managers and other people who have civil aviation experience.

Reverse engineer the question:

If one were to try to develop a PED which could evade detection how would you do it?

1. You'd need someone familiar with the field - who knew the existing literature or what there may be. They can help guide the research and avoid deadends. Steroid synthesis and an understanding of the new field where peptide hormones which can stimulate steroid receptors or have steroid like effects is a requirement (this is why some plastic by products have steroid effects even though they don't have the classic steroid structure)

2. You'd need someone who knew how PED screening is done - what assays are used, what type of tests - mass spect? chromatography?

3. You'd need to have someone who has done drug clinical trials - after you have the prototype test drugs, you have to run some test trials to figure out the optimal dosing schedule - to know how close you could administer it to a potential test and how fast it clears the system.

4. You'd need a group of biochemists - some to fabricate the drug, some to work on how to optimize the drug for delivery (oral would be best, nasal absorption, topical ointment and finally injection), others to help figure out to best mask it - adding or subtracting a non-critical sidegroup or perhaps the form - could it be crystallized or aerosolized? Practical experience is important.

5. Finally, you'd need someone to act as a general project manager - to find a building to act as a lab, create a dummy front to buy supplies and materials from the science supply shops,  pay the electricity bills, and keep accounts to buy the major equipment to outfit the lab, some testing could be farmed out innocously to commercial testing labs without tipping your hand, but other things have to be done "in house" - this person doesn't have to be a scientist but has to have some practical experience in running major research science projects. This person reports to whomever is backing the effort financially.

6. This project will take years to perfect with no immediate payoff - unlike a met-amphetamine lab. The backers have to have deep pockets.

So where would you look to find people who might have these skills and be underemployed?

JamieH

January 15th, 2013 at 12:04 AM ^

The whole Lance Armstrong situation is not black & white.  EVERYONE in the sport, and I mean EVERYONE was cheating.  Not just 5 or 10 guys.  EVERYONE on the pro tour was doping.  Some more than others, some better than others.  Lance started doping because he realized that other guys on the tour were doping and that it was humanly impossible to compete witih them.   So he had to choose to basically be a nobody, or to start doping too.  

That's a shitty choice.  The thing is, he became the best doper in cycling history.  He took it to another level and basically decided that if he was going to dope, he was going to dope 110%.  He was incredibly scientific and systematic with it.  And that is why he became unbeatable. 

I don't really blame him for deciding to start doping.  If I was faced with basically losing my livelihood because everyone else in my job was cheating I might make the same choice.   That doesn't mean he was right for lying and covering it up all these years once it became obvious what was going on, but I do understand why he chose to do it in the first place.

The onus really is on the professional sports to properly test the athletes and keep the drugs out of the game so that athletes aren't faced with choices like this.  An athlete shouldn't be forced to dope just to stay competitive.  But cycling, much like the MLB of the late 90's early 2000's turned a completely blind eye to performance-enhancing drugs.  And as a result, if you weren't using, you were completely left behind. 

I'm glad he is finally coming clean about it.  I wish we could know what kind of racer he would have been without the drugs.

 

 

 

 

JamieH

January 15th, 2013 at 12:06 AM ^

It was HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE to ride with those guys unless you were also on drugs.  You either had to take drugs too or quit the sport.  It was a very sad situation, but I really don't blame the guys who said "screw it, I'm taking drugs too" because the alternative was to go sell insurance or something other than be a pro bike rider.  (No offense to insurance salesmen!!)