OMG USADA Lance etc

[Sky King]

Crankin, thanks for the insight. I think the media is pretty hypocritical. I blame all of us for doping issues. The media, the sponsors and the public demand, faster, stronger, record breaking results only to gasped in horror and shock when the competitor is caught. For me it is like the proverb - may he who lives in a glass house cast the first stone. Don't get me wrong, I am not letting Lance off the hook and the man certainly has issues with facing the truth but can't help but be somewhat tongue in cheek over the entire affair. I do hope that Livestrong survives the fallout.

[snapdragen]

I'll quote a dear friend of mine "He's done great cancer work, and is the most beautiful thing I ever saw ride a bike. Doped or no, ******* or no, those two things trump all else for me."

[BikeDutchess]

I don't think he's truly sorry that he doped. I think he's sorry that he got caught.!

That's exactly my impression from what I saw on Thursday's portion of the interview (didn't see Friday's).

[OakLeaf]

I'll quote a dear friend of mine "He's done great cancer work, and is the most beautiful thing I ever saw ride a bike. Doped or no, ******* or no, those two things trump all else for me."

His sponsorship by cancer-causing alcoholic beverages, or by fraudulent cancer-profiteering pharmaceutical companies? Or his profit from using the Livestrong.org brand to run the for-profit .com site? Or the way he exploited his history of cancer to deflect any criticism of his personal, sporting or financial dealings?

Livestrong.ORG does good work, I don't doubt, and the foundation might or might not have got off the ground without such a well-known personality behind it. But honestly, it's Lance's cozy dealings with the cancer industry that disgusts me about him more than anything. Otherwise he'd be just another disgraced sports star. Instead of someone who made millions off others' suffering. That he suffered himself doesn't obviate that in the least, for me; really, it makes it worse.

[pll]

+1 Oakleaf. I have never been a fan of Lance Armstrong. I never bought the miracle "come back" in 1999, from an average cyclist to TdF winner and was consistently sickened by the hype. And he always acted like a mean teenage girl. He bullied people around him. How can doping, lying, bulling, etc be trumped by "he looked good on a bike"? Bernie Maddoff made some charities wealthy with his "investing" and he may have been a more likable character than Lance. Does that redeem him, too?

Anyway, I just wonder what Phil Ligget and Paul Sherwen are going to say when the April classics broadcasts start. They supported Lance staunchly, even after the USADA report came out. I would hope Armstrong goes away, but, unfortunately, that won't happen this year.

[Dogmama]

+1 Oakleaf. I have never been a fan of Lance Armstrong. I never bought the miracle "come back" in 1999, from an average cyclist to TdF winner .

How about cancer survivor to TdF winner?

I took offense at his references to his actions as, "that guy" - as if it was somebody else who engineering all of those atrocities. He ruined many lives and deserves a lifetime ban. His actions are head & shoulders above the other cyclists who doped. He deserves his "death sentence" permanent ban from sanctioned competition. Sorry Lance, but you're relegated to the bunny hill from now on!

[snapdragen]

Livestrong has helped a number of my friends diagnosed with different cancers. Were it not for Livestrong, one would probably be dead now. If cozying up to the "cancer industry" is what needs to be done in order to get people the help they need, then hell yes, I'm all for it.

Edited to remove snark. Guess the upcoming anniversary is affecting me more than I thought.

His sponsorship by cancer-causing alcoholic beverages, or by fraudulent cancer-profiteering pharmaceutical companies? Or his profit from using the Livestrong.org brand to run the for-profit .com site? Or the way he exploited his history of cancer to deflect any criticism of his personal, sporting or financial dealings?

Livestrong.ORG does good work, I don't doubt, and the foundation might or might not have got off the ground without such a well-known personality behind it. But honestly, it's Lance's cozy dealings with the cancer industry that disgusts me about him more than anything. Otherwise he'd be just another disgraced sports star. Instead of someone who made millions off others' suffering. That he suffered himself doesn't obviate that in the least, for me; really, it makes it worse.

[OakLeaf]

You noticed I didn't say anything negative about Livestrong.ORG. I think it's one of the better organizations out there, in fact. Not so much the data mining/ad revenue generating operation with the too-similar name. If "bitter" means being disgusted by people who can look at pain and see only dollar signs, well, pass the rappini.

[pll]

"When Lance 'cries' on Oprah later this week and she passes him a tissue, spare a thought for all of those genuine people who walked away with no reward – just shattered dreams. Each one of them is worth a thousand Lances."

-- Nicole Cooke, from the statement announcing her retirement on 1/14/2013

I was just reading the full statement Nicole Cooke made when she announced her retirement. I think it is a must read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013...ment-statement

[grey]

Honestly, I am on the fence about the whole thing.
The story of a cancer survivor becoming TdF winner - even one time - would be great.
I have several cancer-survivor friends who ride. They inspire me every day.

I'm not upset - not really - that he doped. I think the majority of serious level cyclists do. I have a friend with an amazing son, I can see this kid as part of a TdF team someday, no joke. I hope doping isn't as big a problem as I think it is.

Then too... if doping is as prevalent as I think it is, then Lance is still the winner. Or the best doper of the dopes.

I agree too, I don't like his manner. He does come off as snobby.

So for myself - on the fence. I see positives and negatives. Livestrong.org, I understand, is a great organization. I am hopeful that the positives in what he has done with his cycling career and influence outweigh the negatives.

[goldfinch]

I agree with Nicole Cook, races were stolen from those who did not dope. To quote her:

All these "born again" champions of a clean sport. They could be more accurately described as criminals who stole other's livelihoods who are only ever genuinely sorry about one thing — they are very sorry they were caught.

[OakLeaf]

Grey, I'm confused. Do you want your friend's son to dope? Or would you rather he not have a pro cycling career? If the latter, would you prefer that he realize it now and give it up at the high school level ... or have his heart broken when he tries to get on a top pro team? That's the choice that Lance and his ilk left to other cyclists, as Nicole Cook and Scott Mercier so heartbreakingly explained.

[Crankin]

That's pretty much what happened to my exchange student. When he gave up on the pro level, specifically because of doping (his team lost their sponsors), he found success at the college level. But, it came with a price of a few tough years, financially and psychologically.
I still wonder if some of those juniors were doping when my son was racing.