951
952

Manly(Sydney) Library sticks it to Lance Armstrong (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by EvadregandAt home in BrisVegas

all 114 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]0-l-0 55 points56 points ago

Book titles that become more relevant with time are great.

[–]HardcoreHazzaTrue Blu from New 21 points22 points ago

My local library had a similar problem with O.J. Simpson's Autobiography "IF I did it" on whether to put it in Fiction or Non Fiction.

[–]Asynonymous 10 points11 points ago

Didn't the family get the rights to that book and change to the title to "I Did It?"

[–]arrjayjee 23 points24 points ago

They kept the "IF" but made it so small on the cover that most people read it as "I Did It". You can see the "IF" here hidden on the inside at the top of the letter "I".

[–]lairyspider 11 points12 points ago

I rode with him in adelaide 'now i feel dirty'.

[–]DeRigueurMortis 65 points66 points ago

Did they catch you... riding dirty?

[–]MindCorrupt 1 point2 points ago

They tried.

[–]gdtau 0 points1 point ago

My cycling club discussed the McEwan/Armstrong Twitter Ride and the vibes were:

  • "are you not going to be able to tell your kids you rode with the most notorious athlete of all time?"

  • "Meh, let's go for a ride in the Hills since everyone else will be at the beach"

  • "I'm a true believer, Lance didn't dope."

The Ride article summarising the doping allegations against Lance a few years earlier was really the nail in the coffin for most club cyclists. We've got a lot of respect for the AIS and when one of their top scientists says Lance doped, well you've then got to think that he's right.

It was hard to judge reports from Walsh and Kimmage at this distance, as you didn't read them first hand and so know if they had an axe to grind. Their books were hugely influential, but difficult to obtain, so they took a few years to filter through.

[–]sol1869 24 points25 points ago

Sounds like U.Syd's bicyclette community has its panties in a bit of a twist there...

[–]necrodudeSnobby Sydneysider 0 points1 point ago

More of a twist.

[–]JJJHSchmidt 65 points66 points ago

So what's everyone on about then? An athlete use drugs, lied about it to protect his income, and we're surprised about it?

This happens pretty often. I remember one comedian saying we should have a separate olympics and record book for performance enhancement users. I'd watch the super olympics.

[–]NeverfearforIishere 105 points106 points ago

Maybe I can give you some insight into why this is a big deal.

His books lead an amazing story, one where this "asshole" (his own view) get's cancer, then on the other side comes out as a new person. The books are inspirational, and the story was validated as he had never failed a test. All the science of the time supported his super human feat as being legitimate. Everyone was after him for years and he always came out clean.

As a cyclist the guys work was inspiring, his foundation do amazing work and his story was great.

Now that it's all be proved bullshit, and I sit here watching the interviews seeing that he is still the asshole he talks about in his books you can't help but feel dumb founded. You feel embarrassed for recommending his book to people, you stare at the books on the shelf questioning if the lessons and the inspiration is honest and real.

With so many of the sports people of his era being cheats it is easy to say "makes sense he was one".. but at the time it kinda all made sense that he was legit.

[–]rpy 2 points3 points ago

Enjoyed reading this comment, and I guess Reuters did too - just noticed they have quoted it in a wire story and it's turning up all over the world. Well done.

[–]khal_ 1 point2 points ago

wtf all of them have written the same story :S

[–]Jack-in-Aus 3 points4 points ago

Right on! I want to hug you, is that OK?

[–]NeverfearforIishere 2 points3 points ago

Totally cool..

[–]JJJHSchmidt 0 points1 point ago

I guess as an avid reader and an aspiring storyteller I just never felt the need for a connection between the story and the reality.

He inspired a lot of people to get up and do something. He gave sick people motivation to help them fight diseases that may have taken their lives without that small boost. It may be kind of a let down to realize that the man couldn't also be his legend but there is absolutely no denying that his story, although false, helped people.

I also couldn't understand the oprah backlash when it turned out that the "Million Little Pieces" book turned out to be a fabrication. It legitimately helped people and people were coming out of the woodwork to feel like they had been the victims of fraud from an evil con man.

Maybe the problem is me, though. I read non-fiction and fiction with the same level of interest, and I've been positively impacted by both. Maybe this whole reality thing is a bigger deal to some people.

[–]Peter_Thomas 32 points33 points ago

It's a big deal for anyone who believes that their "non-fiction" story should actually be non-fiction.

People weren't inspired because "it was a nice story". They were inspired because "it was a true story".

Finding out that 'your Hero' is - in fact - a scummy cheat is absolutely crushing. Imagine it was someone you really admire (say, a friend or family member) that was constantly harassed and accused. You stand up for them, you defend them, you take criticism from others because you believe it's the right thing to do. And then you find out that person had been lying to you the whole time. And not only that, they were lying in order to commercialise themselves and make money. There's nothing noble or inspiring about that. Sure, it may have helped you overcome some hurdles of your own - and that's important to remember - but it doesn't change the act of deception/betrayal that has been committed.

And to top it off, he stole the recognition, rewards, and opportunities that should have been available to other, genuine, athletes.

[–]JJJHSchmidt -1 points0 points ago

Like I said, Reality is more important to some people than others, I suppose. I found inspiration to finally get up, lose weight, and take control of my life from a tale about a Wizard fighting a Dream Wizard.(The Sword of Truth series, for anyone interested) I lost almost sixty pounds, got a decent paying job, and support myself now.

I just need to find inspiration that will get me over my irrational fear of initiating conversations with women and I'll be set.

[–]dmanww 3 points4 points ago

“Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story.” - Abraham Lincoln.

What's your take on the situation with Mike Daisey and his apple story?

here's the interview with TAL after the whole thing.

[–]JJJHSchmidt -3 points-2 points ago

To me, it sounds like he just did the work of Hollywood before Hollywood could do it.

"Based on a true story" movies are inspirational and emotionally charged, but they're loaded with lies that improve the story dramatically. From what I've read it sounds like much of his story was true, it was then sprinkled with second hand stories and a few fabrications to keep it interesting. I'd call it a little sloppy, maybe, but it still sounds like an awesome story that brings necessary light to the working conditions of the people who make our daily lives.

[–]dmanww 2 points3 points ago

and that would be fine, but it was sold as a true story. Not a story based on some events and conjecture packaged into something that would make it more popular.

[–]JJJHSchmidt -3 points-2 points ago

Lots of things are sold and bought as true stories and have had fluffing to make them more interesting. I've never been too enamored with that word, "true". The overall impact of the story will always be more important to me than the reality of the situation. I'll always read fiction and nonfiction as being exactly the same.

[–]dmanww 0 points1 point ago

You might be interested in this episode of Radiolab

Facts are very slippery things, truth even more so.

[–]JJJHSchmidt -2 points-1 points ago

I'll give it a shot when I have the spare hour for a podcast. I had read recently that the memory is actually a really shoddy part of the human brain, and tends to lose or not record details accurately. It also, of course, insists that the details are correct and we obviously wouldn't question it. In studies people had apparently been led into creating absolutely new and absolutely false memories that they insisted had actually happened. (By having a friend approach them with a "remember when we...?" story.)

That wasn't relevant, I just find it interesting.

[–]dmanww 0 points1 point ago

here's a bit about unreliability of eyewitnesses

"Confidence, therefore, offers some indication of the accuracy of a memory. However, there is always a margin of error: even with maximum confidence, 6 to 16% of the information given is incorrect, depending on the time which has elapsed since watching the film. The longer ago the film was watched, the greater the percentage of errors."

[–]getthefuckoutofhere -4 points-3 points ago

a jew has never sounded more pathetic

and that's saying something

"mike daisey wied to us. how despwicable"

[–]redping 1 point2 points ago

go back to whiterights please, Australian's really don't support antisemitism.

[–]dmanww 15 points16 points ago

here's one reason why

[–]JJJHSchmidt 4 points5 points ago

That is hilarious. He probably was on his bike a lot, though.

[–]dmanww 3 points4 points ago

Yes, he worked his ball(s) off, but he kept actively pushing the narrative that he was all natural.

[–]JJJHSchmidt 0 points1 point ago

I will agree that it is a dick thing to do. I'm not arguing that. I'm simply stating that the strong motivational message is still just as valid if not more so.

My only hero in life was my half brother. He was a good guy. He was funny, always had a good story to tell, and gave me a pretty good model to live by.

My half brother was also, unbeknownst to me, a child molester. He was charged and sentenced about 3 years ago. For a day or two I was devastated, and wasn't sure how to live a life that I had modeled after a child molester. I contemplated many things in my grief, including killing myself before I could become a child molester.(Don't comment on that, grief can make you think some really illogical shit)

I realized soon, however, that I had still received a lot of good messages on how to live my life. His downfall didn't have to be my downfall. Where one hero falls another must rise to take his place.

I took that place, I'm now my own hero, and I'm doing a way better job than he ever could. Lance Armstrong is a fallen hero, but he still gave powerful and legitimate messages. Instead of falling down with him people can take his fall as a cautionary tale, use it to strengthen their own moral foundation, and be their own hero and heroes to others.

[–]EvadregandAt home in BrisVegas[S] 3 points4 points ago

the strong motivational message is still just as valid

I disagree with that.. As dmanww said it was all based on lies, and then perpetuated through the investigations and rulings.. That makes the message 100% BS unfortunately..

[–]dmanww 5 points6 points ago

But his motivational message was directly related to his lie.

-- You can be the best in the world if you just work very very hard. Look at me, I've won a record amount of races, beaten cancer, and never, never had to resort to cheating. I only worked harder. --

That's a great message, but is completely invalidated by the truth of the situation.

You could have your half-brother as a role model, but I doubt you would trust his advice about how to relate to kids.

[–]JJJHSchmidt -2 points-1 points ago

No, of course not. Probably don't take Armstrong's advice on cycling training. It's still a great story and can be applied elsewhere. But, as I've said before, the story will always be more important to me than the reality. I see now that some people don't view it that way. Reality is vastly overrated.

[–]dmanww 1 point2 points ago

If you want a worthy story of achievement from a disgraced athlete look at Tiger Woods.

Sure, he screwed around, but that takes absolutely nothing away from his achievement in sport.

Then again, some people think that if you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough. The 2013 class of the baseball hall of fame might agree.

[–]JJJHSchmidt -1 points0 points ago

I guess I'm viewing just the overall message of "Don't cheat, try hard." That's a good message. Maybe not from a great source, but still a good message and has a fantastic story surrounding it. I can take that and run with it. The story surrounding it need only be well told from there on out.

[–]dmanww 1 point2 points ago

"Do as I say, not as I do"

sorry, not gonna buy it.

[–]Edna69 19 points20 points ago

So what's everyone on about then? An athlete use drugs, lied about it to protect his income, and we're surprised about it?

It's a bit different for Lance Armstrong. He was so dominant in a sport so riddled with drug cheats. Seven consecutive Tours de France is an amazing feat - even more so considering that in those seven Tours the best a clean (as in not yet tested positive) cyclist placed was fourth. Armstrong was so critical of these cyclists, so adamant that he was clean and so arrogant that even clean he could dominate the drug-riddled peleton. And he was so outspoken about it! Coming back from cancer, no less. Everyone suspected he was doping - it was the worst kept secret in professional sport. It wasn't a question of if Armstrong was doping, the question was how me managed to do it for so long without getting caught. No one was particularly surprised when USADA released evidence of Armstrong's doping. Yet he still denied it. It wasn't until the Oprah interview that he actually admitted it.

It is almost like a Shakespearean tragedy. That is what makes it so interesting.

[–]dmanww 5 points6 points ago

actually, how was he able to do it without getting caught?

[–]_Yellow 0 points1 point ago

If you have enough money and he does, you can pay chemists to make undetectable drugs. Anti doping orginizations are always going to be behind, there's so many different ways to disguise it that they have no chance of finding out through testing alone. It's one of the reasonons people argue steroids should be legal in sports, as it is currently the richest and most famous athletes have access to undetectable juice and the poorer/careless people end up getting caught.

[–]rekgreen 1 point2 points ago

That and backdated prescriptions.

[–]gazzawhite 1 point2 points ago

Paid off the responsible people. He was UCI's cash cow.

[–]mindsnare 5 points6 points ago

Lance is one of the big ones though. He's up there with the Michael Jordan's and the Tiger Woodseseseses. Not to mention the fact that he got away with it for so damn long.

[–]TheNoveltyAccountant -2 points-1 points ago

It's a big claim to say that he's up there with Jordan and Tiger in terms of cycling greatness.

Yes he did "win" the Tour De France 7 times but it's because he devoted himself to winning it whereas everyone else in the peloton was also focused on other races.

I don't actually think he's the greatest cyclist, he simply trained for arguably the most prestigious cycle race all year long.

[–]redping 1 point2 points ago

I don't actually think he's the greatest cyclist, he simply trained for arguably the most prestigious cycle race all year long.

doesn't that make him the greatest cyclist? Who are these dumbasses that are better than him that are thinking "pff, lets not bother with the biggest race of the entire year, we'll just do smaller events so nobody ever realises we're the best." They've been missing out on a lot of money.

[–]TheNoveltyAccountant 0 points1 point ago

Not really. I'm guessing you don't watch cycling or follow it based on your response (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I could go into details about why he's not the greatest of all time but that would take pages upon pages and take you back through what a great cyclist is.

IMO winning a single race multiple times doesn't cut it, particularly given the circumstances of that race.

[–]NobleKale 3 points4 points ago

This happens pretty often. I remember one comedian saying we should have a separate olympics and record book for performance enhancement users. I'd watch the super olympics.

This is what happens in Red Dwarf, and eventually leads to the creation of Genetically Engineered Athletes... for example, goalies that are just giant oblongs of flesh.

TL;DR - YESSSSSssssss

[–]bugarit 4 points5 points ago

It's a big deal to that tiny section of the non-celebrity public who believe honesty and integrity are important, regardless of a person's standing in society.

[–]scorgiman 1 point2 points ago

Performance enhancing drugs should be a normal and acceptable part of all sports. There in no sense in restricting what people are allowed to do in the pursuit of being their best.

[–]JJJHSchmidt 3 points4 points ago

Hell yeah, just, you know, put them in their own category.

Special Olympics

Olympics

Super Olympics

Holy Shit What Has Science Done?!... Olympics.

[–]redping 1 point2 points ago

Probably don't want to include Boxing or Tae Kwon Do or we'll wind up with some roid rage murders

[–]fivo7 0 points1 point ago

leveling the playing field doesn't cut it in australia, what you perceive as super we call cheating

[–]sfacets -1 points0 points ago

Yeah, because there are no drugs in our sports.

[–]PinkyNoise 14 points15 points ago

Watch out, Lance! You just got burned by Manly Library! Take THAT!

[–]03801 11 points12 points ago

He's probably wiping away tears with all the money he got from the Oprah interview.

[–]tzdrew 3 points4 points ago

Ha ha. This reminds me of a bookshop in Bangkok where the Bible is in the fiction section.

[–]barry_mundi 5 points6 points ago

because it's as simple as taking performance enhances and being led to the podium with no effort, hardwork, sacrifice or .training.

[–]snukz -1 points0 points ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4VbOHvaPRc

[–]sydneygamerThe Telegraph is just to the right of Fox news -1 points0 points ago

I'm with you brother. The world has practically entered a state of self-parody with this shit.

EDIT: I got up votes when I expected downvotes. Neat.

[–]jx1823 -2 points-1 points ago

Couldn't agree more. It's amazing how everyone is playing into exactly what the media wants with this manafactured outrage. Because this is much more important news than the humanitarian tragedy occuring in Syria.

[–]n01d34 3 points4 points ago

But both were in the news...

You do realise people are capable of taking in multiple news stories, right?

[–]redping 0 points1 point ago

Even though we are, when was the last time you heard about it on TV? It's been nothing but lance all weekend every time I've switched t on, maybe I've just got unlucky.

[–]RevoranBeyond the black stump -2 points-1 points ago

I'm okay with this if they move the Bible, Koran etc to the fiction section too.

[–]gegegeno 16 points17 points ago

SO BRAVE

[–]necrodudeSnobby Sydneysider 1 point2 points ago

I wonder which god will spite him first?

[–]LiamNeesonAteMyBaby 0 points1 point ago

Smite?

[–]necrodudeSnobby Sydneysider 1 point2 points ago

That's the one. I guess they could both work?

[–]ubermuppy 0 points1 point ago

Funnily enough, there is a cyclist shop right next to that library.

[–]tanuki_chan 0 points1 point ago

Well done reddit. In the news again :P (took Australia a little while to catch up with US)

[–]pointofyou -5 points-4 points ago

Please don't blame the athlete if you've been gullible enough to believe for one second that anyone achieving top rankings in a big field of sports (in terms of money in that sport and consequently to be made) is not using performance enhancing drugs.

That's like being pissed at your parents for "lying" to you about Santa.

Lance was just being consequent in lying, that's all. He had to lie, and did so in every aspect, including books.

If you're gonna be on of the top athletes in cycling (or most other sports) you'll be making use of any advantage you can get. In most cases that means taking drugs that allow you to work out harder and recover faster. You still need the raw talent, the discipline and persistence to get there though.

In a couple of years we'll be having this discussion about Usain Bolt. You'll see. It's the way things are. Be realistic. Please.

[–]DrDWayneLove 24 points25 points ago

Please don't blame the liar for lying?

[–]pointofyou -5 points-4 points ago

That's not what I wrote. Don't blame the athlete for doping when that's the only way to have a shot at competing. And don't blame him for denying it/lying about it when asked, as that clearly is a part of doping from the get-go.

[–]BOUND_TESTICLE 6 points7 points ago

If we don't call out the guy for doping, the next kid who wants a chance at winning is forced into doping in order to compete. The cycle is self fulfilling.

You blame the athlete, you take away everything they have won. You shame them and that is an example to the next Lance Armstrong that if you cheat you will eventually get caught and everything you worked your ass of for, will be gone.

[–]pointofyou -1 points0 points ago

yup, great approach, because that's been working so great in the past hasn't it?

He's made more than a hundred million dollars. That's how big the incentive is....

[–]BOUND_TESTICLE 1 point2 points ago

I don't disagree with you on that. Was it worth it, in a monetary sense? hell yes.

Does it encourage others to follow? of course. But we as fans should never tolerate or accept it.

[–]pointofyou -1 points0 points ago

Well, we're not only accepting it, we're perpetuating it! Where do you think that money comes from? It comes from us, cheering because we WANT a new record, a longer winning streak or the next stepping stone in some fabulous cancer-surviver to tour de france winner story.

Where do you think cycling as such would be without Armstrong? And what about the $500 million he raised for cancer awareness with the livestrong foundation? Wasn't that alone worth it?

The point I'm getting at is this: given such huge incentives, you're always going to get people who will do whatever it takes to win. And given the way sports work, they're right to do so. Or can you name the second best Tour de France cyclist ever? The only real way to level the playing field is to just stop this nonsense of prohibiting the use of various substances. I know this might sound crazy, but at the end of the day it's the only real way.

Think of all the positiv things that are to be gained. Athletes could work with doctors and scientists in the open, real progress regarding the use of these substances and how they affect us could be made. Serious studies could be conducted. The results would help us all. And athletes would be safer not being forced to hide what's so obvious anyway.

Edit: formatting

[–]BOUND_TESTICLE 0 points1 point ago

Well, we're not only accepting it, we're perpetuating it!..

I completely agree, however on the flip side. I am a massive fan of formula 1. In the 80's it got stupidly fast with massive amounts of power and speed. It got too dangerous so they slowed the cars down. In the 90's the cars got faster again, so they made the tracks safer. then the cars got faster again, so they slowed the cars down again.

My point with this is that the sport is no longer about the fastest man and machine can go, Many people complain that the tracks now are to safe and the cars are to slow, but nobody has been killed in Formula 1 in nearly 20 years. Our want for a new record was not greater than our WANT to never see another Ayrton Senna killed.

The same could be said for swimming and the super suits, It took from the sport what the sport was about, The records stand. The next Perkins or Thorpe will not smash them but will be just as entertaining.

Where do you think cycling as such would be without Armstrong? And what about the $500 million he raised for cancer awareness with the livestrong foundation? Wasn't that alone worth it?

Armstrong has probably done more damage to the sport than he ever did to make it better. As for his charity work sure it is great but lets remember if the corporations and people who donated had no Lance, chances are that money would equally have ended up in another charity. Celebrities attract attention to a cause, Cancer is a cause with many celebrities and many charities. Armstrong had the loudest voice in a loud room.

The only real way to level the playing field is to just stop this nonsense of prohibiting the use of various substances.

The problem with super athletes is when do you start them? Most gymnasts are 13-15 at the PEAK of their career, Swimmers start to reach Olympic levels at 16-17. At what age do you start doping your kids so they can be competitive with a super athlete at 16?

[–]homicidalhaberdasher 8 points9 points ago

He didn't just cheat though, he sued, denounced and ruined the lives of a number of other cyclists and journalists who accused him of doping. Some former team mates are saying that he would place pressure on them to dope too. That takes it to a new level.

[–]pointofyou -3 points-2 points ago

I agree, being super aggressive against anyone who spoke out about him did take it to a new level.

I highly doubt thought, that to be able to be a team mate of his and compete on that level was possible without doping though. No need for him to push anyone.

[–]redping 2 points3 points ago

So can we blame him now for lying now that you've learned the information you would've got out of a 10 second google search? (ie. he sued people for accusing him)

[–]pointofyou -2 points-1 points ago

Put yourself in his shoes for god's sake. You're taking illegal substances that enhance your performance. You know, the second you being taking them, that you'll have to adamantly lie about this whenever you're asked. No exceptions.

At the time Armstrong always came out clean. Therefore Walsh and Co. were just slandering him, making and repeating allegations. Given the concept of being innocent until proven guilty, his behavior of going against those individuals was just rational. They had no proof for their claims.

Now, in hindsight they were right and he was lying. But that doesn't change the situation at the time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending his aggressive and unscrupulous methods. I guess that's a reflection of his persona at the time. But the general action of going against those who called him a liar without real evidence was a rational thing to do from his point of view.

[–]redping 1 point2 points ago

... he's a fucking liar. What kind of argument is that? "well, according to the lies he had to tell bceause he was a cheater, he wasn't actually lying at the time even though he was."

He was a grade A cunt. Not deserving of respect and stepped on other peoples shoulders while vehemently denying and even sueing them when they told the truth.

At the time Armstrong always came out clean. Therefore Walsh and Co. were just slandering him, making and repeating allegations.

Come on, that's just silly. They were telling the truth, and he heard them and said "they're telling teh truth! I'm going to sue them!"

Why on earth would you defend such an awful person as Lance Armstrong, is beyond me.

[–]bacco007 2 points3 points ago

If he didnt build his career (and a charity) on the back of firm denials that he had participated in doping then I might be able to agree with you.

[–]pointofyou -4 points-3 points ago

I think he built his career by winning the Tour de France seven times... the lying and denials are an inevitable part of doping.

[–]redping 2 points3 points ago

He won the Tour De France seven times via doping ... the winning the Tour De France was an inevitable part of the doping. He really doesn't deserve much credit other than being the biggest asshole, not the best cyclist.

[–]pointofyou -1 points0 points ago

So what you're saying is that the athletes who placed 2nd to 10th or so didn't use performance enhancing drugs? Right.... Floyd Landis, Jan Ulrich, Frankie Andreu, Dario Frigo, Raimondas Rumsas, Igor González de Galdeano, Philippe Gaumont etc.

If everyone was doping, and everyone competing on his level was, then at the end of the day it comes down to the athlete again doesn't it?

Or would you be able to win the tour if you'd be allowed any kind of medication you'd want?

[–]redping 0 points1 point ago

How many of those guys sued people for accusing them of being on PED's? And released books and did advertising based on being an all natural athlete?

He was the richest, and had access to the best doping. There really is no evidence that he was any better at bike riding than anyone else. But he certainly cheated a lot harder and a lot more ruthlessly.

[–]pointofyou -2 points-1 points ago

Oh, so now it's about him being ruthless?

He had access to the best doping? I believe you don't know what you're talking about there. EPO is EPO. It's pretty cheap as it's used in medicine all the time. So how can he cheat harder? Following your argument, you're basically saying you could achieve the same had you all access to any substance you wanted....

It's pretty evident that he was the best. Given that everyone was using the same substances.

How many of them raised +$500 million for cancer awareness? How many of them gave people suffering from the disease that much hope?

[–]redping 1 point2 points ago

It's pretty evident that he was the best. Given that everyone was using the same substances.

Citation needed. Lance is a very selfish person and the idea of him giving people steroids that are exactly as good as his steroids is pretty laughable. Have you read about the case? How he sued people for accusing him? He is not an honest man at all. I honestly beleive he had better steroids, beacuse he rich, established, and the connection for a lot of other riders to the steroids.

How many of them raised +$500 million for cancer awareness? How many of them gave people suffering from the disease that much hope?

That really is irelevant to how much of a lying cunt he is.

Okay so he might be a great cyclist, except every cyclist is on steroids so it's more of a steroid battle than an actual sport these days, lets say I forfeit that point (i don't, but it doesn't really matter). You agree that Lance is a total asshole right? Like, a really bad person? regardless of the charity he set up with his billions made via cheating (keep in mind child-abusing priests contribute to charity, it doesn't justify being a bad person).

[–]pointofyou 0 points1 point ago

redping, this discussion isn't about Lance Armstrong being an asshole or if he sued or bullied people. This is not about his character. Even if he was a bully and the biggest asshole ever, it really doesn't matter in the context of this discussion. It's about him being a "cheater" and everybody being so fucking upset about it. The point I'm trying to get at is that that was so blatantly obvious, that I feel everyone is just being very hypocritical about his confession. The way I see it people are a lot more upset about him admitting to the obvious and thus totally destroying the myth than they are about him using PEDs in the first place. People just didn't want to know.

Furthermore, I personally don't view him of less of an athlete for doing so. Given that everyone was using these PEDs it was a level playing field. You asked for citation (without providing any sources for your initial claim that there was no proof he was a better cyclist than the others), well here you go: http://deadsp.in/10jes3v. Please don't believe this is some magic potion you take a sip of and then go ahead and win the Tour de France. Mainly it enables athletes to push their boundaries, train harder or ride through the pain.

EPO is such a common and widely available drug, you don't need wads of cash for that. Where would you get the notion that this comes down to a race of who's got more money? Have you read up on the subject? Money would be a much bigger issue in cycling in terms of how big your supporting team is, what your budget for the race looks like in terms of hotels etc. Or do you think the team pays for PEDs? No way man...

Your F1 analogy... Do you actually consider F1 a sport? Every team has different cars and the whole thing is the biggest money battle ever! It's all about who has more money for testing in aero-dynamics, buying the best engineers and developing better technology. Some teams (Sauber for example) use the old engine of another team (Ferrari)! I mean seriously, I doubt you could have come up with a worse comparison. It's just not a sport in that sense. Don't get me wrong (I'm afraid you will), the drivers are athletes for sure, but it's very reliant on technology and everyone is using a different one. And when one team starts to dominate (like Ferrari did with Schuhmacher) they'll just change the rules to that teams disadvantage... to make it more exciting for the fans.... because that's where to money is....

Also, once the race ends the cars go into the park fermé. There they're checked out by the stewards. Well, one can do that with machines. You can't do that with humans, at least no to the same extent in terms of precision. One major reason Armstrong was able to dope was because there weren't any tests available for the substance (EPO) at the time. At best you can test for what you know exists. Take a look at different sports (athletics for example). The only reason anyone ever found out about the BALCO scandal was because a whistleblower sent in a sample of the new drug. What do you think is out there today that will be found out about in 5-10 years?

Your arguments seem to be very focused on making moral judgements about Armstrong's character. That's not what this is about though. PEDs are the fucking elephant in every major sports arena today. You just don't seem to want to acknowledge that though. And that's how they get there. By people like you being oblivious to the fact that the incentives you supply will always entice athletes to do what it takes to win. Because that's all that counts, that's all that's rewarded. The only sensible thing to do would be to stop arbitrarily banning substances and instead allowing anyone to take anything. Just stop testing. It's not working anyway. All these regulations currently do is heavily distort the playing field and force great athletes to lie about what they're doing.

[–]Brambleam -5 points-4 points ago

lol at all the people who not dont think he is a great athlete and think they too could do what lance done if they were on the same drugs

you could take all the drugs you wanted but 99.9% of cyclist would never come close to lance

[–]gdtau 1 point2 points ago

There are plenty of great athletes at the Tour de France, so it's the other way around. Without dope Lance probably wouldn't have won a single Tour. He'd be just another racing cyclist. As it was, doping gave him about a minute's advantage per day of riding, which is huge in cycling terms, and massive in the Tour as each day's lead accumulates.

[–]Brambleam -3 points-2 points ago

Highly likely those other great athletes are on something too. If every one that "cheated" were disqualified then the first place would be awarded to the person that came 30th

[–]gdtau -1 points0 points ago

It's not as bad at that. You usually get to about fourth in the 2000-era Tours before you reach someone who you think probably raced cleanly throughout their career, although some years of the Tour are a complete wasteland. You do end up feeling very sorry for the cyclists who lack an asterisk against their name, most of them from the early 2000s are names you've never heard of and so there's no doubt that Lance and co stole their careers.

I feel particularly bad for Evans and Wiggins. They are much better cyclists than their number of wins indicates, simply because of the wins stolen by the dopers. Evans' career is pretty much ending with one Tour win, when it could have easily be two or three.

What is particularly noticeable is the drop off in doping with Lance's retirement in 2005. The top ten changes from Cadel Evans being the sole non-asterisk, to most of the ten being clean.

The achievements of these non-asterisked cyclists is impressive. They are cycling at a very high level, close to what we now know if the non-doped limits of human effort. And they did that when there was no hope that they could win a place.

That's why I don't like the statement "what does it matter, they were probably all dopers" -- it cheats them of that achievement, on top of them already been cheated of other recognition.

[–]Jack-in-Aus -3 points-2 points ago

Two types of people in this world: those who in any way support LA, and those who think he's the absolute pits! I can confirm I fall into the latter group.

[–]Diab0lic 3 points4 points ago

And the third, which i fall into: those who don't give a fuck.

[–]ellipsisoverload 1 point2 points ago

I've never liked him to honest... I was always going for Ulrich or Vinokourov... But I don't think this is such a massive thing... Cyclists have been cheating since the 60s, they're fucking nuts, and the tour is fucking nuts...

Cheating was deeply ingrained in the culture of all tour teams long before Armstong got there... He wasn't the first, be didn't take the most, and he wasn't the last... He didn't create the culture, he was created by it... In a round-a-bout way, he's also gone a long way to ending that culture...

[–]ThePhantomScribbler_________________________________ 1 point2 points ago

Oh, poor ol Lance

[–]ellipsisoverload 0 points1 point ago

Oh I don't feel sorry for him - I've been saying he dopes legally for years (Floyd Landis was done for testosterone doping, because he doped at the wrong time of day, and his natural levels sent him over, Lance has to inject testosterone, and so injects right to the legal limit - about 3-4 times what a non-athlete would)... However he's not the be-all and end-all, he didn't start it, he won't finish it... Also, I was pointing out Jack-in-Aus' categories were a little limited...