[Roadent]

Front page of The Times today. Another very interesting article from Juliet Macur with Bruce Weber - looks at the potential roll-effects of his Lanceness imploding. Again, the knife goes in quitely, in Juliet's writing, talks about what a lovely personality LA has and even interviews an ex-squeeze. Here's the other revelation:

Another former Postal Service rider confirmed to The New York Times recently that he used drugs himself and corroborated Mr. Landis’s statements that cheating was rampant on the team and that Mr. Armstrong encouraged it. The rider spoke on condition of anonymity because federal investigators told him not to speak publicly about the case.

First time I've actually heard that confirmed, rather than intimated.

Think some of his institutional/medical supporters are starting to get a little nervous.

[smug]

i'm glad they brought up the pena matter, a disgusting armstrong-esque display of childish petulance.

[lakeArrowheadrider]

It is ironic and hypocritical, that the agents/prosecutors who are going after LA were accused and reprimaned by the judge in the BALCO case for using methods outside of the law to get evidence, thereby cheating.

I agree with this, although most around here won't.

"So what are people to make of Lance Armstrong?

Jay Coakley, a sociologist and the author of “Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies,” said that he had no doubt that Mr. Armstrong was guilty of doping, but that it did not matter. For athletes, he said, the line between performance enhancement and medical treatment has become so fuzzy that it is impossible to discern.

“Deciding to use performance-enhancing substances and methods has nothing to do with lack of morality,” Mr. Coakley said. “It has to do with normative structure of elite sport, and the athlete’s commitment to his identity as an athlete.” "

i'm glad they brought up the pena matter, a disgusting armstrong-esque display of childish petulance.

Was there some confusion who was the team leader and the team goal for that tour? Pena should have not wanted to do anything but continue on as a support rider. It should have been a good feeling the yellow jersey landed on his back, but to ask LA to waste energy to help Pena keep it is absured. LA is jerk, but I just don't see it here.

This post has been edited by lakeArrowheadrider: 22 August 2010 - 03:56 PM

[D-Queued]

It is ironic and hypocritical, that the agents/prosecutors who are going after LA were accused and reprimaned by the judge in the BALCO case for using methods outside of the law to get evidence, thereby cheating.

I agree with this, although most around here won't.

"So what are people to make of Lance Armstrong?

Jay Coakley, a sociologist and the author of “Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies,” said that he had no doubt that Mr. Armstrong was guilty of doping, but that it did not matter. For athletes, he said, the line between performance enhancement and medical treatment has become so fuzzy that it is impossible to discern.

“Deciding to use performance-enhancing substances and methods has nothing to do with lack of morality,” Mr. Coakley said. “It has to do with normative structure of elite sport, and the athlete’s commitment to his identity as an athlete.” "
Was there some confusion who was the team leader and the team goal for that tour? Pena should have not wanted to do anything but continue on as a support rider. It should have been a good feeling the yellow jersey landed on his back, but to ask LA to waste energy to help Pena keep it is absured. LA is jerk, but I just don't see it here.

As a presumed member of 'most around here', I actually don't disagree. I just don't think it is quite that simple in Lance's case.

There is a lot of doping, no doubt. There are clearly blurred lines. And, there is the prisoner's dilemma.

Then, there is the Lance.

But Mr. Armstrong’s vehement claims of innocence amid the acknowledged widespread cheating in professional cycling strike many as far-fetched.

Lance is a poster-child. Maybe he has 'taken the stigma' from cancer, but he is also the poster-child for the stigma to doping in sport.

Your Coakley quote suggests doping in elite sport is the norm.

Ok, so what do you do if you want to win?

You follow Lance.

Ergo, for Lance this is manifest destiny and self-fulfillment.

Dave.

[smug]

It is ironic and hypocritical, that the agents/prosecutors who are going after LA were accused and reprimaned by the judge in the BALCO case for using methods outside of the law to get evidence, thereby cheating.

I agree with this, although most around here won't.

"So what are people to make of Lance Armstrong?

Jay Coakley, a sociologist and the author of “Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies,” said that he had no doubt that Mr. Armstrong was guilty of doping, but that it did not matter. For athletes, he said, the line between performance enhancement and medical treatment has become so fuzzy that it is impossible to discern.

“Deciding to use performance-enhancing substances and methods has nothing to do with lack of morality,” Mr. Coakley said. “It has to do with normative structure of elite sport, and the athlete’s commitment to his identity as an athlete.” "
Was there some confusion who was the team leader and the team goal for that tour? Pena should have not wanted to do anything but continue on as a support rider. It should have been a good feeling the yellow jersey landed on his back, but to ask LA to waste energy to help Pena keep it is absured. LA is jerk, but I just don't see it here.

no one's asking lance to support pena, just let pena ride in his glory for a couple of days.

It is ironic and hypocritical, that the agents/prosecutors who are going after LA were accused and reprimaned by the judge in the BALCO case for using methods outside of the law to get evidence, thereby cheating.

I agree with this, although most around here won't.

"So what are people to make of Lance Armstrong?

Jay Coakley, a sociologist and the author of “Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies,” said that he had no doubt that Mr. Armstrong was guilty of doping, but that it did not matter. For athletes, he said, the line between performance enhancement and medical treatment has become so fuzzy that it is impossible to discern.

“Deciding to use performance-enhancing substances and methods has nothing to do with lack of morality,” Mr. Coakley said. “It has to do with normative structure of elite sport, and the athlete’s commitment to his identity as an athlete.” "
Was there some confusion who was the team leader and the team goal for that tour? Pena should have not wanted to do anything but continue on as a support rider. It should have been a good feeling the yellow jersey landed on his back, but to ask LA to waste energy to help Pena keep it is absured. LA is jerk, but I just don't see it here.

no one's asking lance to support pena, just let pena ride in his glory for a couple of days.

[lakeArrowheadrider]

no one's asking lance to support pena, just let pena ride in his glory for a couple of days.
no one's asking lance to support pena, just let pena ride in his glory for a couple of days.

They did better than a couple days, he had it for 3 days.

[smug]

They did better than a couple days, he had it for 3 days.

in other words, let pena ride a couple days in yellow without having to go fetch water. do i have to draw you a diagram?

[lakeArrowheadrider]

in other words, let pena ride a couple days in yellow without having to go fetch water. do i have to draw you a diagram?

I would like to see a diagram. It just gets old that everything LA has done in sport or out of sport is vilified on this board.

[shag]

"Deciding to use performance-enhancing substances and methods has nothing to do with lack of morality," Mr. Coakley said. "It has to do with normative structure of elite sport, and the athlete's commitment to his identity as an athlete."

Funny, second time that sentiment has percolated up in the last week. Anyone read the Creed piece on cyclingnews.com?

[diknutz]

Funny, second time that sentiment has percolated up in the last week. Anyone read the Creed piece on cyclingnews.com?

But isn't there a difference between, "deciding to..." and "deciding to continue to..." Morality may or may not factor into the first decision, but really cannot be ignored in the latter.

the "normative structure of elite sport" is a lot like the normative structure of high-school...

[D-Queued]

Of course, Coakley's statement also suggests that all sports are equal in their pursuit of doping. That just isn't true. Cycling is one of, if not the worst.

... It just gets old that everything LA has done in sport or out of sport is vilified on this board.

Your point is well taken.

However, everything that Lance has done in sport - at least what made him famous - appears to be inextricably tied to doping. His accomplisments outside of sport are unquestionably tied to what he has done in sport. Ergo, the alleged doping is at the core of everything that he has accomplished.

My morning paper offered this spoonful:

Professional athletes the worst role models for young people
Steroids and sex scandals are rampant

It does seem hard to argue with that.

If Lance is the doper that he appears to be, then shouldn't all of his accomplishments be questioned? Doesn't our society have a fundamental obligation to question these accomplishments if he was the doper we are to believe?

From what we are to believe, he didn't just try it because he had not choice, nor did he refuse to inhale.

Apparently, he aggressively set out to perfect the program. But, he didn't appear to stop there. Apparently, went out of his way to profit from the practices by actions such as his payments to the UCI and stripping ant-doping clause(s) out of the SCA contract. Meanwhile, his behavior towards others in the peloton (e.g. Simeoni) and black-listing of journalists looked more and more sinister.

Thus, it isn't that Lance may have doped or not. It is that he appears to have taken all aspects of doping to a new level.

I would have liked to add a concession that 'at least he is a nice guy', but in this thread didn't you yourself observe how this does not appear to be the case ("LA is jerk")?

Sometimes the shoe fits. Isn't it time for Lance to wear it?

Dave.

[OAR]

Of course, Coakley's statement also suggests that all sports are equal in their pursuit of doping. That just isn't true. Cycling is one of, if not the worst.
Your point is well taken.

However, everything that Lance has done in sport - at least what made him famous - appears to be inextricably tied to doping. His accomplisments outside of sport are unquestionably tied to what he has done in sport. Ergo, the alleged doping is at the core of everything that he has accomplished.

My morning paper offered this spoonful:

Professional athletes the worst role models for young people
Steroids and sex scandals are rampant

It does seem hard to argue with that.

If Lance is the doper that he appears to be, then shouldn't all of his accomplishments be questioned? Doesn't our society have a fundamental obligation to question these accomplishments if he was the doper we are to believe?

From what we are to believe, he didn't just try it because he had not choice, nor did he refuse to inhale.

Apparently, he aggressively set out to perfect the program. But, he didn't appear to stop there. Apparently, went out of his way to profit from the practices by actions such as his payments to the UCI and stripping ant-doping clause(s) out of the SCA contract. Meanwhile, his behavior towards others in the peloton (e.g. Simeoni) and black-listing of journalists looked more and more sinister.

Thus, it isn't that Lance may have doped or not. It is that he appears to have taken all aspects of doping to a new level.

I would have liked to add a concession that 'at least he is a nice guy', but in this thread didn't you yourself observe how this does not appear to be the case ("LA is jerk")?

Sometimes the shoe fits. Isn't it time for Lance to wear it?

Dave.

I think LA treated those he considered to be in his circle very well. The problem was that the circle was a bit small. If he would have included Floyd in the circle he could have kept up the front for much longer if not forever.

Who really knows if he will go down for any of the rumored upcoming indictments etc. It takes a lot of time, money, and evidence to convict him.

[adker]

Of course, Coakley's statement also suggests that all sports are equal in their pursuit of doping. That just isn't true. Cycling is one of, if not the worst.


Your point is well taken.

However, everything that Lance has done in sport - at least what made him famous - appears to be inextricably tied to doping. His accomplisments outside of sport are unquestionably tied to what he has done in sport. Ergo, the alleged doping is at the core of everything that he has accomplished.

My morning paper offered this spoonful:

Professional athletes the worst role models for young people
Steroids and sex scandals are rampant

It does seem hard to argue with that.

If Lance is the doper that he appears to be, then shouldn't all of his accomplishments be questioned? Doesn't our society have a fundamental obligation to question these accomplishments if he was the doper we are to believe?

From what we are to believe, he didn't just try it because he had not choice, nor did he refuse to inhale.

Apparently, he aggressively set out to perfect the program. But, he didn't appear to stop there. Apparently, went out of his way to profit from the practices by actions such as his payments to the UCI and stripping ant-doping clause(s) out of the SCA contract. Meanwhile, his behavior towards others in the peloton (e.g. Simeoni) and black-listing of journalists looked more and more sinister.

Thus, it isn't that Lance may have doped or not. It is that he appears to have taken all aspects of doping to a new level.

I would have liked to add a concession that 'at least he is a nice guy', but in this thread didn't you yourself observe how this does not appear to be the case ("LA is jerk")?

Sometimes the shoe fits. Isn't it time for Lance to wear it?

Dave.

Let me start by saying that non of my comments condone anything they are just observations to be considered.

Rarely have highly successful people spent a lot of time worrying about what people think of them, they seem to lose that filter while trying to achieve great things. There are a select few Nelson Mandella's in our world today and yes I would love to see more the them. Find me a President that does not have an inner circle of people who do not like them. In sports this is especially true. Micheal Jordan is not without his detractors, I have known a few in Hockey who say Gretzky was a pain in the ass, and Roger Clemens was a poster child for what not to be as a human being. Perhaps the problem is society is looking for role models in all the wrong places. We are the ones that try to make great athletes into role models instead of pastors and saints. There is a natural dichotomy in it. To be great in sports you need to be single minded, obsessed with winning at the expense of your opponent and driven to defeat others. Then the sponsors want to piggy back the fame garnered by athletic achievement and all the bad it takes to get there and make them role models. Is that what we really want?

In LA's case you have a bigger problem. He used the Athletic achievement to try to do something good on the side. So here is this programed people crusher trying to be a good person and do good with a charity. It is safe to say that for a while he was good at running a duel life. Good guy (livestrong) and a$$hole Armstrong but it was inevitable in today's media strong world that at some point we would have a hard time keeping the two separate.

I do not know what to think of him. I hate what he has done for a sport (entertainment) that I love, but I respect the hell out of him for the good he has for so many fighting a disease I hate. So I am not ready to condemn him. I would love it if the sport got him out for what he did there but left him alone to continue the good that he is achieving. I am just not sure society will allow for such polarization. We seem to want to love or hate with no middle ground. For my kids I will try to explain all of this for them to toil with. Not a hero but a bad guy who accomplished some good.

This post has been edited by adker: 23 August 2010 - 10:26 PM

[smug]

Let me start by saying that non of my comments condone anything they are just observations to be considered.

Rarely have highly successful people spent a lot of time worrying about what people think of them, they seem to lose that filter while trying to achieve great things. There are a select few Nelson Mandella's in our world today and yes I would love to see more the them. Find me a President that does not have an inner circle of people who do not like them. In sports this is especially true. Micheal Jordan is not without his detractors, I have known a few in Hockey who say Gretzky was a pain in the ass, and Roger Clemens was a poster child for what not to be as a human being. Perhaps the problem is society is looking for role models in all the wrong places. We are the ones that try to make great athletes into role models instead of pastors and saints. There is a natural dichotomy in it. To be great in sports you need to be single minded, obsessed with winning at the expense of your opponent and driven to defeat others. Then the sponsors want to piggy back the fame garnered by athletic achievement and all the bad it takes to get there and make them role models. Is that what we really want?

In LA's case you have a bigger problem. He used the Athletic achievement to try to do something good on the side. So here is this programed people crusher trying to be a good person and do good with a charity. It is safe to say that for a while he was good at running a duel life. Good guy (livestrong) and a$$hole Armstrong but it was inevitable in today's media strong world that at some point we would have a hard time keeping the two separate.

I do not know what to think of him. I hate what he has done for a sport (entertainment) that I love, but I respect the hell out of him for the good he has for so many fighting a disease I hate. So I am not ready to condemn him. I would love it if the sport got him out for what he did there but left him alone to continue the good that he is achieving. I am just not sure society will allow for such polarization. We seem to want to love or hate with no middle ground. For my kids I will try to explain all of this for them to toil with. Not a hero but a bad guy who accomplished some good.

[D-Queued]

Thanks adker, good summary.

What I cannot figure out is what portion of the motivation for the cancer work was related to doing good for others. Was he really a bad guy who did some good - completely independent of the bad. Or was he a bad guy taking advantage of good to cover up bad?

Killing two birds with one stone is an age-old analogy. In his case, was it three or four?

Was it an explicit part of the me-first strategy?

If you concede that he was so me-oriented, and this is why some people can even look the other way on doping, then how can you flip the argument and suggest that he was really generous at heart?

Dave.

[Lister Farrar]

Let me start by saying that non of my comments condone anything they are just observations to be considered.

Rarely have highly successful people spent a lot of time worrying about what people think of them, they seem to lose that filter while trying to achieve great things. There are a select few Nelson Mandella's in our world today and yes I would love to see more the them. Find me a President that does not have an inner circle of people who do not like them. In sports this is especially true. Micheal Jordan is not without his detractors, I have known a few in Hockey who say Gretzky was a pain in the ass, and Roger Clemens was a poster child for what not to be as a human being. Perhaps the problem is society is looking for role models in all the wrong places. We are the ones that try to make great athletes into role models instead of pastors and saints. There is a natural dichotomy in it. To be great in sports you need to be single minded, obsessed with winning at the expense of your opponent and driven to defeat others. Then the sponsors want to piggy back the fame garnered by athletic achievement and all the bad it takes to get there and make them role models. Is that what we really want?

In LA's case you have a bigger problem. He used the Athletic achievement to try to do something good on the side. So here is this programed people crusher trying to be a good person and do good with a charity. It is safe to say that for a while he was good at running a duel life. Good guy (livestrong) and a$$hole Armstrong but it was inevitable in today's media strong world that at some point we would have a hard time keeping the two separate.

I do not know what to think of him. I hate what he has done for a sport (entertainment) that I love, but I respect the hell out of him for the good he has for so many fighting a disease I hate. So I am not ready to condemn him. I would love it if the sport got him out for what he did there but left him alone to continue the good that he is achieving. I am just not sure society will allow for such polarization. We seem to want to love or hate with no middle ground. For my kids I will try to explain all of this for them to toil with. Not a hero but a bad guy who accomplished some good.

Well said. I've been stewing over the same thing. And even though it's a taboo subject in our house, my kids have stopped watching sports on TV, to the point where their coaches in soccer have to tell them to watch. I'd sure love to have a Steve Nash in cycling, or soccer, to point them towards.

Forgive me raising this again, but is there middle ground in elevating in this discussion the faults of the sports managers for allowing the doping? Sociopath or not, cycling did not give Armstrong many choices besides cheating and also-ran status. If the sport's leaders could take some of the blame, could LA escape with enough dignity to continue some of the good works? Myth or not?

This post has been edited by Lister Farrar: 23 August 2010 - 11:25 PM

[adker]

Well said. I've been stewing over the same thing. And even though it's a taboo subject in our house, my kids have stopped watching sports on TV, to the point where their coaches in soccer have to tell them to watch. I'd sure love to have a Steve Nash in cycling, or soccer, to point them towards.

Forgive me raising this again, but is there middle ground in elevating in this discussion the faults of the sports managers for allowing the doping? Sociopath or not, cycling did not give Armstrong many choices besides cheating and also-ran status. If the sport's leaders could take some of the blame, could LA escape with enough dignity to continue some of the good works? Myth or not?

I think a lot of what will come will help answer the questions for me. I agree with Dave's postulation. Did he do good (Livestrong work) for real desire to do good or did he do it for more nefarious reasons like, I want to look like a good guy because I am all about me and my image? Right now I am not sure. However, if he proves willing to take the hit, confess to sins and come clean with hopes that it will allow his cancer work to move forward without a black cloud then we will know he really puts the Cancer work ahead of his cycling image. However, if he holds his ground, gets nailed and in doing so devastates the Livestrong campaign then I would lean more toward it was all a ruse. Of course you could assume that he feels the need to hold his ground to keep his image to protect Livestrong. What I would love to see is for them to find a new poster child for now. Livestrong should be on a campaign to find others who have fought the battle and won, with other miracle stories of survivor-ship and elevate them as additional livestrong champions and let him move to the back ground till this is all cleared. That would be a huge step in showing it is not about him.

[lakeArrowheadrider]

Let me start by saying that non of my comments condone anything they are just observations to be considered.

Rarely have highly successful people spent a lot of time worrying about what people think of them, they seem to lose that filter while trying to achieve great things. There are a select few Nelson Mandella's in our world today and yes I would love to see more the them. Find me a President that does not have an inner circle of people who do not like them. In sports this is especially true. Micheal Jordan is not without his detractors, I have known a few in Hockey who say Gretzky was a pain in the ass, and Roger Clemens was a poster child for what not to be as a human being. Perhaps the problem is society is looking for role models in all the wrong places. We are the ones that try to make great athletes into role models instead of pastors and saints. There is a natural dichotomy in it. To be great in sports you need to be single minded, obsessed with winning at the expense of your opponent and driven to defeat others. Then the sponsors want to piggy back the fame garnered by athletic achievement and all the bad it takes to get there and make them role models. Is that what we really want?

In LA's case you have a bigger problem. He used the Athletic achievement to try to do something good on the side. So here is this programed people crusher trying to be a good person and do good with a charity. It is safe to say that for a while he was good at running a duel life. Good guy (livestrong) and a$$hole Armstrong but it was inevitable in today's media strong world that at some point we would have a hard time keeping the two separate.

I do not know what to think of him. I hate what he has done for a sport (entertainment) that I love, but I respect the hell out of him for the good he has for so many fighting a disease I hate. So I am not ready to condemn him. I would love it if the sport got him out for what he did there but left him alone to continue the good that he is achieving. I am just not sure society will allow for such polarization. We seem to want to love or hate with no middle ground. For my kids I will try to explain all of this for them to toil with. Not a hero but a bad guy who accomplished some good.

Right with you. With the addition, even with the doping, the comeback from death aspect, I do admire.

This post has been edited by lakeArrowheadrider: 24 August 2010 - 02:43 PM

[diknutz]

Let me start by saying that non of my comments condone anything they are just observations to be considered.

great post!

[Steve in ATL]

I think a lot of what will come will help answer the questions for me. I agree with Dave's postulation. Did he do good (Livestrong work) for real desire to do good or did he do it for more nefarious reasons like, I want to look like a good guy because I am all about me and my image?

So, purely as a rhetorical question, do you suppose that this matters one whit to someone Livestrong has helped?