# Lance armstrong: What do you think?



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'll start out with a quote from another thread, as I feel this should be separated from music...



Flamme said:


> Lol Lance...I feel sorry for that guy and in the same time despise him...


I like Lance Armstrong; at least he openly admits he cheated, although it was simply "the way the game was rigged" before he got there. I think that because cycling as a sport got suddenly elevated by him (and the force of his persona and charity), that this is why it was put under scrutiny. It's always been corrupt.

The only reason I feel sorry for him is because his approach turned out to be just like, no different, from all the other corporate mind-sets of CEOs, Wall Street bankers, and politicians; in fact, anyone with "power" in this culture.

I see this as "scapegoating" an individual for the shortcomings of an already-corrupt world.

If anything, this unmasks "sport" as somehow representative of the "best essence" of humanity.

The real truth is: Who really cares? "I got my stack, Jack, and screw you!" That's our _"essence."_ Meanwhile, the fake idealism of sport must be maintained. If you ask me, doping should be legal. This is the modern world.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Lance Armstrong? Meh. I don't really understand football.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

A few thoughts:

1: Had Lance not won those tours some other doper would have. There is no scenario in which a non-cheater would have won. 

2: Lance sued people for telling the truth about him. He literally destroyed the financial lives of people for telling the truth. He is a perjurer and an utter scum bag for that. An amoral, borderline sociopathic ego maniac. A truly awful human being who deserves to be sued into bankruptcy himself.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

"2: Lance sued people for telling the truth about him. He literally destroyed the financial lives of people for telling the truth. He is a perjurer and an utter scum bag for that. An amoral, borderline sociopathic ego maniac. A truly awful human being who deserves to be sued into bankruptcy himself. "

Agreed - the worst thing he has done - and the media too, is start a let's forget the ******* song and dance. This is not how it was done in days gone past- wish he would just disappear - he has had his 15 mins of fame.
Forget him I say- a total waste to time and thought.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

In more than a few circles, I bet those for whom winning, in sport or business, 'is all' I bet he is admired, and despised for having been caught out.

For me, it is another 'meh,' an alpha type who just has to win, no matter what.

and M.R. said it - this is these days, 'sport.' Millions for playing for a pro team, the same at stake in endorsements, etc.

It seems that no longer is 'superhuman' enough. More is more, and that is what is desired.

[The most that may happen in classical music -- another thread might be interesting on this, is the use of Beta-blockers, and perhaps less used and or known, amphetamines. The Beta-blockers are a common enough daily take for many a high-end performer, and there are quite legitimate reasons for its chronic use.]

Whether it is an argument about going from wood to fiberglass for the pole vault, or rigid hooked gloves for the parallel bars, the performers want to push further, the audiences expect and demand more -- and there you get the rationale (that is all it is) which allows the Lance Armstrongs of the world to want to enhance their performance, and take whatever is available to do ensure that higher performance.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Curious what people think of Oscar Pistorius, a championship runner despite having artificial legs. He got quite upset when confronted by another runner who had legs of superior manufacture...


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Hogwash*

Is it true the biggest problems in the world are ignorance and apathy?

Well I don't know and I don't care.:scold:


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Curious what people think of Oscar Pistorius, a championship runner despite having artificial legs. He got quite upset when confronted by another runner who had legs of superior manufacture...


I have one artificial leg. But people only care when handicapped people did something that requires physical prowess. No one cares about a one legged composer


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

As for Lance Armstrong, I haven't really heard much about it. But I don't care if people do drugs and I don't care what the outcome of any sporting event turns out to be. That should tell you my opinion about it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

violadude said:


> I have one artificial leg. But people only care when handicapped people did something that requires physical prowess. No one cares about a one legged composer


Wow, I didn't know that, violadude. I care about you a lot! I am really not into sports, either.

The thing that bugs me is how Wall Street and bankers get away with so much! That money-laundering scheme in Britain, and our own credit-card thieving banks, sucking poor debtors dry...and getting bailed-out.

BTW, the moderators had to discuss this subject before they allowed this thread to be posted. It seems this topic has created "flame wars" on other fora...


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2013)

I am laughing at how this has turned into a condemnation of Wall Street. Perhaps that was the real intention from the beginning, as the original poster has claimed he really doesn't care about sports. Nevermind that 99% of businesses don't screw people over, just like 99% of all athletes don't cheat. But we tar them all because of the actions of the few.

Lance was a cheat, a fraud, a phony, and a sociopath. He seeks to justify his own pathetic behavior by claiming that he is no different than others.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DrMike said:


> I am laughing at how this has turned into a condemnation of Wall Street. Perhaps that was the real intention from the beginning, as the original poster has claimed he really doesn't care about sports. Nevermind that 99% of businesses don't screw people over, just like 99% of all athletes don't cheat. But we tar them all because of the actions of the few.
> 
> Lance was a cheat, a fraud, a phony, and a sociopath. He seeks to justify his own pathetic behavior by claiming that he is no different than others.


Yes, but that 1% of businesses that DO screw people over have most of the economic power.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I would be very interested to ask Tour de France cyclists of the Armstrong era if they felt that anyone could have won a Tour without doping. My guess is that the vast majority would say "no". 

As for Lance, I have two comments:

1) I hope he does as his former teammate Tyler Hamilton encourages - continue his disclosure by naming names of people who aided him (doctors, racing officials, regulatory agency personnel, etc.) and explaining what each person or group did.

2) I agree that he cheated and used his position to unfairly punish others who opposed him. Those actions are clearly regrettable. I also believe exceedingly few people have ever worked as hard as he did to achieve their goals. I greatly respect his ability to push himself so hard for so long.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

You can't fool all the people all the time...well he nearly did.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2013)

violadude said:


> Yes, but that 1% of businesses that DO screw people over have most of the economic power.


Which companies? How do they screw people over? Provide them with goods that they want to buy? Services that they want? This idea is constantly thrown out there, but rarely, if ever, backed up with any kind of explanation. Somehow the possession of wealth is equated with corruption.

Lance Armstrong should be punished for what he did wrong. I don't buy the argument that "everybody does it." As long as nobody gets punished, then yes, you will get more people breaking the rules. Armstrong's wrongs go so deep - the man passed over 500 tests, supposedly. That suggests an incredibly advanced system of deception. Who knows where all it will lead.

I don't think he should have been viewed as a role model, anyway. The problem, though, is that with the dissolution of the family, children are increasingly growing up in fractured homes, most frequently lacking a father. They seek some kind of substitute, someone inspiring that they can look up to. Sociopaths like Armstrong feed off of that. Is it any wonder, then, that so many grow up disillusioned?


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

DrMike said:


> Which companies? How do they screw people over? Provide them with goods that they want to buy? Services that they want? This idea is constantly thrown out there, but rarely, if ever, backed up with any kind of explanation. Somehow the possession of wealth is equated with corruption.


Dare I say it: DrMike is right. At least, partly right. The problem is not _really_ the companies - the companies, and the people behind them, are behaving in a manner that is an inevitable consequence of modern capitalism. The solution to such problems is not to replace bad CEOs with better CEOs, it is not to have mandatory training in capitalist ethics, it is to establish a completely different economic framework that doesn't _intrinsically_ give incentives for screwing people over. Of course, the problem here is that everyone wants change, but they don't want _radical_ change, so instead they spend their time trying to fix the irreparable by demanding that _everything_ stays the same, except that taxes are raised so wealth can be redistributed. Certainly, we need to make moves away from our current wage disparity, but the solution is not redistribution; we have to make progress towards a post-capitalist society.



DrMike said:


> I don't think he should have been viewed as a role model, anyway. The problem, though, is that with the dissolution of the family, children are increasingly growing up in fractured homes, most frequently lacking a father. They seek some kind of substitute, someone inspiring that they can look up to. Sociopaths like Armstrong feed off of that. Is it any wonder, then, that so many grow up disillusioned?


This sounds very Freudian (i.e. bogus). The issue is not that we live in a nation of fractured homes where poor little kiddies are craving father figures, it is that we are living in an age of utterly insane hero-worship wherein celebrity culture is a kind of mainstream cult - these obsessions are held by people from _every_ demographic, not just broken homes, and it is a symptom of a wider cultural malaise.

On Armstrong, I just cannot understand why people care about sports. "Look what my body can do that yours can't!" Wtf?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Mephistopheles said:


> The issue is not that we live in a nation of fractured homes where poor little kiddies are craving father figures, it is that we are living in an age of utterly insane hero-worship wherein celebrity culture is a kind of mainstream cult - these obsessions are held by people from _every_ demographic, not just broken homes, and it is a symptom of a wider cultural malaise.


I think if those kiddies had real father figures to look up to, they would not be worshipping some distant celebrities.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I think if those kiddies had real father figures to look up to, they would not be worshipping some distant celebrities.


Take care to read the surrounding sentences - people from _every_ demographic worship celebrities; the parents a child has simply cannot be a valid explanation.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2013)

Mephistopheles said:


> Dare I say it: DrMike is right. At least, partly right. The problem is not _really_ the companies - the companies, and the people behind them, are behaving in a manner that is an inevitable consequence of modern capitalism. The solution to such problems is not to replace bad CEOs with better CEOs, it is not to have mandatory training in capitalist ethics, it is to establish a completely different economic framework that doesn't _intrinsically_ give incentives for screwing people over. Of course, the problem here is that everyone wants change, but they don't want _radical_ change, so instead they spend their time trying to fix the irreparable by demanding that _everything_ stays the same, except that taxes are raised so wealth can be redistributed. Certainly, we need to make moves away from our current wage disparity, but the solution is not redistribution; we have to make progress towards a post-capitalist society.


Exactly which post-capitalist economic model do you propose that would work better? And how do you eliminate wage disparity? People have different skills and abilities. People also have different work ethics. Do we pay all people the same, regardless of their effort? What is the impetus to not perform to the level of the least common denominator? If I'm not going to get paid any more than some loafer, then why should I work any harder than that person? Capitalism may have its problems - and nobody is saying it doesn't - but more progress has been made under capitalism than under any other economic system in world history. And until someone can actually come up with a better system, I'll stick with capitalism.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2013)

Mephistopheles said:


> Take care to read the surrounding sentences - people from _every_ demographic worship celebrities; the parents a child has simply cannot be a valid explanation.


I would very much be interested in hearing how you know that is true. And I suppose it also gets to what you are considering hero-worship. Is every level, from the casual fan, to the fanatic stalker, included in that? I have admired the abilities of people in the past, but have never looked up to such people as role models - my actions and ideas have been much more shaped by my parents. I'm not talking about hero worship here. I am talking about who we view as role models. We all look to someone as a role model. I believe that the most natural sources are parents - so much of our early development is shaped by them. True - some do completely reject their parents, but most people carry on many of the characteristics they witnessed in their parents. And if one or both of those are missing, I think it is natural to look elsewhere for an individual whom you admire and wish to emulate.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

DrMike said:


> Exactly which post-capitalist economic model do you propose that would work better? And how do you eliminate wage disparity? People have different skills and abilities. People also have different work ethics. Do we pay all people the same, regardless of their effort? What is the impetus to not perform to the level of the least common denominator? If I'm not going to get paid any more than some loafer, then why should I work any harder than that person? Capitalism may have its problems - and nobody is saying it doesn't - but more progress has been made under capitalism than under any other economic system in world history. And until someone can actually come up with a better system, I'll stick with capitalism.


I'm not going to turn this into a thread about political philosophy, so I'm not going to answer your questions in depth, but if we speak in labels, I would say that I associate myself most closely with a kind of libertarian socialism, although certain strains do have logistical issues. If you want potential answers to your questions, I suggest you read about that - and if you're not interested enough to do so, well that's just fine. Of course, I'm sure you realise that just because capitalism has been the best so far (a proposal I accept) does not mean that capitalism is _the_ best, and I would encourage you to explore alternatives when it is so abundantly clear that despite all the advances of capitalism, it appears impossible to make it work for everyone. Of course, the best economic system is not necessarily an objective issue - if we have fundamentally irreconcilable values, then I don't expect that we shall reach a valid compromise, and I shan't attempt to bring you round to my view. Put simply, in the 20th century, people made the mistake of espousing communism with a human face, and I believe in the coming centuries we shall look back on our current attempt at capitalism with a human face as a similar mistake. If you truly cannot conceive of any better alternatives, then that is an unfortunate failure of the imagination.



DrMike said:


> I would very much be interested in hearing how you know that is true. And I suppose it also gets to what you are considering hero-worship. Is every level, from the casual fan, to the fanatic stalker, included in that? I have admired the abilities of people in the past, but have never looked up to such people as role models - my actions and ideas have been much more shaped by my parents. I'm not talking about hero worship here. I am talking about who we view as role models. We all look to someone as a role model. I believe that the most natural sources are parents - so much of our early development is shaped by them. True - some do completely reject their parents, but most people carry on many of the characteristics they witnessed in their parents. And if one or both of those are missing, I think it is natural to look elsewhere for an individual whom you admire and wish to emulate.


The demographics of those who have a significant interest in celebrity culture is evident from the demographics of those who watch reality television and buy gossip magazines. If you would like to make the claim that the majority of such people come from broken homes, you may do so, but you would be wrong. If you want to abandon the term "hero-worship" in favour of "role models", I'm fine with that downgrade - replace the words as necessary in my previous comment and my point still stands; your claim that such people are used as role models because of parental circumstances is a statistical implausibility, however you wish to frame it, so your idealistic understanding of parenthood doesn't have a true bearing on the specifics of this issue, even if you are correct that the nuclear family model that humans concocted during the past 0.01% of their living history is the best possible.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

What a bizarre thread.

Even more bizarre responses :/

Mephistopheles: you say:


> This sounds very Freudian (i.e. bogus)


in relation to DrMike's conjecture. What about your own explanation?

The role model issue is not explained purely by parental modelling, necessarily, societal role modelling goes beyond the family unit, and into the societal and cultural influences (i.e. media spawnsuckers, including aggressive advertising).


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

Head_case said:


> What about your own explanation?


I would have to defer to social psychologists on that one - I freely admit that I do not have a coherent explanation for the phenomenon of modern celebrity culture, though it's obvious straight away that it must be complex and multi-faceted, and I can spot a statistical inconsistency when I see one.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Everybody can relax - now that the UK are beginning to assert their almost-total dominance in cycling events (including the Tour) rest assured that our honest, substance-free boys and girls will repair the damage.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

elgars ghost said:


> Everybody can relax - now that the UK are beginning to assert their almost-total dominance in cycling events (including the Tour) rest assured that our honest, substance-free boys and girls will repair the damage.


Are you quiet sure of those facts ?


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

I dunno...In England, I always thought cycling was a sport for 4x4 drivers, a bit like foxhunting


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

moody said:


> Are you quiet sure of those facts ?


Absolutely. Well, sort of. Actually, no. I was just trying to introduce a little uncharacteristic levity. However, we don't seem to be doing too badly if world records, Championship titles and Olympic medals are anything to go by. Unless, of course, you are referring to substance-oriented malpractice by British sport cyclists, of which obviously I have no idea at all, but dearly hope it doesn't happen.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2013)

Actually, the only real fallout from all of this is that cycling, and the Tour de France, will go back to be a sport that Europeans enjoy, but which Americans will once again forget. It will fall back to a level significantly below soccer, slightly above cricket, in terms of American interest. 

Other American sports can weather these kinds of scandals, because Americans care about those sports. Cycling just isn't one we care that much about, and were it not for Armstrong, would be even less popular than it now is. But if there is no longer that fascination with Armstrong's accomplishments, I don't see it holding anybody's attention anymore. All the better for the Europeans.

I am a bit curious, though, just how much his cheating helped him. Could he have won without the cheating? Come in the top 5? Top 10? Something we will never know.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Wow, Polednice AND Dr. Mike are back?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

DrMike said:


> Actually, the only real fallout from all of this is that cycling, and the Tour de France, will go back to be a sport that Europeans enjoy, but which Americans will once again forget. It will fall back to a level significantly below soccer, slightly above cricket, in terms of American interest.
> 
> Other American sports can weather these kinds of scandals, because Americans care about those sports. Cycling just isn't one we care that much about, and were it not for Armstrong, would be even less popular than it now is. But if there is no longer that fascination with Armstrong's accomplishments, I don't see it holding anybody's attention anymore. All the better for the Europeans.
> 
> I am a bit curious, though, just how much his cheating helped him. Could he have won without the cheating? Come in the top 5? Top 10? Something we will never know.


What no Americans - that would be such a shame and take the money out of sport, no way that can't be good......
Just think what the world would be like if grid iron was the dominant world football code. SOS


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> Wow, Mephistopheles AND Dr. Mike are back?


Grab the popcorn


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm not surprised at this. I do tune in to the Tour de France ocassionally. Over the years, its gotten harder and harder to do for the cyclists. About 10 years back, a cyclist of the old school (a champion from decades before, something like the 1950's or '60's) said that the present sport is not for athletes but for supermen. He couldn't believe how someone could 'win' one Tour let alone the two that then record holder the Spaniard Miguel Indurain had at that time (I think it was two, people can check?). Of course since that, we got Lance winning like 5 or 6 in a row, something like that. I mean this is ridiculous.

Its similar to that swag of Olympic gold medals the former East German athletes got in the 1970's and '80's. Later we found out that they'd taken performance enhancing drugs, and actually without knowing it. The athletes where given what they thought where vitamins or natural supplements. Later they found out that these where very strong drugs, and a number of these people have developed long term health problems due to these drugs. Its a high price to pay for gold and glory.

So basically, its happened before, and it will happen again.

Speaking of the Tour de France, I remember one year about 10 years ago, a whole team was thrown out of the race for testing positive to the drugs. Its just that scientists develop new drugs that are harder to detect and they develop drugs to block the drugs.

Its way different than the seemingly more 'innocent' days of sport 40 or 50 years back, isn't it? Now sadly this is a fact of life.

[EDIT - Indurain actually won 5 consecutive Tours!]...checked my facts...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> I have one artificial leg. But people only care when handicapped people did something that requires physical prowess. No one cares about a one legged composer


Because it does not handicap you as a composer -- piano, the pedals, maybe -- but not composing. 
There you have to just think of the lionized Beethoven, the incipient hearing problem to total deafness, and what people make of that. I don't recommend losing your hearing, though 

Sport, and those who do them, are to me just like Andrew Lloyd Weber, the popera singers, etc. in that I never think of them at all unless someone mentions them.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*To try to move this conversation back to the world of cycling...*

... and also to keep the topic from being a particularly curious beast-of-burden for one's politico-economic theorizing---

I speak from the perspective of an occasional cycling enthusiast- and not a competitive one. I never really caught 'Lance Armstrong Fever' when he was at his competitive peak. Oh, maybe I had my moments of thinking "good-on-the-American," but that was the extent of it.

When he left his wife of several years, and started taking up with Sheryl Crow, and (later) a succession of starlets, one of whom was c. 15 years younger, I started to get that creepy feeling-

Reports of his drug-use were sufficiently thick-and-fast that it was the stuff of humor ("Pharmstrong" was my personal favorite). Still, I bought into the _Così fan tutti_ rhetoric, believed that he was the most effective doper in a generation of dopers, and basically bought into the "selective prosecution" assertions that were forwarded by his apologists. I was wrong.

A phrase from baseball statistical guru Bill James re: Ty Cobb & Racism can, with free modification, be applied to Armstrong. Lance Armstrong didn't invent doping, it was taught to him. That said, he was arguably his period's most avid student, most enthusiastic bather in the cesspool. He doped, yes- so, I believe, did every other cyclist of that time that had aspirations of a Grand Tour podium (much less victory). He lied, yes- but virtually every illegal doper lies about his doping- until lying is so incredible that it's removed as an option. [The only exception that springs to mind unbidden is baseball's Mark McGwire, who has fallen back on "I'm-not-going-to-talk-about-the-past" when asked. It's an unsatisfying response- but it's less intelligence-insulting than a Palmeiro-esque denial.]

What separated Armstrong from other dopers was that when accusers spoke of his doping, he was not content with denial- he launched vindictive reprisals- with all of the PR, financial, and legal resources he could bring to bear. That is why I think he received his lifetime ban and vacation of _palmares_ on the (de)-merits.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> I'll start out with a quote from another thread, as I feel this should be separated from music...
> 
> I like Lance Armstrong; at least he openly admits he cheated


No he didn't. he denied it for years before being backed into a corner.


----------

