Worth a read. The more I read about Armstrong the more I think that he's a psychopath.
Lance Armstrong's doping admission: Questions Oprah should have asked - Yahoo! Sports
Printable View
Worth a read. The more I read about Armstrong the more I think that he's a psychopath.
Lance Armstrong's doping admission: Questions Oprah should have asked - Yahoo! Sports
Not true. Sociopath would be a much closer definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShiftingGears
Sociopath Vs. Psychopath: There is a Difference - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
He is no monster, but he is definitely a deeply flawed man.Quote:
Characteristics of a sociopath are as followed :
1. Sociopaths are very charming. Tick.
2. Sociopaths can be extremely manipulative and will try to con you whenever possible. Tick
3. Sociopaths feel that they are entitled to everything. Not so much.
4. Sociopaths will lie continuously to get what they want. They can even sometimes manipulate a lie detector. Tick.
5. Sociopaths have no remorse, shame or guilt. Tick.
Wow that full ticklist is quite alarming. I believe I am with such a person right now!
(and yet they will believe that just because there's one condition - no.14 - they don't necessarily meet, that the whole thing is invalid, no matter how much the rest of is surely them to a T - and also, the whole thing is written by someone else who doesn't know them or their situation, so it's completely invalid)
Armstrong fits many of the definitions of both. I wonder whether he has ever given any consideration to psychiatric treatment.
It all depends on the environment in which one lives and the reality to which he/she has to adapt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Sometime people become soldiers, go to war and there they kill other people and they get to the point where that becomes normal life for them.
The same goes for sportsmen, and women, who live for the sport.
It's sad but it is how it is in professional sports, and sometimes even at lower levels. It's human nature.
This doesn't excuse Lance, just tries to explain why he behaves the way he does.
Equally, though, that behaviour does not always end in cheating and lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
For me the most interesting point was that he said he didn't use drugs in 2009 & 2010. If we believe that we know he's a good rider at least and capable of winning without drugs. Which makes it even more sad really.
He probably had sticker sponsor rules about doping and when hasn't been caught about those offenses, doesn't want to loose the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
And they are still fresh enough for WADA and USADA to investigate until their 8 year statute of limitations runs out.
As I understand it, admitting anything in 09/10 could leave himself open to perjury charges, whereas the statute of limitations has run out for him to be charged for earlier lies. He's not sorry about anything, other than the fact he's been caught, in my opinion. He still believes he "deserves" to compete in triathlons, for goodness sake.
All I saw in the interview was a serial liar who knows how and when to turn on the tears, and a pushover of an interviewer who couldn't probe a stool for sweetcorn. Hopefully both of them will go away now, and the media will stop giving them the oxygen of publicity.
He's only admitted it so he that he will be able to compete in triathlon's again. I have watched part one of the interview. I am not sure whether I can be bothered to watch the second part which I recorded last night which appears to be the sob story element of the interview. I like cycling and pushing yourself to such limits I can fully believe that people would dope, just to get through it, if not to win. I'll say it again, Lance Armstrong was just the best doper of them all on that era, it's all a bit boring now.