Knockie, There are indeed a few who still believe it isn't true, and claim that he's been forced into confessing something he hasn't done as it's easier.
Printable View
Knockie, There are indeed a few who still believe it isn't true, and claim that he's been forced into confessing something he hasn't done as it's easier.
Bloke at work still doesn't like to believe it, and does have even a hint of suspicion about other riders (e.g 5 time winner Miguel Indurain who was dominant at a time when doping was particularly prevelant). I always thought that Armstrong was up to something and that it was well thought out so as to avoid detection...although reading David Millar's book I was amazed by how simple it was/is to avoid being caught for a positive test.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Well yes I've thought about Indurain too, as you say, most of the other winners at the time were doping - Riis, Ullrich, Pantani.
If you look at the people on the podium of Tour De France, you see three riders who will be caught in three years time.
Curious about what Armstrong confessed on Oprah's show. 2 more days to wait for the whole package.
Indurain had an advantage that most riders or for that matter other people in the general population. He had larger lungs than most people and that combined with his larger body gave him a huge advantage. Still, like Mark, I have been suspicious.What was the riders name that fell while going downhill with Armstrong and at the time his GC had him at #2. He crashed heavily and that ended his tour. Blanco?
The interview will be shown on the discovery channel at 2am tomorrow morning in the UK. We have set it to record.
Thanks for that! Remote record set.
Joseba Beloki ran him fairly close one year IIRC. Armstrong also has a 'larger than average lung capacity' apparently, although I now wonder if that's just a PR line to avoid questions about his success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
So he's admitted doping to Oprah. He didn't exactly look sorry though, despite his protestations. I think he's sorry he got caught, and sorry his career is over, but he still seems to be normalising and rationalising his actions.
Oprah gave him a soft ride, as predicted. She should have asked him about his alleged cancer, and whether that was a front to cover his tracks and engender sympathy. Frankly I don't believe a word the maggot says, he's a prize a-hole.
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.
Having heard both sides of the story, I think, on balance, there is a chance he may have doped, possibly. I think.
Yeah , you're right .Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
If he's admitting he lied , then he's a big fat liar , and why should we believe anything that "pants on fire" says ?
Apparently some libraries are going to move books on Lance Armstrong into the fiction section ;)
is a blight on the sport and should be punished
Isn't it strange when you think of this doping as it is so common in cycling. Take the domestiques out and just take the leaders and potential winners. I believe that they are doping because the other guy is. On Mark's list he has Ivan Basso. Was he the one that almost beat Armstrong and had that horrendous crash. If so, then my theory is that all these guys do not want to lost that edge and so they dope. The reason so many do is because of the fact that without that 2% or 5% you will be nowhere.
Miguel Indurain I feel was an enigma because of the size of his heart and lungs. He gained his 2% to 5% naturally. Who knows.
I just wonder if these guys, free of doping could win?
Doping will probably never leave cycling and other sports, it's everywhere.. Reports that Merckx was dissapointed in Lance, is bullcrap because Merckx used blooddoping and was caught 3 times but our government protected him.. Also the time when he got hit in the liver is a false statement to camouflage that he got sick of the stuff he used.. Cycling and dope will be a never ending story. I witnessed Juniors winning races here who were on dope like amfetamines (speed)..
Btw that whole Oprah thing what's for me is quite a Lance show and yes I find itself that he's a sociopath, he even said that he doesn't felt that he cheated.. But I wonder if he didn't earn something with this again..
Do you cheat if you dope in a sport where everyone else does it? It really depends on the POV.Quote:
Originally Posted by mousti
Not that I agree with doping, just putting a bit of perspective into this whole mess.
I follow you but still it's still cheating because it's not allowed. Luckily for me this wasn't all a surprise for me, and it's like some said in Belgium the a "colored truth". It was a whole "show" nothing more to save Lance a bit.. Because in a real interview with someone who knows alot of cycling and who want to dig in very deep in this story, he would be even more damaged.. Now some people get respect for him, I'll never have the respect for him and I never had that.
Yes, you do if it's illegal. That's not a matter of point of view, but of fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Were your views on cheating influenced by the history of a certain seven time champ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I might consider some EPO for all the cycle rides I'm doing this year. I hear it's good stuff :D
Cheating was (is?) endemic within professional cycling. That's not an excuse or a reason but as Ben says, a fact.
Lance was obviously one of the figureheads of this conspiracy and reaped great rewards through using illegal drugs but it's difficult to asertain any credibility from the results of competition for the last 30 or so years.
Even longer than 30 years.
Yes Mark epo is still one of the best stuff to take and is probably still in use to get there hematocrit values just under 50 higher I wouldn't do because then it's getting life threatening.. Although with the Bio passport it's not so easy anyway to do it.
Btw is Lance not a bit the Walter White in the real world..? There are some common things between them..
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
It's cheating if you prevent perfectly clean riders from having a cat in hell's change unless they too put themselves at risk, of course it is.
My actual comment was that it's a fact that doping is illegal. Of course, what you say is right as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Plus I am sick of hearing about this Piece of Sh!t. Give him a couple of years with Bubba and move on.
I want some of the stuff you are smoking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Were there any perfectly clean riders though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
PS: I'm playing devils advocate, though some seem to be to serious around here. :\
Is so clear cut though?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Is cheating really only about legal vs illegal, or is it about a fair and level playing field?
Just heard a long radio discussion about doping and it wasn't as black and white as some people would like to think it is.
As I said before, and those who read before posting did see it, I am not saying he didn't do anything illegal, I am just putting things into perspective, the perspective of human beings with flaws and with a strong drive for results and under enormous pressure to succeed.
I will always give it my best to understand circumstances before consider to criticize someone who's just been knocked down.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88