In Defense of Lance Armstrong

[bobswire]

I agree with his view.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2233441/lance-armstrong-and-first-amendment?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WYM-08142017-Affiliate&utm_content=WYM-08142017-Affiliate+CID_cba9186454eabd644cfd0e5e3db8b301&utm_source=campaignmonitor%20outsidemagazine&utm_term=tried%20to%20place%20a%20gag%20order%20on %20Armstrong

[ntb1001]

yup...me too.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

[Cicli]

Agreed,
I couldnt care less about riding until Lance came on the scene. Maybe a bit beforehand with GL. But.... it was LA that brought me into the sport. I owe him for that.

[FlashUNC]

Outside has been carrying water for him for 20 years. Can set a watch to it.

A ban from any involvement in a sanctioned race means exactly that. Guy can't volunteer to marshal corners at the local morning crit.

Exile from the sport is exile, plain and simple.

[Gummee]

I'm betting on at least 5 pages before this thing gets locked.

Me? I enjoyed the insights from Le Tour, but admittedly didn't list to all of em

M

[bcroslin]

Like it or not, Lance was once again singlehandedly making cycling cool again in America.

And I'll stop right there. Don't need to read anymore. The story is click-baity-BS.

[marciero]

Outside has been carrying water for him for 20 years. Can set a watch to it.

A ban from any involvement in a sanctioned race means exactly that. Guy can't volunteer to marshal corners at the local morning crit.

Exile from the sport is exile, plain and simple.

A ban from official involvement, yes. Surely they cant stop him from doing podcasts. I dont see why he needs any official imprimatur. I'm sure he's figuring out/figured out how to monetize his efforts.

[choke]

I can't agree with much in that piece....and that starts with the title, "In Defense of Lance Armstrong and His Freedom of Speech"

No one was trying to stop Lance from doing his podcast. He can speak about any race that he wants, he just can't be compensated by the organizers of said race for his podcast. No compensation, no problem.

[FlashUNC]

A ban from official involvement, yes. Surely they cant stop him from doing podcasts. I dont see why he needs any official imprimatur. I'm sure he's figuring out/figured out how to monetize his efforts.

Sure. But when you become the official podcast partner of a ProTour race, then you're involved in that race. Can't do it.

He's free to podcast till the cows come home. He just can't get paid -- or even volunteer -- with a sanctioned race to do it.

Not sure why he feels the need to partner with any UCI race other than to try to weasel his way back into the sport, given the audience he apparently has.

[ultraman6970]

This situation surprised me eventhought the idea of the ban crossed my mind when I started watching/listening his podcast #0 TDF.

Let the man do what he knows, the problem IMO is that he is gathering more attention than the usual tv broadcasters like phill and paul, and probably that kind'a triggered the issue.

This takes me to the idea that his bike shop is illegal too then?????

Let the guy to talk, he is doing a lot better job than phill and paul combined because LA is not selling us anything but telling it as it is.

[numbskull]

"The same people you abuse on your way up
You may meet up
On your way back down"

Little Feat

[sales guy]

Sorry, ,I don't even need to read this to disagree. I met him over 20 years ago when he was tri-geeking. And even back then, he was a massive tool. You could see how he was, self absorbed, arrogant, conceited. Determined to win at any cost. In 1999 at CABDA, I was done with him. I've only said he,llo a couple times since then. Mainly at a show or something like that. But only if we catch eyes.

Also, I know more than most abotu the LeMond/Armstrong saga given my relationship to Greg, Kathy and Lance.

With everything i've seen, heard and how they've all acted around me, sorry. I just don't have it for him. Not unless he was 1,000,000,000,000,000% honest and open about everything. He'd have to change a big way.

I feel bad kind of sort given everything that's happened to him and his family. Mainly cause he has kids. But he did it to himself. He knew better. He should've known better. He just didn't care. And I really think he still doesn't.

Just my opinion of course.

But I've met a ton of pros over the years. And worked for a ton more. There are some that incredibly appreciative and super cool. And some that are just absolute tools and you never want to deal with again. He's in the tool category.

[Big Dan]

Should have won 5 and gone home.

[djg21]

Agreed,
I couldnt care less about riding until Lance came on the scene. Maybe a bit beforehand with GL. But.... it was LA that brought me into the sport. I owe him for that.

I don’t care that it’s Lance the former bike racer, who I was/am not a fan of. In his current capacity, Lance is a member of the press reporting on a newsworthy sporting event. The race is taking place on public thoroughfares, and Lance has every right to be present and report on the race. No one can be confused into believing that Lance is playing a sanctioned, official role in the event. If you don’t approve of Lance, don’t listen to his podcasts.

[peanutgallery]

Be that as it may

-7 is still, and always will be, a self-serving douche-nozzle. It's well documented. He and his cronies are running low on gas $ for the lear jet and just attempting to re-write the narrative. If this doesn't work, Ebay will be littered with Livestrong branded superhero capes and jetskis

For the record, I think Rapha is a scam and someone actually landed on the moon

In before the lock

I agree with his view.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2233441/lance-armstrong-and-first-amendment?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WYM-08142017-Affiliate&utm_content=WYM-08142017-Affiliate+CID_cba9186454eabd644cfd0e5e3db8b301&utm_source=campaignmonitor%20outsidemagazine&utm_term=tried%20to%20place%20a%20gag%20order%20on %20Armstrong

[bicycletricycle]

Did they try to get a "gag order" placed on him? I think that the economic angle is meaningless. If his ban includes commentating in an official capacity then he should just get funding another way.

I like his podcast and hope he does more of them.

They are not trampling on the spirit of the first amendment, lance is clearly able to say whatever he likes about a cycling race. He just can't get paid for it by the organizers. He did wrong and has to suffer the consequences. That's fine by me.

[choke]

The race is taking place on public thoroughfares, and Lance has every right to be present and report on the race. No one can be confused into believing that Lance is playing a sanctioned, official role in the event. From the opinion piece that started this thread (emphasis added): Intrigued, the organizers of the Colorado Classic, America’s newest stage race, which kicked off August 10, partnered with Lance to issue podcasts from a custom Airstream at the races. The organizers—former ski shop guys from Colorado with a huge love of cycling—told the Denver Post that they were “blown away” at the potential audience they could reach with Lance’s help. Naturally, Lance would get paid for his work. If that's not a "sanctioned, official role" I don't know what is.

[pbarry]

From the opinion piece that started this thread (emphasis added): If that's not a "sanctioned, official role" I don't know what is.

Well said.

IMO, l.a. knew exactly what he was doing by signing on with the race: Kerfuffle with the UCI. He gets more press, we click, he's in the public eye..

[OtayBW]

Well said.

IMO, l.a. knew exactly what he was doing by signing on with the race: Kerfuffle with the UCI. He gets more press, we click, he's in the public eye..
A lot of that going around these days.

[Tony T]

The organizers of the Colorado Classic want LA's involvement.
Reason? Money. LA would draw more dollars to the Colorado Classic.

LA is already doing his Stages Podcast, however any ad dollars from it will go to LA, $0 to the Colorado Classic.

[weiwentg]

From the opinion piece that started this thread (emphasis added): ... If that's not a "sanctioned, official role" I don't know what is.

Yeah. That same piece said that

USADA, in its attempt to place a gag order on Lance Armstrong, trampled on the spirit of the First Amendment. And in the process, it did everything in its power to quash cycling in the U.S., a sport that needs every bit of help it can get.

I've said before, I'm not a lawyer, but the First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It's already been pointed out, but Lance is not being sanctioned for exercising his right to free speech. He is being sanctioned because he was placed in an official role at the Colorado Classic. Being a paid commenter, meaning that the organizers hired him to comment via podcast, counts as an official role.

There's a lot about the First Amendment I don't understand. I don't claim that I am an expert. I do claim that the author is even more of an ignoramus than I am.

[Tony T]

He and his cronies are running low on gas $ for the lear jet …

No one flies in a Lear anymore, GV is the only way to fly :)

[pbarry]

The organizers of the Colorado Classic want LA's involvement.
Reason? Money. LA would draw more dollars to the Colorado Classic.

Did the chicken or the egg come first? Who's the chicken and who's the egg? :beer:

[cmg]

Lance understands tactics and he's a pretty good interviewer. Brings in an audience that normally isn't interested in cycling races. His interview of TJ Eisenhart was a hoot. too bad he has been banned, he would have made a pretty good director sportif.

[gianni]

I like his podcasts and he is so much better than Phil and Paul. Rock on.

I think this fancy quote is appropriate, "The light doesn't go to the moth. The moth goes to the light. (some wanker)"

:beer:

[sfscott]

Not sure why he feels the need to partner with any UCI race other than to try to weasel his way back into the sport, given the audience he apparently has.

I don't think he needs to. I think the idea on both sides was to use his platform and notoriety to help promote a new race in the states and generate interest across all fronts. I think Lance genuinely wants to support US cycling and young riders,

Being "part" of the event might have meant better access to riders, events, venues, etc. in furtherance of promoting a rare UCI race in the US.

Not a bad objective, and those opposing it are a bit self-righteous IMO. If you're a fan of cycling and want more US interest, then perhaps you should be asking if you'd rather win or rather be right.

[pdmtong]

I choose not to listen

hard to watch him in "tour de pharmacy"

Yes many others but he was they head of the snake

-7. We've all said all that there is to be said

[saab2000]

If LA got a lifetime ban there are surely others who deserve the same. As much as I was ambivalent about him during his career and think he basically got what he deserved, he was hardly the only one and it was an era from the early 1990s until his downfall of complete and total excess in cycling.

He was singled out. There were definitely others who deserved what he got or else he got it way too hard.

Why does one of his teammates (JV), who admitted to cheating and was a total insider and part and parcel to the cheating of LA now control a Pro Tour team but LA can't hold a flag in a parking lot criterium?

Double standards, that's why.

[superbowlpats]

[QUOTE=saab2000;2219867]If LA got a lifetime ban there are surely others who deserve the same. As much as I was ambivalent about him during his career and think he basically got what he deserved, he was hardly the only one and it was an era from the early 1990s until his downfall of complete and total excess in cycling.
QUOTE]

My thoughts as well. Those 7 Tours were must watch TV for me. This year I hardly watched. Considering what's going on these days (POTUS, NK, Charlottesville...) LA doesn't raise my blood pressure one bit.

[marciero]

The event likely has much more to gain financially from any official association than he does. He's already getting the downloads and youtube views-as many as lots of youtube "stars". Who knows his motivation. Getting back in? Even with the pre-determined conclusion, having a UCI event make overtures, and having now become a big presence on the scene, official or not, is a great way to say "f-u" to wada.

If he werent so damn good at doing this we would not be having this discussion.

[Rusty Luggs]

..... then perhaps you should be asking if you'd rather win or rather be right.

Dopers choose "I'd rather win".........

[saab2000]

[QUOTE=saab2000;2219867]If LA got a lifetime ban there are surely others who deserve the same. As much as I was ambivalent about him during his career and think he basically got what he deserved, he was hardly the only one and it was an era from the early 1990s until his downfall of complete and total excess in cycling.
QUOTE]

My thoughts as well. Those 7 Tours were must watch TV for me. This year I hardly watched. Considering what's going on these days (POTUS, NK, Charlottesville...) LA doesn't raise my blood pressure one bit.

They were not must-watch events for me, though when Ulrich and Pantani were still riding it was more interesting. I was never a huge LA fan as my cycling addiction started long before he sat on a bike.

That said, I really did appreciate his World Championship ride as a new rider in 1993 in Oslo. That fit the definition of 'epic' and cemented his place in cycling very early.

As to the other events in the world, I agree 100%. Some folks get bent out of shape over a cyclist who cheated. There are bigger problems. I'm not losing sleep over LA either way.

[benb]

I'm fine with this article.

I don't really believe all the bad actors who helped Lance put on his show for all those years have really been purged from USADA.

Lots of sinners over at USADA/UCI and yet they are always fighting to be the first to cast stones.

It's one of the reasons I am so suspicious of Sky. Ever since UCI/USADA got Lance out of the way they have been trying to find a new hero story/peloton boss to make everyone forget about Lance, but each successive one they find turns out to have some fatal flaw just like Lance.

I didn't actually listen to Lance's Podcast cause I've lost almost all interest in Pro racing.

I did listen to some of his interview series a while back, not bad, but I didn't become a regular listener. He's good, but I guess it's just not my kind of material. Kind of like Joe Rogan. I think Joe is fantastic at least when he's not talking about MMA too much, but for some reason I never become a regular listener.

[54ny77]

Lance is free to say whatever the heck he wants.

And people are free to not listen.

Saab2000's comments about various co-conspirators being allowed to remain in influential roles is spot on. They all do what's in their best interests.

Cycling is ridiculous in the grand economic stage of sport, people in our little slice of the world are fighting over proverbial scraps when compared to the average schlub in baseball, football or basketball.

[Gummee]

page 3! y'all keep this up!

M

[oldpotatoe]

A ban from official involvement, yes. Surely they cant stop him from doing podcasts. I dont see why he needs any official imprimatur. I'm sure he's figuring out/figured out how to monetize his efforts.

Of course not. This 'taking his first amendment rights away' is click-bait and BS. 'Outside' will be paying him regardless.

[FlashUNC]

I don't think he needs to. I think the idea on both sides was to use his platform and notoriety to help promote a new race in the states and generate interest across all fronts. I think Lance genuinely wants to support US cycling and young riders,

Being "part" of the event might have meant better access to riders, events, venues, etc. in furtherance of promoting a rare UCI race in the US.

Not a bad objective, and those opposing it are a bit self-righteous IMO. If you're a fan of cycling and want more US interest, then perhaps you should be asking if you'd rather win or rather be right.

If the sport needs someone -- who used the dead, dying and ill as a shield against allegations of taking drugs to win a bike race -- as its only vehicle for growth, then maybe the sport shouldn't survive.

I never had a problem with the doping. It is what it is. It's everything else about the man that's reprehensible.

[veggieburger]

If the sport needs someone -- who used the dead, dying and ill as a shield against allegations of taking drugs to win a bike race -- as its only vehicle for growth, then maybe the sport shouldn't survive.



I agree.

I had a friend raise over $20k to ride beside Lance for an hour. A relative of his had cancer, and he believed in everything Lance said. He believed it was a witch hunt against someone who was just a really great rider.

What a kick in the stones.

I bought Lance's books...had no idea they should have been in the "fiction" section.

[bikingshearer]

I never had a problem with the doping. It is what it is. It's everything else about the man that's reprehensible.

Bingo.

More to the point, Lance was banned from the sport for life. And for a reason. He cannot be allowed to have any role whatsoever as part of a sanctioned event. And it stays that way until he serves his suspension, meaning until (a) he dies or (b) UCI/WADA/whoever decides to lift the ban.

You can debate whether or not Lance should have been given a lifetime ban.
But as long as the ban stands, he is out. Not everything, or even most things, are this cut-and-dried, but this one is.

[Mark McM]

I never had a problem with the doping. It is what it is. It's everything else about the man that's reprehensible.

People seem to forget that Armstrong wasn't just one more athlete that doped. As a team owner and manager, he also supplied doping products to other racers, and was in a position to pressure them to dope. He wasn't just an innocent victim of a corrupt system, he willingly became an instigator of the system.

There have been hints here about how Armstrong was somehow singled out; he was not. The other instigators of doping in the Tailwind Sports team, including team manager Johann Bruyneel and team doctors Pedro Celaya and Luis Garcia del Moral, were also given lifetime bans. The initials JV were brought up, which I assume means Jonathan Voughters - yes, he took doping products, but did he ever supply dope to others, or attempt to coerce others to dope?