Lance Armstrong still doing interviews.

[Cicli]

Nevermind.

[brownm68]

sorry, replied to wrong thread

[jamesdak]

Looks like he's dead to everyone since this has not turned into a hate Lance thread. :rolleyes:

[bicycletricycle]

I like listening to his interviews

I like listening to his views on cycling

They are covering more races this year which is exciting

[Mikej]

Yeah, I'm over the whole "he screwed everybody over" thing and feel he is still a huge part of cycling, regardless. I am pretty sure 85% of the pro athletes and "entertainers" out there have plenty of doings to hide. At least Lance isn't telling us how to vote.

[oldpotatoe]

Yeah, I'm over the whole "he screwed everybody over" thing and feel he is still a huge part of cycling, regardless. I am pretty sure 85% of the pro athletes and "entertainers" out there have plenty of doings to hide. At least Lance isn't telling us how to vote.

How true. But when Lance was asked if he might be tempted by politics Armstrong had a provocative reply: "Never say never. ":eek:

[jamesdak]

:eek:

Hey, he has the perfect mindset and lack of integrity for politics, right? :banana:

[PQJ]

Looks like he's dead to everyone since this has not turned into a hate Lance thread. :rolleyes:

Not dead. Justice was served. No need to pile on at this point.

[ntb1001]

I hate to admit..but have always been a fanboy!!

He is one guy...look at the Russian athletic Olympic debacle, and what he has done is small in comparison.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

[MattTuck]

Yeah, I'm over the whole "he screwed everybody over" thing and feel he is still a huge part of cycling, regardless. I am pretty sure 85% of the pro athletes and "entertainers" out there have plenty of doings to hide. At least Lance isn't telling us how to vote.

Sorry to piggy back on this comment, but you touched on something here that I think is worth noting.

People seem to conflate their judgements of a person and the quality/value of that person's ideas, and I'll even include 'entertainment' as part of the general term 'ideas'. The reality is that ideas stand on their own. Just because a dishonest/cheat/megalomaniac/person you don't like/person you disagree with on other issues/etc. says something, doesn't mean you should discount it out of hand.

It is not inconsistent to think that he is a dirt bag of a human and ALSO has interesting points of view that are worth listening to, or provides decent entertainment. I mean, this is a bit of hyperbole, but what if you found out that Mozart was a murderer. Would that fact make his music any more or less compelling? I'd argue "no", the music stands on its own.

It is a separate question of whether you want to financially support a person who you think is a cheat/bad person. If listening to his podcast provides money to him, I can understand how a person would decide on principle to avoid being monetized.

[FlashUNC]

He used the ill, the dead and the dying as a shield for his doping program. He's scum.

[dbnm]

He lied so hard he sued people.
He went after the Lemonds.

Yeah, not a big fan.

[jamesdak]

Looks like he's dead to everyone since this has not turned into a hate Lance thread. :rolleyes:

And it begins... ;)

[jamesdak]

He lied so hard he sued people.
He went after the Lemonds.

Yeah, not a big fan.

Greg Lemond, the man! :banana::banana::banana:

[false_Aest]

I'd ride with that dude any day.

Just like I'd go to the surgeon that took uppers to make sure he knew his material in med school.

Just like I'd listen to the violist that takes beta-blockers to shake those nerves.

Just like every night has its dawn.

Just like every cowboy sings his sad, sad song.

[saab2000]

I'd ride with that dude any day.

Just like I'd go to the surgeon that took uppers to make sure he knew his material in med school.

Just like I'd listen to the violist that takes beta-blockers to shake those nerves.

Just like every night has its dawn.

Just like every cowboy sings his sad, sad song.

Every rose has its thorn.

[adub]

What you hate in most others is the shadow within yourself.

[jamesdak]

What you hate in most others is the shadow within yourself.


LOL, nope! :no::no::no:

[Tony]

Every rose has its thorn.

Roses don't have thorns, in this case prick-les :eek:

[saab2000]

For better or worse, LA has integral place in cycling history. To act like he doesn’t exist is absurd. It’s also worthy of note that he himself was a death’s door at one point and has a strong connection to cancer patients.

His punishment does not fit his crime IMHO, at least in light of others who were undoubtedly just as dirty who are still in prominent positions in the sport.

He was given the death penalty. Others were given a year of probation.

I’m not fanboy and I’m obviously conflicted about him, but others are guilty of essentially the same things and are in cycling today. If LA is banned for life we can probably name ten more who deserve the same ban.

[saab2000]

Roses don't have thorns, in this case prick-les :eek:

It’s a reference to a song.

And if you ever need to trim roses you will retract this statement about roses not having thorns. They will rip your arms to shreds! Ask me how I know.....! ;)

[campy man]

He used the ill, the dead and the dying as a shield for his doping program. He's scum.

Lance the person is ... see above. I have a hard time accepting his behavior as a person off the bike :mad:

LA the cyclist ... he was kinda bad ass on the bike :bike:

[bicycletricycle]

LOL, nope! :no::no::no:

Unfortunately, a simple refutation of the shadow won’t get you very far with the Jungians.

:)

[johnniecakes]

This thread reminds me of the recent thread about off topic subjects. If you don’t want to listen to his podcasts then do not tune in. But if you want to listen then by all means tune in.

Also reminds me of the words of Taylor Swift “Haters gonna hate”

Time to move on…..

[bigbill]

I like the podcasts. Lance has some provocative guests that we only know through reputation. It's nice to hear about the person and what they have to say versus public perception.

For Lance, he was a dirty cyclist in the heyday of dirty cyclists. I'd still ride with him but he'd drop me by the end of the block.

[Mark McM]

Also reminds me of the words of Taylor Swift “Haters gonna hate”

Or are they words of Hall and Butler?

(Swift was actually sued using the expressions "Players gonna play/Haters gonna hate", by songwriters Hall and Butler who used similar expressions in their earlier song "Playas Gon' Play". But the lawsuit ended when a federal judge granted Swift's motion for dismissal, stating that the concepts expressed are too "banal" for copyright protection.)

[FlashUNC]

Lance the person is ... see above. I have a hard time accepting his behavior as a person off the bike :mad:

LA the cyclist ... he was kinda bad ass on the bike :bike:

I can't separate the two. They're both one and the same for me. Le program de dopage benefitted from his years of strident denials that literally threw cancer and those suffering from it in front of any claims that he might be doped. Which, contrary to his claims, anyone with eyeballs and a cursory understanding of the sport could see was true.

Never mind that the "clean guy beating the brakes off doped riders" was also a central part of the myth. You can't extract one from the other from where I sit.

[Tony]

It’s a reference to a song.

And if you ever need to trim roses you will retract this statement about roses not having thorns. They will rip your arms to shreds! Ask me how I know.....! ;)

At one time I was responsible for pruning hundreds of roses, they will tear you up.
prick-les was in reference to LA

[marciero]

Sorry to piggy back on this comment, but you touched on something here that I think is worth noting.

People seem to conflate their judgements of a person and the quality/value of that person's ideas, and I'll even include 'entertainment' as part of the general term 'ideas'. The reality is that ideas stand on their own. Just because a dishonest/cheat/megalomaniac/person you don't like/person you disagree with on other issues/etc. says something, doesn't mean you should discount it out of hand.

It is not inconsistent to think that he is a dirt bag of a human and ALSO has interesting points of view that are worth listening to, or provides decent entertainment. I mean, this is a bit of hyperbole, but what if you found out that Mozart was a murderer. Would that fact make his music any more or less compelling? I'd argue "no", the music stands on its own.

It is a separate question of whether you want to financially support a person who you think is a cheat/bad person. If listening to his podcast provides money to him, I can understand how a person would decide on principle to avoid being monetized.

I'm fine listening to Lance podcasts. I thought they were good. But sometimes a person's actions can illuminate or give perspective on their work, especially if themes in their work mirror situations in their lives. Or it could simply spoil the experience. I could give extant filmmakers and comedians as examples.

[cachagua]

The concepts expressed are too banal for copyright protection...


Thank you for that! I wonder if the justices would mind if I borrow that phrase? (Because, you know, hate to get in trouble.) But is there a lot of that going around, or what! Ennnnnd-lessly applicable.

[glepore]

Lance was an evil person while doping and until he came clean, thus the death penalty while others got deals. It was fitting and even he understands that.

I've found it actually refreshing how candid he is about his lack of credibility on certain subjects and how shamefully he acted.

Hate the sin, love the sinner, right?

His podcasts are highly entertaining. He's smart and has a sharp wit and pov. I'm a fan.

[rain dogs]

death penalty? a little hyperbolic, no?

He got a lifetime ban from bicycling competitively. :rolleyes: He still lives in a mansion. And he's served what? 5 years and a month? That's barely more than the minimum standard ban now (4years).

Danilo Di Luca also has a lifetime ban. Amongst others. You mad for them? If the sporting penalty exists in the rules (like any foul/suspension in any sport) it deserves asking: what is the most flagrant violation we've seen (or that we hope we don't see) that is deserving of that penalty?


Has anyone violated the rules of cycling MORE flagrantly than Armstrong? If so, who?
If you can't give a lifetime ban to Armstrong, who can you give it to?
Ricco got 12 years! Armstrong isn't even halfway there and we're claiming it's unfair already? Was Ricco twice the problem/offender Armstrong was?

If Armstrong is the worst rule breaker we've seen in cycling to date, then he is befit of the harshest penalty in the rules. If Armstrong only deserves 5 years, what do other deserve when they make a supplement error/or contaminated substance etc. 1 day? Some of them have served 1 year for a small mistake. Armstrong intentionally took every measured amount of everything PED for his whole post cancer career and admitted it!

[bicycletricycle]

He also has a $100,000,000 dollar law suit coming up this year. He seems pretty positive about it but it must be stressful. I know lots of people think that he deserves it and that is certainly a fair perspective.

I think he has made out all right all things considered, I am sure lots of people would like to see him in the poor house. I have no idea how rich he is these days.

He did do harm but he also did some good.

I find his attitude really refreshing these days.


death penalty? a little hyperbolic, no?

He got a lifetime ban from bicycling competitively. :rolleyes: He still lives in a mansion. And he's served what? 5 years and a month? That's barely more than the minimum standard ban now (4years).

Danilo Di Luca also has a lifetime ban. Amongst others. You mad for them? If the sporting penalty exists in the rules (like any foul/suspension in any sport) it deserves asking: what is the most flagrant violation we've seen (or that we hope we don't see) that is deserving of that penalty?


Has anyone violated the rules of cycling MORE flagrantly than Armstrong? If so, who?
If you can't give a lifetime ban to Armstrong, who can you give it to?
Ricco got 12 years! Armstrong isn't even halfway there and we're claiming it's unfair already? Was Ricco twice the problem/offender Armstrong was?

If Armstrong is the worst rule breaker we've seen in cycling to date, then he is befit of the harshest penalty in the rules. If Armstrong only deserves 5 years, what do other deserve when they make a supplement error/or contaminated substance etc. 1 day? Some of them have served 1 year for a small mistake. Armstrong intentionally took every measured amount of everything PED for his whole post cancer career and admitted it!

[AngryScientist]

IMO, one of the only reasons to watch pro cycling is the personalities involved. it's just more entertaining when there are polarizing characters involved. lance was a guy that people love to hate - and those last few "comeback" tours he participated in were good entertainment to see how/what he did on the bike.

I mean - when Peter Sagan does something interesting in the tour, or wins a sprint finish - i laugh because i know somewhere FLASHUNC is going to catch it on a highlight real and cringe.

that's what makes pro level sports entertaining - at least for me. we all know what adult men in spandex look like pedaling bicycles, watching racing is boring without some drama.

i'm all for the podcast and LA sticking around to some degree.

[Scuzzer]

Until Lance or the UCI pay me back for the 12 grand I spent on seeing the 2004 TdF I'm not listening to anyone. Theorectally I either didn't see what I saw that July or it just didn't exist.

Simply no way to run a sport.

[FlashUNC]

IMO, one of the only reasons to watch pro cycling is the personalities involved. it's just more entertaining when there are polarizing characters involved. lance was a guy that people love to hate - and those last few "comeback" tours he participated in were good entertainment to see how/what he did on the bike.

I mean - when Peter Sagan does something interesting in the tour, or wins a sprint finish - i laugh because i know somewhere FLASHUNC is going to catch it on a highlight real and cringe.

that's what makes pro level sports entertaining - at least for me. we all know what adult men in spandex look like pedaling bicycles, watching racing is boring without some drama.

i'm all for the podcast and LA sticking around to some degree.

Its more shaking my fist at the TV and shouting expletives about his parentage. But the point is all the same.

[saab2000]

He also has a $100,000,000 dollar law suit coming up this year. He seems pretty positive about it but it must be stressful. I know lots of people think that he deserves it and that is certainly a fair perspective.

I think he has made out all right all things considered, I am sure lots of people would like to see him in the poor house. I have no idea how rich he is these days.

He did do harm but he also did some good.

I find his attitude really refreshing these days.

I should have used the term “death penalty” better, as in sporting terms. Not trying to use the term lightly. It’s a serious matter in society.

Also, I’m glad the others got lifetime bans. The point is unequal treatment. Not necessarily saying LA shouldn’t have a lifetime ban, but that more most likely deserve it as well, including some currently in the sport.

[jamesdak]

I should have used the term “death penalty” better, as in sporting terms. Not trying to use the term lightly. It’s a serious matter in society.

Also, I’m glad the others got lifetime bans. The point is unequal treatment. Not necessarily saying LA shouldn’t have a lifetime ban, but that more most likely deserve it as well, including some currently in the sport.

Like who? I'm not aware anyone else who personally destroyed those who told the truth about them being a doper to the extent Lance did. That is a serious character flaw in my book. :no:

[Greenpea]

In 1999 I was diagnosed with Leukemia... Lance was the reason I got up most mornings.

I read that bike from cover to cover multiple times, I'd scream from the treetops of what an amazing individual he was to anyone who would listen.

After my bone marrow transplant and was given clearance he's the reason I bought a Trek

He's the reason I ran to my local bike shop and snatched up a pair of Nike cycling shoes that looked just like his.

He's the reason I poached a pair of Oakley M frames of eBay that were signature Lance Armstrongs

The list goes on, but you get my point.

I was one of the biggest Lance honks there was at the time, but now it's just kinda sad and I don't really care all that much. Enough to give a click but that's about where it ends.

[glepore]

Like who? I'm not aware anyone else who personally destroyed those who told the truth about them being a doper to the extent Lance did. That is a serious character flaw in my book. :no:

This. And its why his penalty exceeded the others.And he admits it.

[Kontact]

We enjoy watching true crime shows, so Lance dovetails nicely with that.


However, Armstrong is now a guy who didn't win a single TdF. Seems like there are a lot of other pro cyclists that have achieved that. They might be fun to listen to as well.

[CunegoFan]

He lied so hard he sued people.
He went after the Lemonds.

Yeah, not a big fan.

LeMond went after Lance first. He picked a fight with him. LeMond's pretended he had to figure out Lance was doping. He fabricated a BS story about how he used his knowledge of sports science to deduce Lance must be doping as if he didn't know doping was the norm in pro cycling and everyone at the top of the sport was doing it. He still tells this lie. Interesting how he has not said one ill word about those who doped while he was racing and supposedly cheated him out of wins. Not one word. He'll go on and on about how his team prevented him from winning the 1985 Tour but won't say anything about the steroids and cortisone Hinault was using. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure this one out.

[DrSpoke]

I bought my first "10-speed" in 1969 in the Summer before starting college - a Scwinn Varsity.

Around 1971, I bought my first European "10-speed" - a French Follis complete with Simplex gearing in East Lansing, MI.

In 1975, after graduation, I moved to Aspen, CO where I learned how to really ride. In 1976 I bought my first pro bike - an Alan Super Record w/a Nuovo Record groupo, a Cinelli cockpit and Ambrosio rims. In fact, I'm in the middle of rebuilding it as we speak.

In 1980, I moved to San Diego, CA - Pacific Beach to be precise. I (vaguely) remember many rides up the coast to Carlsbad and back where I saw maybe 8 or 10 other cyclists.

By the late 80s the triathalon boom had hit the area and then there were a lot of cyclists out and about.

But that was nothing compared to what happened in the 90s after Armstrong started winning the Tour de France.

Today, there are a couple of thousand riders on the coast route every weekend in addition to probably hundreds more riding inland.

[jamesdak]

LeMond went after Lance first. He picked a fight with him. LeMond's pretended he had to figure out Lance was doping. He fabricated a BS story about how he used his knowledge of sports science to deduce Lance must be doping as if he didn't know doping was the norm in pro cycling and everyone at the top of the sport was doing it. He still tells this lie. Interesting how he has not said one ill word about those who doped while he was racing and supposedly cheated him out of wins. Not one word. He'll go on and on about how his team prevented him from winning the 1985 Tour but won't say anything about the steroids and cortisone Hinault was using. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure this one out.

Greg Lemond, the True Champion. :)

And he started speaking out about the doping issue at least as early as 1989, just sayin'...

[Kirk007]

My son, with his Trek Mt. Lion kids bike, and me on a landshark with Spinergy wheels bought from Frankie Andreu no less, rode the second Ride for the Roses. We raised money as part of the peleton project. Ian gave a presentation to his montessori school and raised money money for the foundation. Indurain, Armstrong and Merckx led the kids around the crit course for one lap. Folks who raised enough (I think it was 5K), got a "private" - all 144 of us, ride with the pros. Lance was gracious and made a point of riding with each group that day. He was gracious and humble in the private meet and greet session.

A year later my dad was diagnosed with Stage 4 terminal cancer. He read the book, wore the wrist bracelet, took some solace I think, and got a little hope from Lance's story. He died of course, and well before the whole doping story broke. I'm sure there were thousands like him, who took a little hope and solace from Lance's story.

While I appreciate that many felt betrayed, and others were treated very poorly, there were many others I'm sure for whom he gave some measure of hope and/or solace - that someone, like them, survived cancer and was thriving. For many, like my son, he was instructive in many ways good and bad. And Lance raised a lot of money, some of which I'm sure did some good.

Yes others were screwed, he screwed up, is a flawed individual, and some will never forgive or forget. But the world is rarely black and white. I haven't listened to his podcasts but wouldn't choose not to as a result of his past actions. Nor do I begrudge him the opportunity to move on. Last I heard, concepts of forgiveness and stories of redemption were generally looked favorably upon in our predominately judeo-christian culture.

[CunegoFan]

Greg Lemond, the True Champion. :)

And he started speaking out about the doping issue at least as early as 1989, just sayin'...

Yeah, sure. LeMond could have gone public and said, "I am pretty sure all the top riders today, including Armstrong, are doping because doping was rampant when I was racing. Doping was the norm in pro cycling for a hundred years before I turned pro. Nearly all riders doped while I was racing. It continued after I retired. Almost every Tour de France winner doped, so odds are that Lance is doping." Instead he cooked up an elaborate lie that had him playing Sherlock Holmes, following the clues, to figure out Lance must be doping. It is a ridiculous story. Even more ridiculous is the way LeMond has steadfastly upheld omerta. What possible explanation, other than the obvious one, is there for LeMond to protect his rivals who doped?

[oldpotatoe]

For better or worse, LA has integral place in cycling history. To act like he doesn’t exist is absurd. It’s also worthy of note that he himself was a death’s door at one point and has a strong connection to cancer patients.

His punishment does not fit his crime IMHO, at least in light of others who were undoubtedly just as dirty who are still in prominent positions in the sport.

He was given the death penalty. Others were given a year of probation.

I’m not fanboy and I’m obviously conflicted about him, but others are guilty of essentially the same things and are in cycling today. If LA is banned for life we can probably name ten more who deserve the same ban.

And more than a few are making good $ on their cycling palmares in spite of being as dirty as LA..like hincapie, as an example..

[glepore]

As above by oldpotatoe. Its a long list. And its weird. Folks still are willing to think of George, Levi, Tyler, Floyd et al fondly. While Horner, who kept his mouth shut, is hated widely.

As Nicholson/Whitey said... Rats. Looking out for their own azz.

I cannot absolve Lance from his behavior, but I can respect his acceptance.

[bigbill]

And more than a few are making good $ on their cycling palmares in spite of being as dirty as LA..like hincapie, as an example..

A few years ago I was riding in AZ and wearing a Mellow Johnny's jersey. I passed a guy on a shallow climb and he said "Lance was a doper" and I responded with "it's ok, I'm wearing Hincapie shorts". The MJ jersey is a nice full zip and Hincapie gets me, size wise.

[Mark McM]

Yeah, sure. LeMond could have gone public and said, "I am pretty sure all the top riders today, including Armstrong, are doping because doping was rampant when I was racing. Doping was the norm in pro cycling for a hundred years before I turned pro. Nearly all riders doped while I was racing. It continued after I retired. Almost every Tour de France winner doped, so odds are that Lance is doping." Instead he cooked up an elaborate lie that had him playing Sherlock Holmes, following the clues, to figure out Lance must be doping. It is a ridiculous story. Even more ridiculous is the way LeMond has steadfastly upheld omerta. What possible explanation, other than the obvious one, is there for LeMond to protect his rivals who doped?

We've heard your accusations and innuendos about doping by Greg Lemond for years now, but I don't recall you actually presenting any hard evidence or factual information. Do you have any? If you do, please present it. Otherwise, these tirades are getting tiresome.

[jamesdak]

We've heard your accusations and innuendos about doping by Greg Lemond for years now, but I don't recall you actually presenting any hard evidence or factual information. Do you have any? If you do, please present it. Otherwise, these tirades are getting tiresome.

Exactly!

I could better understand comments that Greg "cheated" by pushing the tech limits and rules then all the doping nonsense.

:banana::banana: Greg Lemond :banana::banana:

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/image/166811291.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/image/167016672.jpg

[daker13]

At times, he can be pretty good as far as listening to other people and picking up on the things they're saying... he seems like a good student of human behavior and sometimes a pretty sharp conversationalist.

I find when I listen to him his ego always starts poking through what he's saying, and to me that's distracting and annoying. If I could just listen to the content of what he's saying, I'd probably enjoy listening to him more, but that ego always seems to peek out from behind the curtain...

[pasadena]

preach on
https://media1.tenor.com/images/6d817aa0a72424ba91608cf62808c44a/tenor.gif?itemid=4728158

Failing at sport is one thing, failing as a good human being is another.
Stacked together, he represents no one I, nor my child, will ever follow except as one of life's lessons.

Truth is very simple. It's forthright.
What gets complex and hyperbolic are lies.

This is true when it comes out of a 5 yr old's mouth, or a 55 yr old's mouth.
I don't accept it from a toddler, much less an adult.

death penalty? a little hyperbolic, no?

He got a lifetime ban from bicycling competitively. :rolleyes: He still lives in a mansion. And he's served what? 5 years and a month? That's barely more than the minimum standard ban now (4years).

Danilo Di Luca also has a lifetime ban. Amongst others. You mad for them? If the sporting penalty exists in the rules (like any foul/suspension in any sport) it deserves asking: what is the most flagrant violation we've seen (or that we hope we don't see) that is deserving of that penalty?


Has anyone violated the rules of cycling MORE flagrantly than Armstrong? If so, who?
If you can't give a lifetime ban to Armstrong, who can you give it to?
Ricco got 12 years! Armstrong isn't even halfway there and we're claiming it's unfair already? Was Ricco twice the problem/offender Armstrong was?

If Armstrong is the worst rule breaker we've seen in cycling to date, then he is befit of the harshest penalty in the rules. If Armstrong only deserves 5 years, what do other deserve when they make a supplement error/or contaminated substance etc. 1 day? Some of them have served 1 year for a small mistake. Armstrong intentionally took every measured amount of everything PED for his whole post cancer career and admitted it!

[choke]

Folks still are willing to think of George, Levi, Tyler, Floyd et al fondly. They're all....LA included....viewed equally in my eyes. While I do think that LA received appropriate punishment, I think the others mentioned should have received the same. However, I do understand why they didn't....they were cut slack for cooperating with the prosecution.