Like Frenchie I follow cycling and Armstrong. I have always believed the drugs tests he passed and admired his approach and his achievements. My first reaction after his interview is to be disappointed, let down and gutted. His Livestrong organisation does some real good, so I guess we have to weigh the good against the bad. I am not sure what my view will be in a week or two when a few more facts have emerged. So what do we think??
Really feel let down by the bloke. The French journalists had been trying to hang something on him for years, which I had been prepared to believe was sour grapes. When someone can be as convincing as he was through the years, you have to wonder just how many of the current riders who say they wouldn't take anything, would if push came to shove. There have been accusations made about tennis players as well, yet that sport seems to largely ignore it. Today Murray was saying that he had not been given a blood test for ages. I am not sure that testing will always find the cheats as their suppliers seem to be one step ahead all of the time.
I really can't understand why there is all this vitriolic abuse towards Armstrong. In his era every top cyclist bar one or two was on performance drugs. And I'm sure that within the sport everybody knew what was going on either by direct knowledge, unexpected performances or just the bush telegraph. So LA isn't being singled out because of the drugs. I suspect it is because people feel aggrieved because of his constant denials. The cheats who have declared their use of drugs have been forgotten, even winners of the TdeF such as Contador. As for being a bully, there must be a self belief and drive and desire to win which is not present in us mere mortals which can come out as being a bully. Have we forgotten the tv pictures of Paula Radcliffe's husband and coach really having a go at her at the end of one race. He was slated in the press as a nasty person. But he was her coach and husband and he knew how to motivate her into the winner she was. We do not see what goes on in private, but applaud the winner and like to think there is no nastiness behind the public gaze. As for Suarez, we all know he has dived in the past, but he is the first to admit it ( if you don't count Franny Lee ). Rodgers had a go at him and said there will be internal discipline. Why, not because he dived but because he said he dived. If diving was so abhorrent to Rodgers and all the other managers, then they can stop it instantly by speaking about their own players diving and drop them next week.
And should we not have a go at the cycling authorities for having a seemingly amateur approach to drug testing? I'm sure they knew what was happening but were too ineffective and weak to do anything about the problem.
He is a rotten cheat and deserves whatever he gets - he has let down himself, his family his sport - and denied others gold medals and winners places n the Tour de France - I always believe in innocent till proved guilty so have not felt able to say anything till now but as he has admitted it he deserves no sympathy
Yes Armstrong and his colleagues have denied others medals and winner's places in the Tour. I propose that we award the winner's medal of the Tours that he "won" to the respective highest placed "clean" cyclist. Thus in 1999 the 47th placed cyclist should get the medal, in 2000 the 78th placed cyclist..........
Spot on Cornwall - for me he will always be a tremendous athlete. I know that the critics will always say that he was only as good as the drugs he took, but for me it does not explain just how much better he was than the nearest rival (who was probably on the same drugs.) But worst of all are the cyclists who also took the same drugs and rode alongside LA and then turned snitch to get a plea bargain - if LA has a life time ban, so should those rats.
Only after he was stripped of all his titles and told to repay the millions he conned out of people - perhaps you should also applaud Ken Dodd and perhaps posthumously Jimmy Saville It does not matter who else did wrong / took drugs - let them also be punished if they admit it or are proved to be cheats - and if the authorities in cycling are at fault let them be criticised - but the bottom line is Lance Armstrong won nothing - he was a cheat who was eventually outed and his victories count for nothing. To suggest that he was the best cheat is laughable. Sports people should be role models to our children and Armstrong has forfeited that right
Cornish Mark and Wear Yellow - you are wrong. The man is: 1) a cheat 2) a bully 3) a complete c*** Yes, most professional riders of that era were drugged/transfused/both. BUT- there were clean, talented riders who were denied careers by the culture of drugtaking which Armstrong as a kingpin of the peleton enforced. Cristophe Bassons is the most obvious example, hounded out of the sport directly and openly by Armstrong and his team, but also other riders like David Moncoutie and some of the other French riders, for whom the best they could hope for was the odd stage win (if the doping teams weren't bothered enough to chase them down that day. After a protracted campaign Bassons left the tour in tears and retired from the sport. Then there was the Italian Fillipo Simeoni. Simeoni incurred Armstrong's wrath because he refused not to testify against Armstrong's EPO wizard chum Dr Michele Ferrari, having been subpoena'd to do so. Simeoni had a chance of a breakaway tour stage win, as he was no threat to the overall the other teams let him go. But Armstrong used the powerful USPS team to repeatedly chase him down, at one point leading the chase himself (unheard of for a tour leader) and then remonstrating with Simeoni in full view of the cameras. How about Emma O'Reilly, the soigneuse who testified that she was present when LA tested positive for Cortisone, and that the team doctor came up with a backdated medical prescription to justify the positive. Armstrong's legal team (and LA himself) villified her painting her as a whore and an alcoholic, when all the time she was telling the truth. How about suing the Sunday Times for defamation and pocketing the money when it was true all along? He has only come clean because he had to - any other position would have had no credibility at all; but even now he tries to justify his cheating, and is still covering certain things with half truths and downright lies. He has not apologised to all the people whose lives he ruined. Notice he is still denying that he doped after 2006 - coincedence that the statute of limitations doesn't cover this period? He deserves to be in jail for fraud. Anybody else who took millions under false pretences would be. As for the charity bit - maybe we should still have a soft spot for Jimmy Saville, eh?
"Armstrong as a kingpin of the peleton enforced. Cristophe Bassons is the most obvious example, hounded out of the sport directly and openly by Armstrong and his team, but also other riders like David Moncoutie and some of the other French riders, for whom the best they could hope for was the odd stage win" - that is no different today. Wiggens won the Tour last year as "kingpin of the peloton" and few could hope to win a stage (unless they were the sprinter or King of the Mountains) this is how team cycling works and do you really think that Wiggens and the others would not kick arse if the peleton did not keep up and support them. Anyway, it's my opinion - for what it's worth
Superb post from harrowhorn. He was a cheat, a bully, and a thief (considering the money he took from those he sued for reaffirmation). Even in the Oprah interview last night he sought to blame others and dodged the issue on a number of questions. I hope he becomes obsolete in society and struck from the record books.
Seriously? You're comparing a *****phile and serial molestor / rapist with a man who took drigs to win cycling races? WTF? A woman was on the radio during the week saying that Armstrong was a huge inspiration for her when she was recovering from breast cancer and now she feels cheated. Obviosuly I can see why she would feel like that but the botom line is when she needed inspiration she had it. She didnlt know it was a lie at the time so it doesnlt really change what he did for her and probably milliosn like her. The same goes for the charity donations. If you gave to Cancer research beecuase of him would tyou really want your money back? The man's a cheat and has let lots of people down but that should not detract from the good he achieved when people knew no different.
