Dirty, lying, cheating, arsehole bastard.
The cancer should have taken him. A whole generation of kids let down by a cheat that still does not have it in him to say sorry.
mooghead
Thread
Posts in chronological order
john bodega
Oprah was really the perfect person to interview him - they're of similar quality of character.
Having said that, I reckon he deserves to get his medals back. He worked harder than the rest of those cyclists - he had to, in order to keep all of that shit quiet. It takes a superhuman effort to be so deceitful!
Having said that, I reckon he deserves to get his medals back. He worked harder than the rest of those cyclists - he had to, in order to keep all of that shit quiet. It takes a superhuman effort to be so deceitful!
thomasquinn 32989
A century ago, he would probably have shot himself. Not that I suggest he should do this, but it certainly puts things into perspective.
matt z
Kids let down? ?? U joking? ??!
Where does ethics come into play in most competitive sports?
REALISTICALLY ... how many people follow cycling anyways
Of course he did an b interview for money he has to pay back to his former endorsers. Scumbag yes.. but isn't this common?
I'm glad very few ppl I know give a crap about this guy
Good point about disgraced athletes. Before to be caught cheating was to live in shame
Where does ethics come into play in most competitive sports?
REALISTICALLY ... how many people follow cycling anyways
Of course he did an b interview for money he has to pay back to his former endorsers. Scumbag yes.. but isn't this common?
I'm glad very few ppl I know give a crap about this guy
Good point about disgraced athletes. Before to be caught cheating was to live in shame
The Real Wizard
Guess who called it again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlTr2GSVUGg
That's right - George Carlin.
We're starting to see he was right about just about everything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlTr2GSVUGg
That's right - George Carlin.
We're starting to see he was right about just about everything.
pma
What's the big idea here, a top athlete admits doping? He lied? Who cares.
There are no clean top athletes, anyone gullible enough to believe, that someone like, for example, Usain Bolt is just a genetic phenomenon, well they might want to wake up and smell
the errr... medical enhancements. Why are millions spent on monitoring athletes and testing their piss and blood, when we could face reality and let them
inject whatever enhancements they want into their bodies. It's time to stop the nonsense, perhaps with monitored legal doping programs we could
prevent sportsmen/women from damaging themselves due to using performance enhancing drugs, or having drugs administered
by team physicians who lack proper knowledge about side-effects etc.
To be fair, I'm sure there were clean cyclists on Tour de France when Armstrong won, just not anywhere near the top finishers.
Just to point out, as a small example, here in Finland all top skiers (and many top endurance sports people) have been diagnosed with asthma.
That means they can use asthma medication during competitions, since they have asthma, this naturally is performance enhancing.
Now, isn't it a tad bit surprising that so many people with asthma have ended up becoming top players in endurance sports like cross-country skiing?
This is not even doping, it's common policy.
There are no clean top athletes, anyone gullible enough to believe, that someone like, for example, Usain Bolt is just a genetic phenomenon, well they might want to wake up and smell
the errr... medical enhancements. Why are millions spent on monitoring athletes and testing their piss and blood, when we could face reality and let them
inject whatever enhancements they want into their bodies. It's time to stop the nonsense, perhaps with monitored legal doping programs we could
prevent sportsmen/women from damaging themselves due to using performance enhancing drugs, or having drugs administered
by team physicians who lack proper knowledge about side-effects etc.
To be fair, I'm sure there were clean cyclists on Tour de France when Armstrong won, just not anywhere near the top finishers.
Just to point out, as a small example, here in Finland all top skiers (and many top endurance sports people) have been diagnosed with asthma.
That means they can use asthma medication during competitions, since they have asthma, this naturally is performance enhancing.
Now, isn't it a tad bit surprising that so many people with asthma have ended up becoming top players in endurance sports like cross-country skiing?
This is not even doping, it's common policy.
brENsKi
i think the argument for "legalised doping" is at best, naive, at worst stupid.
think about it, athlete A wants to get an edge over athlete B - they're both taking the same enhancement pills..so athlete A's Dr finds a much more powerful dose/cocktail that can be masked with a an agent that makes the illegal drug show up as only the "allowed drug" would. and better still, he develops a masking agent for the previous masking agent....then it all starts to get ridiculous.
where would that end? PHYSICAL enhancements? imagine it...
high/long jumpers with springs for lower-legs?
javelin/discuss throwers with catapults for arms?
pole vaulters with wings?
runners with skates for feet?
it'd be highly amusing and incredibly watchable...but the viewers would be the ones thinking they themselves are taking the drugs
think about it, athlete A wants to get an edge over athlete B - they're both taking the same enhancement pills..so athlete A's Dr finds a much more powerful dose/cocktail that can be masked with a an agent that makes the illegal drug show up as only the "allowed drug" would. and better still, he develops a masking agent for the previous masking agent....then it all starts to get ridiculous.
where would that end? PHYSICAL enhancements? imagine it...
high/long jumpers with springs for lower-legs?
javelin/discuss throwers with catapults for arms?
pole vaulters with wings?
runners with skates for feet?
it'd be highly amusing and incredibly watchable...but the viewers would be the ones thinking they themselves are taking the drugs
matt z
I love that dead old fuck George Carlin.
Last Words was a disappointing "memoir" though. .. definitely finished after death to its detriment (unlike MIH)
Yeah he was right about a lot.
As he got older he didn't censor much if himself and became more of a speaker lol. Rants out whatever he made ppl laugh at what's blatantly b out there or just denied.
SNL did a funny sketch in the nineties
ALL STEROID OLYMPICS. ... guy attempted to lift something like 2, 000 lbs and his arms tore from his sockets. ....
Oud they wanna do it let em... lol
To Carlin its all entertainment
*raspberries*
Last Words was a disappointing "memoir" though. .. definitely finished after death to its detriment (unlike MIH)
Yeah he was right about a lot.
As he got older he didn't censor much if himself and became more of a speaker lol. Rants out whatever he made ppl laugh at what's blatantly b out there or just denied.
SNL did a funny sketch in the nineties
ALL STEROID OLYMPICS. ... guy attempted to lift something like 2, 000 lbs and his arms tore from his sockets. ....
Oud they wanna do it let em... lol
To Carlin its all entertainment
*raspberries*
mooghead
"REALISTICALLY ... how many people follow cycling anyways"
Not many, I don't, but Lance Armstrong was exceptional, 7 times winner of the TdF plus a cancer diagnosis during his peak.
No one ever dominated the sport like he did.
He WAS an inspiration to a lot of people, not just cycling fans.
Not many, I don't, but Lance Armstrong was exceptional, 7 times winner of the TdF plus a cancer diagnosis during his peak.
No one ever dominated the sport like he did.
He WAS an inspiration to a lot of people, not just cycling fans.
matt z
Ah guess you have a point. Csncer patients may be inspired by the drugs/performance enhancers he used? ;-)
pma
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
i think the argument for "legalised doping" is at best, naive, at worst stupid.
think about it, athlete A wants to get an edge over athlete B - they're both taking the same enhancement pills..so athlete A's Dr finds a much more powerful dose/cocktail that can be masked with a an agent that makes the illegal drug show up as only the "allowed drug" would. and better still, he develops a masking agent for the previous masking agent....then it all starts to get ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
Naive? More like, realistic. If doping is allowed (that means all, not just some forms of it, besides that would be the current situation, as referred in the asthma medication example, proving that certain forms of performance enhancing drugs are "legal") and there is no testing whatsoever, why would anyone need to mask anything. Today, it all comes down to who can come up with the best combination of raw talent/genetics, training and timing of form, and not getting caught in testing. Legalization would only remove the final part of the equation.
i think the argument for "legalised doping" is at best, naive, at worst stupid.
think about it, athlete A wants to get an edge over athlete B - they're both taking the same enhancement pills..so athlete A's Dr finds a much more powerful dose/cocktail that can be masked with a an agent that makes the illegal drug show up as only the "allowed drug" would. and better still, he develops a masking agent for the previous masking agent....then it all starts to get ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
Naive? More like, realistic. If doping is allowed (that means all, not just some forms of it, besides that would be the current situation, as referred in the asthma medication example, proving that certain forms of performance enhancing drugs are "legal") and there is no testing whatsoever, why would anyone need to mask anything. Today, it all comes down to who can come up with the best combination of raw talent/genetics, training and timing of form, and not getting caught in testing. Legalization would only remove the final part of the equation.
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]pma wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
i think the argument for "legalised doping" is at best, naive, at worst stupid.
think about it, athlete A wants to get an edge over athlete B - they're both taking the same enhancement pills..so athlete A's Dr finds a much more powerful dose/cocktail that can be masked with a an agent that makes the illegal drug show up as only the "allowed drug" would. and better still, he develops a masking agent for the previous masking agent....then it all starts to get ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
Naive? More like, realistic. If doping is allowed (that means all, not just some forms of it, besides that would be the current situation, as referred in the asthma medication example, proving that certain forms of performance enhancing drugs are "legal") and there is no testing whatsoever, why would anyone need to mask anything. Today, it all comes down to who can come up with the best combination of raw talent/genetics, training and timing of form, and not getting caught in testing. Legalization would only remove the final part of the equation.
[QUOTE]
your notion doesn't work. what you have there is no longer competitive sport. you're trying to make sport like motor racing - team/individual with the best technology wins. that not sport - that science
whatever next?
The Rio Olympics being based in stadium-shaped laboratories? forget coca-cola - the Rio Olympics will be sponsored by ICI or Smith-Klein-Beecham if you have your way
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
i think the argument for "legalised doping" is at best, naive, at worst stupid.
think about it, athlete A wants to get an edge over athlete B - they're both taking the same enhancement pills..so athlete A's Dr finds a much more powerful dose/cocktail that can be masked with a an agent that makes the illegal drug show up as only the "allowed drug" would. and better still, he develops a masking agent for the previous masking agent....then it all starts to get ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
Naive? More like, realistic. If doping is allowed (that means all, not just some forms of it, besides that would be the current situation, as referred in the asthma medication example, proving that certain forms of performance enhancing drugs are "legal") and there is no testing whatsoever, why would anyone need to mask anything. Today, it all comes down to who can come up with the best combination of raw talent/genetics, training and timing of form, and not getting caught in testing. Legalization would only remove the final part of the equation.
[QUOTE]
your notion doesn't work. what you have there is no longer competitive sport. you're trying to make sport like motor racing - team/individual with the best technology wins. that not sport - that science
whatever next?
The Rio Olympics being based in stadium-shaped laboratories? forget coca-cola - the Rio Olympics will be sponsored by ICI or Smith-Klein-Beecham if you have your way
GratefulFan
Doping is about trying to gain an advantage. An advantage your competitors don't have, or one you think they already do. Not testing would change very little about the secretiveness or the risk taking in pursuit of more. It's an absurd suggestion that elite athletes should have to sign up for perpetual doping in order to pursue a career in sport in which they have any hope of being competitive. (!) Besides, we generally need less to be cynical about, not more. Terrible idea.
As for Lance, I don't know what the media talking and scribbling heads expected from this interview that they didn't get. He was a ruthless competitor and a ruthless man and if he was capable of the necessary insight and empathy to be adequately remorseful at this stage none of what transpired would have happened in the first place. Armstrong has the disadvantage of utterly lacking the kind of charm that eventually earns other big public liars like Bill Clinton forgiveness. His face is hollow and thin and he has cold, emotionless eyes that invite very little connection. He's lost his foundation, his reputation, his achievements, his earning potential and on at least one front, his self respect. The tears when he was talking about his children were real. He will now steal years of their innocent and uncomplicated certainty that their father is a hero just because he is their father and he has drawn ugly adult clouds through their existence. When you fail that badly at fatherhood you should retreat to a cave for a bit and punch yourself in the face a few times, one thing at least it seems clear that he does understand. He'll be a different person in a year, or three, or five. This can't help but change him, but it is, as he said, a process. If he's capable, all the raw materials of experience to become a better man will be present. The interview I'm interested in is the one when the full weight of what's he's done settles into his bones over time. I feel for anybody fated to be framed by their worst decisions. I wish him well.
As for Lance, I don't know what the media talking and scribbling heads expected from this interview that they didn't get. He was a ruthless competitor and a ruthless man and if he was capable of the necessary insight and empathy to be adequately remorseful at this stage none of what transpired would have happened in the first place. Armstrong has the disadvantage of utterly lacking the kind of charm that eventually earns other big public liars like Bill Clinton forgiveness. His face is hollow and thin and he has cold, emotionless eyes that invite very little connection. He's lost his foundation, his reputation, his achievements, his earning potential and on at least one front, his self respect. The tears when he was talking about his children were real. He will now steal years of their innocent and uncomplicated certainty that their father is a hero just because he is their father and he has drawn ugly adult clouds through their existence. When you fail that badly at fatherhood you should retreat to a cave for a bit and punch yourself in the face a few times, one thing at least it seems clear that he does understand. He'll be a different person in a year, or three, or five. This can't help but change him, but it is, as he said, a process. If he's capable, all the raw materials of experience to become a better man will be present. The interview I'm interested in is the one when the full weight of what's he's done settles into his bones over time. I feel for anybody fated to be framed by their worst decisions. I wish him well.
john bodega
*shrug* People whose bones are riddled with cancer and who have little Lance Armstrong shrines in their bedrooms - they have no reason to suddenly lose faith in the man.
The thing about cancer is that you need a lot of drugs to overcome it. If there's one guy you can look to for an example of how to use drugs to attain a goal, it's surely Lance Armstrong.
The thing about cancer is that you need a lot of drugs to overcome it. If there's one guy you can look to for an example of how to use drugs to attain a goal, it's surely Lance Armstrong.
GratefulFan
I thought his insight that the process of facing and overcoming 'the disease' (he almost never said cancer) had planted and fueled some of the later ruthlessness was interesting, whether fact or perception.