Sympathy for Lance Armstrong (drugs, regular, regime, independent)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the media is portraying Lance Armstrong in a much more negative light than what is needed. Cycling is one of the dirtiest sport especially in the new millennium (just look up "list of doping cases in cycling" in Wikipedia) and I've heard from multiple radio hosts, avid cycling fans and sports fans alike, that it wouldn't surprise them if >80% of the cyclists in Tour De France used some sort of performance enhancing drugs...And I don't disagree with them. Cycling 200km a day for 20+ days is NUTS!
Now let's look at it like this: if no one in the whole race was using performance enhancing drugs, then wouldn't you think that Armstrong would still be the best cyclist to emerge out of the whole group? But unfortunately PED use is pervasive in cycling, and it makes sense for the cyclists to use drugs in order to level the playing field with everyone else violating the rules. It's sad and it's scathing to the integrity of sports but that's just the reality.
Obviously not every cyclist gets tested on a regular basis for PEDs and only the elite ones like Armstrong will be the subject of most scrutiny. But when they do get tested, with the advances in science and technology, scientists are able to come up with newer and modified substances that are not on the list of banned substances that allow the cyclists to pass the test surreptitiously. And when committees like USADA includes more drugs to banned PEDs, there will be substances in altered form that will be able to bypass the tests undetected.
I'm not saying what Armstrong did is right (if in fact it's true) nor the pervasive use of PEDs in sports, which is the reality of sports today. But out of this came something good, the LIVESTRONG Foundation which raised hundreds of millions of dollars for a good cause to help cancer patients and to provide hope. Whether you think he did this for his own stardom or to sway the attention away from his doping allegations is up to you, but you can't deny that this philanthropic organization is bad for the world, or not enough to overshadow the blemish in his lustrous cycling career.
I'd be willing to guarantee that if any other cyclists used whatever PEDs that Armstrong used for his Tour De France career, he would not come remotely close to winning 7 TDF titles in his career. This allegation is much to meager in contrast to the accolades and accomplishments that he achieved in his career and I think that all this diatribe about Lance Armstrong needs to stop.
I think the media is portraying Lance Armstrong in a much more negative light than what is needed.
When the media buys into a story, beatifies you as a saint only to later find out that you made a fool of them... well Armstrong is lucky that he hasn't gotten the Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, or the Pete Rose treatment (Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire are a whole other story).
Quote:
Now let's look at it like this: if no one in the whole race was using performance enhancing drugs,...
Well I am sympathetic to that argument especially as a cycling fan in general and a Tour fan since the 1970's (cycling is the only competitive sport that I was ever any good at). But the fact remains that Lance was more than a cycling hero in a sport that most Americans (and especially the press) don't pay attention to or cared about until Armstrong's streak of wins. It was Armstrong's narrative that thrust him into fame, not his feats as a cyclist.
I think the media is portraying Lance Armstrong in a much more negative light than what is needed. Cycling is one of the dirtiest sport especially in the new millennium (just look up "list of doping cases in cycling" in Wikipedia) and I've heard from multiple radio hosts, avid cycling fans and sports fans alike, that it wouldn't surprise them if >80% of the cyclists in Tour De France used some sort of performance enhancing drugs...And I don't disagree with them. Cycling 200km a day for 20+ days is NUTS!
Now let's look at it like this: if no one in the whole race was using performance enhancing drugs, then wouldn't you think that Armstrong would still be the best cyclist to emerge out of the whole group? But unfortunately PED use is pervasive in cycling, and it makes sense for the cyclists to use drugs in order to level the playing field with everyone else violating the rules. It's sad and it's scathing to the integrity of sports but that's just the reality.
Obviously not every cyclist gets tested on a regular basis for PEDs and only the elite ones like Armstrong will be the subject of most scrutiny. But when they do get tested, with the advances in science and technology, scientists are able to come up with newer and modified substances that are not on the list of banned substances that allow the cyclists to pass the test surreptitiously. And when committees like USADA includes more drugs to banned PEDs, there will be substances in altered form that will be able to bypass the tests undetected.
I'm not saying what Armstrong did is right (if in fact it's true) nor the pervasive use of PEDs in sports, which is the reality of sports today. But out of this came something good, the LIVESTRONG Foundation which raised hundreds of millions of dollars for a good cause to help cancer patients and to provide hope. Whether you think he did this for his own stardom or to sway the attention away from his doping allegations is up to you, but you can't deny that this philanthropic organization is bad for the world, or not enough to overshadow the blemish in his lustrous cycling career.
I'd be willing to guarantee that if any other cyclists used whatever PEDs that Armstrong used for his Tour De France career, he would not come remotely close to winning 7 TDF titles in his career. This allegation is much to meager in contrast to the accolades and accomplishments that he achieved in his career and I think that all this diatribe about Lance Armstrong needs to stop.
I agree. Armstrong is a cancer survivor and his organization has done much good independent of his cycling career and subsequent scandal. In this regard however, it is disappointing how he won essentially by cheating regardless of his skills and carried this on 7 times over years.
I hope the organization continues to thrive and help people.
This is one of the biggest downfalls of an athlete I can ever recall seeing within my lifetime. I just hope if they take the Tours away from him, that they are prepared to take the titles away from the others who were juicing when they won their titles. The dumbest and most arrogant thing Lance did was to attempt a comeback. Apparently their was a Statute of Limitations in place that he reopened once he unretired after his 7 wins. Had he not done that ESPN said none of this would be happening now! I'll always remember how he inspired people!
I have no sympathy for Lance Armstrong. He bullied and intimidated anyone who dared to testify against him. He also wasn't just a run-of-the-mill doper, but was the ringleader who forced his teammates to follow Dr. Ferrari's doping regimen or get kicked off the team.
This goes well beyond just doping, but reflects on what a ****ty human being Lance is. The fact that he did something good doesn't negate all of the bad. Actually, it could be argued that the media overlooked many of the allegations for years because of his Livestrong image...if it wasn't for the charity work, he would have gotten the Barry Bonds treatment as soon as the questions came up years ago.
This is why it's stupid to have a charity so completely tied to a celebrity or an athlete, btw. The Livestrong name can't really be separated from the Lance Armstrong legend...all of those yellow wristbands are symbols of Lance Armstrong as much as they're symbols of fighting cancer. It'll be interesting to see if Livestrong can separate itself from Lance and create its own image, or if it'll fall apart.
Would not have had much influence if he was not winning.
Exactly.. By doping Lance kept himself on a level playing field with the rest of the cheats in the dirtiest sport in the world. By doing so, his true talent shown through as he was better than all the other cheats because of his mental toughness and skill. By winning so much he was able to establish a platform for Cancer victims. He has saved hundreds of lives and inspired thousands. Is it ideal? No. But the world isnt all sunshine and rainbows. He was simply more talented than the other cheaters, and did much more for humanity than the other cheaters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
