13 replies to this topic

[paul_s]

Did anyone watch this last night? I didn't fancy staying up 'til 2am and wondered if anyone knew where I might be able to watch the whole thing online?
I've read some news articles on it but really wanted to see the actual interview.

It's no longer a surprise but still makes me sad as he was a hero for me, growing up

[JackF]

No idea on the interview. However I feel like I have a lot to discuss about it!

With an interest in cycling, I grew up watching him overcome cancer and win the 7 tour de france. When all the specualtions came out about the doping I was suprised, although you hear about it happening all the time. Regardless of your preffered sport, trying to get an advantage over other competitors happens. Although it was said "he didnt start the drug taking culture, but buy no means did he try to stop it".

It was wrong, there is no excuse for that. But it still takes so much to even compete in such an event, and for that I still admire anyone who does.

A cancer survivor should be an inspiritation to anyone though.

It's a horrid situation for him, cycling and his livestrong charity. Just my 2p worth.

[paul_s]

I agree, it's a sad situation for cycling in general to be in. I know he wasn't the only one, doping has always been part of the Tour and probably will be for some time to come, unfortunately (Tommy Simpson and Alberto Contador being two other examples, both old and new)

Drugs or no drugs he did still win the Tour 7 seven times in a row, and after getting over cancer. That is an achievement, and definitely something that shouldn't go unrecognised.

I can't say I'm surprised and I know it was 'the norm', but I still find it hard to swallow his insistent denial for so long, it's just a shame it had to get to this stage.

I do hope his Livestrong charity doesn't suffer too much as a result though

[matt2209]

[freaker]

i`m currently watching it and must say, he still says what he wants, and what not...

freaker

[Old Bob]

The great classic races took too much out of 'ordinary' men. Just look at the early history of Le Tour which makes the first Peking to Paris motor race look easy. Or look at the indoor 6 day races where riders were cycling day and night. So, the culture of drug taking developed way back when. Initally it was just so riders could keep going, and recover in time for the next day's stage.

Agreed Armstrong was wrong (although doubtless not in his own eyes) but to win against tallented riders using drug enhancement, you too have to use every possible advantage. Armstrong failed to come clean when he could have joined the early movement to make the sport better. He would have got a six month ban and everyone would have been happy. But, he continued to deny and thus lost everything.

But far worse than one, or even all the riders taking drugs was the total failure of leadership from the sports governing body. They have always known what was going on and failed to do anything about it. All very well putting laws in place but if they are not enforced then they are ignored. You could even say that by not cleaning up the sport they were the guilty ones.

Bob

[Black.Ghost]

Im sorry, I have to disagree with some of the attitudes here. He sought to gain an advantage over legit riders, and that is unacceptable in any sport, regardless of who is doing it. I can't remember the exact statistic but something like 20 of the 21 racers who finished top 3 in each of those 7 years were taking drugs. So for my money, the one guy who didn't is the best of that lot.

There was another cyclist who had to give up, because he was given the chance to take drugs, and he had the moral courage to say no, knowing that there was no way he could compete. Again, I have much more respect for him that anyone who won by cheating.

Don't get me wrong, he did well to overcome the cancer, but that nor the fact others were doing it around him make it right, and for me he is just another drug cheat now. I'm all for him to continue to do charity work and the like but he isn't the same legend now.

A lot of people seem to be writing this off because loads of people were doing it, which is completely the wrong message to send out to the youth of today. I would also be majorly pissed off if I was one of the riders who didn't take drugs and now will never know if they could have won had it been a level playing field.

The only thing in his favour is that he had the balls to come out and admit it.

[TfcIan]

Im sorry, I have to disagree with some of the attitudes here. He sought to gain an advantage over legit riders, and that is unacceptable in any sport, regardless of who is doing it. I can't remember the exact statistic but something like 20 of the 21 racers who finished top 3 in each of those 7 years were taking drugs. So for my money, the one guy who didn't is the best of that lot.

There was another cyclist who had to give up, because he was given the chance to take drugs, and he had the moral courage to say no, knowing that there was no way he could compete. Again, I have much more respect for him that anyone who won by cheating.

Don't get me wrong, he did well to overcome the cancer, but that nor the fact others were doing it around him make it right, and for me he is just another drug cheat now. I'm all for him to continue to do charity work and the like but he isn't the same legend now.

A lot of people seem to be writing this off because loads of people were doing it, which is completely the wrong message to send out to the youth of today. I would also be majorly pissed off if I was one of the riders who didn't take drugs and now will never know if they could have won had it been a level playing field.

The only thing in his favour is that he had the balls to come out and admit it.

I agree with everything you just said, apart from the last sentence. If he had the balls to come clean, he would have done it years ago instead of waiting to be caught and then setting up an interview with a famous chat show host. It was more of a PR stunt if you ask me.

His excuse of not considering it cheating because he was 'making it a level playing field' is disgraceful. Is he saying every lead rider of every team was taking something? And, not only that, he bullied team mates into taking banned substances, thereby making the whole team around him drug cheats. So if he did all that to make it a level playing field, does that mean he thinks every rider in the tour was a drug cheat?

He was an inspiration to everyone who suffers and has suffered with cancer. He portrayed a character who had overcome cancer, won the Tour 7 times and doing it all clean against many riders who weren't. Now that he's been caught, it's a kick in the teeth for all those who admired him, by taking banned substances, it was his way of saying "you can't overcome cancer and win the tour, it's impossible."

He wasn't completely honest in the interview, he didn't want to drag anybody's name into the conversation. If he wants to earn some respect back, then he should work with anti-doping agencies and cyclings governing bodies by being 100% honest about all the facts so that they can work to clean up the sport. Then, maybe, he may have done enough to make up for what he has done.

I hope Livestrong doesn't suffer too much because of what he's done. The sad thing is that, to me, the charity now just looks like a mask for him to hide behind, another reason for people not to dare accuse him of cheating after doing so much work for charity. I'm sure other people feel the same as me, and, even if we are wrong, it won't be doing the charity any favours.

[alicetheauto]

Another point; LiveStrong. This 'charity' is NOT a cancer research charity. It is a cancer AWARENESS charity. It's sole aim is to pay celebrities to TALK about cancer. The main celebrity? Lance Armstrong.

[Globule]

Another point; LiveStrong. This 'charity' is NOT a cancer research charity. It is a cancer AWARENESS charity. It's sole aim is to pay celebrities to TALK about cancer. The main celebrity? Lance Armstrong.

My opinion; Yes he cheated, someone else would have won and been famous for that. At least through the cheating, Lance Armstrong kept cancer in the public eye, and therefore Livestrong. Sure, he may have profited directly from this, but some good must have come from Livestrong to others who suffer from cancer, and to me, that is more important than someone else having a medal for winning some races.

He shouldn't have cheated, but in the scheme of things, was it really that bad?

[Ethel]

He was both cause & effect. The reason for a drugs ban is to free competitors of the pressure to take drugs, and risk their health, to be competitive with those who already do. Cycling, especially "le tour" is a complex sport to win the yellow jersey you're dependent on many factors other than your own ability: your fellow team riders; your bikes and service crew. The scope to find an advantage, fair or otherwise, is enormous. Cheating has always been a factor: pushes of service cars, nobbling other riders.... the result is a culture where everyone takes every advantage to be sure the competition is getting one over them.

It's ok going after Armstrong, but it'd be more effective to go after the teams and their managers. Sponsors could be obliged to have penalty clauses so teams can't profit financially if they are caught, all team staff should be licensed so they can be banned too.

[scrog]

he's just another liar and a cheat that has ruined many people career's by using drugs
he has not offer to repay any of the prize money or hand back any of the trophies.
now he cant race he is just selling his story to earn a living

[minimarco]

If he had the balls to come clean,

You mean if he had the ball to come clean.

Edited by minimarco, 20 January 2013 - 06:51 PM.

[JackF]

I get the feeling he has no real regret.
Is he just sorry he got caught...?