Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Things are lookin grim. I wanted to believe he was innocent all this time, but it appears a lot of evidence is out/coming out and I won't be able to hold on to that belief anymore. Kind of sad about it I guess.

But then again, he is just a fucking cyclist.

You can't say you didn't suspect.

Does anyone really care if Lance Armstrong’s seven Tour de France titles are “stripped”? Maybe his mom? Armstrong was obviously cheating from the beginning. What does it matter now? His current net worth of around $125M means he wins. Nowadays, the easiest way to determine if a professional athlete is cheating in some way is to ask, "Did he win?" Just looking at cycling and the Tour de France, all of the winners from 1996 through 2007 were involved in doping. Miguel Indurain won from 1991-1995. It is difficult to imagine that he wasn’t doping as his training partners were later caught, plus his Spanish team and Dutch cycling teams pretty much wrote the book on EPO and other blood boosting techniques. Looking at Armstrong’s seven titles, seven of the eight cyclists who shared the podium with Armstrong were dopers. So, Lance was the best of the cheaters.

This all reminds me of an interview I read with former hockey player Pat Verbeek. Verbeek contended that his job was to win games, and that meant cheating, because the other teams were cheating. Verbeek further stated that the existence of referees, umpires and other officials in sports were proof that fair play could not succeed at the highest levels. Verbeek said something along the lines of: “It’s my job to cheat. The referees are hired to catch me.” I think this rationale is pervasive in sports, from corked bats, spitballs, and stick-um to HGH, testosterone, and steroids.

Practically every sport has been hit with cheating scandals of some kind. Drugs. Spying. Collusion. Drugs. Tampering. Drugs. Altering equipment. Whatever. The question is: If winners are financially rewarded, can cheating ever be eliminated? I say no. Never. Then why try? I think these very public displays of cheater persecution are about creating an illusion of fairness because gambling and fantasy drive most sports, and bettors rely on this illusion that they are taking risks that they think they understand. Rigged games would mean no action. No action means less interest. Less interest means WNBA. WNBA means low, low, low advertising revenue. The real competition in sports is for money in contracts, merchandising, corporate sponsors and television.


tl;dr Winners = More Money = Cheating.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

I believe the media continually refers to the team by its trademark name rather than by its captain or national affiliation because the media is continuing its longstanding effort to "get" the USPS.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

The problem is this: everyone wants to believe that the integrity of the game was compromised (just like with steroids in professional baseball).

Fact is, everyone was cheating. Well, maybe not 100%, but a majority of people were doping in cycling...it's one of the dirtiest sports out there. The integrity of competition was already compromised. Just like most people were using steroids in professional baseball before the crackdown.

People claim that all the records and titles mean nothing...but you know what? Lance Armstrong was the best cheater out of a bunch of cheaters. He still had to race the races.

Just like with baseball...sure Barry Bonds was juicing when he hit all those home runs...but he was the best cheater out of a bunch of cheaters...he still had to swing the bat at the perfect time and connect with the ball in just the right way to drive it out of the park.





The evidence is there - but only in the form of testimony. Lance Armstrong cheated (though he never ever tested positive for any banned substances under any circumstance in his career)...the funny thing is that much of the testimony against him is from former teammates who were butthurt about his success and had doping issues of their own.

Floyd Landis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Landis#Doping_case ) and Tyler Hamilton ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Hami ... confession ) were the two whistleblowers, and ex-Lance Armstrong teammates....and they only did it AFTER they were caught for their own doping and punished. Like the babies they are, they didn't want Lance to keep his titles and glory, so they decided to bring him down too. Really it's pretty pathetic.

Also, I think Europeans (especially the French) are still buttmad that an American absolutely owned their most prestigious cycling event. I guess they got him back in the end.

The BBC (hurr durr) gave a pretty balanced and complete report.

One of the American racers observed, "They have their doctors, and we have ours, and ours are better". Dr Ferrari built his entire reputation on doping Armstrong and company up, and even developing innovative new means of doing so (e.g., using many small injections along the course of a vein, instead of big injections, for faster effect). Many racers have said that the entire thing seems to come down to which team has better doctors - less a reflection on Armstrong himself and more on the resources and prestige of the US. Which really does make sense, if you think about it, that the US does so well compared to other cultures that have more bikers per capita (e.g., China, Italy and France).

Nor is it just that Lance is a cheat. The picture of him that emerges is a thoroughly unpleasant character, a humorless bully and vicious intrigue artist. Not only is he a fallen hero but unlike Tiger Woods (who didn't actually cheat and may in fact be the real victim), he loses the most fundamental thing of all, status as a personality one would want to know.

That said, I agree with Azelma that Lance is far from the most despicable character in this event. Everyone in the administration and testing team knew what was going on. Everyone who was close to Lance knew what was going on. Those who cashed in on his reputation, knowing what he did, now cash in on his downfall, expressing false outrage at the things they knowingly made their business and profited on - which, to me, is infinitely more despicable than Lance simply doing what everyone else did (only better). These are people with absolutely no integrity at all. They are the lowest of lowlifes.

The fact remains, though, that Lance overcame cancer to continue his career. Drugs or no drugs - hell, is it an outrage a cancer patient would use chemicals to overcome cancer? - no one can take that remarkable, truly singular and superhuman, achievement from him. Which will just make this whole sordid drama all the more compelling to future viewers.

I remember meeting Eturnal and he described to me the "shooting gallery" part of boot camp, where they inject enlistees with a whole bunch of unknown chemicals. I got the impression that Eturnal's intent was that this would impress me, but I think he was a bit surprised that my reaction was one of unequivocal revulsion and I said that turned me off more than anything else to the idea of enlistment - I think he seemed disappointed that he had missed his mark. Anyway, I kept wondering whether the Army uses performance-enhancing drugs of some sort - or maybe they should? Dotzilla seemed to believe that performance-enhancing substances are fine provided one knows exactly how they work; I was sceptical as he often talks way past his experience, but I wonder - perhaps it's in the interest of society this field of medical science be fully explored...if nothing else, to bring it into the open.

I remember my father was of the opinion that there should be two sets of games, no-dope and anything goes. I agree with that basic premise. But I also think that it's clear that the sport is unable to regulate itself. This would be an ideal time for one of those mythical "angel investors" or beverage companies to come in and announce a fresh start, under the personal authority of one well-heeled patron. I don't see that happening, though, which speaks volumes about the nature of the status quo.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Aestu,

Let me ask you - what do you think it is about our society, and really most societies that we revel in the "fall from grace" of our heroes?

Think of Lance Armstrong...a man who overcame cancer, and then dominated his sport...defeating the best athletes in the world. Then he goes and starts a foundation that, from everything I've seen, has done quite a bit of good in the world.

Naturally, his competitors, and even those that used to be on his team became jealous and had a desire to see him fall from grace...and they have brought him down. Now the feeding frenzy has begun...his titles are stripped, he's been disassociated (though by his own choice) from the LiveStrong foundation, he's been labeled a liar and a cheat by the media.

Someone who was so loved and respected for his strength and feats is now despised and ridiculed.


Why do we do this?

Think of so many greek tragedies that play themselves out in real life. Oedipus was once a hero...then is brought down to earth. Why do we tell this story over and over? Think of Penn State...Joe Paterno...a man loved and respected by so many...gosh it goes on and on.

I don't understand. Is it jealousy? Do we just grow tired of our heroes then wish them pain worse than that of the common man?

It's worth noting that the ancient Greeks were the original sports buffs. In fact, they invented celebrity sponsorships. And they had the same problem with the gentleman athlete gradually being replaced with the cynical brute specialist.

The appeal of Greek drama is that it reflects the human character, in all dimensions. The Greeks, like all ancient peoples, saw the world in fundamentally moral terms, and more so than most they saw human affairs as a struggle between various roughly evenly matched forces. The Greeks lived in a morally grey world, even more so than ours or most other times in history, and to them, the appeal of drama is that it helped to rationalize it, make the greyness a bit more crisp.

Modern media doesn't have the depth or timeless appeal of Greek drama. But it is the media which is the cause of all this. It sells hype, and every lowlife is looking to cash in, by being a joiner for Lance or whatever the fad of the day is, or by having morons eat bugs or jump out of balloons, or whatever. The same lowlifes who wanted to promote themselves by using Lance's rep at its height now also seek to promote themselves upon his downfall.

Self-promoting lowlifes, talentless and venal people who will say anything to ingratiate themselves with the popular and enrich themselves, have always existed as a class in society, especially morally degenerate societies (including ancient Greece where they were a serious menace to public order and played a major role in the decline of Athens).

That basic need - the petty drive to be perceived as a somebody, to be an avatar of what is hip and popular, that drives people to total amorality - is a constant, as is the reciprocal need of silly and shallow people to be amused. The media cashes in, gives these people dough for their misdeeds...and that leaves us here.

Someone referred to the movie Idiocracy as a "social barometer". Unfortunately I have to agree, and I think there are disturbing parallels between the society of the present day and dystopias like Judge Dredd or THX1138 or Brave New World, in which there is a gross obsession with ridiculous, vulgar and excessively complex pastimes, driven by the shallow and unfulfilling nature of daily life. As with so many other things, I blame the free market and libertarian ideology (hurr durr) for creating a profoundly unfulfilling world in which people feel the need to feed the media its money for hype.

As I have said, I used to not believe in the need for media censorship or state involvement in civic affairs, but my experience has gradually altered that conviction. I have gradually come to believe that indeed sports are important enough to public morality to warrant state intervention to sort the mess out - because from classical education I have adopted the ancient view that public morals are the ultimate determinant in a society's progress.

Ultimately, there is no difference between watching personalities engage in mindless antagonism on TV and Roman gladitorial battles. Solamen miseris socios doloris habuisse.

In conclusion, there is no easy answer. The best that can be done is for the better people to push better amusements and a return to traditional values.

Does that answer your question, Azelma?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I think it's kind of funny that the guy managed to pass every bit of drug testing during his glory days, and the same groups who should have caught him then are making a stink about it now, and most of the evidence they have is based off of the word of people they caught who are looking to aim the spotlight on anyone but themselves.

He probably cheated, but this belated scolding isn't much more than these sports organizations trying to salvage their own credibility.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Everyone dopes in the Tour de France.

Also, the Tour de France is fucking stupid.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

I can't give less of a shit about this, but the guy did create a foundation that raised hundreds of millions of dollars for cancer research. I really can't be mad at him, mainly because biking isn't a sport.

EDIT: Allow Pete Rose into the Baseball Hall of Fame, thanks.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Let's sum up Lance...

1. Battled cancer and won. Check. (What was he supposed to do? Not fight it? The world is full of cancer survivors.)

2. Great back story of determination and resilience. Check. (But wasn't his story so much better when you thought it was possible he beat the cheaters without cheating himself?)

3. After winning his cancer battle, he doped and cheated to reach the pinnacle of his sport. Check. (I personally have no problem with this because most of his competition was, as well.)

4. Great humanitarian. Check.

5. Put his money where his mouth is. Check.

6. Liar. Check.

So, he got sick, got well, used PED's, won some races, got rich, started an awesome organization, got caught, keeps lying. If you want to let him skate on the bad stuff because of the good stuff, that's cool; I do, too. I just think it's silly that he keeps up the charade. Hell, even Pete Rose finally came clean.



I agree that Rose should be in the Hall of Fame based on his on field accomplishments. He's not in because of something I mentioned earlier in this thread: "I think these very public displays of cheater persecution are about creating an illusion of fairness because gambling and fantasy drive most sports, and bettors rely on this illusion that they are taking risks that they think they understand. Rigged games would mean no action." Sure, Rose is an asshole for betting against his own team while he was managing, and if you want to say he can't work in MLB in any capacity, fine. However, this guy was a HoFer long before this other shit came up. He should be in there.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

"Summary" is wrong on four points.

Anyone who had informed reason to believe Lance was doping, had such reason, because they knew it was universal. Anyone who had doubts, didn't have reason to believe that anyone else was doing it either. So no, no-one thought he was beating the cheaters fairly.

Lance didn't dope after his recovery, he doped throughout his professional career, because that's what every other professional racer does. He doped before, and after, and probably as long as he was in professional racing. Other testimonies portray taking the dope as a sort of rite of passage when showing up at the pro club the first time.

Lance isn't a liar, he's a professional bicyclist. Professional bicycling involves the telling of a certain number of lies just like so many other fields of work, because the field itself is defined by deceit. There is a difference between someone who lies as part of their living and someone who lies for a living. I would define the latter as being the criteria for being a liar, in the substantive.

No intelligent person argues that Lance deserves a free ride for being a cheat because he donated to charity any more than Mark Zuckerberg. The argument that he deserves less than absolute damnation is based on the universality of cheating in the sport. Can one cheat a cheater?



That's ridiculously hypocritical. Everyone does what Lance did because it's how the business works, but there's no reason that some guy had to be a douchebag and do something that's not only unethical and priggish but also way more illegal than doping.

That is where I would define the difference between someone who lies and a liar. The difference between being competitive in a dirty game and committing fraud.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

nvm

But they did. Look at OP. If you look at comments about him, there are still people hanging on to the notion that he rode clean. Sponsors wanted to believe it, too. If you meant, no one on the inside of the sport thought he was beating the cheaters, I agree.




Agreed. Not that we really care, but, do you think then that professional cycling organizations are trying to clean up the sport in earnest, or create the illusion of trying?



Lance did both. He doped in order to win. We’re agreed that was necessary to be competitive in his profession. So, he lied “as part of [his] living”. But, Armstrong nursed his image that he was beating the cheaters for gain. I remember one commercial (Anheuser-Busch?) specifically where he stated: “People ask me what I’m on. I tell them, ‘I’m on my bike 6 hours a day’.” The clear implication was: “I’m not cheating like those other guys.” Fostering this false image, Armstrong made millions more from sponsors, and his organization made millions from donations that would not have been possible otherwise. The truth of this was demonstrated when he stepped down as head of Livestrong after being officially exposed, and by his being dropped by Nike, Oakley, Radio Shack, Anheuser-Busch, hell… all of his endorsements. Lance is worth something like $125M. Proof positive that he was “[lying] for a living”. Lance is no longer cycling competitively, so why keep up the lie?




This is true. After a while, the real “news” would be a guy who wasn’t cheating.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

The bottom line is that Lance is closer to the lighter side of a cast of dark grey characters. No one did anything he didn't do, and almost everyone did worse things, and by that I mean hypocritically leveraging his confidence to further enrich themselves by "exposing" the same activities they were gainfully compliant in.



No. I meant what I said. No-one thought that Lance wasn't cheating but that those he was beating were.



Come now. Be gracious. I would do the same for you.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.