Thread: Say it ain't so Lance

Originally Posted by Johnus

If they all did it, and he beat them all.. Doesn't that mean he still was the best?
Or was it that his Drugs were just better?

True, but the man has been disgraced and stripped of his titles, but that's not enough, let's keep dragging him through the mud until he admits it. The sad thing is someone like Barry Bonds will never admit it and will go into the Hall of Fame without an asterick next to his name and someone like Pete Rose who admitted his wrong doing will never be inducted.

Originally Posted by ReardenSteel

True, but the man has been disgraced and stripped of his titles, but that's not enough, let's keep dragging him through the mud until he admits it. The sad thing is someone like Barry Bonds will never admit it and will go into the Hall of Fame without an asterick next to his name and someone like Pete Rose who admitted his wrong doing will never be inducted.

If he had admitted it when they asked him, there would have been no need for mud-dragging. He would have done it himself. That or he would have become another statistic, because he would have been banned/suffered extended exclusion from participating. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? He wanted to be (and was) the best in a field where it's impossible to be the best without cheating. So yes, he was the best cheater. I don't see why he has to be some sort of martyr, hero or a bad, bad person.

People want/need superhumans, gladiators. We love to see people do amazing things. I personally do not mind cheaters in sport, firstly because I'm not really into sports, but secondly I see it for what it is: entertainment.

And by the way, I'm tired of public figures, such as sports people ('athletes') having to be 'role models for our kids'. I call BS, they are people too. And people are not squeeky clean Clark Kents. Don't blame the cheater if you can't explain to a child why someone cheats to be the best. And don't reflect your dissappointment on your children, either. I believe most people using that argument are just very disappointed in certain people themselves, but for some reason feel it has more validity from the perspective of an innocent child.

Although Armstrong did pose himself as an inspirator for people with cancer. When your inspirator is a pants-on-fire, I can imagine it's a bummer. Nevertheless, I don't think Lance Armstrong is necessarily a bad person. He is just full of it and I just don't think he's better than most of us, either.

The entire thing reminds me from Coriolanus' typification of the public:

"With every minute you do change a mind,
And call him noble that was now your hate,
Him vile that was your garland."

--Coriolanus act I, scene 1, 184

Confessing is good for him too, because without it he can never move on. No matter what he'd do, people would always bring his drug use back in the picture. By doing this, he can deal with it and then move on and give focus to his life again, as a triathlete or something else.

I also think it is important from a different pov. If he kept denying, there would always be a lot of people who kept suspecting the UCI and USDA from foul play because they had it in for their hero Lance. And some people would always have harbored doubts.

I think it is important for pro athletes to know at a really fundamental level that if you use illegal performancer enhancers, the USDA (or other equivalent agency) will take you down no matter how big you are and no matter how long it takes. This makes sports as a whole a better thing.

Originally Posted by ReardenSteel

True, but the man has been disgraced and stripped of his titles, but that's not enough, let's keep dragging him through the mud until he admits it.

Difference with Lance is that back then, he dragged any journalist brave enough to take him on through the mud. He took hundreds of thousands in libel damages from newspapers, now it's payback time.