I understand it but you're leaving out a critical point. Yes oj had a good life. Because he kept done money. Lance will as well. He's worth like a 150 million. But neither of them will be liked. Trusted. Armstrong will end up a meme. Forever associated with doping and cheating. He will not command respect or attention in the manner he did. He will not command the attention if presidents. Guys like that aren't about the good life meaning having enough cash to do what they want they crave power.
Note: Merckx keeps very quiet about the whole period after his time... best approach.
not sure why Lemond needs to be charging everyhting like Don Quixote... some people are just like that...
its not serving him well.
Golden rose, the color of the dream I had
Not too long ago
A misty blue and the lillac too
A never to grow old
You may want to take your own advice, considering Greg's track record with the truth so far.
Also, I always find it so odd when folks criticise him for being a 'has been'. Is that better or worse than your record of 'never was'?
Your post is a litany of your own ignorance. Why not ask, instead of of proving yourself a fool?
Lemond isn't the tool here.
Lance said "no one can win the Tour without doping." This basically accuses every successful pro cyclist of juicing.
Yeah, I'd agree that isn't a correct assessment. Armstrong didn't have privileged access to any drugs. Still, he's right that Armstrong was nowhere near as exceptional as he proclaimed, with all that "zomg superior VO2Max" BS.Originally Posted by eja
Yes. It was approved by the UCI before the race.Originally Posted by eja
By the way, Lemond and Fignon were never more than 1 minute apart during the entire race. Lemond took a risk to use aero bars, and it worked out.
Yeah, that's actually what he did for many years:Originally Posted by eja
"I couldn’t go near the Tour de France for fear I would be asked about Armstrong and doping. What could I say – ‘no comment’? I couldn’t sell my soul and switch topics to talk about my 1986 Tour."
Lemond may be wrong on a few of the finer points, but at the core he's right. Armstrong was a doper, a bully, and a litigious bastard who had no qualms about ruining the lives of anyone who dared to tell the truth -- and has yet to express any remorse for his actions.
He built a cancer charity which, while fairly well run: Funds almost no cancer research, doesn't provide a lot of services, and mostly exists to burnish Armstrong's ego.Originally Posted by eja
He used sponsorship money from the USPS to pay for his team's doping regime. Pretty close.Originally Posted by eja
Not me. And not the people who are riding more and more over the past few years. And almost all of the people who were motivated by Armstrong believed a well-orchestrated lie.Originally Posted by eja
Average or mediocre?Originally Posted by eja
And no, I don't care how much he boosted Trek's sales.
How much of his motivation to start his charity was to pad his image, which in turn lined his pocketbook?Originally Posted by eja
Has he resigned the board of Livestrong yet?
Did he decide that livestrong.org would be for the non-profit, and livestrong.com would be a commercial entity that was allowed to use the Livestrong brand identity?
We're not all consequentialists, by the way. Motives count when passing judgment.
Because he's a lying, manipulative, vindictive, cruel, selfish man who ruined at least a dozen careers to protect his lies, received enormous material rewards explicitly because of his unethical behavior, and tarnished the sport of cycling for years to come.Originally Posted by eja
Oh yeah, he's also perjured himself on multiple occasions.
And he was about as remorseful as a leech in the Big Interview.
For starters, I'm not a lying manipulative vindictive cruel selfish bastard who got rich off of a pack of lies.Originally Posted by eja
Originally Posted by eja
The thing that struck me about the Oprah/Armstrong interview was how "brutish" Lance was with some of his words. I always thought of him as a kind of sophisticated guy, and to think with the money/resources he has, he could not find really great PR people to prepare him for that crucial interview.
The picture painted was that of a very narcissistic guy, who is almost a borderline sociopath. Kinda sad, in that the doping could probably be forgiven, but where he really crossed the line was with the viciousness/meaness he went after opponents, whom he knew were being truthful.
Last edited by Cat4Lifer; 01-18-13 at 11:41 AM.
You can have that be the all important last word.
All he could do is smirk and say "I never called you fat." Even Oprah didn't buy that one.
2) He didn't "trust her" with anything. She was in the room when Armstrong told one of his doctors that he had done a whole bunch of PED's.
She actually did what you're supposed to do -- namely, tell the truth when asked about it in a court of law.
^And the Andreus sat on that story until subpoenaed by a court of law.
I'm curious, what did Lance to to Frankie's career? I do remember him staying on with USPS after he retired, at least through 2001.
Yeah, he did come of as his old self.
I doubt he's really sorry about calling her what he did.
My guess is that he felt that she was really bothered by thinking he called her fat , and thought it funny -- ironic maybe -- that she was really upset over something he hadn't said.
I think most people , myself included thought the guy was a schmuck on his best day. It seems to me that he did this Oprah thing purely for his own reasons. I dont know what those could be, but I highly doubt he did this for anyone's benefit except his own. All these comments relating his admission to other deeds that others have done is just silly. Its actually what I think is wrong with the world in this age, there is no honor. It is a rare thing when a person does the right thing because it is the right thing to do. I don't mean not dope in the first place or never make a mistake, but when you do, understand what societies rules and conventions are and fess up. Dont try to bend things to favor your mistake.