livedarklions

You haven't made an argument decent enough to bother refuting at this point, especially since this is obviously a red herring to avoid discussing L's absolute crappiness. But boom, here you go proving I was exactly right about your motivations for manufacturing GL's "guilt". You need it to rationalize LA's behavior.

The only thing that matters is LA knew that what GL was saying was true, so he did everything he could to destroy his business interests. I don't care what idiotic rationalizations you can come up with for that.

Jughed

I'm not saying I like what he did.

I am asking if he should have just simply given up and confessed - just walked away from it all based off the words/unproven testimony of bystanders. There was a lot at stake, many things were riding on his shoulders - and most of those riding on his shoulders were not clueless as to what was going on. So just walk away? Or fight back and let the test results do the talking - in hindsight, any level of fighting back looks bad - but would you really expect him or anyone else to just roll over and admit what they did?

And really - who didn't think he was doping? I was a huge of his, my mother was fighting cancer at the same time, and he was an inspiration for her, helped her fight harder - I also loved the level of racing of the day. I never once considered any of them being "clean".

Koyote

The entire Western system of jurisprudence is based on the idea that we can indeed fairly judge our peers. If you deny that, how would you suggest that we deal with criminals -- especially those who are rich and powerful?

livedarklions

Nope, it'd be a lot easier to let it go if people didn't keep trotting him out and claiming he's a "role model". And my ppersonal feelings about this was that the lawsuits, the perjury, the personal financial ruin he imposed on several people are the things that get overlooked in these conversations, and those are a hell of a lot more than "only sports."

curbtender

You guys talking about the astronaut?

Harold74

I'm going to add one more dimension to my argument for potential "Lance Victimhood".

It is, admittedly, a bit of a reach: I speculate that becoming the all powerful, Bike Cancer Jesus (BCJ), actually harmed Lance.

Yes, once Lance became the BCJ, he availed himself of the money, power, celebrity, and "shielding" that afforded him. But does that mean that becoming the BCJ was a net benefit to Lance when the entire arc of his life is considered? I'm not so sure.

Everything that I've seen on Lance pre-cancer suggest to me that he was a young man who:

1) Was a talented, charismatic, cocky, narcissistic bully.

2) Wanted little more than to be the world's best day racer, hang out with Hawaiian Tropics moels, and earn $1M+ annually.

And he had all of that pre-cancer. Does the young man below look like he really wants to be Bike Cancer Jesus?

However, once Lance stumbled into becoming the BCJ, he was then subjected to a ridiculous and exceptional amount of pressure, responsibility, and scrutiny. And I feel that did negatively impact Lances life on balance. I suspect that he would have been almost as happy in 2005 without being the BCJ and he would be much happier now without having been the BCJ.

In Lance's own words, his originally stated goals were to "kick ass" and "hang out with girls on the weekend". That's not the path to a Nobel prize or anything but I can certainly see the appeal.

livedarklions

You realize that you just argued that the rich, famous and powerful should have a completely different, much looser moral code.
It's called the affluenza defense. I don't buy it.

Eric F 

No. The trumpeter.

livedarklions

He went far beyond what he needed to do defend himself. He personally attacked other people at financial, reputational and legal levels. But even if that was necessary in order to keep it going, then yes, I think that's a very clear point where he should have just stopped. Seriously, is this any different than justifying mob bosses killing people because their alternative is to give up the job?

tomato coupe

Yes, we certainly can make that judgement. Many, many people that experience fame and fortune do not lose their moral compass. It's a copout to wave it off with "It changes a person."

Jughed

That's not my argument.

My argument is being judgemental without ever being in that situation.

What would you do at that age, in that situation. With all of everything you built and everything that was built around you at stake? What would you do - roll over and confess, or fight back? If the latter is your answer - what level of fighting back/protecting what you built is acceptable? In hindsight, looking at it from where we are now and what we now know - no level of fighting back looks good. If you were willing to simply roll over and walk away - well good for you.

Personally, If I was racing at the top levels in the world - racing amongst dopers and systematic doping, and was making 100's of millions - I would protect the position I was in. I don't know if I would just roll over when Frankies wife (who I do feel bad for) threatened to out me - for doing what her husband did and probably helped earn her family millions.

livedarklions

TIL--ok to be an active sociopath as long as it's working for you.

Koyote

I already posed the same question to BillyD , and I'll pose it to you: if we can't judge people whose lives (backgrounds, experiences, level of wealth, etc) are different from our own, then how should we deal with any criminals? After all, we're each unique, different from one another.

I'm really interested in a response to this question...though I don't expect one. When people on bf are wrong or absurd, they usually go silent rather than answer for it.

livedarklions

It's not the way you phrased your argument, but it's definitely the natural implication of it. If I have a lot to lose, you can't judge me for doing anything horrible unless you have been in exactly the same shoes. LA had some pretty damn powerful rich shoes, therefore only the powerful and rich can judge him.

Harold74

That is an interesting point. I previously considered suggesting that Lance should only be judged by a jury of his peers and that that we are NOT his peers. I refrained because I suspected that someone would counter that with your argument. But, since the cat is out of the bag, I'll try to counter the jurisprudence argument:

The legal system makes the assumption that we are all created equal even though, in a philosophical / practical sense, no one believes that we are remotely equal with respect to our talents and circumstances. This is necessary because, as you say, what else would we do that would be even remotely fair and still maintain social order?

Our legal system is designed to do to many things but one of them is to protect the weak from the strong, the common from the powerful. That is both fair and necessary but, at the same time, I don't feel that the intent of it is to suggest that a common person in a common situation can really be a fair judge of a powerful person in an exceptional situation. And vice versa really.

Should a materially desperate person be forgiven for breaking into my house, steeling food for her kids, and accidentally stabbing my kid when confronted? Yes, surely. Can the law tolerate that and still be expected to maintain order? Surely not.

From a power perspective, this is the inverse of Lance's case: circumstances matter when it comes to moral judgement, even if they cannot be considered when it comes to legal judgement.​​​​​​

livedarklions

So wait, you're saying that the standards for justifying saying nasty things about someone on social media should be higher than justifying locking them up in prison?

What the what?!

Koyote

This thread has demonstrated one truth: you have a real knack for using lots of words to say very little.

Carbonfiberboy 

Ah, you edited that reply. No, of course not. But that statement does not seem to advance the discussion or refute the standard maxim which I quoted. Those who rise to the top in any field are not representative of everyone, TG. And neither are those who sink to the bottom, also TG. But we don't really want to see nothing but normative behavior, do we? If that were the case, plays and movies and bike racing would be pretty boring. They mostly aren't and thus attract audiences. And great discoveries would never have been made.

smd4

Then we can make no judgments, about anyone, ever. So much for juries...

Eric F 

This thread will do nothing to change anyone's current opinion/judgement of Lance Armstrong.

Harold74

livedarklions : to recap, you've thus far implied that I am a despicable, babbling, b*ll****ting, scummy, idiot. All that, and you'll not find a single example of me launching these kind of value based, personal attacks on you or anyone else.

Do you really feel that you are qualified to sit in judgment of Lance Armstrong's bullying when, clearly, you are incapable of recognizing the bully that stares back at you from the mirror?

Harold74

More Lance-esque personal insults and bullying. Nice.

Koyote

I'll retract my comment if you explain how a person can "accidentally" stab another person.

tomato coupe

You seem to be implying that bike racing would be boring if the competitors were ethical and moral in their dealings with other people. That's pure BS.

That's more BS. Great discoveries do not require that the people behind them act in unethical and immoral ways.

Germany_chris

I forgot