Lance Armstrong doping ?

polaris_x wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Nearly his whole life is a sham. Do I have faults? No question about it. But I can honestly say, with no doubt in my mind, I would NEVER do what Lance did. Most people wouldn't.

And, unfortunately for him, that's what makes him different from all the rest. that is what will be his legacy.

ya ... and the bit about lance is a good guy and his heart is in the right place is just mind boggling ... nearly to a T - most that know him consider him a douchebag ... add what we KNOW of him and what he did to people - how can anyone say his heart is in the right place ... the guy was a grade A prick who had the audacity to exploit cancer to make himself uber rich ...

and let's not forget - he's still lying ... and given an opportunity to right at least one wrong in his life ... he pleaded the 5th which is almost worst than lying ... by refusing to talk - you basically admit your guilt but even in your supposed confessional interview - you couldn't right the wrong that was Betsy Andreu ... low ... real low ...

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

i completely disagree. you name a hero, and i'll say that person is viewed as immoral by someone else. Che, MLK, Dylan, Van Morrison, Paul Mccartney.

The problem with the logic being presented, is it assume everyone on earth thinks the feels the way you do. Comes at the situation with your feelings and beliefs and opinions. And thats just not going to happen. Right after Lance confessed you had as many people coming to his defense, normal everyday fans, as you did people saying to hell with him.

I'd say the same thing about MJ. Im a huge fan, always have been, and never once felt he was guilty. In fact all the evidence points to him being innocent. And you still have some people who feel that if a person is accused of such a thing they are guilty. So they will ignore all the humanitarian stuff he did, all the great music, and thats their view of him. To me thats silly.

Or someone like Roman Polanski. Whether or not you feel he's a rapist, has little to do with whether you respect him as an artist, he's made some incredible films.

Happens all the time. The worlds never going to agree with you 100 percent on this issue my friend. All you had to do was read a few newspapers the day he confessed and you had some folks writing in saying, what that person said in the letter oprah read. That lance isnt all bad.

You are going to be holding your breath a long time waiting for the entire world to shun lance and not view him as anything but complete evil. Its just not going to happen.

no one's ignoring the humanitarian stuff he did, but if you are going to give a guy kudos for the good he did, then it stands to reason you give him shit for the bad he did.

musicismylife78 wrote:

another great example of someone flawed also having positive aspects to them, would be Elia Kazan. Among his films he directed were On the Waterfront, Streetcar, and East of Eden. 3 of the greatest films ever created. Yet, he also ruined peoples lives and did something pretty reprehensible when he named names during the Mccarthy Hearings era and told on "suspected commies" in Hollywood.

This is a guy who ruined peoples lives too. But, he also created 3 undeniable cinematic masterpieces with a capital M. And in general he seems to have been a pretty good guy.

musicismylife78 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

another great example of someone flawed also having positive aspects to them, would be Elia Kazan. Among his films he directed were On the Waterfront, Streetcar, and East of Eden. 3 of the greatest films ever created. Yet, he also ruined peoples lives and did something pretty reprehensible when he named names during the Mccarthy Hearings era and told on "suspected commies" in Hollywood.

This is a guy who ruined peoples lives too. But, he also created 3 undeniable cinematic masterpieces with a capital M. And in general he seems to have been a pretty good guy.

I personally can't put "ruined people's lives" and "a pretty good guy" in a statement describing the same person.

So you think people are either good or bad, and theres no grey? How do you explain people like MLK who are universally considered saints and great people, but had very flawed personal lives as well? He is about as clear cut for "good" as any person we could come up with. But he had a problem with feminism, cheated on his wife, and possibly was a homophobe. Was he a good person or bad?

Ive never met a person who was all one thing. We all are a combination of both.

For me I think human beings are incredibly complex and to reduce people down to levels of good or bad is like Bush's "evil doers" concept. Its naive and childish. It presupposes the idea, that to take the 9/11 hijackers as examples, that they all were horrible people and conducted their whole lives as such. And thats just not true. Several hijackers were described as nice people, which caused a great deal of surprise on the behalf of friends and family who wouldnt ever have guessed someone like that would be involved in the murder of 3,000 people. United 93 the movie, suggests one of the hijackers actually had second, and third and fourth thoughts about particpating in the hijacking of the plane that was downed in Pennsylvania. Things arent black and white. Never have been.
'
It presents a us versus them mentality that has far reaching concepts if such a view is accepted. We think one way, and those other people think another way. We are good, and right, and those other people are evil and bad and not human.

It makes an Other out of people society deems deviant.

It makes complete sense why people think this way, its simple, its easy, and it allows people to be classified in a simple manner. Good or Bad. But whats good or bad and moral, can change depending on the era, depending on the culture, and from one family to another. It can also depend on societies view of the laws

A good example of all this is in some families and religions suicide means a person is going to hell. Hell from what we are told doesnt have good people in it. Also included would be children who were never baptized, and billions of people adults and babies, who are Hindus or Muslims or whatever religion.

That sort of clarity just isnt possible.

musicismylife78 wrote:

I guess for me, the hypocrisy is in the picking and choosing of heroes and who's being called a jerk and who's not. I assume you view MLK as a hero. I know I do. But I dont think Coretta Scott King would ever admit it, but im sure MLK's cheating on her was extremely painful and disturbing to her. And Bayard Rustin, the gay civil rights activist who was marginalized continually, and forced to leave the movement by MLK, because King felt gay rights were maybe not important or werent as important as blacks getting civil rights, i know that caused an impact on his life, because I read a 400 page book on the guy. Do these things equal ruining peoples lives?

I just think we need to look at humans as humans. In all their glory and their faults. I find Livestrong and all the work they've done and Lance has done in that arena, to be amazing. Livestrong is a fantastic organization. I love the website, and think what they do is helpful, important, and I dont regret wearing the yellow bracelet or owning a Livestrong t-shirt. I would and will buy more merch from them. I support what they do. I support their mission. I think cancer is awful and a cure should be found, and that we need to support people who have been diagnosed with it. Lance didnt have to create the organization, nor did he have to do activist work on behalf of it. He did do that though. I read his tweets for years prior, and they almost always involved mentioning some benefit, Livestrong, shouting out a cancer survivor or wishing someone prayers and love who had just been diagnosed.

Based on all this, I do believe Lance is a good guy.

I also think his case was unique in large part because of the cancer. Bonds let people down, but I didnt have a personal connection with the guy. He didnt mean anything to me. I was emotionally and personally invested in the 7 tour wins and the Lance story. Admitting he lied had obvious consequences that we all saw in the last week. Anyone, Lance included, knew that would happen. He said as much in that one video shown on Oprah, he knew what exposure of the lie would mean. And it extended beyond money and fame.

It would be pretty scary to admit your life the last 15 years was a lie, that you were an imposter. And to let millions of cancer survivors down as a result. Thats a heavy burden. This all played a part in this story.

musicismylife78 wrote:

We have no idea whats going on in Lances head. You or I have no idea why he lied for 16 years and continued to lie, or also why he admitted it the other week.

Also, cheating and lying and suing people also doesnt make someone a bad person, or at least an all bad person. Its one side of him. We dont know what he's like with his wife or children or what he was like when he interacted with staff members at Livestrong.

Pandora or whoever was arguing a couple days ago, that his teammates came clean for the good of the sport and because they wanted to help out the sport and because they realized cheating was wrong. And then when Lance was discussed they argued everything he did was based on self serving interests. Thats silly logic and it doesnt hold water.

Lance is a scapegoat. Just like Mcgwire and Bonds are. Punishments should be doled out. Records stripped. Awards taken away. But, for me, the real stunning thing is society as a whole's, lack of dealing with cheating and doping in all sports. Had lance never been on tour, the sport wouldnt have been clean.

The cycling world needs to clean house. And heads need to roll. Officials, and higher ups, UCI heads needs to be fired and gone after in a legal manner to deal with these issues.

I'd like to see cycling clean. Those 7 tours were among my most fondest memories of the last decade. And to know it was a hoax is heartbreaking. But all this stuff is childs play, and to identify it otherwise isnt being truthful.

While Lance is getting the hot seat, all the other more powerful people, who knew about it, did nothing, covered it up, all remain free, and unblemished. Some even still have jobs. Thats wrong from any standpoint.

Im a big believer in justice. And justice in this case isnt solely dependent on Lance.

If the people who allowed cheating to happen and occur and continue, still are ruling the cycling world, how is the sport going to be cleaned up. It isnt.

The head of UCI, and all the other major cycling organizations, those who tested not only Lance, but every other rider, need to be fired, and fined.

Its like baseball. Cleaning up baseball isnt contingent on Bonds or Mcgwire. Its contingent on so much more.

musicismylife78 wrote:

no they wouldnt have. Mcgwire wasnt mean about it, and the guys now a pariah.

Its the same as torture and all that other stuff. yes, you punish and go after the agents who torture detainees, but you also, go after the people who ordered it, the higher ups who knew about it and did nothing.

For me, thats way more disturbing. UCI officials knew not only was lance doping, but everyone else, and they did nothing.

You cant clean up cycling without cleaning house. Period