Lance Armstrong: The Road Goes on Forever | Hacker News Reader

Lance Armstrong: The Road Goes on Forever

outsideonline.com

45 pointsscapecast61 comments

>You cannot see, or feel, the pain he experienced when many of his friends and colleagues deserted him or when he was forcibly separated from his cancer-fighting foundation.

Literal LOL on this - Oh poor Lance... I forgot the part of the story where his friends deserted him, and not the other way around.

If you want a real glimpse into all the people he screwed over, check out the documentary 'Stop at Nothing'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ofoGHNTXs

In all honesty, as a cyclist, and a fan of professional cycling, I'd be able to forgive the cheating, everyone was doing it during that era. But the way he handled everything else was a complete disgrace.

Agreed. As a former fan I can say I was duped. DDG/Google Lance Armstrong D... and it will autocomplete to Destroys lives.

http://www.espn.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8860572/form...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancear...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gil-laroya/understanding-how-b...

As a European I never understood why Armstrong had it so rough, almost every top tour contestant from the era and going back almost 50 years have been doped, many of them have even admitted it.

Yet Armstrong got completely fucked by it. I used to think it was because America handles liars and cheats different than us, but looking at your bankers and wallstreeters go free as well as Trump winning and remaining in the White House, it seems that you're not rougher on liars and cheats than we are.

So what was it? Was Armstrong really that much of an asshole?

America has a very vengeful streak. We don't just get angry when we disagree, we take vengeance and retribution to an entirely new level.

If we are trying to draw comparison between Armstrong and political wrongdoing, it seems somewhat straightforward: in the case of Armstrong, it's much more black and white than in the case of bankers and politicians. He admitted wrongdoing and put himself on the cross for the nation. Contrasted with the case of bankers and politicians, who dwell in the eternal grey area, never once owning up to their misdeeds, the comparative black-and-white of Armstrong's admittance makes it much easier to have a simple and straightforward moral enmity.

Humanity likes to deal in black and white situations, and Armstrong's is much more black and white than anyone else. If he had not admitted his wrongs the vitriol would not be as strong and the impact would not have been as large.

As much of an asshole as Armstrong is purported to be, because he actually stood up and spoke out, he deserves so much more respect than those who have done so much worse and fade into the grey wall of evil in obscurity.

If we are to consider our society to be based on some sort of ethics, it is clearly a wrong that has been accomplished on Armstrong's part and he definitely deserved at least a good portion of what happened to him. But to see a man who really did not much more than make a fool out of a beloved sport crucified more than those who have actually contributed to the financial ruin of millions of Americans by facilitating the financial crisis, for instance, is nothing short of depressing.

And do not interpret my comment the wrong way: I feel no sympathy for Armstrong. The absolute worst case scenario for him touched on in the article is that he loses the lawsuit and has to pay away everything but keeps his apparently untouchable 8 million dollar home in Austin, which he might be forced to sell and then live a comfortably upper middle class lifestyle that would still be better than most of the better off earners here on HN.

Armstrong had become some thing more than a successful athlete. He is an inspiration for anybody who has suffered and lost everything in life and has come back and done great things in life. He is a cancer survivor, who also won the most grueling athletic competitions of the modern times.

He must have cheated. But I see it nothing more than those succeed due to things like affirmative action. And he is hated for exactly the same reasons. Other capable people do not see why he must be excused or they be made to swallow up a loss, for a problem that is not theirs.

" . . . and then Lance Armstrong reached me. He grabbed my by the shoulder, because he knew that everyone would be watching, and he knew that at that moment, he could show everyone that he was the boss. He stopped me, and he said what I was saying wasn't true, what I was saying was bad for cycling, that I musn't say it, that I had no right to be a professional cyclist, that I should quit cycling, that I should quit the tour, and finished by saying [beep] you. . . . I was depressed for 6 months. I was crying all of the time. I was in a really bad way." - Bassons, from BBC Radio 5, 2012 10 15[9]

Reading about Armstrong lead me to the wikipedia page for Christophe Bassons [1], a professional cyclist that called out Armstrong (and drug use in the profession). It is enraging to read that Bassons had to end his career early as a result of taking a stance against rampant cheating. What's particularly infuriating is that he likely got robbed of the opportunity to (perhaps) win a few titles, due to the unfair competition.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Bassons

One of many aspects/details that have caused me to turn my back on professional sports -- formally declared or otherwise (college football, the Olympics, etc.).

It would be inspiring if we could have professional sports-persons who could make a decent living extolling the virtues of sport and leading by example. "Decent" living -- not obscene incomes based upon monopolies and taxpayer extortion (stadium costs, tax exemptions, etc.) feeding yet greater ownership incomes (another form of rent-seeking, in its way).

But instead, cash is king. And the virtues of sport get turned into vices -- whether practiced by the players, or upon them (e.g. football's heavy toll).

I don't like this corruption. So I vote with my feet -- that is to say, with my dollars.

Anyway, sport is meant for actual participation. Any professional level should build upon that. Not upon eyeballs and asses in seats (doing nothing).

Of what little of the article I could stomach, sounds like Armstrong is as remorseful as ever. I just wonder why Outside magazine still picks up the phone when Armstrong’s PR agency calls. I mean, is there anyone left that cares?

He has money to spend in testing the waters, and probably he's self deluded enough to expect that someday he can come back. He's wrong of course. As to why people pick up... clicks clicks clicks.

After listening to him on Joe Rogan's podcast it was petty clear that he still doesn't really understand what he did wrong. If it's true that he only gave 5 million to Livestrong he probably made much more back through sponsor money so you could argue even that was just a calculated move for his own benefit.

The sad thing is that with enough effort he will come back. He just hasn't mastered the art of fake remorse yet.

Given the culture in elite cycling at the time, what he ultimately did wrong was cheat more effectively than everyone else did. Take a look at the results from the TdF and other major races from those years and see how many of the finishers behind Lance ended up also getting busted for doping.

Armstrong's real sin was winning too much while being an outspoken ass about it, which painted a gigantic target on his back.

It was much worse. What he did to people who told the truth was outrageous. He destroyed people who were in his way. He is a very vicious and dangerous man.

This is the difference people who argue "everyone was doing it" miss. He was aggressive in going after people who broke the silence. He ruined people's life in the process, ending their career and slandering them in the media. None of his competitor went to the lengths he did. Read up on people like Betsy Andreu and how lance went after her and her husband for talking about what they knew.

Add his masseuse to the list.

I'm most definitely not defending his character. If everything that's been reported is to be believed, he's an awful human being. But none of that stuff makes him any more or less guilty (when it comes to his cycling career) than Hamilton, or Herras, or Ulrich, or Basso, or any of the other big names that got popped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cyclin...

It ain't a pretty sport.

He is more guilty than all these guys because of the way he went after people who told the truth. He destroyed them knowing that they were right. Doping is the least of his bad deeds. He perfectly fits the image of the highly functioning psychopath.

>>The sad thing is that with enough effort he will come back.

Why is it sad?

Are people expected to pay for wrong doing their whole life. I thought the concept of a punishment was reformation, not retribution.

> I thought the concept of a punishment was reformation, not retribution.

Not in the US. We're still pretty bloody-minded toward people who somehow transgress society's rules.

Do you think that Lance Armstrong is in some way reforming or reformed?

By remorseful as ever, I take it to mean "not remorseful at all", right? (Not being facetious, this is my understanding of his attitude)

Yes, I indeed assumed that everyone considers him to be not remorseful at all. But there should have been a culturally-appropriate sarcasm tag in that.

> I just wonder why Outside magazine still picks up the phone when Armstrong’s PR agency calls. I mean, is there anyone left that cares?

There's a trial set for November 6, 2017, to decide if he "committed fraud by doping"[1].

Though, there are some bits that give some insight into his (poor) character - mainly, that Armstrong was so angry about the whole situation, that he felt unfairly singled-out as the face of doping in cycling (when everyone was doing it), that he thinks he did an ultimate good fighting cancer, etc, etc. There's clearly still a big part of him that thinks his doping was justifiable.

One question related to the trial - the article says,

The Postal Service paid Armstrong’s team $32,267,279...and Armstrong personally, could be forced to pay back three times that, or $96,801,837...The Postal Service’s own commissioned studies, four of them, showed that its contract with Armstrong’s team was worth close to $140 million in global media exposure, showing, in other words, that the USPS got a good deal"

What does this mean for the trial? What does it mean for Armstrong if they find the USPS benefitted from the fraudulent contract?

There was also uncertainty about whether "Armstrong’s deceptions and aggressive behavior" would be allowed in testimony. What testimony along those lines would be relevant to the fraud case?

1: https://www.bicycling.com/culture/doping/lance-armstrongs-fr...

maybe if he owned up to the mistake and maybe hadn't made millions off his deception, maybe if he actually testified about the drugs and methods he used, maybe if he didn't fuck over people on his own team.. maybe i would feel some sympathy.

but fuck lance armstrong.

FACT. before you get down voted for no references: http://www.espn.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/8860572/form...

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/th...

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/20/sport/lance-armstrong-reha...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-armstrong-has-been-tr...

I genuinely have to ask, what's morally wrong with using PEDs? Instead of down voting me, please actually respond with an argument.

EDIT: people will say "but it's not fair to those who are "clean". But there are also people who are at a major genetic advantage. For example, Armstrong uses EPO, but there are people with genetically higher amounts of EPO in their body naturally, without synthetic EPO injection, no matter how hard Armstrong trained he never would've beaten them, how is that fair?

Lying about it and competing against people who aren't, duh.

Also, he sued and attempted to destroy the people who accused him of doping.

While you're not wrong about the lying, back when Lance was riding nearly everybody was doping. Tyler Hamilton's book covered it pretty well: if you didn't dope, you weren't competitive. Period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cyclin...

But there are also people who are at a major genetic advantage. For example, Armstrong uses EPO, but there are people with genetically higher amounts of EPO in their body naturally, without synthetic EPO injection, no matter how hard Armstrong trained he never would've beaten them, how is that fair?

If your genetics aren't up to snuff you just have to accept that you won't make it to the top.

What then, is morally wrong with being more fair and using PEDs?

If you allow PEDs you get into a vicious cycle where people take more and more until you will see people dying again.

Then regulate the effect level, e.g. "no hematocrit above 55" or whatever the safe level is. This is actually far more safe because now a wide swathe of otherwise undetectable molecules with similar effects (such as altitude gene agonist EPO alternatives) that would otherwise have been abused are controlled as well.

That's not actually measuring the "effect". If your goal is to level the playing field to some sort of effect, you need to somehow balance that the effect of, say, a given hematocrit level will have a different effect in different people.

There's a difference between discussing this from a morality point of view and another from a practical point of view. A game needs to have rules—that's inherent it any game or contest. Those rules can be made for any number of reasons, which can be practicality (this is something we can measure) or safety (we don't want to encourage dangerous behavior), tradition, or whatnot. Morality or ethics come in with respect to abiding by the rules or the spirit of the rules, not generally the rules themselves.

Sure, it will have a different effect, but that is due to external factors which can also be regulated in a similar manner. In any case, these are far more pragmatic methods than trying to find every single SARM molecule that pops up.

I fail to see how it's easier to control for biological variation and physical preparation than it is to control for PEDs. And if one is going to have rules controlling one or the other, I personally would lean towards considering PEDs as a variety of equipment: some of which is allowed and some of which isn't. I can see one arguing that the athlete's body is equipment. I'd say that's generally not how people think about it, and reasonable people can disagree.

What's your goal in this thread? From what I can tell, it's just an exercise in the Socratic method. Is there an actual position you're aiming for?

Being given a moral reason as for why they're bad. No argument I've had person to person about PEDs has had that. It always starts with "OMG you evil monster, PEDs are evil" and ends with "fine, you're right rationally, but that's how it's always been, and it's like sports or something"

Yet you're also arguing against the points I've made, when I've made clear to distinguish that morality/ethics is concerned with abiding by the rules rather than the use of PEDs. I think some people tend to conflate the two, which is understandable given that in many (most?) cases we rationalize our moral intuitions.

What about people who cannot still compete despite the injections? Should we allow them to affix a lawnmower engine to their bike and race the Tour de France? The point you came here attempting to prove inevitably leads to absurdities. Some sort of criterion is needed for sport to remain competitive and interesting. "Make do with what you were born with" seems like the most natural one to me.

No because such devices are non-biological mechanical aids. PEDs and genetic engineering are purely biological means. I would say that it's fair to ban synthetic oxygen carriers and things like that.

Which is no more or less arbitrary than saying that PEDs ought to be banned because they are unnatural. So it's a moral issue, not something that can be settled by logic. The question becomes, where do we draw the line? Most people seem to agree that "play the hand you're dealt in life" is acceptable.

Not really, because most PEDs have no continuous effect in the body that's synthetic, they all synthetically induce natural effects. For this reason I say that synthetic oxygen carriers should be banned, since you cannot naturally acquire that.

This gets to the fundamental question of what is moral. Many people have their own definitions, or traditions handed down for what is moral, but most of these codes never even consider PEDs, and yet a lot of people seem to dislike them.

For me, morality can almost always be distilled down to trust. If an action makes people in a community more likely to trust others in their community, then it is generally a moral thing. In the case of professional sports, there is an implicit agreement to play fair (or at least on a level playing field.) Obviously, given our understanding of human genetics, this is decidedly an unreal expectation, but our sense of morality hasn't caught up to our understanding of science yet. In this light, Armstrong's major offense is not using PEDs per se, but the fact that he did it secretly while saying something entirely different (very convincingly no less.) How could you ever trust Armstrong's word again? More importantly, the more athletes (and others) are caught getting an advantage we have decided nobody should have, the less we can trust anyone, and sports (to say nothing of business) suffers as a result.

That's why Armstrong is a pariah. His actions aren't innately offensive, but they are a threat to the social fabric that lets hundreds of other people ride bicycles and throw balls for a living. It's the same social fabric that lets me trust my mechanic when he says he's fixed my car or trust that my pilot didn't cheat through flight school. Anything that threatens that trust is bound to be viewed as bad by a lot of people even if we can't easily explain why.

I'm not sure I agree that morality can be distilled down to trust.

I do agree that it's difficult to objectively codify morality, but I don't think that it's fair to say that what the majority consider to be "moral" is necessarily correct, an easy example being slavery.

One problem is that people used to die from doping. The other bigger problem in my view is that if you allow doping on the pro level then younger athletes who will be forced to take drugs too if they want to make it to the top. I don't think that's desirable.

Why not? How is it more fair for young athletes to realize dejectedly that they have no chance at beating their lazy friend no matter how hard they work? (I speak from personal experience, so maybe some bias).

I am not very athletic myself so it was pretty clear that I would never be a top athlete no matter how much I trained. Sometimes you just have to accept things. I am fairly sure that I will never be a top mathematician either. Another limitation I just need to accept.

If everybody dopes the naturally talented will still win.

Sure he is sorry--that all his lies and manipulations didn't work. He also tried to ruin the lives of those that told the truth, so screw him.

you mean those that told the truth after they got caught? Or those that told the truth after claiming for YEARS that they weren't cheating, and then later confessed, and threw everyone under the bus? Those people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Bassons

> A month later, he reached an agreement to do podcast coverage of the Colorado Classic stage race, but concerns raised by USADA prompted organizers to cancel the deal.

That seems pretty awful. Sure, he's banned for life from cycling, but should he be banned for life from commenting? That seems too much for me, too much by far.

> His WeDu partner is a former professional racer (once part of the U.S. Postal team) and Silicon Valley executive named Dylan Casey. “To be a good cyclist, you have to love suffering,” says Casey, who until recently worked for Yahoo.

I'm sorry, I know it adds nothing to the conversation, but seriously … I snickered. There's no way the reporter didn't do this on purpose.

> That seems too much for me, too much by far.

Oh, you know, he only came to represent the worst excesses of doping and covering up, so let's give him a pass and welcome him back as a literal spokesperson for the sport!

At this rate Bill Cosby will be hosting the Oscars.

what the hell is going on with this web site? this is the most perfect news web site i have ever seen in my entire life. there is not a single false note in their entire presentation. after a video is done playing, a white border tastefully wraps around the next video to play. all of the visual design looks great. there are no annoying pop ups or weird pop down banners or anything like that. and the content is really nice too, all done very well. it is almost strange to come across a site where there are no glaring errors of presentation or execution. i really have to commend these people.

I often wonder if Armstrong could have avoided all of this had he simply made the decision not to return to the Tour De France after his retirement.

Almost certainly. Floyd Landis has said as much.

I will say, The Forward is remarkably entertaining. For all the dick moves Armstrong has made, he's a likable interviewer that is kind of relatable. He still an endurance sport alpha male but he has a natural chemistry when he interviews.

He could have avoided it by being a nice person.

I sat a few feet from Armstrong at the 2012 SAP/ASAUG Sapphire conference as he was performing his keynote speech. This was before his admissions around doping and at the height of the livestrong wrist bracelets etc, but I sensed a fakeness, particularly in his eyes as he spoke.

If Armstrong is worth 100 million as this article suggests he will have no trouble funding a pr campaign of the type this article smells of. At least Bell Pottinger have gone out of business, but there are many other pr firms that will do anything for money. Never underestimate the power of money and the media machine https://youtu.be/-glDd70H5os

It's disappointing to see Outside peddling this sort of positioning.

i knew a guy in highschool who was really into bicycles. one time i was talking to him about lance armstrong and he commented on how he has met him one time, and that he was a complete asshole. then he said that lance armstrong was using steroids during all his races and that he employed special techniques in order to evade the drug tests. this was in around 2007. obviously i thought that my friend was completely full of shit.

Oh no! The bad man cheated at bicycling! How will the world ever recover?

On a serious note, I'm always surprised when people are surprised that top level athletes, businessmen, etc resort to cheating and unethical actions to stay on top. At that level, you basically need to be a sociopath who is willing to win by any means necessary.

I've forgiven him. He got me off the sofa and onto the bike as a kid and has been a great inspiration ever since. Everyone doped, and I believe including Greg LeMond. Let the man get on with his life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com