An official announcement re Lance Armstrong: yello is now a 'hater'

[mangaman]

Well even that is not 100% true.

Armstrong survived a curable form of cancer. In his mind he is convinced that this was due to the way he took control of his illness and its treatment. It was a process that clearly worked for him, but since then, he has sought to promote 'his way' of tackling cancer as 'THE way'. Unfortunately there are many different cancers, including lots with almost 100% terminal outcomes. There is also a huge spectrum of cancer patients, many of whom neither wish or are even capable of following in his footsteps. For those who don't connect with the 'LiveStrong' message they can be left feeling inadequate and stripped of the confidence they need to tackle their own cancer in their own way.

Some of his slogans are also crass and can contribute to feelings of guilt and betrayal. One year at his Ride of the Roses event in Austin Tx, I noticed the place was plastered iwith billboards proclaiming: "Lance Armstrong - Living proof that everyone deserves a second chance". Well, what about those who get an incurable form of cancer and just die? Why didn't they deserve a second chance? Was it that they didn't take 'control' of their cancer? Didn't they LiveStrong? I've met families and loved one's racked with guilt wondering what they could have done to help their lost loved ones follow LA's path to salvation. But there was never going to be any 'salvation'; they had terminal cancer.

There are also doctors who feel his message has made their job of treating terminal cancer patients that much harder. Despite all the advances in cancer treatment, there are still many, many cancer patients who have to be told 'there is nothing more that can be done'. But when delivering such a difficult message, they now have to be ready to counter the accusation that 'you are exactly the defeatist type of doctor that Lance warned us about'. They then have to watch powerless as patients vainly try to follow 'his way', using up time and resources that would be better utilised enhancing the quality of life for both them and their families in those final days.

Effective support for those with cancer must recognise the very individual nature of not only the disease but also people's reaction to it. It's important to work with that and enhance whatever they want to do. No ones experience is transferable to anyone else and to promote 'a way' risks alienating and demotivating those for whom it does not work. As with conventional medicine, if you want to support someone with cancer; first - do no harm.

Nice post Tim - I agree with it all and I'm a doctor and cycling fan.

BTW - moggsy100 - why the red font? It did my head in

 

[trj977]

Well even that is not 100% true.

Armstrong survived a curable form of cancer. In his mind he is convinced that this was due to the way he took control of his illness and its treatment. It was a process that clearly worked for him, but since then, he has sought to promote 'his way' of tackling cancer as 'THE way'. Unfortunately there are many different cancers, including lots with almost 100% terminal outcomes. There is also a huge spectrum of cancer patients, many of whom neither wish or are even capable of following in his footsteps. For those who don't connect with the 'LiveStrong' message they can be left feeling inadequate and stripped of the confidence they need to tackle their own cancer in their own way.

Some of his slogans are also crass and can contribute to feelings of guilt and betrayal. One year at his Ride of the Roses event in Austin Tx, I noticed the place was plastered iwith billboards proclaiming: "Lance Armstrong - Living proof that everyone deserves a second chance". Well, what about those who get an incurable form of cancer and just die? Why didn't they deserve a second chance? Was it that they didn't take 'control' of their cancer? Didn't they LiveStrong? I've met families and loved one's racked with guilt wondering what they could have done to help their lost loved ones follow LA's path to salvation. But there was never going to be any 'salvation'; they had terminal cancer.

There are also doctors who feel his message has made their job of treating terminal cancer patients that much harder. Despite all the advances in cancer treatment, there are still many, many cancer patients who have to be told 'there is nothing more that can be done'. But when delivering such a difficult message, they now have to be ready to counter the accusation that 'you are exactly the defeatist type of doctor that Lance warned us about'. They then have to watch powerless as patients vainly try to follow 'his way', using up time and resources that would be better utilised enhancing the quality of life for both them and their families in those final days.

Effective support for those with cancer must recognise the very individual nature of not only the disease but also people's reaction to it. It's important to work with that and enhance whatever they want to do. No ones experience is transferable to anyone else and to promote 'a way' risks alienating and demotivating those for whom it does not work. As with conventional medicine, if you want to support someone with cancer; first - do no harm.

One of the most lucid posts I have ever read. Respect.

 

[Telemark]

One of the most lucid posts I have ever read. Respect.

+1
Can we "earmark" it to go into the poll for post of the year, please?

T

 

[yello]

Can we "earmark" it to go into the poll for post of the year, please?

I'd support that. But, in fairness, I have to say that I don't read the vast majority of posts on here.

Just a word about 'jobs worths', since it is relevant and related to the reason I 'came out'. I personally think the TdF commissionaires overreacted. It may well have been less disruptive to the event if they'd advised Radioshack of the violation and their intention to fine/refer to UCI after the event. That said, they were completely within their rights to act as they did and so I am not critical of their actions.

But the actual regulation contravened and the reaction by the organisers is irrelevant. The regulation could have been to do with the colour of socks (or the spelling of colour, or the spelling of socks...) What is relevant is that Radioshack decided to deliberately violate, and seemingly some way in advance of the event itself, then acted to disguise their intent on the day. Not just disrespectful but childish. I just cannot get my head around it, it's simply not the actions of a responsible organisation. When did 'cancer awareness' become a protest cause?

 

[PBancroft]

In truth, I do admire and respect what Armstrong has achieved in cycling (Livestrong is a somewhat more complicated issue). If it turns out Armstrong has been doping alongside other cyclists I would be sorely disappointed but I think it would show up the ineptitude of UCI officials as much as it shows up poor character... I mean, the accusation being made suggests this has been going on since what? 1999?

However, I do think that Lance's character is summed up by the missing part of the title to his first book. 'It's Not About The Bike, [It's About...

ME!

]'​

​

 

[ufkacbln]

Forgetting the individual for a moment.

As a ploy to get the message across about Cancer it was a superb publicity move.

Most cyclists are driven and the need to win, and beat everyone else is a driving force. It is not always the case that this combines with being "nice"

 

[yello]

As a ploy to get the message across about Cancer it was a superb publicity move.

Do you think so? I'd be interested in the pov of media/advertising people on that, seriously. That it made news beyond the sports pages is true, undeniably. But what 'message' was conveyed? Something to do with cancer? How does that help?

I mean, it's not as if people haven't heard of cancer. It's not some little known disease, or something that only effects a tiny percentage of the population. Many many people have lost family or friends to it, or know others that have. How much more aware do people need to be?

Or did it intend to promote Livestrong as a cancer foundation? Or even brand Armstrong (by association)? I honestly don't know.

Can I similarly expect The Salvation Army to invade Silverstone and march around the track in advance of the next Grand Prix? I mean, they are a good cause!

 

[Blue]

I'd support that. But, in fairness, I have to say that I don't read the vast majority of posts on here.

Just a word about 'jobs worths', since it is relevant and related to the reason I 'came out'. I personally think the TdF commissionaires overreacted. It may well have been less disruptive to the event if they'd advised Radioshack of the violation and their intention to fine/refer to UCI after the event. That said, they were completely within their rights to act as they did and so I am not critical of their actions.

But the actual regulation contravened and the reaction by the organisers is irrelevant. The regulation could have been to do with the colour of socks (or the spelling of colour, or the spelling of socks...) What is relevant is that Radioshack decided to deliberately violate, and seemingly some way in advance of the event itself, then acted to disguise their intent on the day. Not just disrespectful but childish. I just cannot get my head around it, it's simply not the actions of a responsible organisation. When did 'cancer awareness' become a protest cause?

Maybe it should be, cancer does more damage to humanity than many of the things that people protest about. Is that the point being made?

I don't know the answer, however, it amuses me to see how people get their bibshorts in a tangle when Armstrong is involved.

Don't you think that this year showed that the Armstrong era is over? Why can't the haters just move on? Bitterness just turns in on itself!

 

[Blue]

In truth, I do admire and respect what Armstrong has achieved in cycling (Livestrong is a somewhat more complicated issue). If it turns out Armstrong has been doping alongside other cyclists I would be sorely disappointed but I think it would show up the ineptitude of UCI officials as much as it shows up poor character... I mean, the accusation being made suggests this has been going on since what? 1999?

However, I do think that Lance's character is summed up by the missing part of the title to his first book. 'It's Not About The Bike, [It's About...

ME!

]'​

​

I take it that this is a joke, of course it's about the cyclist(any cyclist) rather than the bike!!

 

[yello]

Why can't the haters just move on?

This is a current incident. I've moved on from all of the past ones!

Nobody is above criticism, ever. Further, just because you can be respected for one aspect of your work/life, it does not mean you can't be questioned about another.

I could equally ask why it is that the 'fanboys' accept no criticism even when it is founded in fact. Would you prefer the 'haters' to move on because it's uncomfortable to have the questions asked? Is what you mean by 'move on' actually 'ignore'?

 

[yello]

Maybe it should be, cancer does more damage to humanity than many of the things that people protest about. Is that the point being made?

Like you, I don't know. So perhaps that is a very valid question to ask. What were the aims of this? What made it so important that it couldn't be done by asking first? By asking first and getting permission, and then talking up the event beforehand, talking of the new jersey's intention in interviews, etc etc etc - much much more exposure could have been gained and with everyone's buy-in. No bitter after taste.

As I said, cancer is hardly unknown. Cancer charities and research are amongst the most funded, if not the most funded charities. It's not exactly an ignored minority illness is it?

So do you see my question? What made this so important that it had to be done by stealth and disruption alone?

 

[PBancroft]

I take it that this is a joke, of course it's about the cyclist(any cyclist) rather than the bike!!

Yeah it was a joke, but also based on his writing style which doesn't lend itself to much personal inspection but rather lashings of I'm great, me!

 

[montage]

My summary of LA:

I don't believe he cheated, and if he did, then I can't possibly believe he cheated past the first tour win as there would have been far too much to lose.
I also deeply respect what he has done - 7 tdf wins no matter how you put it is bloody impressive.
He does a good job for the anti cancer campaign
He has influenced more cyclists to take up cycling than any other cyclist, ever.
He is a bit of an asshat with roughly 200 ex wives and a typical arrogant american (not saying all americans are arrogant) attitude - can't be a nice guy to deal with unless you are a close ally.

I also think that it is fashionable to be a "hater" and this is the reason why a lot of people take this route - not including any that have spoken out here as it is evident that you clearly are haters

I hope that if he has been cheating, that although the world deserves to know the truth, that it is hidden, because of the hope he gives so many. I would personally be gutted if he was found to be a doper, but I certainly wouldn't lose sleep over it - however it would make many lose faith in the professional sport.

 

[montage]

Oh and regarding the PR incident....who really gives a ****. It made for an interesting 10 minutes on what is otherwise a fairly boring stage no matter how you look at it.

 

[Blue]

Yeah it was a joke, but also based on his writing style which doesn't lend itself to much personal inspection but rather lashings of I'm great, me!

Fair point. I've read the material and agree that he seems to demand adoration. I much prefer objective statement about the usefulness of different training techniques, event tactics etc.