lance Armstrong

[Venod]

I somehow don't think he did all those things by mistake.

He didn't do them by mistake, but it was a mistake to do them.
I hate bullies with a vengeance and IMO this is were he got it wrong, the substance abuse was rife, he was the best at it.
He was a talented triathlete before the tour years, and you don't get to be a tour rider without the attributes.
Shame is attitude to others let him down.

 

[Dogtrousers]

He didn't do them by mistake, but it was a mistake to do them.

 

[Jameshow]

He cheated and ruined the opportunities for others and the sports image.

I just ignore him tbh along with so many other celebrities..

 

[cyberknight]

I think hate might be too strong a word, given his gung ho attitude to succeed at all costs no matter who was in the way means until he can make full restitution financially and emotionally to those whos lifes he tried to destroy then any achievements are worthless

 

[Ian H]

What Ian says is true but he was one hell of a rider & his 7 times should stand in a weird way as they were mostly all at it. Pretty much a level playing field. His pod cast is doing well & he’s just received a million from its sponsors. I bet in a few years he will have Paul kimmage on his podcast to talk about the past. That would certainly create some big global interest.
Edit: I meant David Walsh but Kimmage was a whistle blower of an earlier time.

I agree that they should stand - but marked with a caveat.
As for his achievement, note that Merckx had more grand tour wins, and Merckx's palmares simply dwarfs Armstrong's, who turned all his resources to simply winning that one big race each year.
And yes, he was/is a nasty character.

 

[fossyant]

A hateful, despicable, lying, drug cheater who tried his best to destroy peoples lives if they didn't fit in with his narrative.

He is a huge letdown. The stuff that's now public knowledge is disgraceful. A truly hateful excuse for a human

 

[Dogtrousers]

Unfortunately, I've got to admit that I enjoyed watching the TdF in the Armstrong era.

Me too. But I always had him down as a baddie, so I didn't feel betrayed or anything when it all came crashing down. I'm not claiming clairvoyance or special knowledge or anything, just that he always seemed to me to be a rotter, so I supported anyone but him.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

There was an interesting documentatry on the telly a year or 2 ago

Can't remember many details but it was done by a female journalist

She started by interviewing several people - one of them made a significant comment
The journalist was wondering - to camera - whether to include LA himself or keep him out of it.
One person she interviewed commented that LA would be very willing to participate
But if she involved him in any way from that point onwards he would control the documentary - not totally - but he would manage, very subtly, to change the narrative.

She did involve him - but not until about half way through her investigations - and you could see the join between the 2 halves in spite of her declared aim to avoid him doing it

He was very clever and helpful - but once he knew about it and had contarct then his background influence was clear

I'm not saying he threatened anyone or anything - in any way - it was just that he is a very controlling, charming and clever man

He has used these attributes to do a LOT of good for charities and in other ways of helping people.
but it has a dark side and he seems to be able to be effortlessles use the good bits to floow his sgenda of the "Poor Lance" narrative



I still believe he could have been one of the best ever if everything had been clean - but that world didn;t exist

 

[Arrowfoot]

I still believe he could have been one of the best ever if everything had been clean - but that world didn;t exist

Armstrong was not in the list as a natural climber but the things changed and people first pointed out the abrupt change.By the third TDF people put it down to sheer determination.

Armstrong knew he would not be in the same league hence the direction he took.

Brailsford has a similar lengthy history but a lot smarter. Brailsford does not confront, put down or challenge anyone, he just avoids making enemies of his critics. If Armstrong had done the same, he would have kept his 7 wins.

 

[PaulB]

Brailsford has a similar lengthy history but a lot smarter. Brailsford does not confront, put down or challenge anyone, he just avoids making enemies of his critics. If Armstrong had done the same, he would have kept his 7 wins.

Or if he hadn't done that last comeback, yes, there'd be suspicions but he'd be being talked of as a presidential candidate over there now.

Armstrong I meant, not Brailsford

 

[Proto]

Brailsford has a similar lengthy history but a lot smarter. Brailsford does not confront, put down or challenge anyone, he just avoids making enemies of his critics. If Armstrong had done the same, he would have kept his 7 wins.

I believe this to be true. If he'd been a more likeable fellow, someone like Indurain, he'd be lauded now as the greatest of all time.

I've read that he was a major talent as a teenage triathlete. Was he doping then? I've often wondered if long term, badly managed steroid abuse could lead to testicular cancer.

 

[tinywheels]

I agree that they should stand - but marked with a caveat.
As for his achievement, note that Merckx had more grand tour wins, and Merckx's palmares simply dwarfs Armstrong's, who turned all his resources to simply winning that one big race each year.
And yes, he was/is a nasty character.

the cannibal was also dogged by doping issues.
The issue of chemical stimulants is as old as the Tour itself.

 

[LittleWheelsandBig]

I believe this to be true. If he'd been a more likeable fellow, someone like Indurain, he'd be lauded now as the greatest of all time.

I've read that he was a major talent as a teenage triathlete. Was he doping then? I've often wondered if long term, badly managed steroid abuse could lead to testicular cancer.

Armstrong was a national class triathlete and then an international class cyclist. He doped from very early on and responded better to blood doping than most, so it isn’t possible to say he would have been a superlative cyclist if clean. He bought some of his triple crown victories and was doping then. Remember that the lanterne rouge at the Tour de France is a 1 in a million cyclist. Being an excellent cyclist is barely enough to get you into the pro ranks. My guess is - he would probably have been an interesting one-day rider with some good wins. He would never have won a grand tour.

 

[Ian H]

the cannibal was also dogged by doping issues.
The issue of chemical stimulants is as old as the Tour itself.

Indeed. I'm well aware of the history of cycle racing.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Or if he hadn't done that last comeback, yes, there'd be suspicions but he'd be being talked of as a presidential candidate over there now.

Armstrong I meant, not Brailsford

Agree.