Lance Armstrong: What are your thoughts?

[PhillyGirl]

I know this is a few weeks past the 'big news' that was the Lance Armstrong confession ordeal, but I am taking a Sports Psychology course, and we had a big debate about how Armstrong's legacy should be framed. Thought it was interesting, and I was just curious what you all think, as fellow sports fans.

 

[doemasters]

I just wish he would change his first name :shake:

I know most in sports will do whatever it takes to win but I think he crossed the line by lying to everyone and getting them to donate to his charities

 

[PhillyGirl]

I just wish he would change his first name :shake:

I know most in sports will do whatever it takes to win but I think he crossed the line by lying to everyone and getting them to donate to his charities

Yeah I tend to fall in a similar camp. I know it's incredibly competitive and all, but he misled folks AND destroyed some peoples' careers along the way (those who accused him of drug use earlier on) .. all over a lie. That's my main problem with it.

 

[doemasters]

i know and he had to know that it would come out at some point

Only positive is he did raise money for a good cause

 

[rammerjammer]

I wish they would legalize steriods to a certain extent. The athletes today are pushing the envelope just like they did 60 and 70 years ago. Everybody is always looking for a competitive edge. Give that option to everyone and level the playing field. I guarantee you that if steroids would have been available to the likes of Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, DiMaggio, etc....they would have used them. Legalize it and shut up about it.

As far as the lying. I think the lawsuit defamation deal takes the cake. He owes a lot of people a lot of money and his reputation is something he will never get back.

 

[planomateo]

Bummed and disappointed in Lance, considering how we viciously went after people who spoke up about him years ago. His legacy should be that he's an asshole who lied and defending himself like no others have before.

I only started watching cycling because of him and as observed over the years, that entire sport is dirty based on all the previously winners getting slammed.

In hindsight, its interesting how "technical competitive advantages" (thinking clothing and bike technology) are acceptable in the sport, but doping is a no-no.

His character makes me question how he did the supposedly "good" things for cancer...as I'm sure he was a relentless asshole there too.

 

[Bamabww]

Very disappointed in him.

 

[PhillyGirl]

Bummed and disappointed in Lance, considering how we viciously went after people who spoke up about him years ago. His legacy should be that he's an asshole who lied and defending himself like no others have before.

I only started watching cycling because of him and as observed over the years, that entire sport is dirty based on all the previously winners getting slammed.

In hindsight, its interesting how "technical competitive advantages" (thinking clothing and bike technology) are acceptable in the sport, but doping is a no-no.

His character makes me question how he did the supposedly "good" things for cancer...as I'm sure he was a relentless asshole there too.

I remember reading somewhere that if we were to redistribute some of his wins, it would have to go down to about the 12th cyclist in the races because the first 11 were all guilty of doping. Crazy.

I guess the difference in the competitive advantages is that doping alters your physical makeup, whereas clothing and bike technology is 'outside' the body. Maybe the issue is that it alters your very makeup. I mean, after all, the original runners used to run races barefoot, so when running shoes became big, were they seen as a 'technical competitive advantage'? Some runners still do it barefoot, there always seems to be a few marathoners with no shoes in the Olympics.