This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
same same........or something new?
In reply to shaggypops:
It made me decide one important difference between him and other sports cheats is the way he went after people who told the truth about him being a cheat, and rubbished their reputations and affected their lively hoods and intimidated them, or tried to.
It made me decide one important difference between him and other sports cheats is the way he went after people who told the truth about him being a cheat, and rubbished their reputations and affected their lively hoods and intimidated them, or tried to.
Post edited at 23:31
In reply to Timmd:
Every time you lie you have to fight harder to hide the truth, because each time the lie gets bigger. Its a good lesson for wee kiddywinks I suppose.
Every time you lie you have to fight harder to hide the truth, because each time the lie gets bigger. Its a good lesson for wee kiddywinks I suppose.
In reply to shaggypops:
I don't think he was any more a bigger liar and a cheat, than any one else who has ever doped or taken PEDS.
The difference with lance is that after his first Tour win, the lie got bigger and deeper, and he had more to lose.
Personally, I don't hold anyone who has ever doped in any less regard than Armstrong, probably more so all his cronies who ratted him out.
Indeed, it is a great example to teach your kids why you should never lie in the first place!
I don't think he was any more a bigger liar and a cheat, than any one else who has ever doped or taken PEDS.
The difference with lance is that after his first Tour win, the lie got bigger and deeper, and he had more to lose.
Personally, I don't hold anyone who has ever doped in any less regard than Armstrong, probably more so all his cronies who ratted him out.
Indeed, it is a great example to teach your kids why you should never lie in the first place!
In reply to Andrew Smith:
I thought that was the thrust of the programme - Lance Armstrong used every tactic in the book to defend his lie, cheated as much as he could and bullied every honest (and not so honest) person to confront him.
I really felt for Greg Lemond - all he did was say that if Lance was cheating it was the biggest fraud in sporting history. Armstrong did his best not just to silence him but to ruin his life, using contacts to destroy Lemond's business and rumour to destroy his reputation.
If after watching the documentary you still feel that Frankie Andreu is as big a cheat as Lance, then I'd be interested to discuss that.
Armstrong is a spherical bastard.
> I don't think he was any more a bigger liar and a cheat, than any one else who has ever doped or taken PEDS.
I thought that was the thrust of the programme - Lance Armstrong used every tactic in the book to defend his lie, cheated as much as he could and bullied every honest (and not so honest) person to confront him.
I really felt for Greg Lemond - all he did was say that if Lance was cheating it was the biggest fraud in sporting history. Armstrong did his best not just to silence him but to ruin his life, using contacts to destroy Lemond's business and rumour to destroy his reputation.
If after watching the documentary you still feel that Frankie Andreu is as big a cheat as Lance, then I'd be interested to discuss that.
Armstrong is a spherical bastard.
In reply to Andrew Smith:
I'm not aware of any other cyclists who actively pursued those who spoke out against them in the way Armstrong did. Perhaps the initial offence was no worse but he tried to destroy people in an effort to maintain his image. IMO this makes him worse than all the others.
> I don't think he was any more a bigger liar and a cheat, than any one else who has ever doped or taken PEDS.
I'm not aware of any other cyclists who actively pursued those who spoke out against them in the way Armstrong did. Perhaps the initial offence was no worse but he tried to destroy people in an effort to maintain his image. IMO this makes him worse than all the others.
In reply to Andrew Smith:
Did you actually watch either of the two films? His PED-use was the least of his dis-hounourableness. The bullying, intimidation, aggressive lying,ending others' careers, oh and using cancer sufferers and his own suffereing in his arguments as to why he would never ever use PEDs, I think are much worse. He gave hope to millions via the foundation and turned out to be a fraud. The others may have been tools for doping but they didn't bring down or destroy others in the process.
Did you actually watch either of the two films? His PED-use was the least of his dis-hounourableness. The bullying, intimidation, aggressive lying,ending others' careers, oh and using cancer sufferers and his own suffereing in his arguments as to why he would never ever use PEDs, I think are much worse. He gave hope to millions via the foundation and turned out to be a fraud. The others may have been tools for doping but they didn't bring down or destroy others in the process.
In reply to Hephaestus:
What a massive over-reaction by LA. Lemond's poor wife having to field enquiries about Greg's heroin habit..
> I really felt for Greg Lemond
What a massive over-reaction by LA. Lemond's poor wife having to field enquiries about Greg's heroin habit..
In reply to malk:
He was. As were (probably) a couple of the guys who beat him... To me, Wiggins won that tour.
He was. As were (probably) a couple of the guys who beat him... To me, Wiggins won that tour.
In reply to shaggypops: I wish it was on BBC4.... it was Channel 4 wasn't it? The adverts were driving me nuts!
In reply to Mr Fuller:
Contador and Andy Schleck were certainly suspect, Schleck certainly isn't the rider he was, Contador less so, but of course Contador has failed a test, sort of.
Contador and Andy Schleck were certainly suspect, Schleck certainly isn't the rider he was, Contador less so, but of course Contador has failed a test, sort of.
In reply to PeterM:
And that's what makes the Armstrong lie worse than Andreu's or Millar's, for example. That he was willing to lay into anyone who made comment on his behaviour so viciously, with so little respect for their livelihoods and reputations, means that his original doping offence almost becomes secondary to the bullying, litigious pile of ordure he used to defend himself.
Thought the section on sociopathy was interesting. The footage of him under oath and lying so demurely was amazing.
> What a massive over-reaction by LA. Lemond's poor wife having to field enquiries about Greg's heroin habit..
And that's what makes the Armstrong lie worse than Andreu's or Millar's, for example. That he was willing to lay into anyone who made comment on his behaviour so viciously, with so little respect for their livelihoods and reputations, means that his original doping offence almost becomes secondary to the bullying, litigious pile of ordure he used to defend himself.
Thought the section on sociopathy was interesting. The footage of him under oath and lying so demurely was amazing.
In reply to Mike Stretford: There was a Storyville programme on BBC Four on Sunday evening which you can watch on iPlayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b048wq0z/storyville-20132014-29-the-la...
On Monday evening Channel 4 showed The Armstrong Lie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1638364/
Top tip, record the programme and skip through the ads (like everyone else does).
Did anyone see the shorter Storyville programme that was on BBC Four after the Lance Armstrong one? Wondering whether it's worth downloading:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b048wqcc/storyville-20132014-30-velora...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b048wq0z/storyville-20132014-29-the-la...
On Monday evening Channel 4 showed The Armstrong Lie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1638364/
Top tip, record the programme and skip through the ads (like everyone else does).
Did anyone see the shorter Storyville programme that was on BBC Four after the Lance Armstrong one? Wondering whether it's worth downloading:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b048wqcc/storyville-20132014-30-velora...
In reply to Martin W:
There are two incidents in this that I found very disturbing.
Firstly, he fails a test for cortisone. He gets a back dated certificate (prescription. UCI release a statement that he offered a prescription AT THE TIME OF TESTING. He probably new he would be able to get one if he needed it. He did not know he was going to fail the test so why would he offer one?
Secondly, the doctors who were in the room when he allegedly admitted that he had taken drugs said he did not say what Betsy said he said. Armstrong now admits he said it. Why would the doctors lie? Or perhaps it slipped their minds, his medical notes would confirm which.
Did you know he donated $100,000 to UCI for their anti drugs work. He also donated $2 million to the hospital.
On the one hand he appears to have used bullying to those below him but for those above him he had other means.
There are two incidents in this that I found very disturbing.
Firstly, he fails a test for cortisone. He gets a back dated certificate (prescription. UCI release a statement that he offered a prescription AT THE TIME OF TESTING. He probably new he would be able to get one if he needed it. He did not know he was going to fail the test so why would he offer one?
Secondly, the doctors who were in the room when he allegedly admitted that he had taken drugs said he did not say what Betsy said he said. Armstrong now admits he said it. Why would the doctors lie? Or perhaps it slipped their minds, his medical notes would confirm which.
Did you know he donated $100,000 to UCI for their anti drugs work. He also donated $2 million to the hospital.
On the one hand he appears to have used bullying to those below him but for those above him he had other means.
In reply to malk:
I think if he admits to this he would face criminal proceedings, whereas the other admissions are too far back in time.
I agree with other points that he's the worst with his attacks on others, so he deserves all the lawsuits etc that are currently being thrown at him.
Difficult bit I always have with this is Livestrong has provided a lot of money to cancer victims so will always be a positive, despite the fact the money was gained in effectively fraudulent ways.
> (In reply to shaggypops)
>
> so was he doping in 2009 or not?
>
> so was he doping in 2009 or not?
I think if he admits to this he would face criminal proceedings, whereas the other admissions are too far back in time.
I agree with other points that he's the worst with his attacks on others, so he deserves all the lawsuits etc that are currently being thrown at him.
Difficult bit I always have with this is Livestrong has provided a lot of money to cancer victims so will always be a positive, despite the fact the money was gained in effectively fraudulent ways.
Post edited at 13:00
In reply to Fidman:
Another interesting one is why the UCI didn't find him to be cancerous. If Armstrong was tested x times then cancerous blood should have shown very obvious and indicative signs that something was not right. Either the UCI chose to ignore this because they thought it was not a big deal, or there tests did not detect it. Either result is worrying.
Another interesting one is why the UCI didn't find him to be cancerous. If Armstrong was tested x times then cancerous blood should have shown very obvious and indicative signs that something was not right. Either the UCI chose to ignore this because they thought it was not a big deal, or there tests did not detect it. Either result is worrying.
In reply to Mr Fuller:
Does it not depend on which test they are carrying out, on what they are looking for?
Does it not depend on which test they are carrying out, on what they are looking for?
In reply to Fidman:
I assumed this was becasue of patient confientiality. Doctors don't testify against their patients because it breeches patient dr trust.
> There are two incidents in this that I found very disturbing.
...> Secondly, the doctors who were in the room when he allegedly admitted that he had taken drugs said he did not say what Betsy said he said. Armstrong now admits he said it. Why would the doctors lie? Or perhaps it slipped their minds, his medical notes would confirm which.
I assumed this was becasue of patient confientiality. Doctors don't testify against their patients because it breeches patient dr trust.
In reply to PeterM:
There have been a few athletes now, eg Chris Lofton, who have failed drugs test which on investigation have turned out to be cancer. Apparently it boosts some of the hormones which are also used as PEDs.
> Does it not depend on which test they are carrying out, on what they are looking for?
There have been a few athletes now, eg Chris Lofton, who have failed drugs test which on investigation have turned out to be cancer. Apparently it boosts some of the hormones which are also used as PEDs.
In reply to dissonance:
Ta for that. I wouldn't have expected testing in sport to have uncovered such things but there you go..
Ta for that. I wouldn't have expected testing in sport to have uncovered such things but there you go..
In reply to shaggypops:
I can only think of him as human when I see him with the kids. It's easy to get a one dimensional picture of him almost as a pantomime evil villain, but there is some humanity there isn't there? At some point he must have felt between a rock and a hard place with no way out, no return and did that odd thing of lashing out in defensiveness beyond where logic and reason would have suggested was an option. Having said that, I have zero respect for the man. I hate the way he contributed to changing the way our beautiful sport is perceived. I know he wasn't alone, and he wasn't the ring leader for every doping rider in the peloton but what he did for the reputation of cycling is unforgivable.
I can only think of him as human when I see him with the kids. It's easy to get a one dimensional picture of him almost as a pantomime evil villain, but there is some humanity there isn't there? At some point he must have felt between a rock and a hard place with no way out, no return and did that odd thing of lashing out in defensiveness beyond where logic and reason would have suggested was an option. Having said that, I have zero respect for the man. I hate the way he contributed to changing the way our beautiful sport is perceived. I know he wasn't alone, and he wasn't the ring leader for every doping rider in the peloton but what he did for the reputation of cycling is unforgivable.
In reply to PeterM:
There's more about it here http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike, but in short an anti-doping test should make cancer show up very quickly.
There's more about it here http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike, but in short an anti-doping test should make cancer show up very quickly.
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
Don't know whether you've seen this before?
http://www.outsideonline.com/featured-videos/adventure-videos/biking/Outsid...
Don't know whether you've seen this before?
http://www.outsideonline.com/featured-videos/adventure-videos/biking/Outsid...
In reply to JamButty:
Difficult area too. They don't fund research (which people might assume) - where they have helped is assisting sufferers to navigate the US healthcare system. Livestrong spent a huge amount on 'brand', cancer awareness and lobbying. In 2009 34% of their programme activity was on 'advocacy and government relations'. They've improved since and are trying to rebuild post-Lance.
http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do/Our-Approach/Where-the-Money-Goes
http://www.inc.com/magazine/201404/issie-lapowsky/what-livestrong-is-like-w...
> Difficult bit I always have with this is Livestrong has provided a lot of money to cancer victims so will always be a positive, despite the fact the money was gained in effectively fraudulent ways.
Difficult area too. They don't fund research (which people might assume) - where they have helped is assisting sufferers to navigate the US healthcare system. Livestrong spent a huge amount on 'brand', cancer awareness and lobbying. In 2009 34% of their programme activity was on 'advocacy and government relations'. They've improved since and are trying to rebuild post-Lance.
http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do/Our-Approach/Where-the-Money-Goes
http://www.inc.com/magazine/201404/issie-lapowsky/what-livestrong-is-like-w...
In reply to Clauso:
The thing I liked most about that was the separate video where he told you how to replace a burst tube. Lance Armstrong, disgraced cyclist, looking like every other u-tube demonstrator and passing on the the tips of the trade.
Perhaps that was what he settled on for his legacy (which was a question he didn't answer during the original interview).
The thing I liked most about that was the separate video where he told you how to replace a burst tube. Lance Armstrong, disgraced cyclist, looking like every other u-tube demonstrator and passing on the the tips of the trade.
Perhaps that was what he settled on for his legacy (which was a question he didn't answer during the original interview).
In reply to SteveRi:
"They don't fund research (which people might assume)"
Good point - I assumed they did
"In 2009 34% of their programme activity was on 'advocacy and government relations'. "
Nothing wrong with this. If you spend $10 million lobbying the US govt to spend more money on cancer research, you could end up with an extra $20 million going into research. It seems like a waste of money, but this is the reality of politics.
"They don't fund research (which people might assume)"
Good point - I assumed they did
"In 2009 34% of their programme activity was on 'advocacy and government relations'. "
Nothing wrong with this. If you spend $10 million lobbying the US govt to spend more money on cancer research, you could end up with an extra $20 million going into research. It seems like a waste of money, but this is the reality of politics.
In reply to SteveRi:
If one was really Cynical,you could say that all that "advocacy" and "Lobbying" was just laying the ground works for his political carreer post cycling.
If one was really Cynical,you could say that all that "advocacy" and "Lobbying" was just laying the ground works for his political carreer post cycling.
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
I think you've pretty much summed up my feelings towards him there. He's not the Devil, as he often gets portrayed, but it does seem that is basically a psychopath (Or sociopath? I'm never sure of the difference) and the world of cycling is better off without him, but also better for knowing the truth. I do wish that he would tell the whole truth and name the others involved such as Ferrari and Bruyneel.
> I can only think of him as human when I see him with the kids. It's easy to get a one dimensional picture of him almost as a pantomime evil villain, but there is some humanity there isn't there? At some point he must have felt between a rock and a hard place with no way out, no return and did that odd thing of lashing out in defensiveness beyond where logic and reason would have suggested was an option. Having said that, I have zero respect for the man. I hate the way he contributed to changing the way our beautiful sport is perceived. I know he wasn't alone, and he wasn't the ring leader for every doping rider in the peloton but what he did for the reputation of cycling is unforgivable.
I think you've pretty much summed up my feelings towards him there. He's not the Devil, as he often gets portrayed, but it does seem that is basically a psychopath (Or sociopath? I'm never sure of the difference) and the world of cycling is better off without him, but also better for knowing the truth. I do wish that he would tell the whole truth and name the others involved such as Ferrari and Bruyneel.
In reply to Fidman:
I assumed that the medics involved had remained quiet due to their Hippocratic oath. The end of the documentary said that Armstrong still hasn't admitted to saying what he said in that hospital, which I find strange given that that would just be an admission of stating that he was doping, which he has already admitted to!
David Walsh said at the end that he is doing it to protect others involved and the doctors, but surely the doctors are protected by patient confidentiality anyway, so no one can hold it against them for not speaking up if they knew anything.
> Secondly, the doctors who were in the room when he allegedly admitted that he had taken drugs said he did not say what Betsy said he said. Armstrong now admits he said it. Why would the doctors lie? Or perhaps it slipped their minds, his medical notes would confirm which.
I assumed that the medics involved had remained quiet due to their Hippocratic oath. The end of the documentary said that Armstrong still hasn't admitted to saying what he said in that hospital, which I find strange given that that would just be an admission of stating that he was doping, which he has already admitted to!
David Walsh said at the end that he is doing it to protect others involved and the doctors, but surely the doctors are protected by patient confidentiality anyway, so no one can hold it against them for not speaking up if they knew anything.
In reply to Byronius Maximus:
I don't see him as the devil, but I do really dislike how he negatively affected other people's lives to protect himself, it could be that's down to him being rather sociopathic though. That bothers me more than him cheating in cycling. Or it would do if I let it annoy me, if you see what I mean.
> I think you've pretty much summed up my feelings towards him there. He's not the Devil, as he often gets portrayed, but it does seem that is basically a psychopath (Or sociopath? I'm never sure of the difference) and the world of cycling is better off without him, but also better for knowing the truth. I do wish that he would tell the whole truth and name the others involved such as Ferrari and Bruyneel.
I don't see him as the devil, but I do really dislike how he negatively affected other people's lives to protect himself, it could be that's down to him being rather sociopathic though. That bothers me more than him cheating in cycling. Or it would do if I let it annoy me, if you see what I mean.
In reply to Byronius Maximus:
If he did that he would be admitting to lying under oath, which he may be reluctant to do.
> I assumed that the medics involved had remained quiet due to their Hippocratic oath. The end of the documentary said that Armstrong still hasn't admitted to saying what he said in that hospital, which I find strange given that that would just be an admission of stating that he was doping, which he has already admitted to!
If he did that he would be admitting to lying under oath, which he may be reluctant to do.
Post edited at 13:02
In reply to Mike Highbury:
He's already admitted to perjury because he denied doping under oath. There must be another reason why he's reluctant to discuss the issue.
> If he did that he would be admitting to lying under oath, which he may be reluctant to do.
He's already admitted to perjury because he denied doping under oath. There must be another reason why he's reluctant to discuss the issue.
In reply to Hephaestus:
I'm assuming that everything he has said on the matter has been well rehearsed after much advice from very expensive lawyers.
I'm assuming that everything he has said on the matter has been well rehearsed after much advice from very expensive lawyers.
In reply to wynaptomos:
I'd think so.
> I'm assuming that everything he has said on the matter has been well rehearsed after much advice from very expensive lawyers.
I'd think so.
In reply to Hephaestus:
Yup expensive lawyers and expensive PR bods.
Lets hope the former do as bad as the latter. Although in fairness to the latter its a somewhat tricky job.
> I'd think so.
Yup expensive lawyers and expensive PR bods.
Lets hope the former do as bad as the latter. Although in fairness to the latter its a somewhat tricky job.
In reply to dissonance:
Well, his lawyers have had plenty of practice defending his reputation, but it's probably another thing that is going to come back and bite his arse. I can imagine that people who've been sued for speaking out against Armstrong in the past might be looking to recoup their costs somehow.
Well, his lawyers have had plenty of practice defending his reputation, but it's probably another thing that is going to come back and bite his arse. I can imagine that people who've been sued for speaking out against Armstrong in the past might be looking to recoup their costs somehow.
In reply to SteveRi:
When I was diagnosed with cancer, I spent a lot of time looking for information on the web. The Foundation website was a tremendous source of information and a great help to me. 'Not about the Bike' was an inspiration at a time when I needed it and still is, notwithstanding all that has transpired since.
When I was diagnosed with cancer, I spent a lot of time looking for information on the web. The Foundation website was a tremendous source of information and a great help to me. 'Not about the Bike' was an inspiration at a time when I needed it and still is, notwithstanding all that has transpired since.
In reply to alam_kouh:
Good to hear - I've heard the same from an old mate and cycling nut who was diagnosed. These things are full of nuance and Livestrong have had a tricky job post Lance for sure.
Good to hear - I've heard the same from an old mate and cycling nut who was diagnosed. These things are full of nuance and Livestrong have had a tricky job post Lance for sure.
In reply to shaggypops:
Did you watch both? There was the doc and the bbc a day or two later. I found the first one very depressing as it showed the darker traits of human nature. The second one was more interesting. It was more sad than depressing showing a kid without a father with a bit of a chip on his shoulder aggressively and combatitively fighting on his bike but never being able to switch that off in any other part of his life. This made him into the real villain of cycling.
Someone above said Contador sort failed a drugs test??? He did fail one (totally), he is a convicted doper and he like Armstrong has been in the thick of it for years but by lying and dodging has avoided detection until he got unlucky. I think it's a terrible shame he's still riding if we want a clean sport and I wish he'd quit like he said he would if convicted.
Again this is sad because he's demonstrated that drugs or not he's an incredible rider in terms of tactics and skill.
Cheers
Toby
Did you watch both? There was the doc and the bbc a day or two later. I found the first one very depressing as it showed the darker traits of human nature. The second one was more interesting. It was more sad than depressing showing a kid without a father with a bit of a chip on his shoulder aggressively and combatitively fighting on his bike but never being able to switch that off in any other part of his life. This made him into the real villain of cycling.
Someone above said Contador sort failed a drugs test??? He did fail one (totally), he is a convicted doper and he like Armstrong has been in the thick of it for years but by lying and dodging has avoided detection until he got unlucky. I think it's a terrible shame he's still riding if we want a clean sport and I wish he'd quit like he said he would if convicted.
Again this is sad because he's demonstrated that drugs or not he's an incredible rider in terms of tactics and skill.
Cheers
Toby
In reply to Timmd:
Yes, I agree - really cycling is 'just' a sport, but the damage he did to people's lives in order to cover up his lies and those of the people around him is a much more morally corrupt activity.
Watching the race footage from the BBC documentary was a strangely nostalgic experience - I remember watching those races at the time and being amazed by his ability, but now I watch them in disbelief at the fact that he managed to dupe so many people into thinking the performances were genuine. You just don't see attacks like that these days, storming away from his rivals with a complete poker face showing no signs of suffering. It's obvious watching it now that he was doping but we were all (well, almost all) fooled at the time because we wanted to believe in the Lance Armstrong fairy tale after the Festina affair had tainted cycling so badly.
It's very hard to reconcile all this with the undoubted good work he has done through Livestrong, an organisation that has done a lot of work to help cancer patients but one that was ultimately founded on a lie. I dislike the 'fighting talk' he always put around cancer; he always talked as though 'he' beat cancer because he took his competitive fighting spirit to it, but life isn't that fair...basically, he got lucky. Plenty of people die of cancer fighting to the bitter end, but they are no less of a fighter for it.
> I don't see him as the devil, but I do really dislike how he negatively affected other people's lives to protect himself, it could be that's down to him being rather sociopathic though. That bothers me more than him cheating in cycling. Or it would do if I let it annoy me, if you see what I mean.
Yes, I agree - really cycling is 'just' a sport, but the damage he did to people's lives in order to cover up his lies and those of the people around him is a much more morally corrupt activity.
Watching the race footage from the BBC documentary was a strangely nostalgic experience - I remember watching those races at the time and being amazed by his ability, but now I watch them in disbelief at the fact that he managed to dupe so many people into thinking the performances were genuine. You just don't see attacks like that these days, storming away from his rivals with a complete poker face showing no signs of suffering. It's obvious watching it now that he was doping but we were all (well, almost all) fooled at the time because we wanted to believe in the Lance Armstrong fairy tale after the Festina affair had tainted cycling so badly.
It's very hard to reconcile all this with the undoubted good work he has done through Livestrong, an organisation that has done a lot of work to help cancer patients but one that was ultimately founded on a lie. I dislike the 'fighting talk' he always put around cancer; he always talked as though 'he' beat cancer because he took his competitive fighting spirit to it, but life isn't that fair...basically, he got lucky. Plenty of people die of cancer fighting to the bitter end, but they are no less of a fighter for it.
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
Being "human" and "having some humanity there" doesn't automatically make you less of a bad person. The Kray twins were reportedly very kind to their mother, but they ran a violent criminal gang and personally murdered two people.
Yes, Lance Armstrong is human: he's a human being being who behaved despicably, lying through his teeth and showing absolutely zero consideration for the lives and livelihoods of other human beings who threatened to get in his way.
He's not a "pantomime evil villain", he's just a villain. A thoroughly nasty man.
> I can only think of him as human when I see him with the kids. It's easy to get a one dimensional picture of him almost as a pantomime evil villain, but there is some humanity there isn't there?
Being "human" and "having some humanity there" doesn't automatically make you less of a bad person. The Kray twins were reportedly very kind to their mother, but they ran a violent criminal gang and personally murdered two people.
Yes, Lance Armstrong is human: he's a human being being who behaved despicably, lying through his teeth and showing absolutely zero consideration for the lives and livelihoods of other human beings who threatened to get in his way.
He's not a "pantomime evil villain", he's just a villain. A thoroughly nasty man.
Post edited at 22:29
In reply to Martin W:
But you can also look at it the other way; ie ' they ran a violent criminal gang and personally murdered two people, but they were reportedly very kind to their mother'.
In Armstrong's case, the footage they showed of him with children with cancer seemed to be a genuine moment of humanity. Doesn't mean what he did was okay, it just means everyone is a bit more complicated than we are inclined to think. Some (lots) of the things he did were thoroughly nasty, but other things he did weren't.
That said, I don't think I want to be part of his life
> Being "human" and "having some humanity there" doesn't automatically make you less of a bad person. The Kray twins were reportedly very kind to their mother, but they ran a violent criminal gang and personally murdered two people.
But you can also look at it the other way; ie ' they ran a violent criminal gang and personally murdered two people, but they were reportedly very kind to their mother'.
In Armstrong's case, the footage they showed of him with children with cancer seemed to be a genuine moment of humanity. Doesn't mean what he did was okay, it just means everyone is a bit more complicated than we are inclined to think. Some (lots) of the things he did were thoroughly nasty, but other things he did weren't.
That said, I don't think I want to be part of his life
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...