Lance on Oprah (Page 6)

But that isn't the point... HE did it. HE relied on a positive public image. HE was deceitful to those he needed that positive image from. It is so ridiculous to excuse the disgusting behavior of one just because you can point to another. HE is RESPONSIBLE for HIS actions.

Yes, he was:

ARMSTRONG: Listen, I've said it for seven years. I've said it for longer than seven years. I have never doped. I can say it again. But I've said it for seven years. It doesn't help. But the fact of the matter is I haven't. And if you consider my situation: A guy who comes back from arguably, you know, a death sentence, why would I then enter into a sport and dope myself up and risk my life again? That's crazy. I would never do that. No. No way.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/25/lkl.01.html

You are absolutely right on that, it doesnt give you a free pass. I guess I know that not EVERYONE was dirty in the sport but from what I had read, alot were so to me it kind of distorted my viewpoint of the sport as a whole.

Many (maybe even most for a period of time) were and it's understandable to have a 'distorted' viewpoint of the sport as a result.  But some did not.  Importantly, some of those who did not never made the peloton.  Maybe they would have made it with a 'level' playing field.  The sport is bigger than the top few.  Or should be, IMO.

Here is an interesting question to ponder:

Is it better to have had Lance dope, when 7 titles and start the Livestrong Foundation to help cancer patients (it spent between $25-$29 million the last few years on cancer stuff) or would the world have been a better place if he had never doped, never won the titles and Livestrong would have just been another ho-hum organization with very little support?

Coming from a noncyle background the sport is bigger in the USA because of LA.  No question about it.  Without him winning it very few American's would have ever tuned into watch.

It is ridiculous to call his behavior disgusting.  Unethical sure, but this is a far cry from being a rapist, murderer, child molester, drug dealer, etc.  

The fact is that the majority of cyclists did virtually the same thing.  In fact, you can go as far back to the early days of the Tour and find lying and cheating and drugs.  

He walked out on his wife and kids to go shack up with Sheryl Crow.

That's all I needed to know about his character.

Wrong.  It was impossible for just about every other cyclist to do virtually the same thing.  They lacked the money, power and influence.

True enough... in this context it is disgusting. I'm not trying to line him up against rapists, child molesters and Hitler. But LA and LS can never be separated... he USED LS as a shield... yes, I believe he also cared and wanted to help personally, but like LA with everything he touched... he used it to full effect to benefit him the most. All those on amphetamines back in the day didn't have a cancer foundation. Merckxs didn't earn millions from his personal PR machine. That's what is disgusting.. not because some athlete cheated, but that HE exploited his story and foundation and systematically destroyed anyone that said a word. LA winning the TDF means absolutely squat... LA coming back from death and beating cancer to win the TDF is what made him what he was... and went on to be.

His behavior disgusts me.  I would be sickened if it were my brother or son or father who acted that way and tried to lean on the fact that others were acting just as badly as 'justification'.  Therefore, I call it disgusting.  I never called him a murderer or molester and don't think that's necessary in finding his behavior abhorrent.

He took everything I find beautiful about sport and competition and bastardized it.  The fact that he wasn't the first, the only or the last makes it no better in my eyes.  The fact that he used the success that it brought him to denigrate all those who questioned him, while simultaneously trying to elevate himself above others, does make it worse.

I love the cancer angle, as if it cancels everything out.  LA certainly played it well. 

Merckx didn't use his fame to create a profitable bike company?  Didn't use his fame to gain wealth and notoriety?  He is still considered the "best ever", and he was caught doping 3 times.  I'm pretty sure most everyone who cheated in the tour, did so to gain wealth and fame....

It's true that most of them were doping, but the main problem I have with Lance is that he was also a jacka$$, who would destroy anyone that did not "play" for him. If you were in his team and were a danger to beat him, he would report you to UCI and have them check into you, he would sue people who were telling the truth, he would make it really uncomfortable in the peloton for the few clean cyclists around and force them out. He basically behaved as a capo de mafia, he wasn't just doping, and the playing field was not even close to level!

I think Lance should be punished for getting caught.  

Apparently, if others did it, it also cancels everything out.  I am sure when he explains all this on Oprah, the world will understand it is better off for having him doped.

but the main problem I have with Lance is that he was also a jacka$$, who would destroy anyone that did not "play" for him.

I wish absolutely no-one would watch it. Zero ratings and viewing figures.  This is a self serving road show that is completely self motivated.

I don't want to see the guy harassed into an early grave, I just want him to go away and stop spreading his lies and deception.

He can only damage triathlon by being allowed to do it.

Have to feel for all the officials, competitors and aspiring athletes that never go their chance or were made to feel like they had no integrity in the face of the Armstrong machine.

My last sentence probably jaded the results.  I'm not playing any cancer angle but you can't answer the question of whether or not LA doping and the Livestrong results is better for the rest of the world then him not doping without bringing up cancer... since you know, Livestrong benefits cancer patients. 

I've got a brother with a first-rate education.  PhD from the best, PA from Ivy league.

So one day he tells me he's got a plan.  He's got it figured out how to extract a blood sample and use the cells to generate a protein referred to as EPO.  EPO regulates the production of red blood cells.  More EPO = more red blood cells, body carries oxygen better, and that means you can enhance sports performance.  And, he tells me, with the right equipment, he can manufacture grams worth of the stuff.  Dosages are in milligrams.  And, since he can make the stuff directly from the body tissues of a person, you pump it back in and it can't be tested, since it is a protein already present in the body.  You're just making more of it.

Then he thinks for a minute, and admits that if he can come up with an idea like this, that means there are plenty of people out there doing it already.

So, I have to wonder if somewhere along the line, a pro athlete says to himself, "It's not really a drug, since it comes from my own blood.  If it's not a drug, I'm not really doping."

If I steal from the rich and give to the poor, would the world be a better place?

It's the same idea.  And I assume someone will make a good argument why it, in fact, is.  However, I do not buy the logic necessary to get from A-to-Z in those cases.  My answer is the same.  No.