Lance on Oprah (Page 7)

Because it's not a really fair question, as it presents only two alternatives in a black and white world, and assumes the truth of one answer.

Sort of like saying is it OK that Bernie Madoff stole all that money if he started a charity with part of it that saved lives?  And yes, LA "stole" his millions, from sponsors, other racers, teams, etc.,

Lance Armstrong: Not as Sleazy as Rapists or Child Molesters.

It could be his new comeback slogan.

I used to have the same idea I see expressed here a lot; if Lance wasn't really playing a sport called "cycling" but was in fact playing "juiced cycling," and all the other competitors were, too, then heck, call it even. But with everything that's come out about the corruption, and pressuring other cyclists to take drugs, and blacklisting people... no, he wasn't just another dude playing on the level playing field of "juiced cycling." Taking the Mafia as an analogy; OK, sure, so most of the cyclists were connected... but if Lance was the Don, he's more culpable.

Sounds like you plan on running as a Democrat.

Ohoh

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/15/us-cycling-armstrong-olympics-idUSBRE90E0ZU20130115

... and while most people get wound up over LA discussing his "bad" and his "good" sides - hasn't it been made clear that for his doping to be successful and undetected there (must) have been various corrupt officials in various cycling organizations lending him a blind eye?

Everybody is passing judgement on LA - some more and some less emotionally - but what about the facilitators? What about the well paid officials who cheated on their jobs? What about cycling organizations who - as it seems to turn out - simply turned their heads, all "in the interest of cycling"? One may have different opinions about LA, but there is only ONE opinion about the corrupt cycling officials and organizations in my mind: they should be thrown out - life time ban from Cycling! Those people betrayed the trust put into them, and took advantage of their position ... have they done ANYTHING good for the sport? Or for ANYTHING? Corrupt bastards, throw them out, say I.

The thing that bothers me is how Lance's former sponsors scattered like rats off a sinking ship when the news broke.  These guys made millions off their association with Armstrong.  I absolutely can't believe that the folks from Nike, Trek, Oakley, etc. who were involved in the sport as insiders didn't suspect anything.  They have to be either liars or idiots. 

With all the rumors and allegations floating around for years, wouldn't you think that a large corporation would do their own due diligence?  Were they all so naive just to take Lance's word that he was clean?  Or did they ever bother to ask him?  I suspect they just turned a blind eye to not kill the golden goose.

I have to think that they all had a strategy in place to wait until Lance got himself caught.  Milk the profits as long as possible, then cut and run, taking a holier-than-thou attitude, and pretending that they didn't know anything. 

Mark  

Dont' forget though, there were a lot of people and organizations that profited from his success.  The sponsors especially.  Any of them that come forward looking for payback of monies paid to him should likely look at their balance sheets before and after sponsoring him.  I'm sure he made most, if not all, of them a lot more money than what they paid him.

As to other racers and teams - there were those who suffered and there were those who profited greatly if they chose to join the Armstrong express.  And I agree with a previous poster who said that the real root of the problem were the governing bodies who implicitly or explicitly were involved in the cheating by US Postal.

Very good comparison.  The whole thing just got me thinking and I was wondering what other's thoughts were.

Well that is the way I wanted the question posed because while there could have been a million different scenarios I wanted to know people's opinion on the subject if the alternative was knowing that Livestrong wouldn't have been so successful.  Obviously we don't know if it would or wouldn't.

I get your point on Madoff but in my opinion it doesn't completely compare to Livestrong.  People who gave to Livestrong knew they were getting no return other then a bracelot or shirt or tax write off.  Madoff was supposed to be investing peoples money and giving it back.  As for sponsors, don't kid yourself he didn't steal anything from them.  They made far more money off him then he made from the sponsors.  And the great thing is that they dump him now (already did) and move onto the next star for endorsements and suffer no real damage.  You can make a case for stealing from teams and other riders because if he didn't dope he doesn't win and someone else does.

Your last sentence is correct.  They never cut in run while someone is making them money, especially a superstar.  They care more about the bottom dollar.  Plus, as long as he was still passing all the tests they had plausible deniability.  

You realize that a lot of this simply comes down to how badly WADA/USADA and the US Government want to know how he did what he did and not get caught, and what kind of deal he can expect in return.

Given that this is the only real upside to LA coming clean, I predict he cuts an impressive deal with USADA/WADA, settles the whistleblower lawsuit with Landis, and the UCI is hung out to dry.

And you know what? In the end he actually will have done something good for cycling.

I agree. 100%.

I agree with this.  Power and fame and create a rather distorted view of reality.

Blame Lance, blame the other known cheaters, the organizations, the sponsors; but here we all are, talking about it, anxiously awaiting every word that will come out of this guy's mouth when it airs tomorrow.  Celebrity, whether sports or otherwise is a big machine and we're kind of all guilty of feeding it.

Big companies only care about one thing: $$$$$

I think that is part of it, but I also think that people will continue to cheat as long as there are no consequences of doing so.  If you don't get caught, then it just emboldens you to continue.  Lance went a long, long time without getting caught, no doubt due both to his skill in cheating and the incompetence and/or complicity of the organizers.

Mark

That's an awfully narrow definition of stealing.  Acquired under false pretenses would seem to qualify.  And in the same way that prize money or jobs may have gone to others, so would have his sponsorship money.

I'm OK with questioning the ethics of any of the sponsors and/or sport officials.  Certainly LA wasn't the only "bad actor".  But none of that makes "OK" any of the things LA apperently did, nor his behavior around it.

I keep thinking about this commercial; was Nike just a pawn or an active partner in Lance's "The best defense is a good offense" strategy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U

Need a pair of running shoes soon, thinking I may look at something other than Nikes this time...

Mark

This sums up my opinions well ... and I didn't even have to type it.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/cycling-questions-oprah-asked-armstrong-094715664.html

A good read. These are the questions that should be asked.

Wait, your Oakleys didn't make you faster????  Mine did.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance-armstrong-admits-to-using-performanceenhanci,30912/