Forums >Off the Beaten Path>Lance Armstrong appears finally to have run out of rope.
That is a good post, jimmyb, BUT I'm not sure that judging Lance requires occupying a place of moral purity, and I think that we can still condemn his actions and even judge him to be ethically flawed while forgiving him (in fact, I think one is the precondition of the other). Also, I know the reason that I am not a fan of Lance Armstrong has little to do with the fact that he used PEDs. I don't like that he distributed them to teammates, pressured them to use, and used his enormous power and influence to aggressively bully anyone who even suggested that he used. I think I can hold this opinion without presuming that I am holier than others or whatnot.
That is a good post, jimmyb, BUT
I'm not sure that judging Lance requires occupying a place of moral purity, and I think that we can still condemn his actions and even judge him to be ethically flawed while forgiving him (in fact, I think one is the precondition of the other).
Also, I know the reason that I am not a fan of Lance Armstrong has little to do with the fact that he used PEDs. I don't like that he distributed them to teammates, pressured them to use, and used his enormous power and influence to aggressively bully anyone who even suggested that he used. I think I can hold this opinion without presuming that I am holier than others or whatnot.
Not liking the behavior of a bully is one thing. Forgiving is another. Both can coexist. It's letting go of the loop (perception) playing over and over in one's head, and moving on. You can forgive, and still not like or trust someone. It's a choice for mental freedom. And I believe that's what Sally Jenkins has done. A person could ask his or her self "have I ever bullied or pressured anyone, even in a small way, and why?" would be a question that could free a mind from a perception (forgive). And still that person could still not like bullying or bullies. Enough on this for me, I don't want to hijack the thread and turn it into a discussion on forgiveness as a state of mind. Instead, I'll go over to deloopingthebrain.com'sw forum and start the thread "I forgive you, really. But put the cheese down, then get the hell out of my house and never come back."
Imminent Catastrophe
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, he has to say on that once he comes "clean."
Yes, I'm sure Oprah will conduct a hard-hitting interview.
"Able to function despite imminent catastrophe"
"To obtain the air that angels breathe you must come to Tahoe"--Mark Twain
"The most common question from potential entrants is 'I do not know if I can do this' to which I usually answer, 'that's the whole point'.--Paul Charteris, Tarawera Ultramarathon RD.
√ Javelina Jundred Jalloween 2015
Cruel Jewel 50 mile May 2016
Western States 100 June 2016
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/01/11/lance-armstrong-oprah-interview/1828311/
Things could get real interesting in the coming weeks.
The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff
2014 Goals:
Stay healthy
Enjoy life
i do not believe this thread is hijackable
lol
And the Titanic was unsinkable...
Lance Armstrong 'calm and at ease' ahead of no-holds-barred interview.
That's awesome.
On behalf of cancer victims everywhere, I want to punch you in the face, you sociopathic dick.
Queen of 3rd Place
Lance Armstrong 'calm and at ease' ahead of no-holds-barred interview. That's awesome. On behalf of cancer victims everywhere, I want to punch you in the face, you sociopathic dick.
"Calm and at ease"? Putting on his game face, it seems. Although it looks like losing millions would be chump change for him, so maybe that's why he's so calm.
Ex runner
You couldn't make this stuff up. He's completely lost touch with reality. It's pathetic, really.
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324734904578241801441261928.html?mg=reno64-wsj
Mr. Armstrong had begun making overtures to USADA about striking some kind of deal—admit to past doping in exchange for a reduction in his lifetime ban, according to two people familiar with the effort.
Under the World Anti-Doping Code, athletes can get as much as a 75% reduction of a ban if they provide the kind of substantial help to antidoping authorities that enables them to build cases against others.
Mr. Armstrong's Austin lawyer, Mr. Herman, called Mr. Tygart and offered to dispatch Mr. Armstrong's legal team to Colorado to meet with him. Mr. Tygart said he wanted Mr. Armstrong to come. When Mr. Herman pushed back, Mr. Tygart called the meeting off.
At least one of Mr. Armstrong's lawyers, Mr. Luskin, was opposed to the meeting, according to one person familiar with the effort. In December, Mr. Armstrong told Mr. Herman he would meet with Mr. Tygart anyway, this person said. Mr. Luskin declined to comment.
The meeting, which was tense, took place at a conference room near the Denver airport. Mr. Tygart told Mr. Armstrong that he had already had his chance to come clean, and that, at best, if he gave full cooperation, the ban would be eight years.
Mr. Tygart told Mr. Armstrong he stood accused of offenses that stretched beyond doping to a coverup marked by nearly 15 years of denials, threats and actions against anyone who told the truth about doping on the team.
When Mr. Armstrong told Mr. Tygart that he held the keys to his own redemption, said one person with knowledge of the meeting, Mr. Tygart responded: "That's b—." He told Mr. Armstrong that all he wanted to do was figure out a way to compete again.
Mr. Armstrong shot back that he would compete in unsanctioned races, hurled a profanity, and walked out.
While in Hawaii, Mr. Armstrong spent time with Ms. Winfrey. She had interviewed him on previous occasions and had been supportive of him.
He decided to do the interview. Mr. Armstrong told friends and relatives he would not talk about others, only himself, and he would not get into specifics.
Runners run
You couldn't make this stuff up. He's completely lost touch with reality. It's pathetic, really. http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324734904578241801441261928.html?mg=reno64-wsj Mr. Armstrong had begun making overtures to USADA about striking some kind of deal—admit to past doping in exchange for a reduction in his lifetime ban, according to two people familiar with the effort. Under the World Anti-Doping Code, athletes can get as much as a 75% reduction of a ban if they provide the kind of substantial help to antidoping authorities that enables them to build cases against others. Mr. Armstrong's Austin lawyer, Mr. Herman, called Mr. Tygart and offered to dispatch Mr. Armstrong's legal team to Colorado to meet with him. Mr. Tygart said he wanted Mr. Armstrong to come. When Mr. Herman pushed back, Mr. Tygart called the meeting off. At least one of Mr. Armstrong's lawyers, Mr. Luskin, was opposed to the meeting, according to one person familiar with the effort. In December, Mr. Armstrong told Mr. Herman he would meet with Mr. Tygart anyway, this person said. Mr. Luskin declined to comment. The meeting, which was tense, took place at a conference room near the Denver airport. Mr. Tygart told Mr. Armstrong that he had already had his chance to come clean, and that, at best, if he gave full cooperation, the ban would be eight years. Mr. Tygart told Mr. Armstrong he stood accused of offenses that stretched beyond doping to a coverup marked by nearly 15 years of denials, threats and actions against anyone who told the truth about doping on the team. When Mr. Armstrong told Mr. Tygart that he held the keys to his own redemption, said one person with knowledge of the meeting, Mr. Tygart responded: "That's b—." He told Mr. Armstrong that all he wanted to do was figure out a way to compete again. Mr. Armstrong shot back that he would compete in unsanctioned races, hurled a profanity, and walked out. While in Hawaii, Mr. Armstrong spent time with Ms. Winfrey. She had interviewed him on previous occasions and had been supportive of him. He decided to do the interview. Mr. Armstrong told friends and relatives he would not talk about others, only himself, and he would not get into specifics.
That's a lot of Mr.s.
See when you have a real life human problem, you don't go for a bloated, out-of-touch law firm (Patton Boggs, 400+ attorneys). But, as Mikey said, that's Lance: Out-of-Touch.
Compare with Clemens, who got himself Rusty Hardin.
"If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/if-lance-armstrong-is-coming-clean--he-owes-hundreds-of-apologies-to-those-he-bullied-on-the-way-to-those-tour-de-france-titles-051119475.html
this.
When someone opts into a set of rules that all are supposed to abide by, and advances themselves by breaking those rules, that is wrong. Period. (IMHO). This applies both inside and outside of sport. And I will think less of people like Armstrong who do that (even as a former fan...well, having been a fan probably makes me even harder on him).
Wow- for once I get to agree with Spaniel- first time ever , I think.
sugnim
Oprah sat down Lance Armstrong this week for a revealing interview, in which the disgraced athlete admitted to using performance enhancing drugs throughout his storied career. it was just one of many revelations Armstrong came forth with:
not bad for mile 25
The Olympics may drop cycling because of him.
Maybe this has been posted before, it's a long thread. But a good article on how he bullied and intimidated the reporter who first questioned his honesty:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/article1192199.ece#page-1