Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

At this link:

http://ownspecial.oprah.com/lancearmstrong.html

So far, he's basically said yes, he did everything... no, he doesn't consider himself the mastermind / didn't directly make other people do it, and hasn't really showed any contrition.

They're splitting it up into 2 parts so the next will be tomorrow once this one ends.

I've been hearing about this, and really I still don't hate him. He doped and got caught, as well as threatened to shut down people who snitched him out, but he still did some good in the world. I still like him more than most of today's pop stars.

You might feel differently after watching this interview... (still ongoing on the stream, and I guess they'll save some for tomorrow)

Since the question in the OP is "am I watching it", I feel okay saying that no, I am not.

Why?

Because Lance Armstrong and his history of doping, or not, has little to no bearing on anything that I care about. I'm actually baffled that this is as big a story as it is.

 RiTides wrote:
You might feel differently after watching this interview... (still ongoing on the stream, and I guess they'll save some for tomorrow)

Highly doubt it. He did some pretty terrible things, but I still feel the good things were of enough importance to be worth remembering.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Since the question in the OP is "am I watching it", I feel okay saying that no, I am not.

Why?

Because Lance Armstrong and his history of doping, or not, has little to no bearing on anything that I care about. I'm actually baffled that this is as big a story as it is.

Because its entertaining. People are watching this for the same reason they watch Batman movies and read books about toy soldiers killing each other. Of course, you wouldn't know this, because you're allergic to happiness and fun.

 LoneLictor wrote:
because you're allergic to happiness and fun.

Really seems that way doesn't it?

Round these parts, I'm going to take the fact that my lack of schadenfreude (at least in this particular instance) makes me seem like I don't enjoy "happiness and fun" as a compliment.

Besides, this Manti Te'O story is taking up all of my time.

I have to admit to being a little puzzled as to the insistance that his charity work was so beneficial. He got lots of people to donate money. Donate their money. Those generous people and companies that gave to his charities would likely have given the money to some other charity instead. All he did was keep riding his bike, which was something he enjoyed doing anyway. And sit on boards and have meetings, and bring in all the prestige and good will that comes with that.

So I'm kind of a little skeptical of these claims about how much good he did.


And then we know he wasn't only a doper, but incredibly aggressive against the people who questioned him or spoke out about him. There are people who's lives he tried to ruin because they had the integrity to speak out. So feth the guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Besides, this Manti Te'O story is taking up all of my time.

My pet theory is that he's gay, and was in a relationship with the supposed hoaxer. They invented the internet girlfriend as a cover.

There is an interesting (but very long!) story here that was written before he admitted it outlining what a toolbox he is.

Nope. Not watching. From what I understand, he was going to ask her for forgiveness and absolution, or some bs like that.

I have a tenuous enough grasp on reality. I don't need reasons to willfully sever the remainder of it.

 Ouze wrote:
There is an interesting (but very long!) story here that was written before he admitted it outlining what a toolbox he is.

Great link, thanks for that.

Eh. He doped. So did everyone else. They've jush thr hrown out the Tours he competed in becausase they can't give it to anyone else because they all doped too. He still beat them. Don;t give a gak msn.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
Eh. He doped. So did everyone else. They've jush thr hrown out the Tours he competed in becausase they can't give it to anyone else because they all doped too.

They did. The titles for those years weren't awarded to anyone.

You'd think that if everyone was doping, and he won, he'd get to keep the titles.

 Monster Rain wrote:
You'd think that if everyone was doping, and he won, he'd get to keep the titles.

Why? He cheated. And not everyone cheated. Plenty of cyclists worked real hard, dominated junior competitions and then somehow never managed to break into the professional tour... because the pro tour was full of cheats using drugs.

Armstrong is the most famous of all those cheats, and probably the last one to be outed. And now, finally, the world is finally accepting what people in the industry have been saying for years. And finally, at last, Armstrong hasn't been able to use his celebrity and general donkey-cave nature to burn whoever dared tell the truth about him.

According to what I've seen and heard, doping was prevalent to the point that you couldn't possibly win if you weren't doping.

It's less a question of ethics at that point, but of the nature of the sport.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Since the question in the OP is "am I watching it", I feel okay saying that no, I am not.

Why?

Because Lance Armstrong and his history of doping, or not, has little to no bearing on anything that I care about. I'm actually baffled that this is as big a story as it is.

+1 this.

It's about as much "newsworthy" as anything the Kar-crashians do or anything those orange people from Jersey get up to and I don't really care.

 Monster Rain wrote:
According to what I've seen and heard, doping was prevalent to the point that you couldn't possibly win if you weren't doping.

It's less a question of ethics at that point, but of the nature of the sport.

As I already pointed out, there were plenty of people who didn't dope. They just never made it into the pro-circuit, or were left as support racers for the big names.

And I have absolutely no fething clue what-so-ever how 'other people did it' means it isn't cheating.

And more to the point, go read about what Armstrong did to people who told the truth about him. See how he tried to destroy their lives. The guy was just the worst kind of donkey-cave.

No offense, but do we really need for people to come into a thread expressly for the purpose of informing everyone present that they aren't interested in the topic?

Ouze wrote:No offense, but do we really need for people to come into a thread expressly for the purpose of informing everyone present that they aren't interested in the topic?

Yes.

Also: I am not watching the stream, nor do I ever plan to. But I am very interested in the topic because I don't think d-bag celebrities get pilloried and publicly burned at the stake enough anymore.

Maybe the worst part? I'm not sure that I'm being metaphorical.

 RiTides wrote:
At this link:

http://ownspecial.oprah.com/lancearmstrong.html

So far, he's basically said yes, he did everything... no, he doesn't consider himself the mastermind / didn't directly make other people do it, and hasn't really showed any contrition.

They're splitting it up into 2 parts so the next will be tomorrow once this one ends.

NO I really hate that guy, and the legions of nose in the air chip on their shoulder armstrong fanatics here (Austin). Suck a fat one you lying cheating bastard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
No offense, but do we really need for people to come into a thread expressly for the purpose of informing everyone present that they aren't interested in the topic?

The title invites it. Are you watching? Some will say no. Some will say hell no. Some will join a cabal of holy warriors who's so goal is to stake the antichrist with a holy dagger of St. Reagan....er did I say too much?

It’s not the cheating itself that bothers me, it’s the fact that he viciously destroyed the careers and reputations of people who have suggested he doped in the past.

I hope they sue his ass.

 LuciusAR wrote:
It’s not the cheating itself that bothers me, it’s the fact that he viciously destroyed the careers and reputations of people who have suggested he doped in the past.

I hope they sue his ass.

Agreed.

sebster wrote:And I have absolutely no fething clue what-so-ever how 'other people did it' means it isn't cheating.

I'm not sure where the implication that I'm defending him comes from.

If a significant number of other competitors are doing the same thing as you, though, the advantage gained from doping is lessened. And I'm not making this up, the news has been rife with people making this point, even those who are condemning Armstrong such as David Walsh. It doesn't make it right, but it lessens the impact.

Ouze wrote:No offense, but do we really need for people to come into a thread expressly for the purpose of informing everyone present that they aren't interested in the topic?

The question is "Is anyone else watching the live stream of Lance Armstrong's confession / interview?"

Answering no, and giving the reason why, seems perfectly within the scope of the topic. Not to mention the fact that if one were truly concerned about it they would probably hit the mod alert button instead of adding even more "off topic" posts to the thread.

 Frazzled wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
It’s not the cheating itself that bothers me, it’s the fact that he viciously destroyed the careers and reputations of people who have suggested he doped in the past.

I hope they sue his ass.

Agreed.

This^

I really don't care if he doped... (and "doping" is such a misnomer there...).

But, he was a vindictive jackass I hope he gets sued to kingdom come....

 daedalus wrote:
Nope. Not watching. From what I understand, he was going to ask her for forgiveness and absolution, or some bs like that.

I have a tenuous enough grasp on reality. I don't need reasons to willfully sever the remainder of it.

That's what's crazy- he didn't ask for forgiveness, or really show remorse. So far, I can't tell why he's doing the interview.

As I'm apparently the only one watching I'll let you know if that changes tonight. I really admired him for awhile, but it's such a shame that even now he can't bring himself to really apologize for lying for so long, suing people who said the truth, etc.

The tour is pretty much a joke. Of the last 30 or so races 14 or 15 have been won by confirmed dopers.

Armstrong is big part of that statistic for sure, the biggest fish as it were.

The whole thing needs tearing down and restarted from the ground up

Tearing down? How about simply allowing doping? And I'm somewhat serious.

 sebster wrote:

Why? He cheated. And not everyone cheated. Plenty of cyclists worked real hard, dominated junior competitions and then somehow never managed to break into the professional tour... because the pro tour was full of cheats using drugs.

I think the point being made is part of the larger issue of what constitutes illegitimate performance enhancement*, and why we should be concerned with legitimacy at all; given that level of sport is predicated on sacrifice.




*A good example is the NCAA stance on caffeine. You can fail a drug test if your urine sample exceeds 15 mcg per ml which, for most people, is two 16 oz. energy drinks per day. As a grad student (and an NCAA athlete, honestly) I would have failed any NCAA drug test.