Lance was bad. No argument. But it seems like doping pros in our sport get a huge pass on the LRC boards.
The threads about our sport’s dopers and cheats fizzle out pretty quickly after some hand wringing and fist shaking. Then we gush over the next great time or record as though it’s legit. And we all know it’s not.
What gives?
Much of what i will say comes from either his interview or revelations later.
If Armstrong had only doped, it would have been received better.
He was more the leader of a major doping scheme that would involve threats to keep it secret, monetary duping, misrepresentation, lying, and ruining a lot of people's lives so that he could continue to win.
The very means by which he did this, along with accomplices, is also the reason why running cannot respect EH anymore. But even EH did not cause the damage to lives and to feelings of safety that Armstrong did.
He was essentially the Kingpin...the El Chapo of cycling.
AND...
He was people's hero. He conquered major metastatic cancer. He won by landslides. He was a good-looking, respectable man. I even had his book It's Not About the Bike.
And we found out how devious and evil a hero could be.
This is why.
False. Every elite runner who is believed to be doping gets hated on. Some people just don’t believe that they are doping, as they haven’t been caught doping, so remain fans. The same situation existed for Lance. The difference is Lance admitted doping and yet he still has fans (scum like you). If, for example, someone like Bekele came out an admited to doping he would never have the massive number of apologists that Lance does.
Stoppit Smith wrote:
Much of what i will say comes from either his interview or revelations later.
If Armstrong had only doped, it would have been received better.
He was more the leader of a major doping scheme that would involve threats to keep it secret, monetary duping, misrepresentation, lying, and ruining a lot of people's lives so that he could continue to win.
The very means by which he did this, along with accomplices, is also the reason why running cannot respect EH anymore. But even EH did not cause the damage to lives and to feelings of safety that Armstrong did.
He was essentially the Kingpin...the El Chapo of cycling.
AND...
He was people's hero. He conquered major metastatic cancer. He won by landslides. He was a good-looking, respectable man. I even had his book It's Not About the Bike.
And we found out how devious and evil a hero could be.
This is why.
Little Eddie Haskell was a sycophant, but so what? Why do you slam him?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_HaskellThe main difference with Lance was that he was such an arrogant jerk about it. Ryan Braun was the same way; he was busted but got off on a technicality and then accused the guy who collected the sample as being antisemitic.
Lance was vindictive and tried to destroy those who said he doped.
What is the threshold that separates a "hobbyjogger" from a "sub-elite" runner?
BREAKING: Leonard Korir not going to Paris! 11 Universality athletes get in ahead of him!
Do "running influencers" harm the competitive nature of the sport?
Caitlin Clark thinks she can beat Eagles draft pick Cooper Dejean in 1 on 1
Hicham El Guerrouj is back baby! Runs Community Mile in Oxford