"The Armstrong Lie" movie

[tymon_tm]

Saw it a while ago. My take away had little to do with cycling. I think the root question was if he had done more good than bad. Regardless of how it was done or how he enriched himself, he did bring hope to a lot of people....of course there was a big price for that and cycling is still picking up the bill. That's not to say that cycling wasn't already dirty, he just exploited and leveraged it in new ways. It's so similar to the banking crisis in my eyes. Take now, pay later.

One interesting tidbit from the movie was Bruyneel and Riis talking from the cars about how they had to get rid of Wiggo.

+1
whether his 'con' might be at least partially forgiven through his charity work, or contributing to pro cycling's growth, remains that sort of question one has to find his own answer for himself.

my take is, he didn't kill nobody on the bike. sure, there were victims of other kind - like broken careers for instance. regarding that matter the important question for me is: how unparalleled Armstong's quasi-Machiavellic strategy was at that time. now that we 'quietly know' about systematic doping within other teams, such as Telecom, ONCE or Rabobank, what are the odds they didn't operate in the same, or even worse manner than the USPS. that their team managers, or stars (Ullrich, Vinokurov, Dekker, Rasmussen..) didn't intimidate people all along the way, didn't get rid of cyclists unwilling to dope, and so on, and so on. it's solely the Armstrong figure and media exposure that brought this sort of attention to what's behind the curtains of USPS.

so there's another strong analogy to the banking crisis - few people got senteced, one or two banks collapsed, but does that leave us with a sense of justice? does that explain the mechanisms behind the whole case? finally, did we learn any lesson and introduced a firm policy or law securing us and our future from similar events? i'd say not at all.

more thoughts:

They couldn't get Greg to talk?? or any of his exes? or Tyler? or Floyd? (would liked to have seen that).

i'm sure they have. Floyd was mentioned, so was Tyler, both as a disgraced athletete. Greg - his tale of "he did, i didn't (dope)" doesn't really fit into the big picture here, does it. especially given the part where the narrator goes back to show how cyclists used to dope themselves with beer...

The whole Livestrong Foundation part was skimmed over. ie where the money really went, how much LA was paid etc. All we got was LA in the hospital, and a little girl being told that the money went to cancer patients - with no rebuttal or follow-up.

On the good side I liked the Alberto vs Lance bits. If I was Alberto I'd have been pretty pissed too at that situation.

this isn't a movie about the Livestrong foundation. i'm sure if you are interested particularly in their books, there are open records availible showing how much they spend on what.

about Contador - sure he didn't feel at home in Astana with Lance onboard. but that stage, where he delibrately went against team orders to gain few seconds on rather harmless Schlecks, rather than help securing 1st and 3rd spot for himself and Lance, made him loose points, at least in my book

[xnavalav8r]

Most of my non-cycling friends view Armstrong as a victim of an evil cycling conspiracy in which the cycling world likes to topple its own heroes. These same people accept doping in sports, assume every pro ball (of every shape/size) player is on the juice, and believe Armstrong had to dope to be competitive. They'll pay hundreds of dollars to sit in a stadium and watch fat guys throw balls or run into each other, but would never consider riding a bike for an hour.

People's values are skewed in my opinion. Generally speaking, people accept cheating and deceit if it makes their sports experience more entertaining.

[HammerTime2]

How is that any different than (these same) people not being concerned about the physical, mental, or emotional health of porn stars, or the realism of their depicted acts, not to mention behind the scenes production "tricks" (which are a kind of porn doping), as long as it makes their porn viewing experience entertaining? Well, I suppose you believe that reflects a skew in people's values. But then again, if everyone else's values are skewed, then even though you may be morally correct (in your view), then it's really you who has your values skewed (relative to the population at large). Of course looked at in that way, skewness is not necessarily a bad thing - it depends on the manner you are skewed relative to which population.

Edit subsequent to xnavalav8r's post immediately below:
Yes, your values are skewed ... not that there's anything wrong with that.

[xnavalav8r]

If you ask a sampling of any population if it is OK to cheat, without any other amplifying information, the overwhelming majority will answer that cheating is not OK. Yet, those same people will shell out large amounts of time and money to support competitors who are cheating. So perhaps my values are skewed after all.

[stella-azzurra]

So the answer is to get rid of your non-cycling friends?

[bricky21]

Drug violations just aren't news anymore, and I think most casual fans would rather enjoy sports without smelling all the dirty laundry.

[indigo]

One interesting tidbit from the movie was Bruyneel and Riis talking from the cars about how they had to get rid of Wiggo.

Just to parochialise, what was the gist of what was said about Wiggins ?

[bikerjulio]

Just to parochialise, what was the gist of what was said about Wiggins ?

Not much.

[tymon_tm]

If you ask a sampling of any population if it is OK to cheat, without any other amplifying information, the overwhelming majority will answer that cheating is not OK. Yet, those same people will shell out large amounts of time and money to support competitors who are cheating. So perhaps my values are skewed after all.

it's a well known fact people tend to evaluate others using mostly the criteria of morality, ethics etc. as for our own actions, we judge ourselves by the simple categories of success and failure. an example: although we're probably all totally against kids' labor or taking advantage over cheap workforce, i'm sure most appreciate some good quality sneakers for a realtively low price.

the question is to what extend do we pass this way of thinking onto objects of our admiration. i suspect people who cheered for Armstrong as an athlete (like myself), and posess a strong sense of empathy, tend to regard him through his sporting achievements in the first place. it's probably a homemade psychology i present here, but it somehow explains why in some situations liking or admiration takes precedence over breaking the very rules we respect and obey on a daily basis.

[ScuderiaDouroux]

Am I the only one who left the theater with MORE respect for Lance than I had before I saw it?

I thought Lance was a douche before I saw the film, but left thinking he's a douche with the no-holds-barred, competitive drive of a champion. I give him props for that. In an era of prolific cheating, he rose to the top. Bottom line.

[ultyguy]

Uh, you don't get where he go without a serious competitive drive, doped or not.

[ultyguy]

Re Wiggins
JB and Riis were just joking to each other from behind the wheel of their cars about needing to get rid of Wiggins. I don't think they knew what to make of him or what his chances were and that worried them. Wiggins 2009 I think is a hugely interesting topic given that Bertie blew the VAM record on Verbier then beat Canc in the ITT in Annecy, Lance was sanctioned (belatedly) for his values, and the Schlecks...well I don't hold my breath concerning their results under Riis...

[Johnny Rad]

Just watched it. I liked it, but kept thinking to myself - just come clean, Lance ... all the way. Admit you doped in your come-back, admit that Betsy didn't lie, admit you "cheated," etc.

In my humble opinion, I believe Lance doped well before and after this admitted doping window. For whatever reason(s), he just hasn't come completely clean yet. It was nothing but lies from him for years. Therefore, I can't freely believe that he only doped for the 7 "winning" tours. Here's my prognostication: we'll see further admissions from Lance that widen his admitted doping timeframe. Maybe it'll be bit by bit or all at once in a final admission. Maybe he'll do it on his own, but he may have to be "convinced" by the authorities. I can't bring myself to write that I'd respect him more if and when he does come completely clean, but I expect I'd feel more satisfaction once all his BS is peeled back. I seriously question everything that comes out of his mouth and can't understand why some folks hold on to seemingly unbelievable elements of his prior, carefully crafted fairytale.

Did Lance train the hardest? That's his story and he's sticking to it, but I find it awfully hard to believe given his aggressive history of deceit. Is he naturally gifted? Sure. If all of his peers in the peleton were doped (and I believe the evidence cleary points this out) and he still won, does that mean he was the best? Only if the doping was equal, but I believe he worked with the best doc(s) to ensure he doped the "hardest." It leaves one more question: Is he the greatest ever? Who knows?! And that's too bad.

To me, he earned his lifetime ban due to (1) the extent of his deceit, (2) how he aggressively protected his false reputation at the expense of others and (3) for wasting the authority's precious resources by fighting them tooth and nail along the way. What he did along the way to those that defied him was terrible. I think the movie missed the boat by not making his behavior along the way more clear.

[drainyoo]

Just saw it and I thought it was a good film. I learned a lot of details, especially on how the cycling world works.

I think his story is same as what Bonds and ARod have gone through in baseball. The difference is, Armstrong really used his power to ruin people.

I get that he had to dope if he wanted to compete. They all did it, so to me it doesn't seem like cheating. He was just playing the game. There was a great quote in the film:

"Did he play within the rules of the peleton? Yes."

Can't fault him for that. But we can fault him for how he treated others around him.

[martinko]

I've watched it today and I can't say I hate him or other people. Why?

But I learnt two things:

1. He survived cancer and people had wanted a hero, so they got it. I don't agree with doping, surely. Wrong thing was he still coped with Ferrari in 2009 while saying he was clean, that's wrong.

2. After Festina allegation, Tour organisers wanted to have it slower because it should have been clean. Alas, it was faster. Look what's now, Froome is breaking best times on climbs, beating doped riders. And then he claims he is absolutely clean. We should learn from history, not forget it.