12/25/24
June 25, 2006
Greg LeMond: Lance Armstrong Threatened Me: The first American winner of the Tour de France claims he was threatened by the last. "He threatened my wife, my business, my life," Greg LeMond told the French sports newspaper L'Equipe. "His biggest threat consisted of saying that he would find 10 people to testify that I took EPO."
I'm afraid yoou're overlooking the French history of lying, creating false evidence and engaging in deliberate scandal mongering to discredit individuals who are perceived as threats to French honor, whether merited or not.
Go all the way back to the Dreyfus affair, or to the more recent bombing of the Greenpeace ship to see how this operates.
The "smoke" you're referring to is really the reality of 7 Tour de France victories by an American--something the French can't stomach.
Nor Greg Lemond.
posted by chasconstantin at 03:04 PM on June 25, 2006
Oh I don't think the French are any more or less guilty of lying then any other nation or group. Certainly in the grand scheme of things I'd say they've been more more honest then our current government in Washington.
I still say Lance is too good too be true without some chemical help. I just don't buy it.
posted by commander cody at 04:15 PM on June 25, 2006
He has little or nothing to lose by exposing doping in racing
Umm, how much do you think he stands to gain from a "tell all" book? Give me a break.
He is just like the steroid book writers in baseball.
I suck, I'm old, I can't make any more money in the sport, so I'll make up some shit, mix it in with a little bit of truth, and tell it.
CHING CHING.
posted by Bishop at 04:15 PM on June 25, 2006
I still don't know why they just can't let it go
Want the answer to this question, see also baseball "lovers" and Bonds. Wait, all you'll get out of that is the same question.
Damn, I just violated my own rule.
posted by Bishop at 04:20 PM on June 25, 2006
My god, I love it.
Citing the Dreyfus affair in support of the notion that the French are all a pack of liars.
What a steaming plate of cat whoop.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:22 PM on June 25, 2006
As soon as I read the french were involved with this story realized it's fake ...
They created a fake version of Greg LeMond, then quoted him in one of their newspapers printed on finely aged cheese? Quelle Horreur!
posted by rcade at 04:23 PM on June 25, 2006
Yet another example of the French manufacturing anti-Armstrong stories. What, you mean LeMond isn't French? Horreur!
(Damnit, rcade: you beat me to it.)
posted by etagloh at 04:26 PM on June 25, 2006
God this is so boring.
The Tour de France starts in 6 days and all the cycling websites are chock full of bullshit about Lance Armstrong.
Did he take EPO? We'll never know, so STFU.
Did he threaten Greg LeMond 500 years ago?
WHO CARES?
Is there a grand French conspiracy hellbent on besmirching the fine name of Lance?
Gee, let's call Dan Brown and ask him to write a frickin' book about it.
Are Lance and Dick Pound going to have a no-holds barred fight-to-the-death inside a metal cage suspended 15 feet above a pit of bloodthirsty camels?
Okay, that I'd like to see.
Seriously, this stuff is boring beyond belief.
If you don't mind, I'm going to settle down and watch the Tour while all the crybabies carry on with their tedious soap-opera bickering.
GO JAN!!
posted by afx237vi at 04:29 PM on June 25, 2006
I don't know what to think about these allegations, aside from the notion that the sheer volume is starting to overwhelm benefit of the doubt.
But with this many people lining up to kick Lance's ass, you have to wonder what he's like in real life. Beloved he ain't.
posted by rcade at 04:38 PM on June 25, 2006
cheese?
Mmmmmmmmmm.....Cheese! (someone had to say it)
posted by commander cody at 04:45 PM on June 25, 2006
rcade: But with this many people lining up to kick Lance's ass, you have to wonder what he's like in real life. Beloved he ain't.
Anyone who can see past the sepia-toned mawkishness of the Lance Armstrong celebrity image knows that he is a dick.
Before cancer no-one was afraid to say that Lance was a big-mouthed trash-talking brat, and to be frank, that never changed right through his career.
You only have to look at the way he treated the ex-teammates (Livingston, Hamilton, Heras, Landis) who dared to step outside the US Postal/Discovery camp and look for a career of their own.
He's publicly dissed them all at one point or another.
The fact that he's a cancer survivor and a philanthropist almost makes him immune from criticism in some quarters.
But a cancer-surviving-fund-raising dick is still a dick, whatever way you look at it.
posted by afx237vi at 04:54 PM on June 25, 2006
Want the answer to this question, see also baseball "lovers" and Bonds. Wait, all you'll get out of that is the same question.
I can see that connection. Lance, like Bonds, evokes only two responses, those that want to elevate him to sainthood and those that just don't buy it. In both cases I fall into the just don't buy it camp. I don't think any amount of arguing about either is going to change anyones minds though.
posted by commander cody at 04:54 PM on June 25, 2006
Lemond attacking Lance is old news.
He's been doing this since Lance equaled and broke his 3 TdF wins, claiming Armstrong used EPO.
afx237vi is right - Armstrong is clearly no saint.
In his view, you're either with him or against him - there's no gray area.
And once he decides you're against him, he'll do whatever he can to destroy you.
Despite all that, winning 7 TdF in a row is incredible, no matter what drugs he was taking.
At any time, he could have crashed, eaten something that gave him food poisoning, or simply had a bad day, and the streak would have ended.
As it was, he won the 7th one with ease and looked like he easily could have come back and won 1 or 2 more if he wanted.
Bottom line is he's retired.
Let's focus on who is going to win this year and forget about trying to prove Lance was drugged.
I for one don't care.
posted by BikeNut at 05:50 PM on June 25, 2006
how much do you think he stands to gain from a "tell all" book? Give me a break. He is just like the steroid book writers in baseball.
No, it's nothing like the "steroid book writers". This is one guy spouting off. Believe him or don't. The book has 20 pages of foot notes.
so I'll make up some shit, mix it in with a little bit of truth
Could you tell me what parts of the book are truth, and what are lies biship? Or, you could admit you have no idea what you're talking about.
posted by justgary at 05:54 PM on June 25, 2006
Citing the Dreyfus affair in support of the notion that the French are all a pack of liars.
I have to admit, I loved it. This sets a new standard for over-the-topishness. I heartily endorse this brand of posting.
As for LeMond having nothing to lose . . . irrespective of Armstrong's guilt or innocence, I find it strange Greg LeMond constantly has an opinion on Armstrong. Like he can't accept he's not the only American cyclist anymore. It's as if Joe Montana spent his retirement running down Tom Brady to anyone who would listen. Instead of ignoring NFL get-togethers. And masturbating.
posted by yerfatma at 06:25 PM on June 25, 2006
Lance, like Bonds, evokes only two responses, those that want to elevate him to sainthood and those that just don't buy it.
Er, well, there's also the "wearing a yellow bracelet and proud of it" reaction.
The whole Livestrong thing got going while my dad was struggling with cancer.
That doesn't make Lance Armstrong a saint in my book, nor does it have anything to do with his athletic achievements.
But it was a bit of a bright spot in some very bleak months whenever I'd see a Livestrong commercial.
If that doesn't make sense to you, then sorry, I can't explain it.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:39 PM on June 25, 2006
posted by wingnut4life at 06:51 PM on June 25, 2006
lbb. Certainly it's nice for Lance and family that he survived cancer and it's even nice if that inspires others who have cancer too. That said what I object to is that his survival of cancer, for some people, was somehow heroic or changes him from being an ass into a saint. For instance my dad died of cancer 6 years ago and for people to label Lance as a "hero" because he didn't implies that my dad and everyone else who dies of cancer could have survived if they were just strong enough or heroic enough. Like they just weren't "good" enough or didn't try hard enough. Lance didn't survive because he was better then the average human being, he survived because his cancer was a survivable form with good medications and medical care. There was nothing heroic about it.
posted by commander cody at 07:05 PM on June 25, 2006
There is still one other reaction, the I just do not give a shit reaction. Lets face it, we are talking about the French and bike racing.
What I would like to know is why Bishop scolded me for useing the B word on another thread. Anyway, the fact that he survived cancer does not make him a hero, it makes him lucky. I'm sure the fact that he was a well conditioned athlete before his illness helped.
As for his Livestrong Foundation, I ask in all seriousness. How much is he involved in said foundation, or does he just lend his name and face to it.
posted by CB900 at 09:32 PM on June 25, 2006
You guys that laugh about the Dreyfus Affair and the Tour should be aware that there is an historical connection. The Tour de France started in part to distract from that scandal. Look it up!
posted by sickleguy at 09:42 PM on June 25, 2006
Could you tell me what parts of the book are truth, and what are lies biship? Or, you could admit you have no idea what you're talking about
You know for you to be admin here, you sure provoke a lot of arguing.
Calling some folks reaction to death "almost comical", then adding things like "admit you don't know what you're talking about".
Then you sit back and wonder why some of the members here react the way they do.
Think you could ever disagree with someone with calling them an idiot in your round about way?
My opinion is this, a lot of French hold the same opinion of Lance as Americans hold for Bonds.
I'll cut this argument short for your sake.
Bonds is a dirty cheater, Lance is a super-hero.
Forget I said anything to the contrary.
posted by Bishop at 10:11 PM on June 25, 2006
That said what I object to is that his survival of cancer, for some people, was somehow heroic or changes him from being an ass into a saint. For instance my dad died of cancer 6 years ago and for people to label Lance as a "hero" because he didn't implies that my dad and everyone else who dies of cancer could have survived if they were just strong enough or heroic enough. Like they just weren't "good" enough or didn't try hard enough.My dad didn't make it either, commander c, and that's not the message I take from it.
I don't even recall the word "hero" being used of Lance Armstrong.
In Hallmark movies, cancer survivors inspire because they're "strong" and "heroic". In real life, they inspire because they survive, period.
People look at them and know that survival isn't impossible.
That's inspiration.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:56 PM on June 25, 2006
My condolences lbb. I know I tend to be a bit hyper-senstive in this area, but I am glad you and/or your father were able to find inspiration.
True, no one here has called him a hero, but it seemed to me that everytime he was introduced on the Today show or some sports program they would practically gush over how couragous he was just because he survived. And of course he'd get one of those "Aw shucks" looks on his face. Used to make me sick to my stomach.
Anyway, again I'm sorry for your loss and certainly meant no offense if you felt some.
posted by commander cody at 11:24 PM on June 25, 2006
Can't we just comprise? Lance is a courageous ass. There. We can admire his accomplishments of winning seven tdfs and basically not racing in any other race while doing so. We can admire the fact he has donated a lot of money for cancer research and has shown that cancer doesn't have to be the end of everything, even though it so often tragically is. We can all agree that while the french have no proof, the constant accusations by LeMond (who may be a little bit jealous because he is no longer the best american cyclist) and others do make us wonder a little bit. And Lance is an unmitagited ass. Can't we agree on that?
posted by apoch at 12:07 AM on June 26, 2006
Think you could ever disagree with someone with calling them an idiot in your round about way?
I don't think you're an idiot. I think you have no idea what you're talking about, just like I said, or maybe you were trying to make a point and just threw out a bizarre statement.
Then you sit back and wonder why some of the members here react the way they do.
Never crossed my mind. Your mind reading career is off to a bad start.
calling some folks reaction to death "almost comical"
Wow, are you stalking me bishop? Got a list of everything I've said? That was a while ago, and in the spirit that I made that statement, I still believe it to be true. To the one person who was offended by that remark I apologized and explained myself to in the locker room. He accepted, understood, and that's good enough for me.
you sure provoke a lot of arguing
Write a bunch of nonsense and I'll call you on it, no problem.
You said:
He is just like the steroid book writers in baseball.
A book written by award winning journalists, foot noted to death, reviewed and disected by everyone and their mother and I have yet to hear anyone call anything a lie, and you're saying those two writers are just like LeMond throwing out a statement about Lance. Maybe LeMond is telling the truth, maybe not. It's all based on if you believe his words. That's nothing like the authors of that "steroid book". They didn't throw out a bunch of accusations with nothing to back it up and say "just believe us". Comparing the work, time, and research they did to a simple off the cuff statement is an insult.
You simply can't defend a statement like "so I'll make up some shit" when it comes to the "steroid book". So instead of saying "maybe I misspoke" or "I was wrong" or actually proving me wrong with facts, you bring up something I said months ago? That's pretty sad.
Bonds is a dirty cheater, Lance is a super-hero. Forget I said anything to the contrary.
Which has nothing to do with my point. My comment had only to do with your comparing the sources. I asked you to tell me what parts of the book were lies (since most of it was, mixed in with a little bit of truth...your words). If you can back up your claim that they're both "the same" I'd love to hear it.
posted by justgary at 12:46 AM on June 26, 2006
If Lance was doping, then there were probably dozens of other riders doping and he was still the best athlete amongst them. I'm of the opinion that any one case happens in a larger context. Persecuting one champion while ignoring the rest is just media showboating. In Bonds' case, doping in baseball became accepted because the gatekeepers - the commissioner, owners, managers, coaches and press - never said boo about it. His records were set while much of the competition was also enhanced by doping (in my opinion) and Bonds still rose far above anyone else's level of performance. No asterisks needed on his records.
The context of widespread doping does not excuse any individual's choice to use drugs for enhanced performance, but I think it should excuse them from being singled out for headline grabbing/career enhancing persecution. If someone wants to address the problem, I'd have a lot more respect and interest if they worked on fixing the system of competition involved.
Just wondering #1:
How would the public feel about Lance Armstrong if medical records showed his cancer was a byproduct of using steroids and HGH?
Just wondering #2:
American cyclist Greg Lemond, French newspaper Le Monde. Lemond/Le Monde. Conspiracy? You be the judge.
posted by silverkbh at 02:06 AM on June 26, 2006
commander c, you didn't strike a nerve with me, really.
My feeling is that anyone who's walked the walk of cancer, or held the hand of someone who has, has all the right in the world to whatever emotional reactions they have, and I don't expect anyone to share mine.
My point was that there's more than "only two responses" to Lance Armstrong, and that while he's only one human being, a person can have different opinions about him as an athlete, a human being, a cancer survivor, etc.
As for the Livestrong thing, apoch said it better than I did:
We can admire the fact he has donated a lot of money for cancer research and has shown that cancer doesn't have to be the end of everything, even though it so often tragically is.
Everyone who survives cancer demonstrates that cancer isn't an automatic death sentence...but when a very public figure gets a full-on body-slam from cancer, and not only survives it but goes on to unprecedented success as an elite athlete, that tells people that nothing's impossible.
It gives some people that little bit of extra strength and determination, and that's precious.
Whether the survivor in question is a saint is irrelevant; I'm sure people with cancer would rather not have survival be thought of as a matter of who's most morally deserving or most perfect.
But along those lines, I do get the sense that as arrogant, as selfish, as with-me-or-against-me as Lance Armstrong can be in most ways, when it comes to surviving cancer he seems to be very humble indeed.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:16 AM on June 26, 2006
Well said LBB.
posted by silverkbh at 11:15 AM on June 26, 2006
The Tour de France starts in 6 days and all the cycling websites are chock full of bullshit about Lance Armstrong.
Armstrong was on Dallas radio this morning for an interview and essentially said the same thing. He said these stories always come out right before the Tour, almost as if keyed to publicize the Tour, rather than October or November.
Also said he is tired of talking about it, but others keep bringing it up. He is more interested in spreading the cancer survival and cancer treatment message.
posted by graymatters at 12:21 PM on June 26, 2006
LBB. It would seem we agree on enough for me not to worry about what we don't. Everyone does react to cancer or a cancer loss differently and of course everyone has that right. It is one of those things that you never really know about until it affects your life. I'm sorry I don't find the same inspiration in Lance's survival (though I am glad you do) and maybe that's my loss, but I just don't. Again, to each their own.
I also don't admire his winning afterwards because I still think it's a case of better living (or racing) through modern chemistry. Maybe I'm just a natural born cynic.
Probably got it from my dad. :-)
posted by commander cody at 01:35 PM on June 26, 2006
Armstrong was on Dallas radio this morning for an interview and essentially said the same thing. He said these stories always come out right before the Tour, almost as if keyed to publicize the Tour, rather than October or November.
I believe he's right about that.
Also said he is tired of talking about it, but others keep bringing it up. He is more interested in spreading the cancer survival and cancer treatment message.
For someone who is tired of talking about it, he certainly goes out of his way to talk about it, write letters about it, appear on Larry King about it, etc. While Lance's work with cancer is admirable, I'm sure he is also very concerned with maintaining tight control of both his brand and story. They have made him a very rich man. As the Spanish doping investigation continues rest assured that more and more big names on the Pro Tour will be involved in doping.
It's how it is.
posted by JohnSFO at 03:26 PM on June 26, 2006
Gary, actually I didn't "mis-speak".
I was referring to Canseco's allegations.
I'm not sure which steroid book you're referring to as I didn't read every last one of them.
My thought is, if you're into 'exposing" cheating in sports, why not make the same fuss about Lance as you do about Bonds.
A book written by award winning journalists, foot noted to death, reviewed and disected by everyone and their mother and I have yet to hear anyone call anything a lie, and you're saying those two writers are just like LeMond throwing out a statement about Lance.
So, award winning journalists never lie?
And all that they write is true because you agree with it?
Let's continue to speculate for a minute.
If Lance was found to be doping, what would your opinion be of him?
And just because I recall something you write, doesn't mean I'm "stalking" you.
Actually you addressed my comments in this thread. Seems like every time I have something to say about the Bonds issue,I get a 5 paragraph response from you.
You claim to hold contempt for cheaters, and anyone that demands that Bonds is a cheater is not necessarily a Bonds hater.
It's been suggested that Lance has cheated, where's your 5 thread 20 post analysis of Him?
Why is it "everyone and their mother" (who isn't French) doesn't "dissect" Lance the same way they dissect Bonds?
Almost every time someone suggests something about Bonds that you disagree with, you make a half ass attempt to present some long list of "award winning" "must be true because i believe it" BS, with the hope that you will convert them.
In the grand scheme of life, is Bonds breaking records really that important to you?
Or is it, as you claim, the cheating aspect?
If it's the latter, I'm still waiting for the 5 page analysis of Armstrong that you have yet to produce.
Or maybe you do hate Bonds just a little bit.
If that is the case, I'll call him and give him the bad news.
I have my opinion about the situation, you have yours.
If you believe my opinion to be "nonsense", that's your right.
I believe your opinion about Bonds to be nonsense, that's my right. It'll end somewhere, unless you just continually "call me on it".
posted by Bishop at 04:53 PM on June 26, 2006
So, award winning journalists never lie? And all that they write is true because you agree with it?
No, it's just their credibility is less in question. And if you read the whole sentence, you'll realize that this was justgary's point - credibility. And the book justgary's referring to is the one written by the two San Francisco reporters. You know - the famous one? The one that absolutely claims Bonds is a 'roider and backs it up with interviews, testimonies and quotes?
So, do you believe that Barry is steriod free? I don't. I don't see how anyone could. The evidence is overwhelming. I just don't think it makes him the hitter he is.
Your particular axe is this case seems, and I am paraphrasing, that unless we all give Lance the same treatment we give Barry, we're all..... Racists. There I said it. Am I way off? I don't think I'm way off. I think it's a debate not without a modicum of legitimacy.
But I do think that's too black and white (pun!). I think there are other reasons why people want to give Lance the benefit of the doubt. Mostly because of the cancer thing. It's a much nicer story than silver spoon Barry and his seeming disdain for all humans. (which isn't necessarily the whole truth, but Barry sure doesn't help out his own cause much.) Plus, you seem so eager for Lance to be a cheater to boot. Me, I wouldn't be surprised. But I'd be disappointed. Black or white, Lance's story is the more improbable, the more inspiring and he is a more loved figure. It helps that most Americans know nothing about cycling the sport, and can just focus on Lance and his accomplishments in the face of death. Barry has no such purchase. But there's probably, for some (not justgary - he's a wonderful man, has lovely minty breath and a singing voice that turns everyday into Sunday afternoon, just after lunch) a racial thing in the brain, hiding amongst the foliage of general prejudice. I don't doubt it. But I wouldn't want to overstate it and celebrate it.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:50 PM on June 26, 2006
My thought is, if you're into 'exposing" cheating in sports, why not make the same fuss about Lance as you do about Bonds.
Apart from the aptly named Dick Pound, I don't know anyone offhand who is "into 'exposing' cheating in sports".
People -- journalists, whatever -- pursue the issue of drug use within the context of the sports that they cover or know something about.
A story like this is going to be one where you need to know the beat.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:29 PM on June 26, 2006
So, award winning journalists never lie? And all that they write is true because you agree with it? No, it's just their credibility is less in question.
Patricia Smith, Mike Barnicle, Michael Finkel, Rodney Rothman, Ruth Shalit, Elizabeth Wurtzel, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Nik Cohn, Nick Sylverster, Dan Rather, Janet Cooke (Pulitzer Prize winner).
posted by graymatters at 07:55 PM on June 26, 2006
Yes, and if you show me any other high-profile profession, I can find you a list of miscreants who called it an avocation.
We can't all be pristine, fer chrissake.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 08:25 PM on June 26, 2006
We can't all be pristine, fer chrissake.
We can't? Damn, there goes my entry excuse into heaven. Maybe I could work on being less crotchety?
posted by commander cody at 08:42 PM on June 26, 2006
Patricia Smith, Mike Barnicle, Michael Finkel, Rodney Rothman, Ruth Shalit, Elizabeth Wurtzel, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Nik Cohn, Nick Sylverster, Dan Rather, Janet Cooke (Pulitzer Prize winner).
Don't be obtuse. Show me where the authors of Game of Shadows have been guilty of slander. Better yet - show me Bonds' lawsuit stating such. Do you doubt it (the steroids accusation) as well? Their sources seem more than credible in the face of a total lack of opposition to their conclusions.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:39 PM on June 26, 2006
Mike Barnicle still doesn't think he did anything wrong.
(he probably also thinks he knows more about baseball than Shaughnessey, which he doesn't, although I'd be hard-pressed to say which of the two would make me reach for an air sickness bag faster)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:10 PM on June 26, 2006
Weedy, I tend to agree with most of what you write, I also agree with your points here.
Do I believe that Bonds has taken steroids, absolutely (as I have stated on a few other threads).
I have also admitted to having experimented with juice myself. I have shared the outcome of my experiments in posts here.
In my opinion the juice adds about 10-20 feet to Bonds jacks (if that), and depending on what he takes or has taken it would certainly aid in his recovery time from his workouts.
The previous statements are far from fact, and are to be taken with a grain of salt (and some anadrol j/k).
I don't know anyone here (including justgary) well enough to boast of such a harsh claim as racism.
I just find it slightly hypocritical when 1 person is judged so harshly on the basis of that persons attitude, and the other is kind of swept under the rug because he's a cool guy, has a better story, or is "more loved".
I'm a Lance fan, It wouldn't bother me a bit if he did get whatever advantages he needed to win.
Just as I don't care to much about what Bonds has or hasn't done.
But as sure as someone will "call me out" if in their opinion I don't know what I'm talking about, I won't hesitate to make the call out of something I find questionable. Gary has claimed to have an ax to grind with Bonds solely based on him cheating at the game.
I, In the past, have accused him of being a Bonds hater.
So, if it is the cheating that Gary and others have a problem with, why not point that microscope at Lance as well.
I personally don't care enough about either of them to make such a fuss, but when people spout off about not wanting to see Bonds exposed because he's considered by many to be BWA (black with an attitude), and they just want him exposed because he cheats, I don't think they are being completely honest.
Like you said Weedy, Lance is more loved, so that would indicate that Bonds is more hated.
If you hate him, at least be man enough to admit it.
I assume some fear it will take credibility away from the evidence they present against him.
He has basically already said he took juice, but that's not good enough.
Some want him to say he is an out right cheater.
My question is, will that really make them feel better?
And to indicate that his race doesn't play any part in it what so ever is just incorrect.
Maybe you haven't heard him discuss some of the hate mail he has received, or maybe some think he deserves it.
posted by Bishop at 09:04 AM on June 27, 2006
I'm cool with that. I also think Bonds has been treated unfairly by some and out and out vilified by others. It seems he has become the focal point for all other steriod users in baseball. I don't buy it, though. He's being scapegoated - he's just the easiest target and provides the juiciest copy.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:54 AM on June 27, 2006
If you hate him, at least be man enough to admit it.
The flip side of this is (assuming, of course, that "being a man" is a virtue somehow) that if someone says they don't hate him, you take them at their word and don't come back with, "Oh yes you do!"
And then it gets real quiet.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:20 AM on June 27, 2006
Besides the cancer story working in Lance's favor where public perception is concerned, take this into consideration as well: there are two different types of drugs involved.
While they're both PEDs, the drugs that He Who Shall Not Be Named is (allegedly) on are steroids and/or hGH, which causes increases in muscle mass and strength. This makes it easy to attribute his physical changes to lots and lots of substances that end in "-olol."
Lance, on the other hand, is suspected of taking EPO, which, while clearly a PED, doesn't change your physique as drastically as steroids or hGH.
Therefore, Lance still looks a lot like the skinny kid he was before the cancer and all those Tour de France wins.
Do some people hate HWSNBN because he's black?
Undoubtedly.
Do some hate him because he's acting like a surly asshole everytime they see him?
Again, undoubtedly.
Do some people hate him because they see him as the microcosm of all that's wrong with professional sports in general, and baseball in particualr, today?
I'm guessing yes.
Does everybody who hates HWSNBN do so because he's black?
Absolutely not, and to assume so shows dangerous levels of ignorance.
More than once, I've read what seemed like well-thought out posts from you, only to be put off by the insinuation that if you dislike HWSNBN, you must be racist.
I do, and I'm not.
Having gone back and reread some of your more recent stuff on the subject, may I humbly suggest that you simply make it clearer that you're not necessarily referring to the poster you're responding to when you make claims of racism.
I think that may be what catches some people the wrong way.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 03:12 PM on June 27, 2006
First allow me to repeat this very important thought. I just find it slightly hypocritical when 1 person is judged so harshly on the basis of that persons attitude, and the other is kind of swept under the rug because he's a cool guy, has a better story, or is "more loved. Please note I didn't say race. And to indicate that his race doesn't play any part in it what so ever is just incorrect.
Maybe you haven't heard him discuss some of the hate mail he has received, or maybe some think he deserves it.
I just wanted to highlight a few of the comments I made so I can expound on them briefly.
I certainly do not think that all people upset by Bonds juicing are racists.
I appreciate that we have, what are referred to as baseball purists, and those that frown upon anything remotely related to cheating.
However when you read some of the comments on the Bonds threads, you must admit that when you get to the root of some of the hateful posts, the Bonds, T.O, Marcus Vick, insert Black athlete in trouble with the law here, posts all tend to sound eerily the same.
You often see terms like, scumbag, rotten, dirty, along with the more general attitude adjectives, that a few of these guys do have in common like, asshole, jerk, idiot.
When you read comments like the following; All you myopic Bond CS that live by the motto of "If you isn't cheating, You isn't trying" are following a cheater & criminal
There you go Bond lovers; your master is as good as a junkie criminal in the eyes of the law. Bow down to your MASTER BONDs (please note that none of these comments are Garys)
You can't help but at least wonder if there is a deeper hate present.
Even if Lance came out and said he cheated, I just don't think he'd be referred to as a "junkie criminal".
If he was, I think the comment would be deleted.
posted by Bishop at 05:17 PM on June 27, 2006
when you get to the root of some of the hateful posts, the Bonds, T.O, Marcus Vick, insert Black athlete in trouble with the law here, posts all tend to sound eerily the same.
Are you sure that's not simply because they are all basically assholes?
Minus your insert "Black athlete" part.
So when speaking of assholes...albeit different assholes, the conversation is still about an asshole. Eerie? No.
posted by tselson at 10:23 PM on June 27, 2006
I just find it slightly hypocritical when 1 person is judged so harshly on the basis of that persons attitude, and the other is kind of swept under the rug because he's a cool guy, has a better story, or is "more loved.
*sigh* I'm about tired of this, Bishop.
Look.
Here's what you do.
First, you go and find me individuals who judge Bonds harshly and who also sweeps Lance Armstrong's alleged transgressions (which are still allegations, and which he denies...important difference there) under the rug.
Then I want you to point out that person's hypocrisy to him/her.
And then I want you to carefully count how many people you've so identified.
If you need more fingers than you'd use to pick your nose, I will be properly astonished.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:22 AM on June 28, 2006
I've never told you about my "The hand is the Swiss Army knife of nose picking" theory, have I? Because I can see use for 3-4 fingers. And I don't think that's what you meant.
posted by yerfatma at 12:13 PM on June 28, 2006
In Japan, the hand can be used like a knife. Except, of course, with regard to the devious tomato...the hand-knife's natural enemy.
LBB, I think the task you've given Bishop may be easier to accomplish than you believe.
Especially if he has access to the offices of the San Francisco Chronicle.
In this article, the paper uses Lance as an emblem of achievement in describing a tricycle race.
I seriously doubt they would do so with Bonds in a story about a home run derby. That sounds like some sweeping for Lance.
Their "harsh judgment" of Bonds is well documented.
posted by BullpenPro at 12:36 PM on June 28, 2006
Another difference between Armstrong and Bonds: Bonds plays a team sport in North America.
Naturally, therefore, there are lots of people who want to see Bonds fall simply because he is on the "other" team.
I will admit that I have something of a soft spot for him because lived in the Bay Area and cheered for the Giants.
OK, he's an ass, but he's our ass.
I probably am slower to believe the allegations against him because of that perceived connection between us.
As far as Americans-who-don't-really-care-about-bike-racing-that-much are concerned, Lance is on "our" team.
They don't have any allegiance to pro cycling teams, but they do have an allegiance to the USA, and therefore to Lance.
That makes it more likely that they will defend him, just as San Franciscans are more likely to defend Bonds.
Having said all that , it doesn't mean that race plays no role here -- in fact it supports the opposite conclusion.
We can say, "I identify with Armstrong because he is American," "I identify with Bonds because I cheer for the Giants," and I think this plays a role in how their actions are perceived.
Surely it is not outrageous to suggest that white people in America identify more strongly with Armstrong, and that this colours their attitudes toward the allegations in each case?
posted by Amateur at 02:20 PM on June 28, 2006
Sweet suffering god, Amateur, I meant here on Spofi.
Do I have to spell it out, really? Bishop is bitching out people here much more than he's referring to journalists.
(and, yerfatma: all at once???)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:57 PM on June 28, 2006
lbb, I wasn't directly addressing your comment -- you are absolutely right.
I can't name any individuals here who come down hard on Barry but give Lance a pass.
And I don't really want to talk about race any more.
posted by Amateur at 07:20 AM on June 29, 2006
Hmm, after reading more carefully, I think you were reacting to Bullpenpro's comment.
posted by Amateur at 08:01 AM on June 29, 2006
Hmm, after reading more carefully, I think you were reacting to Bullpenpro's comment.
I was. Pardon me; lack of oxygen, you know.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:47 PM on June 29, 2006
Gary has claimed to have an ax to grind with Bonds solely based on him cheating at the game. I, In the past, have accused him of being a Bonds hater. So, if it is the cheating that Gary and others have a problem with, why not point that microscope at Lance as well.
I could write another essay bishop, but since you claim you were talking about a different book, I'll just cause it a misunderstanding. But I don't know where you get your stuff. Claim to have an axe to grind? Bonds hater? I have no problem naming players I hate. Bonds isn't one of them, and I have no axe to grind. I'm tired of the bonds threads, and you were the one to bring bonds up in this thread. But to answer your question as to why I don't write 5 paragraphs on lance...that's easy. I don't really follow biking.
I'm not a steroid story fan. I'm a baseball fan. I eat, breathe, live baseball. So I know the bonds story up and down, because it's part of baseball. You don't, and that's fine. But if someone claims something is true, when it's not, I'm not going to remain silent.
I don't know enough about the lance situation to have an opinion. I'll let others who follow it discuss the situation.
I hope that's good enough for you. I know you'd rather believe that I'm into the bonds story because I hate him, or he's black, and I ignore lance because he survived cancer, and is white. But it's simply not true.
Your constant need to point out race to anyone you think might have a prejudice is growing very old. I don't like where "I don't know anyone well enough to call them a racist, including justgary" is going. An axe to grind? You really don't need to point a finger at anyone.
By the way, Weedy's points, that you agree with, are exactly what I said in my first post. Perhaps he's a better writer, and perhaps you don't hold a grudge against him. But your views are being clouded by something.
posted by justgary at 11:21 AM on July 02, 2006
Let's see...a credibility question between Greg LeMond and Lance Armstrong.
My vote, Greg LeMond.
He has little or nothing to lose by exposing doping in racing and Lance has it all to lose. Besides there's been so much smoke of Lance doping that it can't ALL be phony.
Of course it could be just that I'm sick to death of hearing about his movie of the week life of "bravely" surviving cancer and him being superhuman in racing.