Lance Armstrong to confess on...Oprah?!? (Austin, Howe: college, deal, phone)

[Idlewile]

Well, Komeht, you just heard Jeffrey Toobin say no lawyer in the world would have advised him to confess. I won't say I told you so but I stand by my original argument, he wants to do what he wants to do regardless of the risk factors. He thrives on control and attention and he did a brilliant job of reinforcing it tonight.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Idlewile

Well, Komeht, you just heard Jeffrey Toobin say no lawyer in the world would have advised him to confess. I won't say I told you so but I stand by my original argument, he wants to do what he wants to do regardless of the risk factors. He thrives on control and attention and he did a brilliant job of reinforcing it tonight.

Well Idlewile, Jeffrey Toobin isn't, to my knowledge, Lance Armstrong's attorney.

I stand by what I said, he is not taking a flyer here and going into this without carefully considered and been advised on the range of possible repercussions. We don't know what his attorneys have or have not advised, but I can assure you, they have discussed risk vs. reward

[FueledByBlueBell]

Ok, I've watched the first interview. I'm over him and take back everything I said... except for his work with cancer victims and survivors.

[austinnerd]

Originally Posted by FueledByBlueBell

This topic is so boring. I certainly don't think this is a unique story. If 80% were taking drugs and he still won 7 times so I think that is fairly admirable. I think the work he has done in the area of cancer and should still be very much admired.

So bored that you felt compelled to post this in thread

The topic of good deeds offsetting bad deeds certainly is an interesting one. One advantage that Lance has is that he was the face of a very specific cause, one that many folks could easily get their heads around and crossed socio-economic boundaries. Compare to Bernie Madoff, who also pumped a lot of money into non-profits and other causes directly and indirectly. Poor Bernie's contributions were not nearly so well advertised and was very scattered. So even though in both cases worthy charities and needing individuals benefitted from the misdeeds of their benefactors, you pretty much don't hear anyone trying to give Bernie a pass. Of course while there was an immediate negative financial impact from Bernie's contributions, Lance's are far more subtle, and he of course benefits from this. While one can more or less calculate how much money a charity should NOT have received from Madoff (either directly or through Madoff controlled investments), it's pretty much impossible to quantify how much money LiveStrong and other Lance support charities benefitted solely or in large part due to his "success". And while that may be true, I think it's clear that the number is non-zero.

So, what really is to be admired and what not. As is usually the case, obviously opinions will differ. FBBB obviously has one take, and it is certainly shared by others. Personally, I don't give Lance a pass, and while certainly his efforts can be partially commended, to me it will always be tainted because it in large part was fueled by a lie.

As a former athlete, former serious biker (now far more casual) and long time bike racing enthusiast, the "everyone is doing it, so being the best cheater should count for something" argument simply just does not fly with me. Doesn't even make it out of the gate to the runway. Just as it wouldn't fly in an academic setting, or any setting for that matter. If one found out that 80% of banks were "cheating" with charges to customers, and you banked at the one that was busted last and ripped off the most people, would you give them a pass and admire them for cheating better than everyone else? I'm guessing most would say no.

Anyway, at least so far he hasn't tried to deflect or redirect, so I will give him props for that (assuming that doesn't happen in Pt 2 of course). Certainly interesting to see how this plays out. Too bad for the sport though. Now I have to wonder about Big Mig (my personal fave), was he doping to the scale of LA? Sigh.

[tfresca]

I hate this idea that it was fraud by US taxpayers. He had a sponsor and appeared in their ad basically. Nobody even remembers who sponsored him, other than it being mentioned now in these stories. Given the bad rep of the postal service it's hard to see how anything Lance did hurt it's reputation. I'm shocked he confessed, its not smart but now that he has who cares? All the top guys doped Some of the doping probably shouldn't even be considered doping, I mean it's his own blood.

All that's excusable to me. Suing people he knew were telling the truth, that's something else to me. No excuse for that and he should make all those people whole. The guy just couldn't stand to be Pete Rose. It's silly because Pete Rose made a good living being the outsider and Lance still had credibility as a charity spokesperson.

[woodinvilleguy]

Originally Posted by tfresca

All that's excusable to me. Suing people he knew were telling the truth, that's something else to me. No excuse for that and he should make all those people whole. The guy just couldn't stand to be Pete Rose. It's silly because Pete Rose made a good living being the outsider and Lance still had credibility as a charity spokesperson.

On my last business trip to Vegas I was in one of the hotels and Pete Rose was in a shop signing autographs, or should I say, sitting alone at a card table while a promoter tried to get anyone to go into the shop to get something signed. It was sad. I wonder if that will be Lance one day.

I do respect the Lance Armstrong foundation, I think that it does a lot of good and feel that Lance deceived them as much as anyone else. I hope that the foundation continues to thrive despite of Lance. I know people that the foundation has helped and I will continue to raise money for it. I am happy that he is no longer associated with it and I hope they change their name.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by woodinvilleguy

I do respect the Lance Armstrong foundation, I think that it does a lot of good and feel that Lance deceived them as much as anyone else. I hope that the foundation continues to thrive despite of Lance. I know people that the foundation has helped and I will continue to raise money for it. I am happy that he is no longer associated with it and I hope they change their name.

Uh...they already changed the name to the Livestrong Foundation.

[woodinvilleguy]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Uh...they already changed the name to the Livestrong Foundation.

I think "Livestrong" should be become Live(Something else) IMHO.

[FueledByBlueBell]

Originally Posted by austinnerd

So bored that you felt compelled to post this in thread

The topic of good deeds offsetting bad deeds certainly is an interesting one. One advantage that Lance has is that he was the face of a very specific cause, one that many folks could easily get their heads around and crossed socio-economic boundaries. Compare to Bernie Madoff, who also pumped a lot of money into non-profits and other causes directly and indirectly. Poor Bernie's contributions were not nearly so well advertised and was very scattered. So even though in both cases worthy charities and needing individuals benefitted from the misdeeds of their benefactors, you pretty much don't hear anyone trying to give Bernie a pass. Of course while there was an immediate negative financial impact from Bernie's contributions, Lance's are far more subtle, and he of course benefits from this. While one can more or less calculate how much money a charity should NOT have received from Madoff (either directly or through Madoff controlled investments), it's pretty much impossible to quantify how much money LiveStrong and other Lance support charities benefitted solely or in large part due to his "success". And while that may be true, I think it's clear that the number is non-zero.

So, what really is to be admired and what not. As is usually the case, obviously opinions will differ. FBBB obviously has one take, and it is certainly shared by others. Personally, I don't give Lance a pass, and while certainly his efforts can be partially commended, to me it will always be tainted because it in large part was fueled by a lie.

As a former athlete, former serious biker (now far more casual) and long time bike racing enthusiast, the "everyone is doing it, so being the best cheater should count for something" argument simply just does not fly with me. Doesn't even make it out of the gate to the runway. Just as it wouldn't fly in an academic setting, or any setting for that matter. If one found out that 80% of banks were "cheating" with charges to customers, and you banked at the one that was busted last and ripped off the most people, would you give them a pass and admire them for cheating better than everyone else? I'm guessing most would say no.

Anyway, at least so far he hasn't tried to deflect or redirect, so I will give him props for that (assuming that doesn't happen in Pt 2 of course). Certainly interesting to see how this plays out. Too bad for the sport though. Now I have to wonder about Big Mig (my personal fave), was he doping to the scale of LA? Sigh.

I was going to say, in the words of a great man, "don't hate the player, hate the game" but I said that I reconsidered. His aggression in opposing those who spoke out, and his admission in the interview (because how can one not watch a train wreck) did rub me the wrong way. I still believe there is some goodness there but absolutely agree that he is deeply flawed. Unfortunate situation for all.

[austin-steve]

I think he explained himself to a greater degree than most expected. I watched some of it even though I swore I wouldn't.

He's a highly competitive individual willing to go to any length, including lies and personal attacks, and risking everything he accomplished, to win and keep winning. That hasn't changed, but is starting to change. Just starting. But you could see that he's a different animal and "winning" consumed him, and still does. The best glimpse of that, in his explanation, was when he talked about his reaction to accusations against him. 1) You're in my space, 2) I'm going to attack. And how, in his mind, if someone said A, B, C, D, E, F against him, and a small part of D was in fact not true, that, in his (pathological) mind, the entire accusation was untrue and the person was a liar to be destroyed. I get that. It's dark, but I get it.

I laughed about the part where, because he has only one nut, he felt entitled to some additional testosterone. I can see how one's mind could go there.

If he had delivered a "textbook perfect" admission/contrition performance, it would have seemed insincere to me. He was rehearsed, but still the same LA under the surface. People can't change just like that. He's still, in many ways, the same delusional liar he allowed himself to become. He can't flip a switch and turn that off and suddenly be Mr Nice Guy who's sorry. It may take him the remainder of his life to get there, if ever.

No, precisely because it seems difficult for him to even fully understand and come across as 100% contrite, I believe his starting effort is sincere, but that it's just the start of his journey. He did Evil. He did much Evil. Sorry won't undo that. One interview can't fix it. But at least he can stop telling new lies if he wants to.

Financial Amends to those he harmed, continued good deeds. The (future) massive book deal profits going to charity. Speaking engagements (down the road) that benefit others. Those are things he can start on. But as he said, he has no cred, so this will be a long rehabilitation effort.

Steve