Thread: Armstrong goes on Oprah to come on out on performance enhancing drugs

Many of these drugs do have very bad side effects but so does heroine and crack cocaine. I still don't see it as the government's place to protect us from ourselves. Where do you draw the line?

I'll admit I am having a hard time with this one and generally speaking I take a "War on Drugs" causing more problems than it solves position on things. I guess when it comes to sports we have all seen a fair degree of falls from grace when it comes to using performance enhancing drugs. Lance Armstrong seems to be another high value case. Medically there seem to be such potential for damage to the human system in exchange for those brief years of enhanced ability (for lack of a better way to put it.) The line is nothing but a large gray mess I agree, but I do recognize the difference between laws and their realized effect and that of a league trying to police the use of these things (often fighting a player's union on the subject.) Perhaps it is personal for me growing up in TX playing small town high school football, and all that comes with that.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Not all that long ago we had a thread here about legalizing steroids in sports. We had an interesting exchange on the subject and was curious how the USPOL crew feels now that after years of going back and forth ole Lance Armstrong is coming out. He did it. Personally I think this does not change all that much and the risks of steroids (and other enhancement mechanisms) are just too great to legalize them just to enhance the sports we all watch. I understand that is a bit of a surprise given my usual take on drugs and laws regarding but how does everyone feel here?


Oprah interview won't reduce sanctions against Armstrong, officials say - CNN.com

also...

To Armstrong's critics, doping admission would be sweet - CNN.com
Lance Armstrong admits to Oprah Winfrey that he doped - More Sports - SI.com

ahoy Sluggo,

i don't know how i be feelin' 'bout this matey.

on one hand, he cheated. 'tis that simple. he should be banished, ruined and shamed. i mean, shiver me timbers, Mr. Armstrong be a scoundrel, aye?

on the other hand, Mr. Armstrong competed in an era whar sooo many folks cheated...'twas an era 'o cheatin', and not just in cyclin'. if i felt i had to cheat in me pursuits just to level the playin' field, who knows? i'd probably cut them same corners too.

on yet the other hand, imma not sure 'tis the government's place to prosecute and pursue this kind 'o thing. is this what me tax dollars are bein' used fer? to hound Mr. Armstrong relentlessly, past the point whar all the other cyclin' related agencies had been satisfied that he was competin' without the use 'o performance enhancin' drugs?

and, on the final hand (the fourth hand, aye), who cares? 'tis sport, 'tis entertainment. what matters be that i, the viewer, be entertained.

i mean, fer goodness sakes, if we're so concerned 'bout the well bein' 'o our athletes, American football ought to be banned entirely, along with boxin' and ice hockey.

hmmmf.

- MeadHallPirate

It is only getting worse, so should we just accept it all and with trying to end the "War on Drugs" also make steroids a personal choice? Also, being interested in the well being of the athlete does not mean that ending the sport is the ultimate conclusion. Just a thought on the damage that steroids can do.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

It is only getting worse, so should we just accept it all and with trying to end the "War on Drugs" also make steroids a personal choice? Also, being interested in the well being of the athlete does not mean that ending the sport is the ultimate conclusion. Just a thought on the damage that steroids can do.

ahoy Sluggo,

well, if ye follow American football, i don't see how the sport can be justified - if one be concerned 'bout the safety 'o our athletes. the head trauma that occurs in that barbaric sport be well documented. 'tis savagery, it is, matey.

in terms 'o steroids, imma more concerned 'bout it might affect youths who be pushin' the envelope.

these professional athletes know that bodies and have mighty chemists and trainers workin' on thar crews. they know what they be doin'. 'tis as safe as can be.

- MeadHallPirate

Interesting take on this, somewhat adds to our discussion. Does the good justify the use?

... But whatever Lance said, and however much he cried, the simplest, most painful truth for him is this: Without doping, Lance Armstrong would be nobody.

Oh, sure, he would be alive. But he would not exist as a public figure. He would not be on Oprah's couch for any reason, because Oprah would have no clue who he was. You wouldn't know him if he walked down your street, unless he happened to be your neighbor, and then you would struggle to remember his name. Larry something, you'd think.

Without doping, Armstrong would not have won the Tour de France. Without winning the Tour de France, he would not be famous. Without his fame, he would not be have made millions in endorsements.

Without his victories, Armstrong would have struggled to find a publisher for his book, "It's Not About The Bike," written with sportswriter Sally Jenkins, and he and Jenkins would not have made a bunch of money off it.

Without fame or Tour de France titles, Armstrong would not have been such a compelling hero for so many people who fight cancer, and so his Livestrong Foundation would probably not exist either. It certainly would not exist on this scale.

Without doping, Armstrong could not have done all the good work he has done for cancer patients.

Other than his family, virtually everything in Armstrong's life was built on a fraud. Without doping, he would not have so many lawyers, agents, marketing people and hangers-on enabling him over the years. Without doping, he wouldn't have critics to destroy, lawsuits to fight or humanitarian awards to accept.

Without doping, he would have no image to rehabilitate.

Armstrong is not like Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens -- who, by all accounts, were rich, famous and headed for the Hall of Fame before they started using performance-enhancing drugs. Without doping,
Armstrong would be just another guy. That was never enough for him -- which, of course, is why he doped.

Doping made Lance Armstrong who he was - More Sports - Michael Rosenberg - SI.com

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Interesting take on this, somewhat adds to our discussion. Does the good justify the use?

If Lance Armstrong hadn't lied about, slandered, intimidated, and ruined the careers and reputations of more than a few people in an effort to defend himself against the true charges that he was a drug user I'd almost agree with the point of that article.

As it is I simply consider Armstrong a fucking scumbag.

Armstrong is to sport what John Edwards is to politics.

I celebrate the good Armstrong has done (and he's done a signifigant amount of good), but I think that personally he's a piece of shit.

"Doing good" does not give you a free pass to be a douchebag.

He needs to be stripped of every award or title he's ever won, he needs to be banned from ever participating in any professional sport for the rest of his life, and he needs to live out his days in ignominy.

I don't think he should have to repay any of the money he earned from sponsors, as I've heard some folks suggest. Those sponsors only paid Armstrong a very small percentage of the gross receipts on the sale of Lance Armstrong merchandise and they kept the rest. They became just as rich, if not richer, off of Armstrong's lies as Armstrong did. If they reimburse any customer who ever purchased some Lance Armstrong bullshit then I have no problem with them recouping that loss from Armstrong, but we all know that's never going to happen.

What I would like to see is the folks who Armstrong ruined coming out of the woodwork and suing Armstrong. If that happens I'd like to see judges awarding those people extrodinarially large judegments, so large that Armstrong gets to spend the rest of his life selling cheap Chinese bicycles at the local Wal-Mart for minimum wage.

I agree with most of what you have said (as well as the article quoted,) just curious if anyone see this another way.

Hmmm...And people care about this because?...

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Interesting take on this, somewhat adds to our discussion. Does the good justify the use?

Doping made Lance Armstrong who he was - More Sports - Michael Rosenberg - SI.com

ahoy Sluggo,

the thing that justifies Mr. Armstrong's use 'o performance enhancin' drugs was that he probably thought (rightly so) that everyone was cheatin'.

i mean, he coulda competed clean and come in 3rd or 5th or what have ye, and been a honorable nobody...but then again, whats the point in dyin' on a small cross, aye?

the real tragedy in all 'o this was thar was someone...i have no idear who it is, that didn't cheat and would have won them Tour titles - and them victories woulda changed thar lives ferever. cyclin' though was so filthy that its anybody's guess who the true victor in them races woulda been, but whoever it was, they were cheated outta a life changin' triumph.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by spotdogg

Hmmm...And people care about this because?...

ahoy Spotdogg,

the reason i felt this was an interestin' story was that it wasn't the governin' cyclin' powers that took down Mr. Armstrong - nor was it that various drug testin' officials at the various races he competed in; by thar metrics, he was a clean victor.

the entity that destroyed Mr. Armstrong was the US Government.

i found that a curious thing, aye?

- MeadHallPirate

These constant stories of someone who rises from not v. much to fame & stardom of a sort, then falls from grace. Well, it's old, the archetype in the West, is the Parable of the Prodigal Son. I'm sure there are others, much like that.

The only real twist this time is that Oprah has landed the interview. The OWN is apparently suffering systemic shock - there's apparently not sufficient demographic/ audience for their offerings - & so Oprah has to be hoping that Armstrong will provide the shot in the arm she needs to put OWN over the top. Is it a pipe dream of its own? Will Oprah win through?

Tune in, turn on, drop out ...

Myself, I admire her business savvy, building a show, a following, a network. But I don't watch soft news. & so the whole episode will whizz by (was that a test?), with me not even standing on the sidelines. & so it goes.

Those drugs are illegal for a reason. It is insane to even consider legalizing them, who knows what harm could be caused on a much grander scale.