Skip to main content

View Diary: In partial defense of Lance Armstrong (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That helps me understand his reasoning when he (8+ / 0-)

    says he wasn't cheating, but feels he was getting back to a level playing field.  I still feel he was cheating, because he knew the things he was using were banned to competitors.  However, now I can understand why he can say with a straight face that he was getting to a basis equal to the others, even with the allegations and in many cases proof that the other competitors without a history of cancer like him were still using boosters.

    I think he might have been able to get his medication and been able to compete had he worked with the cycling federations to establish a baseline health and then take his medications to reach that baseline, but not exceed it.  We don't know if his doping sent him above the rest of the field and it's arguable that it didn't, since all his tests over the years didn't show his chemical balances out of whack.  Still, he did take banned substances and he concealed and lied about doing so.  He also zealously worked against those who claimed he doped, destroying them and their careers; that's what many are most upset about.

    I like your view and perhaps had he been forthcoming he might have changed cycling and testing for drugs such that people would be able to make up for deficiencies without suffering penalties, but we'll never know.

    •  Just for the record (6+ / 0-)

      I have not seen any of the interview, and have held this belief for many years.

      It always seemed very obvious to me what his "rationale" was to take these "supplements".

      He suffered a catastrophic medical calamity, and these drugs basically made him whole.

      I agree with you, if he had established a "protocol" for taking these drugs before he resumed competing, he might have avoided all of this.

      "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

      by jkay on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 01:37:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've always wondered if it wasn't the chemo (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lujane, worldlotus, JamieG from Md

        that he was being blamed for. I see now that it was the recovery-from-the-chemo, which is currently, as diarist points out, all over the TV.

        Has anybody checked to see if the sports authorities were consulted, and basically told him, "go die"?

        He was a cancer patient.

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 03:25:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Who's to say the doping ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JosephK74, crose

        didn't precede the cancer?  If it did, and I recall hearing so repeatedly many years ago, it's possible the doping caused the cancer.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:01:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The question though is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neuroptimalian, JamieG from Md

      was he using the drugs prior to his cancer diagnosis? That's where the problem lies.

      I think there does need to be a distinction in sports that would allow participants with certain known medical conditions to use some steroids -- for example when Andy Pettite reportedly used them to rehab faster from injury. Certification by an independent board of doctors that there is a condition that use of steroids would help heal, and frequent checks to make sure once the condition is cured that the player is no longer using would distinguish those who are using PEDs for extra advantage from those who are using them under doctor's supervision.

      My spouse is also a testicular cancer survivor; his condition was not nearly as serious as Armstrong's -- he only had to have a testicle removed, and it was a non-aggressive type that did not spread past the effective ball. (4-1/2 years after surgery, still cancer-free.) So I have a hard time separating Lance the Cheater with Lance the Do-Gooder.

      "If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now" -- Rev. William Barber, NAACP

      by Cali Scribe on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 03:36:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't buy that.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        crose

        ..Pettite used them simply to "rehab" from an injury.

        I remember distinctly one year he came back from the off season and it looked like he had a different body.

        He no longer had that slightly "soft" look about him, it was very  obvious that he had been doing "something".

        I was baffled at the time that none of the announcers of mentioned anything about his "new" body, it was totally obvious. Whatever he was doing was way beyond "rehab".

        The media went in the tank for him because he's always been "one of the good guys".

        That's another aspect of the drug era that I can't stand and is totally hypocritical.  How you are treated in and by the media in regard to if you are outed or not, and if you are how you are treated thereafter, is determined solely by if they like you or not.

        If you're an Andy Pettite, all is forgiven. Oh, he made a mistake, he's really a good guy.

        If you're a Barry Bonds, though, forget it.

        And let me just put it out there. If you're a black athlete, you have no chance. If you're white, it's 50/50.

        "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

        by jkay on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 05:04:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  His teammates (0+ / 0-)

        described him telling the oncologist what PEDs he had been taking--they overheard the conversation in the hospital. His drug use preceded the cancer diagnosis.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site