Jeeves Lance Armstrong something something

[Joe K]

Anyone else watch Part 1? It was interesting, but I'd have liked to have seen more exploration of Armstrong's claim that essentially every single rider in the Tour de France was doping. It certainly wouldn't surprise me, but I'm curious if other riders agree. (Also, as he pointed out there's "degrees" of doping, and EPO was the wonder drug that really gave him an edge.) Part 1 didn't get into his character assassination efforts at all; I assume that's coming in Part 2.

[wlu_lax6]

Watched it last night. Was interesting when they pulled in some of the journalists and teammates (and Betsy A). So far no Floyd, but he came to the team later in Lance's career. However, feels like the editing is not really going to let them tell the full truth of who Lance is and how he crushed people. Very short edits with people who the doping really impacted. But I do think everyone was doping is true. The few interviews with peers of Lance (but not teammates) makes it clear they were doping too.

This 30 for 30 feels too filtered.

[Joe K]

Looking back, it’s insane the credulity that US journalists had and the degree they were able to so quickly cast aside all the allegations as jealousy. There’s obviously a large degree of hero worship as part of the culture of American sports media—and Lance was up there with Jordan and Tiger as the biggest recipients of that in my lifetime. But to assume that accomplished European journalists like David Walsh or cycling legends like Greg Lemond were just lying is a huge reach.

[Rex]

I think there is a pretty broad consensus that EPO became widespread in cycling sometime between 1991 and 1994, though there is disagreement about the specific timeline. Lemond has said that it started in 1991, which conveniently is when his own results started to drop off. By 1994, there were results that were so strange that the European media was openly speculating about EPO use. There wasn’t a test until 1998(ish?), so a lot of guys who were successful in the early 90s have skated by.

I was surprised to see Lance claiming that it was Eddy Merckx who first counseled him to go to Dr. Ferrari. I hadn’t heard that one before. If that’s new it’s a bit of a bombshell—it’s like if McGwire/Sosa/Bonds admitted to juicing and then said they were advised to do it by Hank Aaron or Willie Mays.

[Joe K]

I think there is a pretty broad consensus that EPO became widespread in cycling sometime between 1991 and 1994, though there is disagreement about the specific timeline. Lemond has said that it started in 1991, which conveniently is when his own results started to drop off. By 1994, there were results that were so strange that the European media was openly speculating about EPO use. There wasn’t a test until 1998(ish?), so a lot of guys who were successful in the early 90s have skated by.

I was surprised to see Lance claiming that it was Eddy Merckx who first counseled him to go to Dr. Ferrari. I hadn’t heard that one before. If that’s new it’s a bit of a bombshell—it’s like if McGwire/Sosa/Bonds admitted to juicing and then said they were advised to do it by Hank Aaron or Willie Mays.

That timeline is largely consistent with what Lance said in the doc. He said EPO use started in the late-80s, for a few years guys were afraid of the side effects, but by 1994 you couldn’t win without taking it. I also interpreted the Merckx bit as Lance saying that he used Merckx to make the introduction to Ferrari as opposed to Merckx specifically counseling him to do it. I thought Lance said that he already knew that the Italian team that was kicking ass was using Ferrari.

[wlu_lax6]

I think there is a pretty broad consensus that EPO became widespread in cycling sometime between 1991 and 1994, though there is disagreement about the specific timeline. Lemond has said that it started in 1991, which conveniently is when his own results started to drop off. By 1994, there were results that were so strange that the European media was openly speculating about EPO use. There wasn’t a test until 1998(ish?), so a lot of guys who were successful in the early 90s have skated by.

I was surprised to see Lance claiming that it was Eddy Merckx who first counseled him to go to Dr. Ferrari. I hadn’t heard that one before. If that’s new it’s a bit of a bombshell—it’s like if McGwire/Sosa/Bonds admitted to juicing and then said they were advised to do it by Hank Aaron or Willie Mays.

That timeline is largely consistent with what Lance said in the doc. He said EPO use started in the late-80s, for a few years guys were afraid of the side effects, but by 1994 you couldn’t win without taking it. I also interpreted the Merckx bit as Lance saying that he used Merckx to make the introduction to Ferrari as opposed to Merckx specifically counseling him to do it. I thought Lance said that he already knew that the Italian team that was kicking ass was using Ferrari.

that does not surprise me. Merckx's kid Axel was working with Ferrari and Axel broke into the pro ranks with the 1993 Motorola (also raced with Floyd in Phonak). Axel also managed Lance's junior team (Trek-Livestrong) and then Radioshack.

[wlu_lax6]

Part 2 was strong. Would love to see some unedited stuff because it felt like the tone changed pretty heavily. More aggressive and way more of what I think Lance is really like (not a good thing). I also wanted way more from his ex teammates. I actually think there is a great story of just talking to his teammates. Floyd's story is pretty clear, but Bobby Julich's uncertainty of if he likes Lance. Tyler Hamilton is interesting and felt like something is not said. Zabriske is a goofball and did not get much run. Would love his story. Same with Danielson, Van Velde, and other fringe folks on the Blue Train.

But overall loved they pulled at Lance enough to get him to show his colors about Floyd, Hamilton, Livestrong board.

One of the guys I played a TON of soccer against growing up made it for one interview in the series (Doug Ulman).

[Nonlinear FC]

I'm a little surprised this didn't get more national run. It was pretty devastating for Lance and IMO didn't pull punches like the much-ballyhooed Jordan series. Also, FWIW, they easily could've made this a 3 part series with the ground they covered.

I know I'm not out on a limb here, but it paints a very complete picture of a borderline sociopath. He knowingly, constantly and stridently lied about his doping. He tore apart the character of not just Floyd but the wife of a fellow teammate and he accused the team trainer of being whore (among other things.)

And he's inexplicably still ripshit about Floyd, who really got supremely fucked by the entire sport.

Seems like some of you have followed this more than I, but I just wasn't aware of just how bad his actions were... and in the case of Betsy and Floyd, continues to be.

[wlu_lax6]

Ugh. Not a good story. Guessing this is from high school. His son plays football at Rice.
https://www.bicycling.com/news/a3606659 ... l-assault/

[wlu_lax6]

Lance put his foot in his mouth this past weekend. He basically decided to get involved in the conversation about trans athletes competing. He wanted to talk about it. So he did so by making an announcement as such on twitter..and got roasted about "fairness in sports". Dropped a podcast with Caitlyn Jenner yesterday. Just wrong person to be going big on this topic.

[govmentchedda]

Lance put his foot in his mouth this past weekend. He basically decided to get involved in the conversation about trans athletes competing. He wanted to talk about it. So he did so by making an announcement as such on twitter..and got roasted about "fairness in sports". Dropped a podcast with Caitlyn Jenner yesterday. Just wrong person to be going big on this topic.

Excellent thread on this.

[sancarlos]

The Defector also had a good piece on the subject. And, Caitlin Jenner also wants to bitch about trans athletes? Caitlin Jenner?

[L-Jam3]

…And, Caitlin Jenner also wants to bitch about trans athletes? Caitlin Jenner?

Call me cynical, but anymore whenever a member of a historically-oppressed minority is spouting GOP talking points, I assume they’re in on The Grift until proven otherwise.

[Giff]

Updated thread title. Trying to be wiser with some of the words I choose when making an ass of myself and this is one of those areas.

[L-Jam3]

And let me say this: Questioning whether an athlete who already has or in the process of transitioning may have an unfair advantage, that's not an unreasonable or invalid debate. I think it's a legitimate argument and there should be at least guidelines in place to ensure fairness (like a male athlete presents as male, and then one day declares female and wishes to immediately compete, that would raise red flags, also realizing that's an unlikely if ever occurrence). The rub is that those who are most vociferously raising that debate are the shittiest people around and are doing it simply to bully a disadvantaged group for political and/or monetary gain.

[P.D.X.]

Also fun that 'fairness' is a concern raised only in very specific circumstances.

[DSafetyGuy]

Some people are just incapable of fucking off forever.

[The Sybian]

Also fun that 'fairness' is a concern raised only in very specific circumstances.

That was my initial thought, then I realized that if almost everyone is doping, Armstrong wasn't violating a fairness norm.

[The Sybian]

And let me say this: Questioning whether an athlete who already has or in the process of transitioning may have an unfair advantage, that's not an unreasonable or invalid debate. I think it's a legitimate argument and there should be at least guidelines in place to ensure fairness (like a male athlete presents as male, and then one day declares female and wishes to immediately compete, that would raise red flags, also realizing that's an unlikely if ever occurrence). The rub is that those who are most vociferously raising that debate are the shittiest people around and are doing it simply to bully a disadvantaged group for political and/or monetary gain.

A couple of good points in here. Yes, the shittiest people are making a much bigger deal out of this issue for political gain, both for Culture Warrior points, to divide and distract from the shitty GOP policies for middle and lower classes, and most importantly out of hatred and bigotry.

To your first point, and I'm sure I'll get some pushback here, but I don't like allowing athletes who went through puberty as a male to compete against females. Once you develop the bone and muscle of a man, no amount of transitioning treatment is going to erase that. I support trans people living their true lives, but I think the ability for female athletes to compete in a fair structure also has value. In sports, physical traits and ability are more important, so I think post-pubescent athletes should compete in their biological sex, not the gender in which they identify. I also know that sex and gender aren't binary and there are a lot of people that fall in-between the two categories and I don't know how to resolve that issue.

The big examples are the Penn State swimmer. She has the muscle and build of a man, as she went through puberty as a male. As a male athlete, he was ranked around 400th in the country, then #1 as a female in her event. I have no reason to doubt her sincerity in transitioning, but when you have the body of a man, you should compete in sports against men. Another example was an MMA fighter who transitioned in her 30s, after fighting for years as a man. She didn't tell her competitors she transitioned. If a female opponent was fine with it, I don't have a problem, but she didn't tell anyone she transitioned.

[A_B]

The issue with that is, if they want to play sports, then you're saying they have to NOT live their true life to do so. I'm not saying you're wrong or right, because I also have issues with what is the best way to handle it and I certainly don't know the answer that makes the most sense for every athlete.

What I don't think is OK is when an athlete (cis or trans) performs well and then people complain that they think the gender needs to be checked. Fuck that noise.

ETA: The clymer thread certainly has a lot more insight from someone who has done a lot more research.

[Steve of phpBB]

And let me say this: Questioning whether an athlete who already has or in the process of transitioning may have an unfair advantage, that's not an unreasonable or invalid debate. I think it's a legitimate argument and there should be at least guidelines in place to ensure fairness (like a male athlete presents as male, and then one day declares female and wishes to immediately compete, that would raise red flags, also realizing that's an unlikely if ever occurrence). The rub is that those who are most vociferously raising that debate are the shittiest people around and are doing it simply to bully a disadvantaged group for political and/or monetary gain.

A couple of good points in here. Yes, the shittiest people are making a much bigger deal out of this issue for political gain, both for Culture Warrior points, to divide and distract from the shitty GOP policies for middle and lower classes, and most importantly out of hatred and bigotry.

To your first point, and I'm sure I'll get some pushback here, but I don't like allowing athletes who went through puberty as a male to compete against females. Once you develop the bone and muscle of a man, no amount of transitioning treatment is going to erase that. I support trans people living their true lives, but I think the ability for female athletes to compete in a fair structure also has value. In sports, physical traits and ability are more important, so I think post-pubescent athletes should compete in their biological sex, not the gender in which they identify. I also know that sex and gender aren't binary and there are a lot of people that fall in-between the two categories and I don't know how to resolve that issue.

The big examples are the Penn State swimmer. She has the muscle and build of a man, as she went through puberty as a male. As a male athlete, he was ranked around 400th in the country, then #1 as a female in her event. I have no reason to doubt her sincerity in transitioning, but when you have the body of a man, you should compete in sports against men. Another example was an MMA fighter who transitioned in her 30s, after fighting for years as a man. She didn't tell her competitors she transitioned. If a female opponent was fine with it, I don't have a problem, but she didn't tell anyone she transitioned.

I think I generally agree *in theory* that when we are talking about serious competition, there could be an issue. But it is so rare that this comes up in serious competition, and I think the cost of preventing it far outweighs the benefits. The harm suffered by hundreds or thousands of kids from assholes pushing this issue is a bigger deal to me than the occasional unfairness in a swimming competition.

[wlu_lax6]

Lance doubled down with a 2nd podcast today. Roger Pielke Jr. as the guest. Professor at Boulder. Apparently has a background in governance of sports organizations.

[Shirley]

It is actually quite rare. I think my wife said there were something like 3 trans high school athletes in NC competing in women's sports.

However - many male-to-female athletes immediately become elite, so while they're rare, they inevitably compete amongst the rare best. So while rare overall, they become much less rare at the top (e.g., state championships). I agree that it's not fair.

But I also know that I don't have the answers. I'm all for trans rights. I'd love for trans kids to have all the same opportunities as other kids, including sports. But I think non-trans girls have a legit complaint. I don't know. Life isn't fair and either way you go, someone is going to feel like they got the short end of the stick.

My gut feel - and this is just the sports fan in me - is that biological males should compete against biological males. It shouldn't be a big deal if some of them are trans girls. If we'd not be so squeamish about mixing genders like this, maybe this wouldn't be a controversial take.

[The Sybian]

It is actually quite rare. I think my wife said there were something like 3 trans high school athletes in NC competing in women's sports.

Was it Montana that just passed a law banning trans kids from competing in HS sports? Whatever state it was, GOP were celebrating the law. Turns out there is one kid affected by the law. Seems cruel to celebrate when the law targeted one kid.

[sancarlos]

It is actually quite rare. I think my wife said there were something like 3 trans high school athletes in NC competing in women's sports.

Was it Montana that just passed a law banning trans kids from competing in HS sports? Whatever state it was, GOP were celebrating the law. Turns out there is one kid affected by the law. Seems cruel to celebrate when the law targeted one kid.

cruelty is the point of course. Well that and “owning the libs”.

[Giff]

It is actually quite rare. I think my wife said there were something like 3 trans high school athletes in NC competing in women's sports.

Was it Montana that just passed a law banning trans kids from competing in HS sports? Whatever state it was, GOP were celebrating the law. Turns out there is one kid affected by the law. Seems cruel to celebrate when the law targeted one kid.

Utah.

[Pruitt IV]

Some people are just incapable of fucking off forever.

I mean, isn't this a case of giving someone who is starved for attention (Armstrong) too much attention?

[A_B]

It is actually quite rare. I think my wife said there were something like 3 trans high school athletes in NC competing in women's sports.

Was it Montana that just passed a law banning trans kids from competing in HS sports? Whatever state it was, GOP were celebrating the law. Turns out there is one kid affected by the law. Seems cruel to celebrate when the law targeted one kid.

Utah.

And the always wonderful Kristi Noem in South Dakota

[govmentchedda]

My man, Alex Kirshner chimes in.

[DSafetyGuy]

Some people are just incapable of fucking off forever.

I mean, isn't this a case of giving someone who is starved for attention (Armstrong) too much attention?

Any attention.

It's also a case of treating someone who is not an expert in a field as if they are an expert in said field (i.e. "debating Joe Rogan").