> I do think that history has treated Mr. Armstrong unfairly for the essential act of his cheating.
> To be sure, Mr. Armstrong brought much of his disparate treatment on himself.
Perhaps history, but I think modernity has been far too kind to Mr. Armstrong. I'm floored that Lance Armstrong is still given a degree of celebrity and room as a public figure, and still more that he can make money off of that. That his celebrity and accolades were obtained fraudulently and all the while he openly and literally tried to destroy the lives and reputations of those who said as much stand in stark contrast to the space he is given today.
Lance may have trashed his reputation; but, Hamilton didn't detail Armstrong's doping until after he was serving his second, eight year suspension. (And Armstrong had nothing to do with Hamilton's claim that he was a tetragametic chimera, with two distinct DNA profiles.)
> That his celebrity and accolades were obtained fraudulently
Important to remember that when they took Armstrong’s trophies away, the next person who hadn’t yet been caught doping finished 10th. During that era of cycling, 87% of top 10 finishers tested positive for doping at least once.
That doesn’t excuse his doping, of course. It just means that at the time doping was a baseline requirement for competing at the top levels of cycling.
>at the time doping was a baseline requirement for competing at the top levels of cycling
To a great extent, that was the direct fault of Lance Armstrong. He was the chief enforcer of the code of silence around doping. 1998 could have been a turning point for cycling after the Festina affair, but Armstrong scuppered any chance of that; where others saw the shame of a sport in turmoil, Armstrong saw opportunity.
Armstrong's comeback after cancer was a story that sponsors loved, he was the first American to be a serious yellow jersey prospect for nearly a decade, so he brought an unprecedented amount of money into the sport. Armstrong effectively became too big to fail, ruthlessly dominating the sport around him. When riders spoke out, he had the power to make them outcasts. When journalists tried to reveal the truth, he had the resources to silence them in court.
The bitterness that many in the cycling community feel towards Armstrong isn't really about the doping or the stolen yellow jerseys - it's about all the lives that he ruined in the process.
> baseline requirement for competing at the top levels of cycling.
I agree, and for cheating in a sport Mr. Armstrong should be stripped of those awards given for such feats and no other judgement outside of that need be applied. However, Mr. Armstrong did not simply cheat; he actively and openly sought to destroy the lives and reputations of those who said otherwise. THAT was not a baseline requirement for competing at the top levels. For those actions outside of cycling he should be stripped of the celebrity and accolades he was given outside of cycling as well.
There have been other great American cyclists that haven't been caught with doping. Like Greg LeMond: fantastic tour winner, a major critic of doping in cycling, and one of the first to express doubts about the legitimacy of Armstrong's victory.
That is the great American cyclist people should be admiring.
I don't think it has much to do with being American. Cycling worships the greats no matter where they are from (take Pantani for example). It's an extremely tough sport with people who historically came from tough backgrounds. When a cyclist gets badly injured and you see them cycling on - it's because they have no other choice. They will lose their livelihood if they don't. None of this excuses drugs but it might explain why people identify with and often admire them no matter what country they come from.
as the article touches on here, there's two things that Lance Armstrong deserves criticism for: one is being a cheater.
the other is being a raging asshole who was outspoken against doping, published multiple books professing how clean he was and how all the doping rumours were just people out to get him, claimed the whole country of france was dishonest, accused his competitors of doping, accused other cyclists who he didn't even race against of doping... all while he was not only pumping himself full of drugs to win races, but also running his team's doping program and pushing his teammates to risk their own health by taking performance enhancing drugs.
the second part of this is what he doesn't deserve any forgiveness for.
The book "The Secret Race" by Lance Armstrong's teammate Tyler Hamilton gives a good perspective on what was happening at the time. At one point Hamilton was standing on an Italian street trying to hide the blood dripping down his arm from a botched transfusion, which was simultaneously horrifying and hilarious.
Armstrong's big crime wasn't doping. Everyone at the top was doing it. His crime was going after his team mate Hamilton and the journalists who exposed his cheating for libel. To go to court and call the truth a lie, and a lie the true is a crime. Armstrong is a narcissistic liar. I wish the Sunday Times had done him for millions.
For those interested in the Armstrong saga it's worth listening to his interview in the Peter Attia Drive podcast. For personal reasons that I won't go into here I still feel betrayed by his cheating and vindictive lying, but hearing about what has been doing since partially redeemed him in my eyes.
Having just listened to it seemingly being proud[1] and coming across as completely unrepentant. The podcast only reenforced my view that Armstrong should not be given any form of celebrity or space on any platform. He needs to just go away.
1. "More than anything I'm just really proud...proud I didn't quit...with no support or anything."
In this context he was (1) asked about what he thinks his legacy will be and has mentioned that it would have been different if you asked in 2013, and (2) is talking about being proud of his achievements/choices after his professional cycling career ended, during a period when he was sort of universally reviled by many people. So I can sort of understand why he says "no support." And "quit" in this context might mean "suicide," for what it's worth.
It sounds like he mostly just rides mountain bikes around his hometown somewhere in Colorado and occasionally does a chat with cancer patients who are interested in that.
> To be sure, Mr. Armstrong brought much of his disparate treatment on himself.
Perhaps history, but I think modernity has been far too kind to Mr. Armstrong. I'm floored that Lance Armstrong is still given a degree of celebrity and room as a public figure, and still more that he can make money off of that. That his celebrity and accolades were obtained fraudulently and all the while he openly and literally tried to destroy the lives and reputations of those who said as much stand in stark contrast to the space he is given today.