Lance Armstrong's lies not so different from our own

  • Article by: HELEN O'NEILL , Associated Press
  • Updated: January 18, 2013 - 3:30 PM
  • 10
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 10 of 10
akmscottJan. 18, 13 1:27 PM

For one thing-most of us are not getting rich doing it!For another-find out how much Oprah paid this smuck for comimg on her show and bringing up her ratings!I'm tired of these famous idiots getting away with everything and getting rich doing it!

dlzabzJan. 18, 13 1:30 PM

Telling my girlfriend those jeans don't make her butt look big is a whole lot different than suing some for libel because they caught me lying after I made millions.

bondlakeJan. 18, 13 3:05 PM

My father said to me many times that he would rather trust a thief than a liar, for the reason that at least you know what a thief is going to do.

RandonJan. 18, 13 3:19 PM

I would like to see comments from people who were bicycle racing fans before Lance and still are after he was done. I think he did what he had to do to compete in a sport that has always done whatever it takes to win. What did Al Davis say? win baby just win! I think he was just way better at what he did than anyone ever.

steavis61067Jan. 18, 13 4:55 PM

Yeah, everybody lies. Not everyone destroys lives with the lies. He's Bernie Madoff with bike shorts.

steavis61067Jan. 18, 13 4:57 PM

@Randon - " I think he was just way better at what he did than anyone ever" .......................... Do you include how he sued people and drug them through mud while they told the truth?

CayshedJan. 18, 13 5:03 PM

Can someone please make a "Manti that I used to know" parody (Goyte)? Anyone? (ahem, that dude at KFAN who mocked the replacement refs). It's just a matter of time, get in front of this one.....

gurquhartJan. 18, 13 5:31 PM

I was a fairly big Lance fan while he raced, and am still kind of a minor bike racing fan now but I admit my interest is lower now. And not even so much because of the doping, but because of the idea that you can almost guarantee that the winners of the big stage races (Tour de France, Giro d'Italia and Tour of Spain) will later have their titles taken away after it eventually becomes known that they cheated somehow. I don't totally "excuse" the doping and certainly don't actively APPROVE of it-- but I do think virtually all of the top competitors were doing it during Lance's run (and probably still are today) so that if you didn't do it, you realistically had almost no chance to win. Unfortunately, it's a case where the chemists used by the cheaters are probably usually going to be a step ahead of those used by the testers. I do think in a sense Lance's wins were "earned", even though achieved with methods that were against the rules. I believe that at this point nearly all of the next 5 to 10 finishers below Lance in each of his 7 Tour wins has either admitted to doping, been caught doping, or been strongly suspected of doping. So it was mostly a level playing field between these guys. That's not to say "nobody really got hurt"-- obviously, those riders who were NOT using (and I'm sure there were some) either dropped out of the Tour early after getting left way behind on mountain passes, or finished somewhere below half the entrants, probably. So they DID get hurt. But yet amongst all the people who probably ever had a realistic chance of winning, I'd say there was a mostly level playing field in those races because all those top racers were doping. Did Eddy Merckx (greatest cyclist ever) cheat? Who knows?-- I'd like to think not, but the history of cycling is full of cheating of various kinds (Merckx tested positive for a banned substance one time but insisted it was inadvertent and he hadn't knowingly cheated). Perhaps more to the point, let's face it, every 300-lb lineman in the NFL who can run a 4.8 40 is on steroids, there's no doubt about it, and most of the players in the league take painkillers regularly-- yet people are apparently just "o.k." with that. I guess the more money there is in a sport, the more that systematic cheating is tolerated and not really criticized much.

propagandistJan. 18, 13 7:14 PM

The fact that the majority of cycling's elite were/are dopers does not in any way excuse any of their behavior. Lance especially as he was the face of cycling. Lying, cheating, drug users. Sincerely, cyclist & cycling fan

kwirkyJan. 19, 13 6:28 AM

and nothing changes - just like the banks and other big business. There really is no desire to change, as that would alter the playing field for everyone.

  • 1 - 10 of 10

Comment on this story   |  


Toronto - B. Morrow 12:05 PM
Cleveland - C. Carrasco
LA Angels - H. Santiago 12:08 PM
Detroit - R. Porcello
Atlanta - D. Hale 12:10 PM
NY Mets - Z. Wheeler
Seattle - B. Maurer 12:10 PM
Miami - K. Slowey
St. Louis - S. Miller 12:35 PM
Washington - S. Strasburg
Milwaukee - M. Estrada 12:35 PM
Pittsburgh - G. Cole
NY Yankees - V. Nuno 12:40 PM
Tampa Bay - C. Ramos
Minnesota - P. Hughes 1:10 PM
Kansas City - Y. Ventura
Cincinnati - H. Bailey 1:20 PM
Chicago Cubs - C. Villanueva
Chicago WSox - E. Johnson 2:05 PM
Texas - R. Ross Jr.
Houston - B. Peacock 3:05 PM
Oakland - J. Chavez
Philadelphia - R. Hernandez 3:10 PM
Colorado - J. Nicasio
San Francisco - T. Lincecum 3:10 PM
San Diego - R. Erlin
Arizona - J. Collmenter 3:10 PM
Los Angeles - J. Beckett
Baltimore - U. Jimenez 6:05 PM
Boston - J. Peavy
Dallas 12:00 PM
San Antonio
Charlotte 2:30 PM
Washington 6:00 PM
Portland 8:30 PM
Philadelphia 11:00 AM
NY Rangers
Detroit 2:00 PM
Tampa Bay 6:00 PM
Los Angeles 9:00 PM
San Jose





question of the day

Poll: Which quarterback is best in the NFL draft?

Weekly Question


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters