Lance Armstrong admits to doping

Dear Joe,

No doubt the details will then emerge [of what he says, rather than the whole inglorious truth], but that is not the point for me. That would be that he abused the trust of people who would give credence to a person who so consistently maintained his complete innocence for so long before coming out with the truth ...

ATB from George

George and Winky:  Couldn't have said it better.  And in the US, unfortunately, money now rules big time College athletics--resulting in corruption and cheating perhaps not yet on a level with pro sports, but certainly approaching it.  One sad offshoot of this is the fact that college administrations allow the athlete and elite coach virtually any amount of leeway, including but not limited to humping little boys in the showers.  Sad.

And to add to George's latest post--if you couldn't trust the SOB then, what are the indicators that you can start trusting him now?

Russ

George,

Lance is a master spin doctor-er and he has been able to look into the camera and lie with straight-faced sincerity for years.  As you say, how can anyone give credence to anything that comes out of his mouth now?  I expect anything he says to be ultimately self-serving.  Much of the “why now” has to do with statute of limitation expirations on his previous testimony (can no longer be tried for perjury).  He will, however, be open to civil law suits for defamation, as well as breeches of contracts with sponsors.  ESPN reported today that he offered the US Postal Service a $5M settlement, which they rejected.  They also reported that by cooperating with the governing bodies, Lance holds hope of getting his life-time ban from sport reduced to eight years.  Seems outlandish to me.

I don’t plan to watch the shows, but will read the news reports and analyses on sports shows.

ATB

Neither will I watch the programme, but will read the papers, and so on.

No doubt, I'll be greatly angered, but then that seems to be the way of the World.

ATB from George

"I don't know what we achieve as a society by paying people to play games."

We do it for the same reason we pay them to act in & make movies, and play concerts, and put on plays and circuses, and for that matter, design & build expensive audio equipment.

Because we, as a species, like to be entertained, by the activities of those who are very good at what they do (and oft times in things at which we wish that we could do well), and are willing to pay handsomely for our entertainment.

This professional entertainment also provides for infinite opportunities for people to reflect, comment, criticize, lecture, socialize about the performances, acts, lives of these professional entertainers.

They fulfill social purposes.

They wouldn't be any less good nor entertaining if they did it for the love of the game. It is the power of marketing (a much less than zero sum game) that results in ludicrous salaries for entertainers, and enormous costs for staging events. I don't know how to change it, nor do I really support any sort of interference in the system, but simply acknowledge that the huge sums on offer to successful sports-people diminishes the sports they play, or at least the way they play them.

In the case of "professional" college athletics, it is even worse than professional sports IMO. Certainly more dishonest, even if the amount of money is a bit less. If all that money was spent on education, rather than corvettes and cocaine, then I really do think we'd be ahead.

The money wouldn't be there, but for the sports.

And yes, I agree, it's all essentially entertainment.  But do we chastise the actress who gets implants or a tuck in order to give herself an advantage over the competition?

I agree that money does ruin it - I am a huge hockey fan, but they will get none of my money this bastardized "season" that they are having.  When millionaires fight with billionaires over my money, all I can do is make certain that neither side gets it.

On the other hand would they (i.e., athletes, performers, etc) really have become as good as they are had the financial incentive not been there?  Or once they turn pro, they don't have to have a "real" job and can concentrate 100% on training?  I used to be a competitive powerlifter and I am sure I would have been able to do better had I not worked all day prior to training sessions...or be a better guitarist than I am if I had all day to practice because I didn't have a "regular" job.

But as you pointed out, especially in the colleges, money poisons everything.  The solution?  If people stop paying the price in one form or the other (whether through attendance at events, or buying the products from the sponsors) it will have an effect.

But as I said, as a species we like to be entertained.  So on the whole, we pay.

DrMark: I personally have opted out of the whole world of both professional and college sports.  Now, in the interest of full disclosure, my period of opting out began when my two favorite teams, the Dallas Cowboys and the University of Texas at Austin Longhorns both began to suck like a couple of Filter Queen Vacuum Cleaners.  Sure was easier to opt out than in the days when they were winning world and national championships respectively.  And the real test of whether I would become a whore for sports again would be if--gasp--one of them started contending for championships.  Until then, I pay nothing, watch nothing on TV, sanctimoniously declare sports to be a waste of time, and keep my blue and silver and my burnt orange and white safely locked away in a closet where no one visiting the house will ever see it.  I am past the point of wearing a bag over my head. 

Best regards,

Russ

Yeah, but the distortion of marketing and sponsorships externalizes, spreads and inflates the costs, so we, collectively as a society, end up paying way to much.

And the problem, Winky, is precisely that--that we continue to pay.  I haven't read every single post in this thread, but I would be surprised if, in addition to the other social phenomena associated with sports, no one has mentioned the aspect of identification of the fan with the athlete or team.  I so fondly remember when a quiet, unassuming boulder of a man named Earl Campbell, who weighed 230 and had sprinter speed would roll over everybody in the stadium and we in the stands would rise up and chant "We're number one.  We're number one."  And we thought we were--but we weren't.  Earl was.  The Longhorns were.  He won the Heisman Trophy.  We didn't.  Texas won a championship.  We didn't.  But even the most spindly, wimpy little geek in the stands thought he was a true champion.  Identification with the athlete and team is a huge part of being a "fan"--a word which after all has the same root as "fanatic."  When our team wins a championship, then it is we who "rule". 

When any given city's team wins, I suspect the amount of Viagra needed in the community goes way down.  When a team like the Detroit Pistons lose in the playoffs, their fans get drunk and wreck the city.  By contrast, when their team wins a championsip, their fans--you guessed it--get drunk and wreck the city.  A pattern emerges. 

Best regards,

Russ

Like we did in Vancouver.

The tribalism of sports team supporters annoys me. People tell me to get over it, and that "supporting" a team/player is just harmless fun. Well, they may be right - but I don't derive any enjoyment from achievements to which I have contributed nothing. I'd rather just go ride my bike.

I'll go to sporting events, but it is a social thing with friends. I don't "root" for any team, other than usually wanting to see the underdog get up, or a team/player at the top of their game demonstrate continued awesome superiority. I vacillate between these two extremes.

Uh Russ, as I recall, Notre Dame beat the Earl Campbell Longhorns for the National Title - I remember, because it was one of the biggest pieces of humble pie I ever ate, as I had announced to my roommate as we left for Christmas break that he could bet every dime he had that Earl Campbell would blow the Irish away...I guaranteed it - and he's never let me forget it!

And the last time I saw Earl Campbell (in person mind you) was at the horse race track outside of Dallas; he needed a walker to get around...so sad considering it used to take 3 or 4 men to bring him down; now I could probably take him down right now at my 55 years.

This year I didn't see an entire quarter of football college & pro combined.  And the only thing I really care about in NFL football any more is that the Cryboys lose.  (Well, seeing Tom Brady get knocked around has its joy too.)  I lived in DFW for 27 years, 13 in Irving (had to drive by the old stadium every day to work) and I don't think I have ever harbored the visceral hatred I have for anything like I have for the Dallas Cowboys. 

The NFL is an increasingly mediocre product that gets the ultimate marketing hype that Winky mentioned.  And BTW, in case anyone did not know, the NFL itself (not the individual teams) is a registered Non-Profit Organization. Look it up if you don't believe me.  The NFL pays NO (as in ZERO) taxes.  Is that a pile of bulls**t or what?

But hey, our elected officials like good seats to the game as much as anyone...

The difference is that in Vancouver people could tell things were wrecked.  In Detroit, I'm not sure anyone noticed.

Oh wait, what am I talking about?  I grew up in Cleveland.

Winky: Well, my friend, then you have no qualifications as a "fan".  Rather, you are healthy, self-confident individual who actually has a life.  How dare you.

Joe: I have heard it said (wish I had made this up but I didn't) that any riot taking place in Detroit is likely to effect millions of dollars in improvements--roughly what the occasional tornado does for us here in South Texas. 

DrMark: How right you are.  You will notice in that context, I walked a fine line (and one of which Bill Clinton would have been proud), in saying "championship"--and not specifying the adjective "national".  As you can see, it depends upon what "is" is!  That was the year Fred Akers took over from Darrell Royal.   We went undefeated in the regular season.  My stepdad and mom bought tickets to the Cotton Bowl for New Years' Day.  We got iced in in Austin and had to watch it on TV.  When we managed to blow that game, let's just say I fell slightly short of Winky's detached maturity.  I went out into the garage and put my fist through two layers of sheetrock and it emerged into the living room where everyone else was still watching TV.  I suppose I was lucky not to have hit a stud in the wall, but I suspect I might have broken through that as well, I was so pissed.  When I went back into the living room, my ex wife said: "Well, that was certainly helpful."  She was not a "fan."

Ah, memories...

Oh, DrMark, forgot to mention Earl's terrible physical problems.  As you mentioned, he can barely walk, if he still can even, having had 3 vertabra removed.  No athlete in history every gave more than he did--never took a play off.  No telling how long he might have lasted if he had dropped the intensity just slightly at the moment of impact--but then he wouldn't have been Big Earl.

Russ

Earl in recent times--Still got the arms!

Russ

As for this and other comments in a similar vein my feeling is that elite sportsman are elevated in our society as icons and examples (like it or not). Witness the millions paid by sponsors to be associated with them, witness the kids in replica kit.

Armstrong did this as much as anyone, he actively traded on his post cancer achievements. Being clean was an explicit part of the image he created, profitted from and manipulated.

I'm old enough and cynical enough to think that elite athletes are not going to be so different from the rest of us. However I feel his cheating has much more impact precisely because of who he set himself up to be. What message has he given to the kids he inspired, both in his sport and also recovering from cancer?

The riches of sporting success are considerable, but so should be the opprobium if you abuse that status, or cheat to obtain it.

Bruce

Seen him apologising now......"boil that Lance" is my view. G

In other news...

I watched some of it - all that I could bear - and he didn't seem particularly contrite to me. It all seemed a bit too rehearsed, a bit too much like the opening act of some long-term "redemption strategy."

Unconvincing.

By the way, does anyone know why Oprah keeps pulling that "tragic" face?

I  truly despise the man but the guy has got bills to pay and they are coming fast and furious, Besides, in the land of the free,  this is live soap opera and the till will roll and roll. Remember OJ?

I do Paul. I was in Chicago the night of the infamous chase. It was all a bit bizarre for us Limeys.

Good job you rembember where you were and  my name , James!