Quantcast

Comments about ‘What does the fall of Lance Armstrong say about us?’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Aug. 24 2012 8:36 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JSB
Sugar City, ID

In the 1950’s, when I was a little boy my dad took me to U of U basketball games, it was a lot of fun and I really enjoyed it. I became a real sports fan. I cheered; I thought athletes were great people; and I enthusiastically followed nearly every sport. Both my joy if my team won and my frustration if my team lost were disproportionate. I actually believed in fair play and “good sportsmanship”—but I was naïve. Closer inspection reveals an ugly, disgusting underside to sports and athletics. From high school on, athletics and sports are drenched with cheating, gambling, crime, bribery, drugs, sex, arrogance, etc. In an athletic competition, how does anyone know who the victor is? The best athlete or the best cheater? All over the world, fans dress and act like idiots. Sometimes I wonder how desperate someone must be to have nothing better to do with their time than to watch modern sports events.

BYU Joe
MISSION VIEJO, CA

The real cheater is the USADA - these people have one job - to justify their existence by claims of doping. They have no money limitations and just make accusations until someone breaks. It is not a question of guilt or innocence it is their ability to hound you as long as they see fit.

Armstrong had hundreds of test without having a dirt test. He was cleared in previous hearings. But the USADA people with unlimited power just keep coming. They cannot prove it except with some witnesses that are disgruntled opponents of Armstrong.

The horror is not the claim of doping - its that the government has the ability to keep coming without retribution if wrong. Thy don't lose anything if Armstrong wins. He can't sue them and they aren't fired or stripped of their titles. They can attack without and repercussions.

This is authority at it most unrighteous. THis article should be about that and how prosecutors have to much power with no downside if they are wrong.

To enforce is good but to which hunt to justify your job just took one of Americas great sports legends and tarnished him. This is a sad day.

Caprice
PROVIDENCE, UT

I'm so confused by all of this. I thought Lance Armstrong was tested every year he competed and always turned up clean. So, why is he being tested now or refusing to be tested now of he has nothing to hide. And even if his tests came up positive for drug use, shouldn't he still be able to keep the trophies he won when he tested clean? What's really at stake her?

Pierda
kaysville, ut

What does it say about our society when we pre-determine a mans guilt and then harrass him for over a decade (when he legally passed tests administered by his sports governing body and was pronounced 'clean') to the point that he gives up the fight due to the emotional and financial toll on his family and then we ASSUME that to be an admission of guilt??? What does it say about our society that we assume that a US investigative body that is unaffiliated with the sport can strip a man of his titles? In another country no less...I wonder if we don't have some strange national obsession with wanting to see people fail.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

It says winning at all cost has become too important in our society. We see this in our current election cycle. You would think winning with integrity would mean something. But as we look at our society, honesty and integrity, and commitment have been lost in the quest to win at all cost.

We see it from what happened with the New Orleans Saints,

We are seeing it here with the academic fraud uncovered here at UNC.

We see it in Lance Armstrong's case.

And we see it in today's politics where being lied to, and the other misrepresented no long shocks or raises an eyebrow. Daily people on the forums here in the DN say horrible things about others just to win.

Winning without dignity is no win at all. An honorable second place means so much more than a dishonorable first.

yarrlydarb
Ogden, UT

It says that sports is becoming our god and that we believe as Vince Lombardi said, "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing."

Add the money motive that pervades every level of sports competition from little league to the pros and we lose all perspective of what is truly important in this over-privileged life we lead.

ShortGuy
West Jordan, UT

If everybody is cheating, how is it an unfair advantage?

xert
Santa Monica, CA

The subtext of Lance's statement is "this is the closest I'll ever come to admitting to you that my results were claimed through cheating and doping."
I'm amazed at how the honorable Marion Jones lied, got caught, tearfully apologized and was demonized and now has nothing. Roger Clemens and Lance Armstong, meanwhile (being of a slightly different shade of skin--get a pass from most of the white and delightsome crowd.
This guy is a cheat and to say "everyone was doing it," is naive and missing the point. Just as in baseball-not EVERYONE was doing it. And that's the problem in a nutshell. An unfair playing field that cheaters took advantage of. So sad.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"If everybody is cheating, how is it an unfair advantage?"

You just MAY have missed the point.

azreader1
tucson, AZ

Well said BYU Joe and Pierda. Lance Armstrong has admitted to no wrongdoing despite the suggestions in this and many other articles to the contrary. It seems to me that the USADA is an organization that is full of itself and has assumed far too much power over the lives of professional athletes. It is not unlike the seemingly unbridled power of the House Un-American Activities Committee of the 1940's and 50's. A mere unsubstantiated accusation by that committee could and often did ruin the accused's professional and private reputation. McCarthyism (named after Joseph McCarthy, the hard-charging chairman of the committee) has come to be known as the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. Substitute doping for disloyalty, subversion, or treason and you arguably have the USADA, a modern doping incarnation of McCarthyism.

yarrlydarb
Ogden, UT

ShortGuy
West Jordan, UT

Ha ha ha! That's a real funny one.

Keep laughing 'cause when we all lose our integrity, we're not going to want to live here.

NevadaCoug
Overton, NV

Whatever happened to the idea of "innocent until proven guilty?"

Do I think that Armstrong used PEDs? Not sure. All I know is that he passed hundreds of tests. You can fool the tests with masking agents a lot of the time, but not that much. Eventually he would have been caught. But he wasn't. You can bring out all the witnesses you want to say he used, but he never failed a test under one of the most intense testing programs in the world. I don't care what your personal opinion is. Justice says he keeps his titles.

What USADA is doing isn't justice.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

It says that anyone who believes Lance wasn't doping is naive. That said, he won fair & square because all his competitors were doping as well.
The USADA is out of control. They need to worry about doping that is occurring RIGHT NOW, not 15 years ago.

coleman51
Orem, UT

Without ever finding any doping evidence through numerous testing throughout his entire career, the USADA has determined his guilty without evidence other than a few disgruntled cyclists who were frustrated they never beat him. They simply determined his guilt because he no longer wanted to waste his money fighting them in court. If he was doping, the tests would have shown it. Floyd Landis, who won the Tour De France the year after Armstrong retired and won his seventh title, was caught doping and stripped of his crown. Somehow, the USADA who never had such evidence against Armstrong, decides by fiat that he is guilty. If this isn't a kangaroo court, then nothing is.

Dektol
Powell, OH

All this shows is Armstrong is tired of the constant hounding of those who are trying to bring him down and he wants to get away from their badgering. He has not been found guilty of anything but common sense in walking away from these jerks who do nothing to help. Years of clean tests while the French were trying to get rid of him. Now these jerks 'strip him of Tour de France titles'? They do not run the race. Armstrong won. Armstrong tested clean. The way these guys run things they would indict George Washington of crimes. They are a farce.
Armstrong won the races, he is the champion.

That Makes Sense
Orem, UT

What does this say about us? Nothing.

It says something about professional cycling and also reveals the gang at USADA really needs to have some oversight and be reigned in. Many cyclists think there is a pretty good chance Lance used PEDs and did a pretty good job at hiding it while some got caught. And many cyclist think there is a pretty good chance that all the guys he crushed on the climbs in his TDF wins were doping too. And most cyclist believe the best guy won in those races. Lance a freak specimen of nature that we won't see again for a long while.

Not sure how this is of public interest and why my tax dollars should support USADA. EPO and other PEDs can actually help the sick and aged--good for the public. The US cycling industry accounts for jobs and lots of commerce thanks to Lance--good for the public. Pop musicians and actors promoting hard-core drug use--bad for the public. Maybe USADA should start testing our pop icons in the interest of public good.

Manny
Saint George, UT

I guess I'm a little confused by all this too. I thought Lance won the Tour De France titles in France. Why is some USA anti-doping agency stripping him of these titles? Isn't somebody in France the ultimate authority regarding his achievements ? It's obvious that the USADA is on a witch hunt and finally got Lance to cave in and give up the fight. But is this an admission of guilt? I'm not sure. The USADA could not prove he enhanced his performance so they concluded that he must have to win 7 times. But shouldn't they then prove he used some kind of masking agent to hide his usage? I don't see any proof of that so far. What a strange world we live in when a group such as the USADA can do stuff like this.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

Lance cheated - what else is there to say? The worst thing is the money he made as a result of the cheating. I am thinking that law suits ought to be filed to reclaim some of that money.

kosimov
Riverdale, UT

Armstrong has maintained all along that he did not use performance enhancing drugs during competition or in training for it. He did have quite a battle with cancer; is it possible that some of those drugs could have produced a "false positive"?

Isn't it also possible that he is telling the truth? Many of us have had some experience, either in our youth or later as adults, with someone who says bad things about us and causes a lot of trouble for us, sometimes ruining lives in the process. They have self-serving reasons for slandering, and people seem more ready to believe them than to believe the victim of the slandering. I think there is a very strong possibility that those who accuse Armstrong are doing so for such reasons. If we are going to take a "guilty until proven innocent" stance with regard to Armstrong, we must also take that stance with his accusers.

It is mighty suspicious that Lance never failed a drug test at a competition. One may be able to trick the testing once or twice, but as many times as he competed, and was tested, I don't think he die.

kosimov
Riverdale, UT

I have been less and less interested in sports and competitions as time has passed. Its not because I am getting older, or because sports are not fun to be involved in. It is because of the steady decline in qualities of character which I have seen demonstrated, praised and encouraged by those who bring the sporting events to us through television and radio.

There is one example which stands out in my mind, which I will use to illustrate the problem. It is in football and basketball, collegiate as well as professional.

Imagine you are watching an important game. During a play, a player is obviously seen to monitor the attention of the officials, and, when he knows they are not looking, he commits a foul which has an effect on the outcome of that play, and does not get caught. What is the typical reaction of the announcers?

More and more, it is "that is obviously a foul, but, if you can get away with it and not get caught, it really isn't wrong. It is good technique if you can get away with it."

What do you think young people learn from that?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments