Lance Armstrong sticks boot into David Walsh over character reference for paedophile

Kadinkski wrote:

I like Lance more and more these days, he's actually quite funny and self-deprecating.

Walsh comes across as a bitter, humourless, bore (like many on this thread). Not to mention a kiddy-fiddler apologist.

You mean you like the version of Lance that he shows the public today. I wouldn't trust him and I don't think he is not sorry for what he did. IMHO he's just showing his true colours by having yet another a pot-shot at Walsh.

As for Walsh's comments, no-one said he's an apologist for or condoning paedophilia. Perhaps it's more that nowadays people see loyalty to a friend, however weak and error-prone, is no longer considered a good thing. Mob rule.

Simon E wrote:

Kadinkski wrote:

I like Lance more and more these days, he's actually quite funny and self-deprecating.

Walsh comes across as a bitter, humourless, bore (like many on this thread). Not to mention a kiddy-fiddler apologist.

You mean you like the version of Lance that he shows the public today. I wouldn't trust him and I don't think he is not sorry for what he did. IMHO he's just showing his true colours by having yet another a pot-shot at Walsh.

As for Walsh's comments, no-one said he's an apologist for or condoning paedophilia. Perhaps it's more that nowadays people see loyalty to a friend, however weak and error-prone, is no longer considered a good thing. Mob rule.

Yep, I like Lance these days. I absolutely hated him with a passion back in the day. You should have seen the abuse I directed at him on social media! 

And correct, nobody is saying he's an apologist for or condoning paedphiilia. I said he is an aplogist for a kiddy-fiddler. 

Kadinkski wrote:

And correct, nobody is saying he's an apologist for or condoning paedphiilia. I said he is an aplogist for a kiddy-fiddler. 

While typing that sentence I edited it and mashed the two terms. Out of interest, how is he in your view an apologist?

If I didn't feel the world was already full to bursting with content about attention-seeker Lance Armstrong I'd ask about why you've done a u-turn but TBH I really don't care. There are just so many interesting people in the world from whom who I could learn far more that I'd rather not waste any more time on him.

Simon E wrote:

If I didn't feel the world was already full to bursting with content about attention-seeker Lance Armstrong I'd ask about why you've done a u-turn but TBH I really don't care. There are just so many interesting people in the world from whom who I could learn far more that I'd rather not waste any more time on him.

No problem, I won't spend time explaining that then.

But love him or hate him, I don't understand how anybody could not be interested. His story is unprecedented in the history of the world - the utter and complete subterfuge and arrogance and rise to realms far beyond cycling, then the utter and complete fall  from a hero to a nothing. Nobody can say they're not interested in him (particularly those commenting on a Lance Armstrong thread on an internet forum).

Kadinkski wrote:

But love him or hate him, I don't understand how anybody could not be interested. His story is unprecedented in the history of the world - the utter and complete subterfuge and arrogance and rise to realms far beyond cycling, then the utter and complete fall  from a hero to a nothing. Nobody can say they're not interested in him (particularly those commenting on a Lance Armstrong thread on an internet forum).

Fair enough. I hate to contradict your statement but I'm afraid I'm really not interested in him.

I read his book. I read Tyler Hamilton's book. I read 7 Deadly Sins. I read Emma O'Reilly's book. I read about his interactions with Betsy Andreu. I remember the Trek vs LeMond thing. As he was the biggest thing in the Anglophone world I've also read far too many articles and interviews about him since the early 2000s. He never appealled to me, even then. After refusing for several weeks, I even tried to watch part of his damage-limitation exercise on TV. It was excruciating so I only stuck it out for a few minutes.

Even if he transforms his behaviour (unlikely, it would require a total personality transplant) I still feel that there are countless people who are far better role models, more interesting characters with interesting stories to hear. I don't need or want to massage his ego. Perhaps you and others like watching sport for the crashes. I don't.

Simon E wrote:

Kadinkski wrote:

But love him or hate him, I don't understand how anybody could not be interested. His story is unprecedented in the history of the world - the utter and complete subterfuge and arrogance and rise to realms far beyond cycling, then the utter and complete fall  from a hero to a nothing. Nobody can say they're not interested in him (particularly those commenting on a Lance Armstrong thread on an internet forum).

Fair enough. I hate to contradict your statement but I'm afraid I'm really not interested in him.

I read his book. I read Tyler Hamilton's book. I read 7 Deadly Sins. I read Emma O'Reilly's book. I read about his interactions with Betsy Andreu. I remember the Trek vs LeMond thing. As he was the biggest thing in the Anglophone world I've also read far too many articles and interviews about him since the early 2000s. He never appealled to me, even then. After refusing for several weeks, I even tried to watch part of his damage-limitation exercise on TV. It was excruciating so I only stuck it out for a few minutes.

Even if he transforms his behaviour (unlikely, it would require a total personality transplant) I still feel that there are countless people who are far better role models, more interesting characters with interesting stories to hear. I don't need or want to massage his ego. Perhaps you and others like watching sport for the crashes. I don't.

But... but...

I'm fascinated by him - for pretty much exactly the reasons Kadinkski states, and I haven't read half the books you have about him. How can you have spent so much time reading about him and then say you are, and weren't, interested?

I'm not interested in... crochet. You can guess how many books and articles I've read on that. But ok, that's an entire topic. If you were interested in cycling, you couldn't really avoid Armstrong for a big chunk of the turn of the millennium.

So, for something less facetious... Indurain. Even at the time, when he appeared maybe slightly less fishy than he does now, I found him boring. He should have been an inspiration to me...  massive engine, not much panache on the bike - something that I could relate to, triathlete that I am - here was a hero who wanted to turn everything into a time trial.

And I just wanted to switch the telly off whenever he was on: not out of dislike - he didn't rouse even that - but out of desperate boredom. If I see his picture, even now, it acts like anesthetic, but more beige. So I wouldn't read a book about him, or even a news article. If it emerged that Big Mig was the mastermind of the modern doping era, and he taught Lance, his apprentice, all he knew; that he was pulling Lance's strings all the while... I might read about that. Otherwise I would cross the road to avoid an article about him.

davel wrote:

I'm fascinated by him - for pretty much exactly the reasons Kadinkski states, and I haven't read half the books you have about him. How can you have spent so much time reading about him and then say you are, and weren't, interested?

We don't have to like / be fascinated by the same things and I'm not criticising anyone for being fascinated by him or wanting to listen to his podcast etc.

I never liked him but he dominated the cycling media so we all read more than enough about him without trying. I read his book years ago, possibly around the time when gullible types wore those yellow wristbands, but before I really knew it was a lie. I tried Hamilton's book hoping it wasn't all about LA (it wasn't) but it left me feeling that I had to endure the big one, 7 Deadly Sins. That really did it for me, it cemented the idea that he was a nasty piece of work. I have no time for people like that. I don't care if he finds God, the cure for cancer or anything, he genuinely does not interest me.

About Indurain: I skipped much of the 1990s as I had no TV and was far more interested in motorbikes. Yes, he's like a robot - boringly predictable. Very good at what he did, which is nice (for him). I've seen reviews of Alasdair Fotheringham's book and they criticise it because he really doesn't tell you any more than the little you knew about him already.

Simon E wrote:

davel wrote:

I'm fascinated by him - for pretty much exactly the reasons Kadinkski states, and I haven't read half the books you have about him. How can you have spent so much time reading about him and then say you are, and weren't, interested?

We don't have to like / be fascinated by the same things and I'm not criticising anyone for being fascinated by him or wanting to listen to his podcast etc.

I never liked him but he dominated the cycling media so we all read more than enough about him without trying. I read his book years ago, possibly around the time when gullible types wore those yellow wristbands, but before I really knew it was a lie. I tried Hamilton's book hoping it wasn't all about LA (it wasn't) but it left me feeling that I had to endure the big one, 7 Deadly Sins. That really did it for me, it cemented the idea that he was a nasty piece of work. I have no time for people like that. I don't care if he finds God, the cure for cancer or anything, he genuinely does not interest me.

About Indurain: I skipped much of the 1990s as I had no TV and was far more interested in motorbikes. Yes, he's like a robot - boringly predictable. Very good at what he did, which is nice (for him). I've seen reviews of Alasdair Fotheringham's book and they criticise it because he really doesn't tell you any more than the little you knew about him already.

I'm pretty much the exact opposite here - loved seeing Indurain and Armstrong destroy the opposition, not so interested in journalists feigning a scandal about what was an open secret to anyone who knew anything about cycle racing, and no interest whatsoever in their private lives.

Someone gifted me Lance's book and I found it a very trying read - equally as dull and farcical as watching James Joyce climb the Galibier.

beezus fufoon wrote:

James Joyce climb the Galibier.

Yeah, if Indurain could stream-of-consciousness his way up Ventoux he might have grabbed me a bit. Kelly, Pantani, Lemond... Rock stars. Mig... Dalek.

davel wrote:

Mig... Dalek.

But Daleks are kinda cool aren't they, with all that exterminating and whatnot?

missionsystem wrote:

davel wrote:

Mig... Dalek.

But Daleks are kinda cool aren't they, with all that exterminating and whatnot?

I need to rethink that... Mig... Speak & Spell. Or is that retro cool... I give up.

Simon E wrote:

davel wrote:

I'm fascinated by him - for pretty much exactly the reasons Kadinkski states, and I haven't read half the books you have about him. How can you have spent so much time reading about him and then say you are, and weren't, interested?

We don't have to like / be fascinated by the same things and I'm not criticising anyone for being fascinated by him or wanting to listen to his podcast etc.

I never liked him but he dominated the cycling media so we all read more than enough about him without trying. I read his book years ago, possibly around the time when gullible types wore those yellow wristbands, but before I really knew it was a lie. I tried Hamilton's book hoping it wasn't all about LA (it wasn't) but it left me feeling that I had to endure the big one, 7 Deadly Sins. That really did it for me, it cemented the idea that he was a nasty piece of work. I have no time for people like that. I don't care if he finds God, the cure for cancer or anything, he genuinely does not interest me.

About Indurain: I skipped much of the 1990s as I had no TV and was far more interested in motorbikes. Yes, he's like a robot - boringly predictable. Very good at what he did, which is nice (for him). I've seen reviews of Alasdair Fotheringham's book and they criticise it because he really doesn't tell you any more than the little you knew about him already.

Yeah, I think I get the sentiment, and I feel it, and I wish I didn't.... But that is interest, no? Even if watching the Oprah thing makes you feel dirty - it's still an emotion?

Indurain, on the other hand, just drains my life, or reverses evolution, there is something so unhealthily boring about him. Just typing his name turns me that bit more plant-like. We should have an Indurain thread where I turn into moss. Be more interesting than most of the nonsense I type.

EM69 wrote:

I Could, I repeat 'could' forgive Lance for a lot of things but not the way he treated people, LeMond, Andreu, Bassons etc...

Ah, this old chestnut. The idea that NO-ONE else in the entire history of cycling ever ruined a career, forced a rider to take drugs, knew about systematic doping, covered up systematic doping, ran some sort of doping programme or enabled others to run one.

Bassons himself is on record as saying it wasn't Lance (or at least, not solely Lance) that forced him out of the sport.

The guy is sociopathic but he was also very very good - in an era where most of the peloton were doping (and the associated support network of team managers, soigneurs, sponsors either directly allowed it or turned a blind eye to it) he was exactly what the TdF needed at the time to move on from the previous doping scandals (oh the irony!!).

Festina affair, Bjarne Riis (oh that dude who's still managing a team...). It was all going on way before Lance and co arrived on scene.

[From Wikipedia]Of the cyclists who finished on the podium in the era in which Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France seven times (1999–2005), Fernando Escartín is the sole rider not to be implicated in a doping scandal. With 20 of the 21 podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold, Escartin's third-place finish in the 1999 Tour de France stands as the lone of the 21 podium finishes that was untainted, during the years (1999–2005) in which Lance Armstrong finished the Tour de France in first place.[/wiki]

And at least he's not defending a kiddy fiddler. I found his comment mildly amusing, he's actually got a decent sense of humour if you listen to his podcasts. He's chilled out a bit now.

crazy-legs wrote:

EM69 wrote:

I Could, I repeat 'could' forgive Lance for a lot of things but not the way he treated people, LeMond, Andreu, Bassons etc...

Ah, this old chestnut. The idea that NO-ONE else in the entire history of cycling ever ruined a career, forced a rider to take drugs, knew about systematic doping, covered up systematic doping, ran some sort of doping programme or enabled others to run one.

Ah, that old chestnut: the binary strawman.

I agree with everything you say beyond that point, but during hours of Lance debates, I have literally NEVER seen anyone use the argument that it was all Lance and nobody else was up to anything.

I know this is the internet, but it is possible to think that Walsh is a bit of a prick who did right by hounding Lance, and Lance was a scapegoat massive shit in a world of other massive shits, but also possibly good craic for an afternoon on the beer.

In October in Manchester, it's easy to see the world as shades of grey.

crazy-legs wrote:

One cheated at some bike racing.
The other wrote a public letter of support for a convicted paedophile.

I'm with Lance on this one.

The article here says the letter was written for an old mate BEFORE he'd admitted to the fiddling.

Also you missed the bit about wrecking careers and being the centre of dragging bike racing through the shit for a racing generation.

I'd still rather have a beer with Lance, though, even than Walsh, but there's still massive denial about the shit he caused.

davel wrote:

The article here says the letter was written for an old mate BEFORE he'd admitted to the fiddling.

This article says that, but I didn't read that in any of the linked articles from the Irish newspapers.

Walsh released a statement defending his reference and he certainly didn't mention that he wrote it before the kiddy-fiddling. I would have expected him to say that if it was true. In fact his statement implies that he wrote the reference despite the wrong-doing...

"I wrote a personal character reference for Tom because we have been friends for 30 years and, despite the serious wrong he has done, I could not abandon him."

Kadinkski wrote:

davel wrote:

The article here says the letter was written for an old mate BEFORE he'd admitted to the fiddling.

This article says that, but I didn't read that in any of the linked articles from the Irish newspapers.

Walsh released a statement defending his reference and he certainly didn't mention that he wrote it before the kiddy-fiddling. I would have expected him to say that if it was true. In fact his statement implies that he wrote the reference despite the wrong-doing...

"I wrote a personal character reference for Tom because we have been friends for 30 years and, despite the serious wrong he has done, I could not abandon him."

Fair point.

I think the idea of realising a mate you've known for 30 years has been kiddie fiddling is so horrible I'm not even going to pretend to know how I'd react, even to impress some random bits of text on a Web forum.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Read what I put Don Simon. 

Mate turned nonce obviously refers to Walsh's mate, not Walsh being the nonce. 

I'd still rather knock around with Lance as a mate than a kiddy fiddler. One is all's fair in love and war and other is just a sick pervert. Shame on Walsh giving character references to the lowest of the low. 

Quote:

Still rather knock around with Lance than a NONCE!!

Would you seriously stick up for a mate turned nonce?

Yep, you said that you'd rather go for a beer with a twat than a nonce.

The article is clearly about Armstrong and Walsh and the reference is that Walsh is a nonce. The refence is either clear or your English is poor.

The question is direct to me and refers to a mate of mine who had turned nonce.

Again, poor English, but still quite clear.

The second point is whether I care enough about what you say to engage in conversation.

I don't, but thought that I could assist you in your English.

How many of your mates are nonces? Remember he wrote the character reference before matey boy was oiuted as a nonce.

Which pitchfork for internet frothing?

gwhilts wrote:

So, Walsh stuck up for a friend who turned out to be a bad guy? That's quite a bit different than destroying the lives of various good people to keep your little doping mafia going.

Yup, as you say,  quite a bit different. One  sexually abused  a minor, the other verbally abused some adults.

IanMunro wrote:

gwhilts wrote:

So, Walsh stuck up for a friend who turned out to be a bad guy? That's quite a bit different than destroying the lives of various good people to keep your little doping mafia going.

Yup, as you say,  quite a bit different. One  sexually abused  a minor, the other verbally abused some adults.

Oooh, nice try, almost, but the mistake you made was assuming it was Walsh who was done for the fiddling. Easy to do - you just need to read all the words next time, maybe including in the post you reply to.

Carry on!