Lance Armstrong interviews Alex Honnold about Free Solo

Daniel Joder wrote: As both a cyclist and climber, this was interesting to see:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvsBz7hbIj8

I haven't seen anyone post it up yet. Maybe I missed it?

It's actually pretty good, though Lance talked over Alex a little too much IMO.

I just hit the forward arrow every time lance started talking.
it was the best honnold interview i've seen yet !

J Squared, that was sort of the idea of posting the link to the interview. I, too, heard things from Alex I hadn’t heard in other interviews. I guess it is to be expected that Lance as the interviewer would prompt an excursion into his “ legacy”. 

Skye Swoboda-Colberg wrote:

Cancer isn't funny, but lets not forget his cancer was caused by his doping.

Healyje wrote: Alex needs a new publicist...

Are you saying that nutjob cyclist didn’t do a good job?

Lance is an icon, legend and an amazing athlete.   He also lied and treated people like shit.  People are not black and white - especially our "heroes".
Lance is not a great interviewer,  but it was a good conversation nevertheless. 

Scott and Sara wrote: Lance is an icon, legend and an amazing athlete.   He also lied and treated people like shit.  People are not black and white - especially our "heroes".
Lance is not a great interviewer,  but it was a good conversation nevertheless. 

Bro, my parents have joint internet accounts.

Tradiban wrote:

Bro, my parents have joint internet accounts.

Lol

I mean, it wasn't just a little EPO and a lot of bullying (purported ruining people's careers). He also defrauded the US Government. Oh and he also used his cancer foundation to shield himself from criticism of doing all the rest. Were there 100+ other cyclists in the peleton doing that, too?

I'm very sorry, but it's hard to come to a different conclusion than a negative one when it comes to this individual.

l.a. seems like an extremely bad dude, and little bits of it crop up in the interview, still a good listen tho.  honnold is a total pro.  t.f.p.u!

Long Ranger wrote: I mean, it wasn't just a little EPO and a lot of bullying (purported ruining people's careers). He also defrauded the US Government. Oh and he also used his cancer foundation to shield himself from criticism of doing all the rest. Were there 100+ other cyclists in the peleton doing that, too?

I'm very sorry, but it's hard to come to a different conclusion than a negative one when it comes to this individual.

I'm sorry, but when I read posts like this, it make me believe that some people simply want to demonize him at all costs.  I could write a few paragraphs about the hypocrisy of singling out Lance when, as someone else noted upthread, he was one of 150 guys in a peloton all doping.  Or how other professional sports and athletes routinely dope while both the sports media and sporting public very gladly looked the other way, etc.  However, the claim that he defrauded the U.S. government is a ridiculous claim.  That case was brought by a particularly zealous U.S. attorney who seemed to me more interested in making a name for himself than in the merits of the case.  Hard to argue that the U.S. Postal Service was defrauded by its sponsorship of his team when it was absolutely terrific publicity from which they benefited greatly.  In addition, with respect to the cancer charity, the dude had cancer! He's probably done more for cancer awareness than anyone other individual in the past 20 yrs.  He visited sick kids in the hospital when cameras weren't around.  Sorry, but to say that he used all that as a shell to hide his doping is asinine.  To me, that claim is just representative of how some people go above and beyond to justify their dislike of someone they don't know and whose actions never affected them.  

Skye Swoboda-Colberg wrote:

It's certainly controversial, this theory was suggested in a documentary called "Stop at Nothing."

https://cei.org/content/lance-armstrongs-self-inflicted-cancer
https://abcnews.go.com/US/oprah-winfrey-describes-intense-lance-armstrong-interview/story?id=18217400

It's not controversial, though.  Did you read either of those articles?  The first one basically says Betsy Andreus heard Lance tell a doctor he took steroids and some other PEDs (which we now know is true).  It then asks whether these could have caused his cancer before concluding "Further, no published studies link the other performance enhancing drugs mentioned by Swift – that is, testosterone, cortisone, human growth hormone, and EPO – with testicular cancer. Exogenous testosterone may increase the risk of prostate cancer in older men and growth hormone has been associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer in patients with acromegaly, but none of these associations supports Swift’s supposition about Armstrong.
The fact is that no one knows what causes testicular cancer."

Saying that a person who took PEDs and got cancer (in a relatively short window, mind you) got the cancer because of the PEDs is ridiculous, wild speculation with no actual scientific basis.

Long Ranger wrote: I mean, it wasn't just a little EPO and a lot of bullying (purported ruining people's careers). He also defrauded the US Government. Oh and he also used his cancer foundation to shield himself from criticism of doing all the rest. Were there 100+ other cyclists in the peleton doing that, too?

I'm very sorry, but it's hard to come to a different conclusion than a negative one when it comes to this individual.

1. Defrauded the US government?  I think that's a bit silly.  Sure, maybe one could argue that he lied to the postal service, but the postal service got every bit of sponsorship value they signed up for and then some.  Saying he defrauded the US government makes it sound way worse than it actually was.  It's worth noting that even the postal service didn't claim that they received less sponsorship value than what they paid for.  They agreed that was true.  Their argument was that they received less value than they would have had Armstrong not been doping.  That was the central disagreement in the lawsuit, and it is what a judge or jury would have eventually decided on had it gone to trial.  If you pay me $20 million to be your sponsored athlete, and I return $40 million in advertising value to you, do you have a case against me if I did something in breach of our contract that would have otherwise allowed you to receive $60 million in value?  I'm sure everyone has their own opinion on that, but that is what was in question here.

2. Whatever bad thing you think about Lance, Livestrong did more good than he did harm.  The fact that he enjoyed advantages like a good reputation from it is irrelevant to the moral assessment of him on the whole.  Seriously, no amount of his cheating in cycling is bad enough to outdo the good done by Livestrong.  I understand not liking the guy because he is a jacka$$.  I understand disliking him as a cycling because of the drugs, although I disagree.  But I do not understand coming to this conclusion that the harm he did outweighs the good he did.

Carolina wrote:

Are you saying that nutjob cyclist didn’t do a good job?

I'm saying it's a poor choice for his media portfolio.

Hypothetical:
If Alex had used PEDs in his solo of Freerider would it still be the same accomplishment or less?
On that note, what do you think how many climbers will fail drug test at the Olimpics?

Fehim Hasecic wrote: Hypothetical:
If Alex had used PEDs in his solo of Freerider would it still be the same accomplishment or less?

A free solo of Freerider by any means is not involving aid is fair game - clean, PEDs, straight, grass, acid, mushrooms, meth, speed, valium, ativan, etc - if it works for you go for it by all means. Such details are irrelevant and optional, topping out is not.

Healyje wrote:

A free solo of Freerider by any means is not involving aid is fair game - clean, PEDs, straight, grass, acid, mushrooms, meth, speed, valium, ativan, etc - if it works for you go for it by all means. Such details are irrelevant and optional, topping out is not.

So doping in cycling is bad, climbing not?

Never could quite understand why weed is considered a PED.

That snowboarder should have gotten a gold medal with green clusters on it.

I say do all the drugs you can get as long as I'm entertained by the accomplishments.

"Cheating" is relative. I would simply laugh my ass off if it was discovered that Honnold was using PEDs and then continue about my day.

Fehim Hasecic wrote:

So doping in cycling is bad, climbing not?

Free soloing Freerider isn't a performance sport, it's an extinction event with survival the only imperative.

If you get up a hard trad climb clean I couldn't give a fuck what you consumed to do it.

Climbing in the Olympics? It's such an obnoxiously bad idea to begin with I couldn't care less about the PEDs aspect.

Fehim Hasecic wrote:

So doping in cycling is bad, climbing not?

One is participation in an organized sport with rules, the other is not.