Lance Armstrong interviews Alex Honnold about Free Solo

Zack Robinson wrote:

1. Defrauded the US government?  I think that's a bit silly.

Silly or not, the Federal Government was one of the entities that filed the lawsuit against him. You want to deny that?

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.

It's a reality distrotion field brought upon by years upon years of expensive PR and damage control, orchestrated by a sociopath to feed a career of a professional sports super star. This isn't a selfless common man. He himself doesn't seem to (still!) understand this. He lives (still!) a life of extreme privilege.

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.

It was based on pathological lying, bad sportsmanship, bullying, cheating in sport... I can go on. Is that any sort of person to run a... well what is the Livestrong Foundation? Not cancer research. If he was so integral with what Livestrong is, why was Armstrong forced off? 

I'm sorry but first it's impossible to answer the question of, "did he do more harm than good", because we can't rewind history and play it back. And secondly, I find taking the stance of Utilitarianism (philisophically speaking) troubling - especially in this case, where what we're seeing is a blatant amount of Egoism. Remember when Armstrong thought he could like, just "come back" and win another TdF? This dude is not living in any reality, and anything he says is clearly not grounded in it.

Fat Dad wrote:

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.  

I think of the people who are in hospital beds, dying of cancer who realized all that inspiration was all built on lies. This guy did what he did, first and foremost, to become rich and influential. 

And that kinda breaks my heart. 

Next, let's talk about those pink ribbons!

Long Ranger wrote:
It's a reality distrotion field brought upon by years upon years of expensive PR and damage control, orchestrated by a sociopath to feed a career of a professional sports super star. This isn't a selfless common man. He himself doesn't seem to (still!) understand this. He lives (still!) a life of extreme privilege.

It was based on pathological lying, bad sportsmanship, bullying, cheating in sport... I can go on. 

Wow.  Your mask is slipping. Like I said, some people just have a hate on for Armstrong.  No one is saying he's an angel.  But it's just remarkable to me how people will make up their own facts and conclusions to try to justify their unhealthy hatred for the guy.  

Fat Dad wrote:

But it's just remarkable to me how people will make up their own facts and conclusions to try to justify their unhealthy hatred for the guy.  

If there's specifics you would like to contest, I'm happy to, but we can't just shout at each other that we're wrong.

Zack Robinson wrote:

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

How about comps? That’s organized sport , doping ok there?

Fehim Hasecic wrote:

How about comps? That’s organized sport , doping ok there?

do you think janje garnbret is doping?

how does she win almost every time?

all the strength in the world doesn't mean anything if you can't work out the beta for your bodytype.

climbing is pretty unique in that it's not simply "how well can you operate this external mechanical apparatus"

Long Ranger wrote: Silly or not, the Federal Government was one of the entities that filed the lawsuit against him. You want to deny that?

It's a reality distrotion field brought upon by years upon years of expensive PR and damage control, orchestrated by a sociopath to feed a career of a professional sports super star. This isn't a selfless common man. He himself doesn't seem to (still!) understand this. He lives (still!) a life of extreme privilege.

It was based on pathological lying, bad sportsmanship, bullying, cheating in sport... I can go on. Is that any sort of person to run a... well what is the Livestrong Foundation? Not cancer research. If he was so integral with what Livestrong is, why was Armstrong forced off? 

I'm sorry but first it's impossible to answer the question of, "did he do more harm than good", because we can't rewind history and play it back. And secondly, I find taking the stance of Utilitarianism (philisophically speaking) troubling - especially in this case, where what we're seeing is a blatant amount of Egoism. Remember when Armstrong thought he could like, just "come back" and win another TdF? This dude is not living in any reality, and anything he says is clearly not grounded in it.

Of course I'm not denying that the federal government was suing him.  I said that in my last post.  But saying he defrauded the government makes is sound far worse than it was, and the truthfulness of that was never actually settled at trial.  It's worth noting that the settlement was for $5 million when he was being sued for $100 million.

You and I disagree about utilitarianism.  I think we have a basic moral objective to maximize some form of happiness and minimize suffering or something similar.  If a person does a lot of good via suspect methods, so long as those suspect methods don't outweigh the good that was done, the situation as a whole was a good thing.  Pointing to his personality traits (which I have never defended -- I said he was a jackass) doesn't really have anything to do with whether he produced more good than harm.

Steve Jobs was fired from Apple once.  Does that mean Steve Jobs wasn't really that vital to Apple existing and becoming what it is?

J Squared wrote:

do you think janje garnbret is doping?

my gf hypothothized she is.  something about watching a 30-for-30 where the doping runners all got braces and then watching a comp the next day with the competitor on top of the podium in bouldering and lead was wearing braces.  i suppose they test for the world cup podium athletes though eh?  i would imagine especially with the added scrutiny of the olympics testing would be going off for all of the top competitors.  

Lance Armstrong is a cheater  

Fehim Hasecic wrote:

How about comps? That’s organized sport , doping ok there?

Are there rules against doping in the comp?  If so, no.

Hey Daniel...Thanks for the link. That interview was awesome. Much more in depth then at the Free Solo screening with Alex answering questions.
Didn't seem at all that Lance talks over Alex. The interview felt like a conversation between two elite athletes and offered some great insights.
Doping caused Lance's cancer....NOT!

Healyje wrote:

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

Precisely, tainted by association springs to mind.

BillS wrote:  but at the same time Lance is a 7 time world champion and aging veteran of an insane life in the limelight - and thus the greatest athlete I've seen interview Alex.  

Minor nitpick - they've been taken back, but Lance Armstrong won the overall leader's jersey of the Tour de France seven times. He did win the World Championships in Road Cycling once, which he kept, even after his doping allegations (the won preceded any doping allegations or investigation). They never re-awarded those yellow jerseys to anyone else, 'cause yup: doping was kind of a big problem, and it's sorta like - well who *really* gets this thing?

Wearing the rainbow colors as World Champion is pretty cool, but it's sort of funny to find out just how many of them are given away each year. Lots of different cycling disciplines, lots of age groups.  I bet in my age group with a little (more, and focused) training, I could be the WC in... I dunno: something.

The Tour de France is a bit more of a politicized race - it's got unwritten rules, and clearly isn't meant to be won by just anyone who enters it. It's not really about the greatest athlete - teams and sponsorship play an important role - more so during and post Armstrong-era. It's sort of a big turnoff, really, unless you're into spectacle (and nothing against spectacle). 

Agree with you about the insane life in the limelight: brushed elbows with Presidents, dated rock stars, a controversy here and there   

Pretty solid interview for both parties.  Very entertaining.

He sizes down from 46.5 to 41? Yowzers

JaredG wrote: He sizes down from 46.5 to 41? Yowzers

Proof that tight shoes work!

TBH this felt like a pretty standard AH interview.  I thought Rogan talked over Alex more than Lance did.  Kind of funny how afraid of heights he is, though.

If I remember the situation correctly, the "everyone else was doing it too" narrative fell apart when it was pointed out that Lance was effectively green-lighted by the regulating authority to dope/cheat, whereas his competitors were required to try and sneak it in.  In other words, it was an uneven playing field despite the fact that everyone was doping/cheating to some degree or another, and this is what people took issue with.

To put it another way, the negative reaction regarding Lance had little or nothing to do with PED's, and everything to do with the 'competition' being rigged.

If everyone had been doping equally, there would have been no rational reason to take the jerseys away, and given everyone had been doping unequally, there was no way to determine who had truly won any of those races.

BillS wrote:

The TDF is this planet's premier bicycle race.

It's a BIG race, and at times, an interesting race (Sky has made it kinda boring, you know?). But it's just personal preference if it's the most important race, and your opinion is fine with me. Just looking at road cycling, there are people who prefer instead the Spring Classics. To each their own - 

... to bring it back to climbing, can we point to the most important climb ever done? Obviously that's a silly question and we should all enjoy our nonsensical online banter while it rains out there.