Australian Politics Forum

http://aww.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8595668

I don't think so.
All that it proved is what we already knew.

Lance Armstrong is a champion.
He won.

Only thing I would have preferred, had he came out swinging not apologising.

Good on you Lancie.

What do those jerseys mean now? They mean that he won them because he had the best doping regime, and not much else.

He should (and probably will) face charges of perjury.
However, I doubt that just saying that this is "as if you are in a court of law" will be good enough for a full conviction.

Quote:

The sitting, which was filmed, began with Tillotson asking Armstrong: ''You understand that although we're in the conference room of your lawyers, you are giving testimony as if you are in a court of law? Do you understand that?''

Armstrong replied: ''Correct.''

Tillotson then said: ''And the penalties of perjury attach to this deposition just like they would to a court of law proceeding.''

To which Armstrong replied: ''Of course.''

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/armstrong-denial-may-constitute-perjury-20121015-27n56.html

The man lost his testicles fer crying out loud - let him have the jerseys as a small consolation.

He probably had them removed for an aerodynamic advantage ;D

Anyway, I'll post on the other thread since there was already one going in the "General" section ::)

Amadd wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 9:19pm:

http://aww.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8595668

I don't think so.
All that it proved is what we already knew.

The most troubling thing is those people who see nothing wrong in what Armstrong did.....It is as though being honest is no longer considered important???

>:( >:( >:(

like so many others, he could have been a champion ... and went out just another cheating looser.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 10:57pm:

Lance Armstrong is a champion.
He won.

Only thing I would have preferred, had he came out swinging not apologising.

Good on you Lancie.

you sooks

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 20^th, 2013 at 9:17am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 10:57pm:

Lance Armstrong is a champion.
He won.

Only thing I would have preferred, had he came out swinging not apologising.

Good on you Lancie.

you sooks

The only one crying is Lance baby.....I thought he was a cheat years ago and have no sympathy for the liar!!!

:'( :'( :'(

those are tears of laughter rolling down his cheeks.

Quote:

those are tears of laughter rolling down his cheeks.

At those who he had sucked in no doubt ;D

Lance is a competitor. He competed and he won.
That is what competitive games are all about, that's why i dislike them.

He took the eurpeans on at their own game and won.

[quote]LANCE Armstrong may have been branded liar and cheat of the month, but experts say he's not as different from the rest of us as we'd like to believe.
Lying, they say, is part of the human condition, something most people do every day. And that's reflected in the cavalcade of celebrities cowed into confession after their deceptions were exposed - from Richard Nixon's denial of the Watergate break-in to Bill Clinton's denial of an affair with an intern, from drug-abusing baseball players to fraudulent Wall Street executives.

“The world is rife with great liars,” says Robert Feldman, a professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, who studies lying and deception.

“Nothing about the Lance Armstrong case is shocking. We all lie every day. We live in a culture where lying is quite acceptable.”

.The husband who says he is working late when he is having an affair. The worker who takes long-term disability for a serious injury, only to be found puttering around the golf course. The guy who says his car broke down because he is late for work. The dog who ate your homework.

People lie to protect their self-image, Professor Feldman says.

“Once they've told a lie, they are in it, they live in it, and they justify hurting others to protect the lie because they don't see any way out.”

People who live with deception at the level of Lance Armstrong have what Professor Feldman calls the “liar's advantage” because they are telling us what we want to believe.

“We want to believe Lance Armstrong was a great superhero who overcame cancer and went on to win Tour de France after Tour de France,” Professor Feldman says.

“We always want to believe in the great comeback story.”

Armstrong, he says, was unusually energetic in trying to silence the opposition and damage his critics - a trait that, in the end, might be viewed as less forgivable than his lying.

“Lying is extraordinarily common and we couldn't get along without it,” says David Livingstone Smith, a professor of philosophy at the University of New England in Maine.”

“It greases the wheels of society.”

Smith says lying is “as automatic and unconscious as sweating.”

Dan Ariely, professor of psychology and behavioural economics at Duke University has spent years studying why people cheat. He is the author of a book, The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone, Especially Ourselves.”

People basically try to do two things at the same time, Professor Ariely says. “On one hand, we want to be able to look in the mirror and feel good about ourselves. So we don't want to cheat. On the other hand, we can cheat a little bit, and still feel good about ourselves.”

He doesn't judge Lance Armstrong as being any different - or worse - than the rest of us. He cheated in a bigger way because the stakes were higher, and the system allowed him to do so. All cheaters, whether big or small, have a huge ability to rationalise their actions as they manipulate the system, Professor Ariely says.

“They say, 'Everyone one else was doing it' or 'It was for a good cause.”'

In Armstrong's case, Professor Ariely says, the fact that he had survived cancer and won the Tour de France multiple times and become an international role model gave him a huge incentive to justify his cheating and perhaps even believe that it actually helped him in his good works.Most people start off lying or cheating in a small way, Professor Ariely says, and feel nervous about their deception at first, a feeling that dissipates the more they continue.

“Ordinary people can become extraordinary liars,” says Bella DePaulo, visiting professor at the University of California in Santa Barbara, who studies deception.

In the 1990s, Professor DePaulo and her colleagues monitored more than 100 people between the ages of 18 and 71 who kept a diary of all the lies they told over the course of a week. Most people, she found, lie once or twice a day.........[\quote]

tbc

Quote:

In the 1990s, Professor DePaulo and her colleagues monitored more than 100 people between the ages of 18 and 71 who kept a diary of all the lies they told over the course of a week. Most people, she found, lie once or twice a day.

“Everything from the little compliment to spare another person's feelings to a self-serving statement that exaggerates their own importance, to trying to get a raise or a better deal on a car,” Professor DePaulo says.

But serious and long-term deception, Professor DePaulo says, requires more planning - and help. She cites the case of journalist Stephen Glass, who fabricated articles for The New Republic in the 1990s, making up characters and quotes and even events. Like other great liars who managed to continue their deception for years, Professor DePaulo says, Glass had enablers - people who wanted to believe he was as talented as he pretended to be.

Liars can only sustain those kinds of deceptions, Professor DePaulo says, if they get others to invest - wittingly or unwittingly - in their lie.

“Your lies are going to have longer legs when people invest in you and look up to you and don't want to hear that you may have been a lying, cheating, scum all along.”

Armstrong, she says, had something else - the power to make life miserable for those who threatened to reveal him.

Although Armstrong's ruthlessness makes his cheating seem more extreme, he can't simply be dismissed as one bad apple, Professor Ariely says. And whether the cyclist will eventually find some kind of redemption is irrelevant.

Professor Ariely believes the only good that can come out of the case is if society uses it to examine standards in everything from sports to business, to create new systems where cheating becomes completely unacceptable and a mea culpa to Oprah is not considered the road to forgiveness.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/lying-lance-armstrong-no-worse-than-the-rest-of-us-say-experts-on-deception/story-e6frg6so-1226558263265

His biggest crime was getting caught?

Let ye who is free from sin cast the first stone?

I'm not, but I haven't ever thought about destroying people's trust like that, let alone making gazillions from it.....so swoosh..donk!

I couldn't give a rat's rosy red ringhole if his cancer comes back through his plastic nuts.
8-)

Lance Armstrong - yet another example of why parents who tout sports men and women to their kids as "role models" should be taken out the back, made to kneel and have their brains dashed out with a cricket bat.

Bin the front bottom for 5 years for perjury.

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2013 at 7:15pm:

Rubbish! 'Parents' do not do that...............the 'Media' does.

>:(

I don't care what anyone says about him...Lance Armstrong is dope.

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Sport >> Did Armstrong redeem himself? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1358507979 Message started by Amadd on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 9:19pm