Wrongly. Why can't you ever seem to see that the answer to this is wrongly? What exactly does a person have to do, how badly do they have to act before you start to think that maybe associating with them is a bad idea?



I withdraw the question.

i have two questions for you:

1. spend 5 minutes googling and reading about michael milken, and what he's meant to prostate cancer. ask yourself whether you think prostate cancer research is better off with or without his help. ask yourself if it's more dignified that we simply die of prostate cancer because we will at least be able to hold our heads up high in the knowledge we didn't accept the help of someone who cheated and broke the law like milken did. ask yourself whether it's possible for someone like milken to resurrect himself post-prison; whether he could ever be a candidate for redemption; whether it's possible to accept anything of value from milken after the laws he broke and the damage he did prior to prison.

2. then ask yourself all those same questions about lance, but realize that if you say no, lance is a different animal, it's not a fair comparison, everybody felt the same, said the same things, about milken before the last 25 years of milken's life.

you might say that it's not a fair comparison because milken didn't go right back into high finance, leverage buyouts, etc. i don't think lance should step right back into pro cycling and triathlon, either, whether as an athlete, a team owner, what have you.

you and i might simply have a difference of opinion about this. okay. but after my own prostate cancer scare last year i found that i can be very unsympathetic toward the very kind of finance milken was involved in, and very f*&king happy milken chose to inject himself into prostate cancer research (beyond the other philanthropy stuff he does).

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

You keep setting up these absurd equivalencies, (and yes, that's even setting aside putting the Pope and Charles Manson in the same sentence.)

Millken got jail time and paid hundreds of millions for what amounts to reporting violations that made him a lot of money. He wasn't a racketeer. He didn't ruin lives. His crimes were financial and he paid back in spades. More importantly, he was just greedy. He didn't set out to destroy people. I don't recall a litany of people he ruined calling him out ever after. Even Madoff can't say that. In cycling terms, Millken was like a doper who got caught and served his time.

But here's the thing: Even with me not thinking Milliken's not that bad, I still don't want Michael Milliken on my cancer poster, no matter how much money he donates. Not even if I have that Cancer. If he wants to buy himself good PR (or a conscience), let him but he's the wrong person to have in an ad-campaign.

And Lance is the wrong person to have as your sports ambassador. It appalls me that people like you continue to give this guy the attention he so craves.

I know you think you have some sort of nuanced view of him and "understand" him. I think you give yourself too much credit. And him too. He doesn't require nuance to understand.

As for his regret now, isn't it funny how nobody ever gets religion until they have no other choice?

"You keep setting up these absurd equivalencies"

absurd to you. not to me.

"Millken got jail time"

i don't mean to minimize what armstrong did. but look at what you wrote. he got jail time. that's how serious his behavior was. in my experience, if you are white and male and you have money i find that you really have to work hard at it to get jail time.

"and paid hundreds of millions for what amounts to reporting violations that made him a lot of money."

reporting violations? i'll make you a deal. i won't disparage you as a "milken apologist" if you don't disparage me as an armstrong apologist.

"He wasn't a racketeer."

that is precisely what he was, according to the indictments against him. he pled guilty to other charges and spent time in jail so he wouldn't have to face racketeering charges. was accused of racketeering, insider trading, fraud, and a number of other offenses. he is not officially a racketeer because he made a deal that sent him to jail.

"He didn't ruin lives. His crimes were financial and he paid back in spades."

financial crimes don't ruin lives? okay.

"He didn't set out to destroy people."

neither did armstrong. they both set out simply to win. a lot of people were hurt by both. it's absolutely absurd to argue, as it appears you are, that milken perpetrated victimless crimes. for every winner on a stock trade there is a loser.

"I still don't want Michael Milliken on my cancer poster, no matter how much money he donates."

but you'll still take the donated money, won't you? and whatever else he brings, and what he has brought is plenty, specifically an entirely new approach to how prostate cancer is researched. unlike you i'm not trying to paper over what milken did. i recognize exactly how bad he was, and i recognize and accept and invite and am glad for exactly how good milken now is.

nor am i papering over armstrong. i know exactly how bad he was. is there a redemption and corresponding good sitting out there for armstrong? i'm not willing to foreclose on the possibility.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I think you're missing the point I was trying to make about Millken. I wouldn't want Millken on my poster even if he were not the bad guy Armstrong is. So I sure as hell don't want Armstrong.


No, just the money. And not if I had to put him on the poster. Fortunately with Milliken, I don't get the impression I'd have to make that choice.


Of course Armstrong set out to destroy people. Anyone anyone who dared call him out. You think all that other stuff happened by accident? And yes, I believe you know how bad he was. That's why your decision to give him attention he craves even now, after all those years of horrible behavior is so depressing. The sport doesn't need him. Certainly not at that price.


Why at this point should anyone care about Lance Armstrong's "redemption"? Has he not thoroughly and methodically forfeited the right to have anyone care about him and his "regret." What does it take?

A few posts ago, I asked you this. I asked what your limits were. How many years of lying and cheating and suing and intimidating by him does it take for you to actually have some kind of standards and not grant him the attention he's seeking.

But I knew the answer then, having read your next sentence. There is no limit for you. So I withdrew the question. (I just wanted to show my work. Somebody needed to ask it. )

You call it "nuance". I'd would call it something far less complimentary. But then I think you'd ban me.

Dude, seriously...fuck off. Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with your political position, we're here to talk about this interview and LA's current standing in the endurance sports world/general society...a topic I was genuinely interested in, but I can't even make it past page 5 now because I'm so annoyed with posts like this. Using fun partisan buzzwords like "snowflake" doesn't make your point any more strongly, you just sound like a condescending asshole. At this point I would rather carry LA on my back for the last 10 miles of an IM marathon than read one more word that you type. Please go away.

Am I the only one whole watches interviews with him and regardless of how you feel about him, would simply like to sit down with him, drink a beer and shoot the shit for a bit??

---

_________________________________________________
When all is said and done. More is usually said than done
Ba Ba Booey

Yep, thanks for posting what a snowflake sounds like. :)

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Nope, will join you

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

"I think you're missing the point I was trying to make about Millken. I wouldn't want Millken on my poster even if he were not the bad guy Armstrong is. So I sure as hell don't want Armstrong."

i got your point. and i responded that it's not about posters. you'd still take his money. the cancer community was not ethically challenged by letting milken get in there and lend a hand, correct? researchers were okay accepting his money, yes? the employees helping him decide which research to fund were not ethically challenged, were they? i think we agree on this.

"That's why your decision to give him attention he craves even now, after all those years of horrible behavior is so depressing."

there are two differences between you and me. the first difference: i don't need to minimize the sins of someone whose help i'm willing to accept (milken). and i don't question your integrity. every post of yours has a little dig, like this one above. this is a hallmark of people who just disagree with me on this: the little dig.

"Why at this point should anyone care about Lance Armstrong's "redemption"?"

go find the hardest core christian you know. not the sunday christian, but the guy who goes down deep and stays down long. ask him whether the thinks redemption is anything to care about. ask the sober guy who used to be a falldown drunk whether redemption is of any importance. ask michael milken whether redemption was important in his life.

redemption is something you either value or you don't. i value it. and if you ever do cheat on your wife, or hit your wife, or become an addict, or get into serious legal or financial trouble, we'll talk about how little redemption matters when you come out the other side of it... after you've been on the receiving end of it if you are so lucky as to find people around you who value redemption.

"How many years of lying and cheating and suing and intimidating by him does it take for you to actually have some kind of standards and not grant him the attention he's seeking."

there is no limit. it only matters where you are now, today.

let's take somebody really abhorrent. how about denny hastert? here's a really talented guy who was also a pretty depraved guy. let's say he emerges from prison and he wants to put his talents to good use. i'm all in. i'm not a member of his party, i hate his politics, but i would receive him with open arms. what i would not do is make him a boy scout troop leader. around this is where your discussion with me should center: exactly what should and shouldn't lance armstrong be allowed to do, assuming he's a candidate for redemption?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Sure I'd do it, especially if I could invite a couple of buddies. Do you think there's a chance that LA would want to do that if there wasn't any business deal or opportunity on the table?

I'm pretty sure there are more than two differences between you and me (sorry, I guess that's a dig too). But I never told you you shouldn't accept Milliken's "help". And if Armstrong wants to write you a check few million bucks, you take it with my blessing. Give him all the personal redemption you want. What I object to is your attempts to put him back out there as some positive force for the sport. Enough already

I've watched you "understanding" him and his behavior for years going back to the days when I also used to firmly gave him the benefit of the doubt. I admired your patience then, particularly when it became obvious how bad he really was and you still tried to walk the middle road. But this thread, the whole "I have a nuanced understanding" bit (read: condescend much?) plus "I'll take anybody, Pope or Serial Killer" was just too much.

It isn't your integrity I question on this or any matter. It's your judgement. I can't illustrate it more clearly than this:



On a personal level, I think that's admirable. I'm not a turn-the-other-cheek guy but I can admire it.

In regards to putting him out there for the sport, I think it's appalling. I don't want a "Christian" sport. I want fair one. There must be a Rubicon somewhere at some point or no rule can ever have any real meaning.

We're not getting anywhere. Nobody is convincing anybody and I'm getting snippier than usual. So I'm tapping out. Last reply is all yours.

Hit me. I can take it and keep my mouth shut. I think...

The pathological haters like to revel in their hate. They really are stuck on a handful of people coming out worse for wear after deliberately picking a fight with Lance. Those wailing about Betsy and Greg do not seem to have a problem with Betsy and Greg manufacturing rumors about Lance using a motor, and this long after Lance gave up feuding with them.

LOL....this coming for the biggest pathological hater in the "Hate Betsy / Lemond" camp.

Good work, College....keep it up!!

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Was surprised at his answer. Surprises that he admitted to being a Asshole and vindictive towards people. LA just gained a little respect from me.

---

__________________________________________________
Official Polar Ambassador
http://www.google.com/...P7RiWyEVwpunlsc2JtQQ

Do you realize that trump is an insecure narcissist? All he does is whine about everything. Is that why you resonate so well with his message?

Good interview, Dan!

Hah! It's always fun waiting to see how long it takes for the "Betsy's a (rhymes with witch)!" comment from Arch any time there's an LA thread.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

Did you see the link to LA's podcast series on the main site?

http://www.slowtwitch.com/...s_A_Review_6181.html

As I posted in the Comments, I didn't start with any of the podcasts listed above, I started with the Tim Commerford one [Episode 5: Jul 18, 2016]

It was recorded just after the attacks in Nice on Bastille day, which LA talks about in his monologue before the chat with Timmy C kicks in

It was an entertaining episode, with politics & music [Rage Against the Machine/Prophets of Rage] mixed with friendly cyclist trash-talking. At one point, they're joking about a header Lance took on some MTB trail near Malibu, and Commerford says "You know the spot where you crashed and you were bleeding? Well, there are oak trees there now, and plants growing that are NOT indigenous to that area ... I'm just sayin'"

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Well there is no accounting for bad taste and nationalism. If he was European he would not be considered redeemable in the US.

This was pretty fascinating, and I listened all the way through. I am with you, my feelings are pretty nuanced, not straightforward, not cut and dried, and often swinging wildly between love and hate.

Thank you for doing the interview, and thank you for sharing it here.

-Eric