View Full Version : Cyclopath


tudorose
10-24-12, 05:20 AM
I was reading this article today and wondering about the following comment:

If there’s one piece of good news for Armstrong, it’s that corporate psychopaths can mellow as they get older.

“It can happen,” Chris Golis says. “You do get these people suddenly working hard and becoming benefactors. By the time Lance is 60 I would say yeah, he may able to show some remorse.”

Was wondering if people think this is fact or myth - that psychopaths can 'grow out of it' so to speak.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/cyclopath-the-proof-that-lance-armstrong-has-a-screw-loose/story-e6frg6n6-1226502263030

sarek
10-24-12, 07:42 AM
I do not think we know enough about psychopathy or sociopathy yet to know if its possible to grow out of it.
I know of at least one specimen who reached over 70 years of age without showing even the slightest sign of remorse. He stayed manipulative right up to the moment before his demise.

stef
10-24-12, 08:53 AM
I would really like to believe it could happen! Like in Scrooge...
but who could ever tell if a media personality such as Armstrong is truly remorseful?

Candlewax
10-29-12, 03:53 AM
I highly doubt lance armstrong is a psychopath/sociopath.

sarek
10-29-12, 07:59 AM
I highly doubt lance armstrong is a psychopath/sociopath.

That is true. I totally overlooked that reference as the subject of the thread was diverting into a more generalised discussion as to whether one can outgrow psychopathy.

But its true, we do not know if any of this applies to Armstrong. Most likely it does not.

tudorose
10-29-12, 09:36 AM
Yeah it was more about the notion that psychopaths can grow out of it or whether it's a nonsence claim like it is with adhd.

Candlewax
10-29-12, 10:08 AM
I think in 'without conscience' robert hare says that some psychopaths mellow out when they get older in teh sense that they don't have so much to prove anymore, like they don't have a huge ego anymore, or that they've learnt to deal with life better, but it's also very well possible that they've just gotten better at 'fooling the system' so they just stay off the radar more while not having changed much.

ginniebean
10-29-12, 01:11 PM
Yes, I've heard that it mellowed with age and I think it does. For those who have been extremely malicious this weekend robably means necessary thing, for those who have brain damage az cause, probably not. However, even tho as a culture the aging have abandoned wisdom for face lifts and desperately trying to make sixty themes thirty, there are developmental insights that happen with age.

The lack of insight is most pronounced in the earlier years and as they age, they can and do see how they've foiled themselves. That's my experience. Or maybe that much accumulation of denial is such hard work they can't keep up with it and so that defence mechanism weakens.

Sandy4957
10-29-12, 03:15 PM
I've worked with three sociopaths in my career. Two were young, in their late 20s or 30s. The third was in his 50s. The scariest BY FAR was the 30-something year-old. It's hard to imagine that he could "mellow out" because that was the whole thing. He SEEMED extremely "mellow." He seemed to "get it." He performed beautifully in treatment because he talked the talk so well.

Then he got out and managed to reoffend while living in an extremely strict halfway house and attending aftercare. In a million years, I'd never have seen that coming. It was a hair-on-the-back-of-the-neck-raising experience...

So one concern I'd have about whether a sociopath has "mellowed" is how do you know? The whole problem is that they learn how to "fake" normality. Who's to say that they haven't just become more skillful at that?

Sociopaths are awfully rare. I have no idea whether Armstrong is one or not. But there's quite a contrast between how he portrays himself and the multiple stories that are out there from different colleagues, which (to me, anyway) suggests that the colleagues' versions are true...

ana futura
10-29-12, 04:31 PM
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Armstrong was a sociopath.

hanikamiya
10-29-12, 05:25 PM
I think testosterone plays a role in at least some forms of sociopathic or antisocial disorders. As testosterone levels naturally decrease with age, yes, it might be that the hormonal influence grows so weak that the individual has to learn to deal with life in a different way because their body doesn't support their previous methods any more. Whether they learn to feel regret, remorse, and empathy, that is probably a different issue.

ETA: Removing a person from a position of power may actually help, because apparently having social power raises testosterone levels.

(Also, I'm too lazy to google atm, will do if anybody wants to read the articles I base these thoughts on.)

Candlewax
10-30-12, 11:02 AM
I think testosterone plays a role in at least some forms of sociopathic or antisocial disorders. As testosterone levels naturally decrease with age, yes, it might be that the hormonal influence grows so weak that the individual has to learn to deal with life in a different way because their body doesn't support their previous methods any more. Whether they learn to feel regret, remorse, and empathy, that is probably a different issue.

ETA: Removing a person from a position of power may actually help, because apparently having social power raises testosterone levels.

(Also, I'm too lazy to google atm, will do if anybody wants to read the articles I base these thoughts on.)

women can be sociopaths just the same.

hanikamiya
10-30-12, 12:59 PM
women can be sociopaths just the same.
Women also have testosterone, though lower levels. Being in a leadership position or living as a soldier raises women's testosterone levels just as it does with men's, and that can have a profound effect on both genders' psyche.

But, from what I read when trying to find those studies (before I gave up) it seems that sociopathy is much more common in men. (And that men are much more likely to be sociopaths when they are related to a sociopathic woman, but not the other way around.)

Testosterone seems to be one factor - one of many -, and testosterone levels do decline under the circumstances I mentioned. Which may be a reason for why a man of 60 might seem to have 'grown out' of his previous sociopathy. I can't even venture a guess about women, because I haven't yet read anything substantial about the effect elevated testosterone levels have on women in general and subpopulations in particular.

Amtram
10-30-12, 04:47 PM
From what I read, he wasn't injecting hormones or steroids, but boosting his blood oxygen levels by banking his own blood and self-transfusing before races?

Sandy4957
10-30-12, 05:47 PM
Early on, he also did a type of steriod, Amtram. In fact, some of what I read said that it's thought that it was a factor in his cancer, which would make his urging others to do it especially disturbing...

Sandy4957
10-30-12, 05:54 PM
It was EPO, Amtram. Here's an excerpt from an article discussing the effects:

The drug of choice for distance runners is EPO. EPO is a drug that enhances the production of red blood cells, increasing the blood's oxygen-carrying capabilities. There have now been many runners caught using EPO. The poor man's EPO is "blood doping," a technique brought into the spotlight in the 1970's when the Finns were accused of using it before the 1972 Olympics. In blood doping, blood is taken from the runner some months ahead of time; the red blood cells are separated from the rest of the blood, and then reinjected into the body shortly before the targeted competition.

The reason runners use these methods is that, properly done, they really can improve performance. Unfortunately, there is a significant negative side. Use of steroids has been linked to heart attacks at a young age and various types of cancers, especially testicular cancer. Many suspected that it was not coincidence that Florence Griffith Joyner, the Olympic Gold medalist sprinter, showed such a phenomenal physical transformation in a short time, and then died of heart trouble in her 30's. EPO has also been blamed for many athlete deaths (most of them cyclists), with the wrong dosage having turned the blood to sludge.

Amtram
11-02-12, 07:29 PM
Thanks for checking that out!

daveddd
11-02-12, 07:49 PM
from what ive read, the impulsive reactive types of aspd(the ones that share symptoms with adhd) usually have remission of symptoms between 30-50

but aspd is just someone with an anxiety that has broke the law a few times

the psychopath(the classic one) with unemotional callous features, the ones with zero anxiety, fear or remorse

they are whatever they are for good

Fortune
11-02-12, 08:38 PM
Yeah it was more about the notion that psychopaths can grow out of it or whether it's a nonsence claim like it is with adhd.

It isn't a nonsense claim with ADHD. Some people do outgrow it by the time they're 30, but by then so much damage has already been done.

Fortune
11-02-12, 08:41 PM
I am extremely dubious about the testosterone theory.

ana futura
11-02-12, 11:15 PM
From what I read, he wasn't injecting hormones or steroids, but boosting his blood oxygen levels by banking his own blood and self-transfusing before races?

Actually, he was using epo, blood banking, and using steroids - cortisone, which aids with recovery, and testosterone as well. I'm not sure if EPO is classified as a steroid, (I don't think it is) but it is a hormone.

Basically, if there was a drug available, Lance (and everyone else) used it.
The UCI (cycling's governing body) actually knowingly permitted a degree of doping- they only punished riders with increased blood cell counts or testosterone above a certain level- if you doped to that level exactly, your test would be "clean".

Testosterone injections won't affect your ability as a cyclist that much, it's useful for recovery, but it's not going to dramatically improve perfomrance. EPO on the other hand can make losers into winners. So, while Lance no doubt had elevated testosterone, I don't think we can blame "roid rage" for his "psycopathic actions". The great majority of his doping scheme revolved around blood doping.

I have read a lot about Lance, he has done horrible things to people. I'm a big fan of Greg Lemond, who's name Lance has been dragging through the mud for years. When you read what Greg has to say about Lance, yes, he does seem like a psycopath.

tudorose
11-03-12, 07:30 AM
It isn't a nonsense claim with ADHD. Some people do outgrow it by the time they're 30, but by then so much damage has already been done.

I have met many older undiagnosed ADHDers and whilst they have developed excellent coping and blending strategies they are still ADHD. And these are people in their 60's.

In my opinion (you don't have to agree) if the brain doesn't work properly because we lack certain connections then why are we suddenly going to acquire them after 30.

I can see a big difference in myself on and off meds. Off meds I simply cannot think in the way I require to hold down a job for example because I can't process information in the conventional way. I can still think but I think differently.

Drewbacca
11-03-12, 10:35 AM
In my opinion (you don't have to agree) if the brain doesn't work properly because we lack certain connections then why are we suddenly going to acquire them after 30.

It really depends on how you define what ADHD is. It's possible that they symptoms are no longer debilitating and therefor no treatment is necessary. I imagine that this is the case because school is in the rear-view mirror and a given career isn't at odds with a person's ADHD/personality. It just depends on how and where ADHD affects a person's life. I don't have any issues with driving, for example while others actually manage to somehow pay their bills on time (I think its a matter of how much structure is in their life, and/or if they have a partner willing to take up some of these time-sensitive responsibilities).

But, I do agree that you don't "outgrow it" per se... it just isn't as much of a handicap given environmental changes in life... I suppose that I'm proposing that within the spectrum of ADHD, there may be a shift.

sarahsweets
11-03-12, 12:11 PM
Not to derail the thread but... what bad things has lance done? I don't know much about him. I do believe though that their were plenty of other cyclists doing the same thing he was it's just that the witch hunt was only focused on him.

hanikamiya
11-03-12, 12:13 PM
I am extremely dubious about the testosterone theory.
It's a hypothesis, based on testosterone having been identified as one factor (of many) that seems to play a role in making someone physiologically more vulnerable to sociopathy, and on testosterone levels having an impact on things like risk-taking and socially acceptable behaviour in the same person. I meant that I can imagine that in some people this might make a difference, not that I expect it to be true for every single one.

ana futura
11-03-12, 03:08 PM
Not to derail the thread but... what bad things has lance done? I don't know much about him. I do believe though that their were plenty of other cyclists doing the same thing he was it's just that the witch hunt was only focused on him.

It's not a witch hunt, but it may look like one. Cycling's doping controls are a bit different that we're used to seeing, as it's an international sport- The UCI does test for doping, but the investigation of doping accusations is left up to the cyclists country of origin. USADA did devote a huge amount of effort to Armstrong, but they have gone after several other american cyclists- Floyd Landis for one. Landis admitted to doping comparatively quickly- his TDF title was stripped and he was banned from the sport. It is quite common in pro-cycling for cyclists to be investigated and punished for doping several years after the incident.

Lance was a rather unique case in that he simply refused to confess at any point in the investigation. He went to extreme lengths to cover up positive tests (and there were positive tests) going as far as donating $125,000 to the UCI. He threatened and intimidated many people around him, and kicked people off his team for refusing to dope.

With Armstrong, it's not really about the doping, but the extreme lengths he went to to cover it up. It was a gigantic conspiracy, and several people had their career's ruined by Armstrong in the process.

The UCI is just as guilty in this Armstrong, and an ideal world the organization would be scrapped. There is a lot of pressure on the current head to resign, as there is no doubt that he knew that this happened under the organization's watch.

Armstrong had to be punished to save the sport. There was an overwhelming amount of evidence that he doped. Leaving him as the TDF champ while every other doper had their titles stripped sent the message that if you doped well enough, if you have the best doctor, you can still get away with it.

ana futura
11-03-12, 03:28 PM
For the record, I do still think Lance is one of the greatest cyclists who's ever lived. He's certainly the most strategic. He changed the way the TDF is ridden- by building a team around him and focusing all of his energy on one race.

I think it's entirely plausible that he would still have had several TDF wins if doping did not exist. Team Sky, who won this year with Bradley Wiggins, owes a great deal to the riding strategies developed by Armstrong.

None of this negates that fact that Armstrong behaved in an absolutely horrid manner overall. He's a good cyclist, with or without dope, but he is not a good person. Is that because he is a psychopath? I wouldn't doubt it.

I was sad to see things end the way they did, but I have also suspected him of doping since the mid 2000's, when it became apparent that every single person who was winning was doping.

In the end, this is the best thing for cycling. It's highly likely that this will save the lives and careers of many young riders. This says that doping has no place in the sport in a way that nothing else can.

Fortune
11-03-12, 08:18 PM
I have met many older undiagnosed ADHDers and whilst they have developed excellent coping and blending strategies they are still ADHD. And these are people in their 60's.

In my opinion (you don't have to agree) if the brain doesn't work properly because we lack certain connections then why are we suddenly going to acquire them after 30.

I can see a big difference in myself on and off meds. Off meds I simply cannot think in the way I require to hold down a job for example because I can't process information in the conventional way. I can still think but I think differently.

I am not talking about people who do not grow out of it and develop coping and blending strategies. I am talking about people identified in longitudinal studies who by their late 20s or early 30s did not show signs of having ADHD any longer. Most people do not outgrow it.

daveddd
11-03-12, 10:21 PM
I am not talking about people who do not grow out of it and develop coping and blending strategies. I am talking about people identified in longitudinal studies who by their late 20s or early 30s did not show signs of having ADHD any longer. Most people do not outgrow it.

i seen this quite a bit too

im almost sure all the ones he grew out of it had non genetic adhd

ana futura
11-03-12, 10:52 PM
I am not talking about people who do not grow out of it and develop coping and blending strategies. I am talking about people identified in longitudinal studies who by their late 20s or early 30s did not show signs of having ADHD any longer. Most people do not outgrow it.

Knowing myself and my family, I will never "outgrow" it. On the other hand, I have family members who are just like me, but are not diagnosed, as they have learned to manage it better than I have. I'm sure I can create a lifestyle for myself that will permit me to manage it without medication, like my undiagnosed cousins.

I am pursuing a career path in the arts, which as a field tends to be more forgiving of the "ADHD mind". I'm establishing rules for myself- no shopping without a list, minimal extra-curricular activities, regular exercise and meditation. If I do these things I will be able to manage my ADHD without treatment, but yes, I will never "grow out of it". However, if I reach the point where these things are a consistent part of my life, I probably will no longer consider myself ADHD, as I will no longer consider myself "disordered".

I think it's hard to say who "grows out of it" and who "develops coping strategies", as the people who successfully develop coping strategies will no longer qualify for diagnosis. If your lifestyle enables you to live life "unimpaired" then you no longer qualify for a diagnosis, correct?

Fortune
11-03-12, 11:19 PM
I think what I am trying to say is being misunderstood, so here's what I am talking about:

http://consults.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/can-you-outgrow-a-d-h-d-or-get-it-as-an-adult/


Research studies following children with A.D.H.D. to adulthood, including my own 20-year follow-up of children in Wisconsin (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16429090), show that the symptoms of A.D.H.D. do decline with age, both in people with A.D.H.D. and in the general population. Even so, people with the disorder continue to have far more symptoms of the disorder than we see in the general population at any age.
My own research showed that 14 percent to 35 percent of children who had A.D.H.D. could be considered to have recovered or moved to within the normal range by the time they were 27. The reason for the range of recovery percentages simply has to do with how rigorously you want to define recovery. Defined loosely, about one-third no longer meet our criteria for this disorder in young adulthood. Defined more rigorously — at least two people report that the person’s symptoms are no longer severe or inappropriate and are no longer impairing — and the figure falls to about 14 percent.
So, yes, some people do outgrow A.D.H.D. But most do not. The things that have been found to predict whose disorder persists are:


Severe symptoms in childhood. The more severe A.D.H.D. symptoms are early in life, the more likely they are to persist into adulthood.
The presence of a psychiatric disorder in addition to A.D.H.D. Those who suffered from depression or other mental illnesses along with A.D.H.D. were more likely to have symptoms of A.D.H.D. as adults.
Having a mother with significant psychological problems also increased the risk that symptoms will continue into adulthood.

In short, A.D.H.D. seems to persist in most — but not all — cases. Even those children we followed who had recovered from the disorder had experienced significantly more school-related problems and tended to have less formal education. These educational setbacks can carry forward and affect adult life, even if someone no longer has the disorder.

Gilthranon
12-07-12, 08:37 AM
Nothing starts nothing ends it all evolves. Symptoms and disorder do too... What one's troubles are today might be the opposite in ten years. There is a pattern, rhythm - the course of evolution right ?

tudorose
01-19-13, 02:55 AM
Oprah.com wont let me load the interview coz apparently I'm in the wrong country. I got this message "Unfortunately this video is not currently available in your country or region. We apologize for the inconvenience"

Great!!!!

Good to know that one of the biggest stories ever in WORLD cycling is not available to the whole world.

stef
01-19-13, 05:54 AM
Oprah.com wont let me load the interview coz apparently I'm in the wrong country. I got this message "Unfortunately this video is not currently available in your country or region. We apologize for the inconvenience"

Great!!!!

Good to know that one of the biggest stories ever in WORLD cycling is not available to the whole world.

i dont even know if i want to see it.... the guy lied under oath...

tudorose
01-19-13, 10:48 AM
I managed to find it on a website with spanish subtitles.

It almost seemed like he was admitting to some sort of personality disorder. At one point he described his behaviour as narcissistic.

It appeared as if he has come to a kind of realisation that he did the wrong thing but was still battling with association his behaviour with the pain that was caused to others.

Of course if could be an act as the next big thing to 'come back' from but it was interesting viewing.

I'm not sure he truly grasps the concept of right from wrong. Is that part of having a personality disorder?

ana futura
01-22-13, 08:45 PM
I thought this was a good article-
http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2013/01/22/sympathy-for-the-devil/?cm_mmc=Facebook-_-Bicycling-_-Content-Blog-_-lance-BR

In this and many other moments on the show, it was as if Armstrong was somehow unable to confront the enormity of the dark side of his personality—that he was capable of looking at it only through some remove, pretending it was some other person.
Maybe? Or maybe he is ALWAYS detached?

Fortune
01-22-13, 08:53 PM
I do not know what is up with Armstrong, but I will say in general:

People tend to create justifications and rationalizations for antisocial behavior. They interpret other people as if those people are like them, and it is not easy to imagine that someone could truly be antisocial to that degree. So, they find alternative explanations to resolve the apparent (but not actual) conundrum, "How could someone do that?"

mildadhd
01-22-13, 11:03 PM
Not to derail the thread but... what bad things has lance done? I don't know much about him. I do believe though that their were plenty of other cyclists doing the same thing he was it's just that the witch hunt was only focused on him.


I agree,

If I understand correctly,

everyone was cheating.

Lance Armstrong was the best cheater of all the cheaters.

The difference is he cheated and won,

and got the benefits that people,

who cheated and lost didn't.


In a court of law,

if Armstrong admits it,

he loses everything.


The cheating losers don't have to worry about loosing anything.

They are bad losers.

Armstrong is a bad winner.






(I don't think it was right to cheat)

But it was fair race among a bunch of cheaters.

I think all the winners over a ten year period all got caught.

If I understand correctly.


There doesn't seem to be anyone who didn't cheat from a large group of people.

Not just Armstrong.


I would be ****** off if I was a racer who didn't cheat.



.

ana futura
01-23-13, 12:16 AM
But it was fair race among a bunch of cheaters.

I don't want to derail the thread, but the assumption that it was a level playing field is not true. Not everyone responds the same to EPO, some improve much more than others. Greg Lemond has written about this extensively, if I come across the article I'm thinking of I'll post it here.

ana futura
01-23-13, 12:23 AM
This is a good read-
http://youkantbeserious.com/2013/01/20/would-allowing-drugs-in-sport-level-the-playing-field/

Another reason as to why it wasn't a "level" playing field-

LeMond says that Armstrong could not have won the Tour de France clean because he was not the super-talented athlete which he made himself out to be. In fact, LeMond called Armstrong’s natural talent “average”, and said that his incredible increase in performance thanks to doping was so remarkable, it was difficult to believe it was only the result of EPO, testosterone and transfusions.

“If Armstrong had given Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton the same stuff he was taking, he would never have won – they would have beaten him.” http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-not-satisfied-with-armstrongs-admission

mildadhd
01-23-13, 12:48 AM
I don't want to derail the thread, but the assumption that it was a level playing field is not true. Not everyone responds the same to EPO, some improve much more than others. Greg Lemond has written about this extensively, if I come across the article I'm thinking of I'll post it here.

Good point!

I was thinking since my last post.

That I was not being diverse enough,

in my opinion.


Among the people that knowingly did banned substances and didn't win.

I think they are as guilty as Armstrong.

Just like if a group of people robbed a bank.

They are all guilty,


All the robbers got caught,

except one.


All the robbers who got caught snitched,

on the robber who didn't get caught.



I think we should forgive them,

and try to figure out the big picture,

why all this happened in the first place?


I think this is a neurobiopsychosocial topic. (or something as that)


I was wondering if any neurological issues,

are a result of much larger problem.

That involves a question of many different types of social competition.

And what humanity perceive as winners.

Getting caught and not getting caught, etc...

Trying verses winning etc..







It is quite a fascinating topic.


I'm a little confused about actual the topic of this thread?

I have not attended de-railers anonymous for a while.

I hope not?



.

mildadhd
01-23-13, 01:19 AM
One extreme example would be:


Hitlers dad beat the sensitivity out of him.

ana futura
01-23-13, 02:45 AM
I'm a little confused about actual the topic of this thread?


Is Lance a psychopath? Will he "grow out of it"?

And the question was raised not so much because of the doping, but because of the cover up- suing everyone who accuses you of cheating, slandering your former friends, teammates, and employees, lying with a straight face over and over and over again.

Lance really went above and beyond with it. He destroyed the careers and lives of several people. And now he goes on TV and says "Well, at least I didn't call you fat" and "We've sued so many people I'm not sure if I sued her or not."

Yeah, there is something wrong with Lance.

ana futura
01-23-13, 02:50 AM
I think we should forgive them,

and try to figure out the big picture,

why all this happened in the first place?


I agree. We already know why it happened in the first place- doping in cycling is as old as cycling itself. It's cultural. If anyone should be punished, it's the UCI for allowing this to happen on its watch.

A great article on the history of doping and sport (it's nothing new) -
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/08/24/when-if-ever-was-cycling-drug-free/

But Lance, he really did destroy the lives of others. I don't think he should be punished for doping beyond what is standard (a period of suspension from the sport.) It's his other actions (leaving death threats on Betsy Andreu's phone, etc.) that I think he deserves special punishment for.

Drewbacca
01-23-13, 03:55 AM
I don't want to derail the thread, but the assumption...

I'd say you are still reasonably within bounds! :cool:

tudorose
01-23-13, 06:46 AM
I think that Lance really just doesn't get it.

It's not so much about the drugs - like they say, everyone was doing it.

The issue seems to be more with the behaviour and the denial. Guys have come out and said stuff like yeah they did it but they're glad it's all over coz now they can sleep at night. There didn't seem to be any of that kind of genuine remorse from Lance. It's almost like he couldn't grasp the concept of what he had done wrong.

I don't think he's a psychopath. I do think he could be a sociopath but only those close to him or a therapist could really know the answer to that.

What got me was after all that he says "I DESERVE to compete".

Seriously?????

They have found his cryptonite. They need not waiver from the lifetime ban. Yes others doped but he destroyed lives and sued people who were telling the truth.

stef
01-23-13, 07:12 AM
But Lance, he really did destroy the lives of others. I don't think he should be punished for doping beyond what is standard (a period of suspension from the sport.) It's his other actions (leaving death threats on Betsy Andreu's phone, etc.) that I think he deserves special punishment for.

Exactly; and the repeated denials, to the press, and under oath.

mildadhd
01-23-13, 01:19 PM
I agree. We already know why it happened in the first place- doping in cycling is as old as cycling itself. It's cultural. If anyone should be punished, it's the UCI for allowing this to happen on its watch.

A great article on the history of doping and sport (it's nothing new) -
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/08/24/when-if-ever-was-cycling-drug-free/

But Lance, he really did destroy the lives of others. I don't think he should be punished for doping beyond what is standard (a period of suspension from the sport.) It's his other actions (leaving death threats on Betsy Andreu's phone, etc.) that I think he deserves special punishment for.


I agree.

I didn't know he sued people.

That is really wrong.





I wonder if his problems could be considered an addiction of some type?


And if so,

what kind of harm reduction strategy might help him?



.

tudorose
01-23-13, 05:55 PM
I agree.

I didn't know he sued people.

That is really wrong.

I wonder if his problems could be considered an addiction of some type?


And if so,

what kind of harm reduction strategy might help him?
.

Is there any kind of therapy that can work on someone like this? The only thimg that seems to have affected him is the life ban.

Fortune
01-23-13, 09:27 PM
There's some possibilities but treatment of such behavior tends to be difficult because the people who have such behaviors tend to consider it justified and employ numerous defense mechanisms to avoid examining, questioning, or critiquing their own actions.

mildadhd
01-24-13, 01:06 AM
Is there any kind of therapy that can work on someone like this? The only thimg that seems to have affected him is the life ban.

I assuming he should get a life time ban?


along with the ban

if addiction is the problem,

it is really up to him to admit ,

that he has a problem.




Then go from there.(example: how did this all begin?)

We could help and be compassionate and forgive him.

But also he needs to admit he has a problem.

Similar therapy as being addicted to substances, gambling, workaholic, sex, etc.


It might sound nuts at first,

but I think it could work,

if he was willing to admit his mistakes,

and that he has caused harm to himself and other people.

He has an opportunity to make things right.

He is probably scared,

embarrassed,

full of guilt etc.

Just like hard drug users/addicts,

who suffer from addiction.

And Hurt themselves and people around them.

in my opinion.

I am not saying it will be easy for him,

but it is not impossible.

He could help a lot of people by being honest with himself.






.