'LANCE' 30 for 30 - ESPN

Oh, make no mistake—we’re gonna watch it no matter what, but we don’t want to see professional cycling reduced to yet another freakshow for pandemic shut-ins, a la Tiger King . And because the Armstrong saga is as intimately familiar to us as an ugly divorce, the true test of any film about him is that it must not only make us want to live through it all again, but it must also compel us to revisit and perhaps reassess whatever conclusions we’ve drawn about him over the years. In all these respects—so far, anyway—“LANCE” succeeds.

I watched this with my SO and she was entertained even as a non-cyclist. I’ve enjoyed part 1, anyone else watched it yet?


I watched it…thought it was very good. My wife liked it as well but she has always liked Lance’s wit.


Watching it right now. Why was I not surprised that he was cheating from the get go by skirting the age limits of races. It’s obvious he was raised to not respect the rules.


Watched it last night. Either you like or hate him but he makes a good show. I am more on the like side as I don’t get too wrapped up in hating on the guy.

He definitely did some bad stuff but got caught where others do, done or are doing until they get caught.

Edit: also if you have not watched the Chicago Bulls Last Dance 30/30 it is great.


This could become a good popcorn thread once the regulars get in here.



Watched it, liked it, can’t wait for part 2.


Don’t disagree but it is also a testament to his natural ability to race as a 15 yo against pros. Pretty amazing raw talent. But like his step dad said, win at all cost mentality from an early age.

1 Like

Both Jordan and Lance had a win-at-all-cost mentality. Both were very entertaining to watch. Both were global mega stars. Both were the best in their sport. Lance unfortunately was an a-hole to people. If he had just been doping, he may have held on to his tour titles.


Add Tiger to that list…all 3 were very much the same person in terms of competitiveness and “win at all costs”.

It is an interesting correlation that all 3 were Nike mega-stars.


Totally agree!

1 Like

Like him or hate him, his athletic ability and mental tenacity is undeniable.
While Greg Lemond says he would be an average cyclist without drugs, I totally disagree. He basis that on VO2 Max, but that physiologic parameter for endurance athletes has been proven wrong. The parameter used is MLSS, maximum lactate at steady state. I have read most books about him,
elite athletes often have less than admirable personalities, that does not diminish the physical attributes. Out of the seven tours you take all riders who placed in top five, 35 in total they all doped. They did not take away the titles from Ulrich, Pantani, Ris. Lance did not create the culture of doping in the Tour de France, it was always there. In the era of Merckx,
Fignon it was amphetamines. In Fignon’s autobiography he admits to it.
In all of Professional sports, NFL, baseball, etc., has any athlete been treated as harshly as Lance. I am adding an addendum after seeing part 2.
Regarding USADA, Chris Tygert , I believe chose Lance Armstrong because he was an easy target, and could make a name for himself. USADA is supposed to represent all U.S. sports. They can not touch the Big Three, Baseball, Football, or Basketball, because they are too big and powerful. Look at famous baseball, football players and look at there penalties compared to Lance, “Alex Rodriquez”, and many others. Where is USADA in these cases. They knew they could go after Bicycling because it is a sport without any power, unions. The other point I would like to make whether you like him, hate him, his second persona working with cancer patients was a good side of Lance. You try going into a hospital, knowing you are possibly the last person to see the dying cancer patient. Not easy,
particularly when you have survived cancer, much easier to remove yourself, than to revisit the deadly disease.2020-06-02T06:00:00Z


He was not treated as harsh.y as he was simply because he doped.

And I don’t accept “everyone else was doing it” as an excuse from my kids when they do something wrong, so I see no reason to accept it from a professional athlete.


All excellent points but how did you guys like the show?

Told you it would be a great popcorn thread once a few opinionated regulars chimed in.


Part 1 was okay. Kinda getting tired of the story. Enjoyed Last Dance because there’s a lot of stuff I didn’t know or had forgotten.

I’ll watch Part 2 just to see where it goes and see if there’s anything new.

As for Lance, don’t hate him nor necessarily like him. I think he had the talent, but not sure he would have been as successful without the doping.


I’m not convinced.

I think Lance won all those TdFs clean.


Any way to watch this in the UK?


It was on BT Sport last night so I assume they will replay it again but not sure when. Check the TV guide. They may have it on the BT sport player on demand.

I haven’t checked yet but I imagine part 2 will be on next Monday.


Obviously he would have been good if he (and everyone else) wasn’t doping. I do wonder if some athletes respond better to drugs and/or are better taking them than others.

For example, people with higher cadence, and so relatively more stress on the cardiovascular system, might respond better to epo?

And could relatively larger riders might benefit more form weight loss drugs? I suppose its proportional weight loss that matters so maybe not, but it does seem to be relatively larger riders who see significant improvement due to weight loss (indurein wiggins, froome etc.)