5 ms·
It really does have a Lance Armstrong vibe, where, sure, the thing itself was pretty bad, but the defensive actions surrounding the core thing were ten times wo
by Benjammer 8y ago
It really does have a Lance Armstrong vibe, where, sure, the thing itself was pretty bad, but the defensive actions surrounding the core thing were ten times worse. Destroying many people's lives, and livelihoods, at the slightest hint of a challenge.
Theranos, though, does have the added negative attribute that the product was a medical device and not just an individual's professional athletics career.
- jacquesm 8y agoArmstrong's actions had implications way outside of his individual career.
- coldtea 8y agoStill nowhere near as important as a medical device with false promises.
- jacquesm 8y agoAbsolutely, no contest there.
- labster 8y agoYet another example of how our culture considers drug offenses to be deplorable while white collar crime is just someone being a little too ambitious. Not an attack on you personally, it's just a pattern I see a lot. The comparison isn't even all that relevant -- one was people basing life-and-death medical decisions on a fraudulent device business built on fraudulent patents, on which the recently departed U.S. Defense Secretary Mattis sat on the board. And the other was... sports. Not that the culture of doping isn't bad for all the athletes in all sorts of ways, but there is a big difference when someone is making bad health decisions without your knowledge.
- maxxxxx 8y agoI think the main problem with people like Armstrong and Holmes is that they are widely admired by people and put forth as an example of "success" while in reality they are ruthless psychopaths who will stop at almost nothing to get their way.
- isoskeles 8y agoMost cyclists were doping back then, so are they all ruthless psychopaths or just the one who won?
- maxxxxx 8y agoEverybody doped but only Armstrong went viciously with all his money and lawyers after people who claimed correctly that he was doping. He was on a different level from others.
- rchaud 8y agoThat is related to cultural mores as well. Do we not celebrate tech CEOs who have never made a profit? They can become millionaires/billionaires by dint of their privately traded stockholdings, and the NYT will write a puff piece on them, but all we're doing is applauding them because they managed to convince VCs to float them cash to try doing something.
- wp381640 8y ago> Yet another example of how our culture considers drug offenses to be deplorable Armstrong went just beyond drug offenses - he destroyed careers of people around him who wouldn't play along and attempted to call him out. Betsy and Frankie Andreu, Emma O'Reilly, David Walsh, SCA Promotions, defrauding the USPS, lying under oath, etc.
- jacquesm 8y agoExactly. It's not as if this was a case of an individual only doing harm to themselves or 'just' cheating at sports.
- simonebrunozzi 8y agoNot comparable to the health implication for customers of a potentially large company.
- debbiedowner 8y agoFair comparison in many ways with respect to the legal team. But Lance actually climbed Vontoux, even if he had x% illicit but commonplace help, x < 10. Theranos was claiming it climbed all these mountains no one had ever climbed before and it never did anything like it. I think Lance should be shown way more respect as an exceptional doer with illegal help versus Theranos which had exceptional help and did nothing.
- lerchmo 8y agoIn a field of criminals. Everyone in the top 10+ was likely doping.
- pmart123 8y agoTrue. I think the fact that he didn’t hurt anyone per se is a big difference. Also, Lance Armstrong was actually good at something and he did comeback from cancer. While not the best excuse, every competitor was cheating too.