MovieChat Forums > The Program (2016) Discussion > Not seen not going to see, here is why.....

Not seen not going to see, here is why...

posted 9 years ago by shide_85
12 replies | jump to latest

This is not aimed to be a discussion but a partly political rant about doping and the groups/individuals behind it.

I'm not going to watch this because it will most likely make Lance Armstrong out to be a lone case, in short a scapegoat for a corrupt system that lets corrupt teams and individuals freely dope within professional sports, this sport is beyond salvation.
It's as when the report IAAF didn't even bother to scrub but completely darkened from public scrutiny and then when knowledge about it leaked suddenly there was a mainstream mediablanket about a Turkish female runner who used drugs. -Yes. One corrupt Turkish female top athlete is more upsetting than finding out that atleast 30% to 50% of the "professional" athletes use drugs.
Hopefully people will recall the right thing and work for a better tomorrow and take distance from people who don't.

As per normal the powerful informal interest groups plays by a different set of rules and denies their inabilites (anyone who uses an unfair artifical advantage to keep up is not good enough to compete on their own merits and as such they are bad persons, all the way into their very essence) as soon as they're put out in the light. Oh right make no misstake, the sets of rules are in no way made up because they challange status quo or are ahead theoretically, physically etc - they're there to compensate for their ineptitude(to rise to challanges, compete on equal terms and own merit and on and on the list goes...).

*Sadly, yes. I like Ben Foster's performances, he's a good actor and the movies he's in are usually a good watch.

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

[–] themoriartymethod 9 years ago

Really, I'll be catching it (outside of theatres, when it's on Netflix or the like) solely because I think he's a brilliant actor (Foster), and I think he'll play the likely overly dramatized role well.

[–] murad23 9 years ago

I will be seeing it, but I agree with you mostly.
Both professional sport and international sport are rife with use of enhancers. Armstrong became a target and a story simply because he was American

[–] Youkilledmypine 9 years ago

Good job you're completely wrong then, otherwise it would have been a terribly misleading film. The film heavily implies many sportsmen were (and still are) involved in doping programs. It's the sheer arrogance of Armstrong that he still believes he won those tours fair and square because everyone was doing it. Foster did a great performance, it's a shame you boycotted this one on the basis of a poor assumption.

[–] kya1 9 years ago

Did Armstrong ever admit to deliberately taking drugs? I can't even remember now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAIJ3Rh5Qxs

[–] Tiigerr 8 years ago

If everyone was doping and he still won, doesn't it technically mean he did win?

_________________________
I don't win, I don't eat.

[–] hppg 8 years ago

The widespreadness (? is that a word) of doping was a topic canvassed in the film, though....

[–] shide_85 8 years ago

As to current date when Russian athletes gets exposed all over the place, while if you recall back to the days of Marion Jones that lab she was going to had hundreds of names that were not released. It's politics at this point - what is needed is an agency that has people working with open private economy and that get payed more the more people they catch. Picking grassroot people to fill the spots would be needed as anyone reaching the international level of employment has been around long enough to possibly be corrupted.
If you don't want spoiled apples pick them off the tree.

[EDIT] I'll have a look if it looks as is claimed that it does point out the clear majority (above 90%) as using doping and that both stables, those involved in the sport and those who let it roam free knows about it. If it doesn't describe it as systemic it's still far from the truth...

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

[–] Ithilfaen 8 years ago

I'm not going to watch this because it will most likely

How about you watch it and decide instead of just assuming it won't.

In fact the one redeeming factor of a very one-sided movie, imo, is that they clearly show it was not all on Armstrong. That others were doping. That the higher-ups covered up for him to keep their sport visible etc

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] Chainring 8 years ago

You should see a movie before blathering about it.

[–] snakeye808 8 years ago

Not going to see it; just going to gripe and moan about what you think it's about, while drawing firm conclusions based entirely on speculation since you have no idea what's actually in the film.

[–] shide_85 8 years ago

[EDIT] I'll have a look if it looks as is claimed that it does point out the clear majority (above 90%) as using doping and that both stables, those involved in the sport and those who let it roam free knows about it. If it doesn't describe it as systemic it's still far from the truth...

Watched it and it does not encompass nearly the corruption that could be read about atleast in Europe surrounding cycling. It was not a few teams and a doctor or one single delegate for antidoping - the system was (read; is) corrupted completely through and through. This is an area I do not care much for, but for anyone interested in getting involved in the area I would encourage to read up on the history of it.
For the fact that Armstrong finally was deprived his medals (unlike another relatively recent superman in sports who stands out for one performance), is possibly down to the overwhelming evidence not longer possible to cover over and the cost for crime syndicates (Italian and French) who could not arrange the sport anymore to make money off it.

This movie does hint at parts at the systematic corruption, as the antidoping delegates, the behind the scene deals and the unwillingness to bring atheletes to justice. My retention from this movie is Ben Fosters and some in the supporting cast performances.

*Note that the totalitarian surveillence systems were in place so governments et al had knowledge about what was going on (and before you speak about talking in code, I'm sure a trained analyst can't dechiffer these intellectuals ways to communicate). Using Nationalistic need of justice and "heroes" to twist persons without morals into propaganda to remove focus from offensive warfare. This was a probable reason for giving the athletes carte blanche (room to do whatever they wished).

Even though older than skiing, this resembles alot an example from there alot. I will never forget when Mühlelegg broke Per Elofsson (Mühlegg was later proven to have used drugs, though Per Elofsson was broken for good - he got an mykoplasma infection later). A fair play skiier with extreme preparation (the guy used to run on bogs daily as preparation - basically insane training regimes) against a person with a foam coming out of his mouth.
He took between being broken by Mühlelegg and the end of his career still a gold. One example of a great athlete less in the world due to those who cheat/use doping.

[2016 01 31 This post is made as opinion for legal reasons, please validate the given claims yourself before taking someone elses word for it]

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

[–] tom_mcclarey-3 8 years ago

That's because the film is about LANCE ARMSTRONG, and isn't a documentary about doping in the whole of European cycling.

------------------------
<insert signature>