Lance Armstrong-The Movie

Here’s some hopefully amusing diversion in the lull before the Vuelta.

I assume there will be a movie of the Lance Armstrong scandal.
Who would you like to play the leading characters  (or villains according to your views of them)?

Here are my initial thoughts, though I’m not well up on younger actors:

Lance-Peter Capaldi (I know he’s not American, but he’s nasty looking, suitably thin so could pass as a cyclist, great at playing bullying,  megalomaniac, persecution-complexed characters and, most importantly, can use the “F” word in all its nuances.)
Johan Bruyneel-Russell Crowe, Oliver Reed (but dead!)
Dr.  Michele Ferrari-Bruno Ganz (the Swiss actor who was in “Downfall”)
Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes-Rowan Atkinson
Tyler Hamilton-Leonardo DiCaprio
Floyd Landis-Kevin Spacey
George Hincapie-Harrison Ford
Pat McQuaid-Hugh Grant. Danny DeVito, Graham Norton
Greg Lemond-Robert Redford, Brad Pitt, Jeff Bridges
Sheryl Crow-Kim Basinger, Shelly Duvall
Travis Tygart-Kevin Costner

Gene Hackman would do well in this sinister plot but he’s a bit too old now (and retired). Likewise Donald Sutherland.

I'd like to see JC van damme as Lance. would be more of a comedy though!

good shout on some of the actors (I like the idea of De Vito there) but is Harrisson Ford not a bit too old now to play Hincapie?

Yeah, we need younger posters to come up with suggestions. As said, I'm not too well up on the current movie scene.

Thinking of directors, well, it would have to be the person who did "The Hurt Locker" and the Bin Laden one.

Armstrong will inevitably be played by Christian Bale, just as an excuse to lose stupid amounts of weight!

I can see Hincapie being played by someone like a Chris Pine or maybe a slightly aged Matt Smith? Both would do a good job.

How do you guys view Armstrong? Whilst he was obviously a cheat, so was everyone else, he was just the best at it. He is 100% correct that a clean rider cannot win the Tour de France.

Lumbering_Jack wrote: He is 100% correct that a clean rider cannot win the Tour de France.

Back in his day, yes he would be.

Now, he is not

Olly wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote: He is 100% correct that a clean rider cannot win the Tour de France.

Back in his day, yes he would be.

Now, he is not

Yes, I probably agree. It would be unfair to single him out for drug taking when everyone was doing it. He was simply the best drug taker.

Do you think riders these days are clean? I really would like to think they are, but I have very big doubts.

I do think the majority are Jack. You're obviously going to get some who will always want to go too far to win, but I do think Cycling is a much cleaner sport nowadays.

And yes Armstrong was simply the best drug taker. I don't think the results from that era should've been wiped out, merely put with an asterisk beside them

Not every rider during the Armstrong years was taking drugs so no it doesn't make him the best in any shape or from, those at the very top were all probably taking something or other but it effected those who chose to ride clean. Were Pantini, Ullrich and Armstrong clean it changes the whole outlook of the race, how it's riden and who it favours.

Indurain is a prime example of how a rider can be affected by doping, he was dominant from 1991 to 1995 but then in 1996 he starts to crack on the mountains and finishes 11th overall, granted he was apparently ill. I don't however think having two dopers in Riis and Ullrich riding like demons up the mountains helped either, there has always been doping but 1996 is in my mind the start of it on a grand scale, thankfully it seems to have been eradicated to some degree.

Wiggins comfortable enough winner last year would have been destroyed over the same course by the riders of the Armstrong era.