Quite some years ago, a friend recommended that I should read Lance Armstrong’s autobiography, “It’s Not About The Bike.”

For many, including me at the time, it was an inspiring book. It chronicled Armstrong’s childhood, his initially good but not originally extraordinary career as a professional cyclist, his battle with testicular cancer, and his recovery to ride in, and win, the world’s greatest and probably toughest cycle race.

I had known next to nothing about the Tour beforehand, but I was hugely impressed with what I learned, and in awe of the riders, and amazed by the complexities of the tactics and strategies. Even more amazing was Armstrong’s own battle to remission and recovery, which clearly involved extraordinary dedication and effort. He describes, and I have no reason to doubt this, how he rebuilt his body almost from scratch, closeted away in a remote bolt hole in France, aided only by the woman who was later to become his wife. He scientifically mapped his progress using state of the art computer programmes to work out the optimum nutrition and training zones. Slowly as he recovered his physique changed from the lean sprinter to the more powerful bull like powerhouse that was needed to triumph in the key Alpine stages of the Tour.

In many ways it was a very open and honest book, and Armstrong was fairly candid that he was not only an exceptional athlete (he has freakishly high lung and heart capacity, for example); I think he would also agree that he is a difficult, strong willed, indeed highly volatile, even dangerous and hot tempered individual, capable of extreme bursts of adrenalin fuelled anger. The subsequent break up of his marriage and his somewhat convulsive private life since came as no surprise to me.

As for drugs, I very well remember what Armstrong had to say about that. He was clean, he said. He put the matter this way: If you had been through chemo therapy, like I have, and all that went with it, how could you ever imagine I would put another chemical in my body?

Being a trusting chap, and not knowing a great deal more, I believed him. I found it a convincing point.

Now it may be that Lance Armstrong did not use drugs as part and parcel of his rehabilitation. I don’t know. But he now admits he rode “dirty”, because everyone was doing it, and that put him on the level playing field. From what I know this involved blood transfusions and enhancements during the race, and boosts of testosterone (one would have thought he had enough already) and other hormones to assist power and recovery.

I am not really fussed about that, in the sense that what people stuff in their bodies to achieve a winner’s edge does not surprise me. I am not even that bothered about feeling a little let down.

What I do find disgusting about Armstrong is that he was and is a bully. Armstrong admits this, but in a very carefully manicured, PR shaped way:

“Yes I was a bully,” Armstrong told Oprah “I was a bully in the sense that I tried to control the narrative, and if someone challenged that I would simply say ‘that’s a lie, and they are liars’.”

No, that disingenuous. He was not a bully in “the sense that he tried to control the narrative”. He was a bully in the sense of being willing to threaten, harm and destroy anyone who did not follow his personal agenda.

For example, in 1999 a young French rider called Christophe Bassons gave an interview in which he asserted that the top riders were still doping, and insisted on riding clean. In the 1999 Tour, he was ostracized. Armstrong was in the lead of organizing that, before ultimately Armstrong verbally abused and manhandled him during the race. It sounds a most threatening encounter. Bassons withdrew from the Tour, and ultimately from professional riding.  Armstrong’s former “soigneur” (masseuse and “PA”), a rather phlegmatic Irish physiotherapist called Emma O’Reilly  spoke about his doping and faced a savage legal action with Armstrong demonising her as a prostitute with a drinking problem, and had her hauled into court. Ultimately, a legal settlement was reached. She has spoken about how Armstrong’s brutal bullying almost wrecked her life personally and professionally. Anyone or any media organisation that threatened the Armstrong line received the same treatment.

Armstrong’s crime in my eyes, is not taking drugs (ho, hum!) or telling fibs (hey ho!) but being a ruthless brutal sociopath who was perfectly happy to crush anyone who got in his way. I have a hatred of bully’s from the years of it I endured as a teenager, until a couple of amateurish right hooks (more slaps really) brought an end to the affair. My lead tormentor was like many bullies; a coward at heart.

Not all bullies are sociopaths. I have a particular interest in sociopaths, having come across several people who I would regard as within that category both professionally, and regrettably, personally.

I would be interested to hear Raccoonistas views on this topic. There are various definitions that float around the web, but let me explain what I understand to be the defining characteristics. These individuals are usually of a reasonably high and often very high order of intelligence. Armstrong is not stupid. They can be unusually charming (which in the Armstrong case is probably not the case) but whether they are or not they are always highly manipulative. (Armstrong is; using his laudable fund raising for cancer as a shield was a logical and obvious strategy.  But the defining characteristic is what I would call total selfishness and utter disregard for others. It is better expressed as a total lack of conscience. Sociopaths have an utter inability to have regard for anyone else’s interests. Sociopaths don’t run around killing people in Hannibal Lecter style (I suppose a few do, actually, but not many. There are other psychoses at work in such cases). Nor, I should imagine are sociopaths totally immune from emotions such as affection, even love. But a sociopath loves from his or her own perspective and agenda (what or who he or she wants). And a sociopath will do whatever he or she feels she needs to do to achieve their own defined self advantage. If that involved killing an unwelcome person, and the sociopath could be sure that the crime would be undetected, then that would be the logical course. Some innocent party’s ruin, despair or disadvantage are really not relevant, provided there is no come back on them (in the sense of dis-opprobrium, for example).

As a consultant psychiatrist put it to me some time ago, sociopaths simply do not have that part of the mind or the brain which normally gives rise to the phenomenon of “conscience”, “guilt” or concern for others. It is utterly missing.

Another feature of these interesting individuals which I have observed is they have the remarkable capacity to believe their own propaganda and lies as objective fact. Truth and falsehood are meaningless to the sociopath. There is only what they want to believe, and can get away with.

I wonder if I would attract many comments from readers if I were to observe that quite a few of our Lords and Masters, those in High Office and Politics, display characteristics on the sociopathic scale. Can I invite nominations? An obvious and topical one is of course good old Jimmy Savile. The problem was not that Savile was “into” young girls. The problem was that he was a sociopath who was into young girls…

I hate sociopaths with a passion. They wreck lives. Lance Armstrong is one. Armstrong is not sorry. He is sorry he was caught. End of.

 Gildas the Monk

andy January 21, 2013 at 13:21

Armstrong’s body changed after cancer FROM quite a heavy build for a
cyclist TO a lean one more suitable for stage racing.

Pete January 20, 2013 at 16:01

Sociopath is just American for psychopath. In my 25 years as a mental
health nurse I never met a patient diagnosed as “sociopathic”, only
“psychopathic”.

This is classed as a “personality disorder” rather than a “psychosis”.
Briefly, the latter is seen (by mainstream, ‘medical model’ psychiatrists) as
an illness, amenable to treatment with drugs, whereas the former is just a
type of person, and drugs cannot alter personality type. Whether anything can
alter it, and whether it is learned or inborn, is a moot point.

The Henderson Hospital had (or has- I’m not sure if it’s still going) a
comparatively good success rate as measured by reduction in reconvictions and
readdmissions (NB anything better than zero is “comparatively good” as far as
this problerm is concerned). Basically the psychopath lives as a predator,
which works fine so long as he is among the general non-psychopathic public,
whom he views the way a wolf views sheep. At the Henderson there are no sheep,
the wolf is surrounded by other wolves.

Psychopaths are certainly not all highly intelligent and charming, but
obviously those who are, are much more dangerous. When Mrs Average meets a
psychotic, she thinks “that man’s crazy”. When she meets a psychopath, she
thinks “what a nice man!” and posibly “what an interesting life he’s had, and
how much he has suffered at the hands of wicked people!”

Older textbooks used to require two factors to fit the definition. (a) Lack
of empathy and conscience, and (b) Lack of anticipation of the likely
consequences of their own actions. Personally I was never impressed with the
latter factor. Psychiatrists and criminologists only meet a selected sub-set
of psychopaths, ie those who have been caught. Those who lack all empathy,
regards other people as prey, and are exceptionally skilled manipulators, will
not come across a psychiatrist. (They might possibly BE a psychiatrist, but on
the whole I think other lines of work would be more appealing).

Also, in my own experience, psychopaths could certainly foresee the
consequences of their actions- insofar as if they decided to attack a nurse,
they would generally target the small female nurse rather than the big male
nurse. (Allegations of excessively harsh regimes in secure hospitals need to
be seen in this context).

I’m actually very dubious about psychiatrists getting involved with
psychopaths and other “personality disorders” at all, as they have little to
offer. Psychiatrists have a long history of dubious assertions about various
inconvenient behaviours being forms of “madness”, e.g. Drapetomania (the
compulsion to run away sometimes seen among slaves in the American South) and
the Soviet definition of schizophrenia (which included the inability to
appreciate the benefits of Communism).

Incidentally, the existence of psychopaths is the main reason why
lie-detectors are so useless. Mrs Average feels anxious when she’s lying,
because she thinks it’s wrong and she fears being found out. Mr Psychopath
feels no anxiety, indeed its questionable whether he can ever be described as
“lying”, in that “true or false” is not a meaningful distinction for him, only
“convenient for me or inconvenient for me”. He believes whatever he finds
convenient to say, and his belief makes him very convincing to others.

Psychopaths are not necessarily violent- although the violent ones are
obviously encountered more often by psychiatrists and criminologists. They
will be violent if this suits their objectives, or sometimes for amusement,
and there;s generally an emotionless quality to their violence. Anyone could
be violent if they were sufficiently angry or afraid, whereas the psychopath
doesn;t need any strong emotion to overcome the natural empathy for the victim
that generally inhibits us from violence. (The genuine psychotic’s violence is
more like the normal person’s violence- ie its understandable in the context
of his distorted beliefs, e.g. he hits the nurse because he thinkns she is a
demon who is trying to poison him).

Anyway, getting back to Anna’s question, much as I generally dislike the
overuse of psychiatric labels, I would certainly see Tony Blair as having
significantly psychopathic qualities. Very plausible- he became the leader of
a Party with whose traditions he had no sympathy, and retained their trust
while changing them out of all recognition.

On the whole, though, I think the most successful psychopaths would be
found in business rather than in politics.

Moor
Larkin January 21, 2013 at 13:46

@ When she meets a psychopath, she thinks “what a nice man!” @

And the converse is perhaps, “Wow! What a fox!” ………..

I would guess the use of the alternative word of “sociopath” is because
those so labelled have not actually murdered anyone, plus psychopaths are
usually visualised as men who have have eyes that swivel and love their
mothers too much.

Moor Larkin January 21, 2013 at 16:20

Thought there might be something to it………..

So does the best-selling novel Fifty Shades of Grey, with its
sado-masochistic themes, expose that deep in the recesses of all our
personalities, is a sneaking admiration for psychopathic success in the
bedroom?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj-persaud/male-and-female-psychopaths-get-more-sex_b_1845750.html

Jonathan Mason
January 20, 2013 at 10:29

Armstrong admits to life long drug use of performance enhancing drugs.

“”It really puzzles me to see marijuana connected with narcotics… dope and
all that crap. It’s a thousand times better than whiskey – it’s an assistant –
a friend.”

[Louis Armstrong]

mewsical January 20, 2013 at 01:59

Well, if the lawyer is getting paid, he should be happy. I’m of the opinion
that a fair amount of lawyers are sociopathic as well. I’ve worked in family
law and trust me, sociopathy is alive and well in the divorce courts as
well!

Observor January 20, 2013 at 01:53

Ms Raccoon : your observations and others of a sociopath are spot on.

How do I know?. I have been dealing with one since 2008 and in that time he
has brought down an association that existed for almost 100 years. He sent it
into liquidation to pay the legal fees : and this was all done in attempts by
people to rid themselves of him. During that time one person had a heart
attack, another a suicide attempt and others simply ran for the hills- all
they say brought on by the stress.

Oddly my own doctor who I often chatted to during visits was dealing with a
similar personality so we compared notes which were almost indentical.

And the reason the sociopath is so relentless in their pursuit of something
is because of that compete lack of empathy : whilst their victims are fretting
away from stress, nothing affects the sociopath and they continue on their
relentless pursuit of their target : in this case it is now the lawyer and law
firm who removed him physically from our midst . They are the subjects of
endless websites and letters to authorities. While the lawyer says he has met
these types : it’s the endless response he must give to various government
which waste his time and drive him a bit batty at times as well.

A shrink once said : when you meet a sociopath you should run for the
hills. I agree.

Cascadian January 20, 2013 at 01:22

Most of the comments are confusing major business with sport.

The Tour de France and the associated revenue from sponsorship deals ensure
that ideas of sportsmanship and fairness left the event decades ago. Indeed
Tommy Simpson a British rider died during the race in the mid sixties after
taking amphetamines to get an “edge” on the competition. Most major “sport”
personalities in recent years succumbed to whatever improved their performance
without detection. Simply stated it is big business, with all the normal
ethics attendant to big business.

Lance Armstrong is merely the latest to be found out.

Fact is Armstrong competed against other “dopers” and beat them, I don’t
see where that gave him any advantage. As for the ridiculous Tour de France
organizers what will they do now? The time is long past that they could prove
or disprove whether others were doping, revised winner lists are going to be
very suspect. I think we have to be very careful of amateur psychologists
diagnosing personality defects after-the-fact based on Oprah interviews, that
sounds very much like Solzhenitsyn’s persecutors.

Mudplugger
January 20, 2013 at 10:13

It’s not just major business, it’s major entertainment business, with the
emphasis on the ‘entertainment’.
Just like any other top-level
‘entertainments’, be they a spectacular stage-show or a 5-star hotel, behind
the scenes of professional sport there are some nasty, dirty, little (and
big) secrets which the watching public is not supposed to discover or seek
out. It’s part of the frothy fantasy being sold to the viewer – and so long
as the viewers keep subscribing to those fantasies, the entertainment
business will continue to satisfy them, hoping that the occasional random
exposure of its dirty linen does not reveal the nasty bigger truths.
We
may get momentarily hot under the collar about horse-meat in burgers, but
that’s just another symptom of the ongoing and widespread condition. Look
behind all the gloss and tinsel if you wish, but only with a peg on your
nose.

Malcolm Coghill
January 20, 2013 at 00:08

As an ex-racing cyclist I was fully aware of the use of various stimulants
in the professional game. It was always said and was true that ‘you cant make
a racehorse from a carthorse’, the drugs of choice in the professional field
would help an already strong and well-trned riders With the fall of the Berlin
Wall a whole new world came into bike racing, the East Germans were using
blood transfusions and EPO, and professional teams all of a sudden had East
European ‘advisors’ and doctors. Professional sport is a high-value game, that
includes football, golf, tennis, snooker; none of these ‘sports; have any sort
of drug testing.

mewsical January 20, 2013 at 01:57

My brother was a racing cyclist as well. Wonder if you crossed paths with
him. He would have been very cross with Lance Armstrong. A few pints, but no
pills, laddie. That’s not how Coppi did it.

JOHYN MALPAS
January 19, 2013 at 20:49

Is it not necessary to be a sociopath if you want to climb the greasy pole.
You have to tread on someone to get to the top. How many leaders can withstand
close scrutiny.

GildasTheMonk
January 19, 2013 at 22:33

I am not sure it is necessary, John; but I think it is a trait amongst
many in power

mewsical January 20, 2013 at 01:55

Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa …

Moor Larkin January 20, 2013 at 17:54

I’m unsure (not being very interested really) how much Armstrong’s
profile raised for charity, but knowing American generosity, probably
quite a lot. Savile was reputed to have raised over £40M. I fancy there’s
more to this pathology lark than just Quincy; and people are more than
just a diagnosis.

mewsical
January 20, 2013 at 18:22

The Livestrong foundation has raised in excess of $500 million and
counting. Kind of leaves Savile in the dust.

Martin January 19, 2013 at 20:46

Like the author, I was a big Armstrong fan and love watching all cycling
road racing. I wasn’t so much a fan of him as a person though as I thought he
came across as arrogant and aloof. As far as the drugs and doping issue is
concerned, I find his ‘confession’ to Oprah to be empty and devoid of any
meaning unless he eventually gives details of how he doped, how he managed to
be tested and not get caught, and finally who was helping him!

alan January 19, 2013 at 23:40

The best interview about sports doping. http://blog.joerogan.net/archives/5517

JRE # 277. Joe Rogan interviewing Victor Conte. It is a long interview
(2h 55m).

binao January 19, 2013 at 20:44

Never knowingly met a psychopath, but according to the comments so far have
come across quite a few sociopaths.
Entirely convinced of their
‘rightness’, incapable of considering any other view, manipulative, happy to
extend the envelope of unlawfulness, even to illegality to attain their ends.
Sometimes capable of great charm. Toys out of the pram if challenged.
Routinely untruthful with intent to deceive.
Always took the view that they
weren’t slapped enough as a child.
Pointless trying to engage; they have no
means to connect.

mewsical January 20, 2013 at 01:54

If so, why are you here at all?

Gloria Smudd
January 19, 2013 at 20:27

As a consultant psychiatrist put it to me some time ago, sociopaths simply
do not have that part of the mind or the brain which normally gives rise to
the phenomenon of “conscience”, “guilt” or concern for others. It is utterly
missing.
……………………………….
I’m not a sociopath then. I am actually terribly
bothered by ‘conscience’ and feel wretchedly guilty afterwards if I say or do
anything unfair or unkind. Perhaps some people just get more ‘guilt’ to make
up for those who feel none. Dammit!

GildasTheMonk
January 19, 2013 at 22:31

I feel enormous guilt after a plate of muffins and cheesecakes. A
fortiori, I am not a sociopath. I am cuddly.

Timbo January 20, 2013 at 11:49

In China, our interpreter handed off to a new one describing me as the
one who was, “chubby but cute”. I was OK with that.

mewsical January 19, 2013 at 20:18

I think Armstrong just let the power he had as a world-class
athlete/celebrity go to his head. We see that A LOT in Hollywood. Once they
get their comeuppance, they usually become more humble, and that doesn’t
happen overnight either. Look at Robert Wagner, finally suspected of killing
Natalie Wood. Now that the investigation is hot and heavy once more, and
everyone, including Christopher Walken, has cooperated, here we have “RJ”
refusing to speak to the police and saying, through his lawyer, that he’s
already said all he is going to say, and that’s that. Well, we’ll see, Mr.
Wagner. After all, you were the last one to see your wife alive, after
breaking a wine bottle on the coffee table and threatening Walken with it.

Moor
Larkin January 19, 2013 at 21:00

@mewsical

Last thing I read, the LA neighbourhood Sheriff had stated for the record
that Bob was NOT a suspect.
Now, if he had broken the wine bottle on the
coffee-table and threatened Wood with it, then maybe………….

Any idea why this is being dredged up after all these years? It seems
reminiscent of the current UK obsessions with “historical crime”. From what
we see on TV over here, I get the impression LA has more than enough
contemporary crime to keep the neighbourhood sheriffs busy.

mewsical
January 20, 2013 at 01:52

The guy who was captain of the boat wrote a book a year or so back.
After that, the coroner changed the cause of death from “accidental” to
“undetermined.” RJ was the last person to see his wife – who was also
terrified of water – before she allegedly went to tie up a dinghy that was
banging on the hull and keeping her awake. RJ is a very likeable guy, but
sometimes people snap – especially when there’s alcohol and sexual tension
a-foot. I don’t know why the Sheriff is commenting, as they don’t have
jurisdiction. The LAPD is investigating, and this is a very recent
development, btw. In the last week or so.

JuliaM January 20, 2013 at 05:51

“The guy who was captain of the boat wrote a book a year or so
back. After that, the coroner changed the cause of death from
“accidental” to “undetermined.””

That bit, frankly, worries me a lot more than the thought a murderer
might have got away with it!

Moor Larkin January 20, 2013 at 08:28

@ Mewsical
“A sheriff’s spokesman, Steve Whitmore, said the agency
has known about the report since last year and that it did not change
the status of the investigation, which remained open.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/14/natalie-wood-death-reclassified-coroner

I guess the UK press might not have a handle of the US legal
labels.
Trivia point: that guy Steve Whitmore is apparently the son
of James, the old actor.

mewsical
January 20, 2013 at 19:40

I guess the news here have it wrong (not an unlikely occurrence) at
least to who’s investigating. As she died off the coast (Catalina
Island), then the Sheriff would have the jurisdiction. Either way,
there are enough unanswered questions, i.e. why no life jacket on a
woman terrified of the water? Odd bruising, etc. If Wagner has nothing
to hide, he should speak with the police. Everyone else has.

Moor
Larkin January 19, 2013 at 20:14

Maybe Lance was just a man who loved tradition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
….

I can recall Armstrong using his bullying authority to make the peloton
wait for one of the contenders one year, who’d fell off or had a puncture or
something.

Given the long history of doping in cycling it seems reasonable to guess
that at the beginning Armstrong imagined he couldn’t win unless he doped too;
some of Armstrong’s practices seemed so gruesome – huge blood transfers – that
it has crossed my mind that his experience of unpleasant cancer treatments
made him less medically queasy than a more *normal* person, and this enabled
the doctors to be more experimental than ever. Faster, stronger, longer.

Frankie January 19, 2013 at 19:57

‘…Being a trusting chap, and not knowing a great deal more, I believed
him’.

Gildas is not alone in this it seems…

Armstrong was, it seems, a ruthless operator, highly controlling and
determined. He is now in the middle of a S#;£storm of his own making. I have
no sympathy for him. It is true that he won seven(!) Tours De France, and it
may be true that he would not have done so if he had not ‘doped’ but he is a
dope anyway because he chose to eulogise and pretend to the world that he was
something that he clearly was not – a superman. I wondered whether, if all the
other cyclists had been clean and he had been clean and it had truly been a
level playing field whether he would have won all those titles anyway. We will
never know.

‘…After the feast, comes the reckoning’. We have had a feast of sport the
last summer, 99.999% of the competitors being real sportsmen and women, not
doping using cheats. Remember the amazing feats of our Paraolympics, David
‘Werewolf’ Weir, Ellie Simmons et al. No cheats there, just genuine
superhero’s. I think that we, as a nation, and possibly the wider world
audience, who sat spellbound through the amazing 2012 feast of sport would
have even less time for a man who cheated his way to the top. Remember the
first celebrity cheat, Ben Johnson, the sprinter, and the aprobrium heaped
upon him? So, I think it will be with Armstrong, who has exploited his
celebrity and made himself a fortune on his Mr. Clean image. By contrast we
have the ultimate Mr. Clean, Sir Bradley Wiggins, whose courtesy towards other
riders and his determination not to exploit misfortune occurring to other
riders in the Tour De France won him the soubriquet ‘Le Gentleman’.

Cyclopath? Very probably.

BenSix
January 19, 2013 at 19:28

I’ve distrusted everything that Armstrong says for so long that now he has
admitted to doping I am inclined to feel that he is innocent.

John Galt
January 19, 2013 at 19:03

I’m not sure if the medical term ‘sociopath’ is appropriate, certainly
people who are lauded and held in high esteem for years as Lance Armstrong has
been develop aggressive and egotistical, self-centred personalities which may
appear to be characteristic of sociopathic mental disorder, but ultimately
only an appropriately trained medical professional (without an axe to grind)
can make an accurate assessment.

Okay, enough said, here is a Lance Armstrong joke for you. Jokes are good
for deflating inflated ego’s:

“Lance Armstrong really has confidence, you’ve got to admire his
ball”.

Lilith January 19, 2013 at 19:25

“only an appropriately trained medical professional (without an axe to
grind) can make an accurate assessment”

I don’t think this is true. I can tell if someone has broken a leg, got a
cold, is a persistent heavy drinker, has shingles, is psychotic etc etc. It
just takes a bit of life experience . I can spot a personality disorder a
mile off. You just need to have tangled with one or two
Sociopaths/Narcissists to see them coming.

Lilith January 19, 2013 at 19:27

The joke’s good though

Jonathan Mason
January 19, 2013 at 19:46

Usually the question of diagnosis only comes up when a person has
committed a crime and a psychiatrist has to determine whether they are
responsible for their acts.

“….capable of extreme bursts of adrenalin fuelled anger….” or could have
been steroids or testosterone fuelled anger. I have seen both.

Armstrong is an interesting example, like Savile, of a very intelligent
guy who has achieved massive success and wealth without having had any kind
of formal education to speak of. You also see it in professional soccer
players. I wonder if this makes a difference, because the individual has no
knowledge of the history of ethics and ideas or any sense of noblesse oblige
and tends to have a lot of street smarts, and be very self centered and
focused on his own desires and success. I have met plenty of criminals and
rapists who are like this–no sense at all of wider responsibility to society
or the community because they have never developed it. You can use terms
like psychopath or sociopath if you like, but that is perhaps trying to make
it sound more scientific than it really is.

It was notable that Armstrong said that he had not read an important book
by one of his team mates that dealt with Armstrong’s drug use. You would
think that a guy who is so quick to sue would have wanted to download a copy
on his Kindle, but maybe he does not read.

Jonathan Mason
January 19, 2013 at 19:51

“…only an appropriately trained medical professional (without an axe to
grind) can make an accurate assessment…”

For legal purposes, yes, but these things tend to be circular. If a
person commits persistent crimes and is not mentally ill, then they are a de
facto antisocial personality disorder. Typically a psychiatrist history will
look at behavior in the family, at school, clashes with the law, etc. but
there is nothing particularly sophisticated about making this kind of
diagnosis, which is nothing more than a useful label. There is no physical
diagnostic test or medical treatment for a personality disorder, it is just
a description of how they (mis)behave.

Lilith January 19, 2013 at 20:14

Indeed, a great deal of psychiatric diagnosis rests upon which drugs
appear to “work”. A drug is tried and, if it helps modify symptoms, then
the individual gets a diagnosis appropriate to the medication prescribed.
If no drugs help then “personality disorder” comes into play.

Jonathan
Mason January 20, 2013 at 00:56

This is pretty much true. On the other hand, I once asked a
psychiatric hospital psychiatrist why was it that every single one of
his patients had the diagnosis of “schizo-affective disorder”. He said
it didn’t mean a thing, but that way he could prescribe any
anti-psychotic drug, anti-depressant, or mood stabilizer without having
to do any extra paper work. This is god’s truth!

I cite this 100% true anecdote simply to show that the exaggerated
respect that the lay public (non medical personnel) seem to have for
psychiatric diagnoses is just that–exaggerated. In most cases a
psychiatric diagnosis is just a working tool and a legal requirement for
psychiatrists both for the court system and for insurance reimbursement,
but in existential terms it means very little.

This doesn’t stop lots of amateurs from diagnosing themselves and
others. “Yes, sometimes I am happy and other times I am sad, so I must
be manic-depressive” (now known as bipolar disorder), as if having a
form of insanity is something to be proud of.

Wendi January 19, 2013 at 18:19

Having come across quite a few sociopaths in my time I think Gilda’s
description of is pretty true to their form. They are generally very
intelligent, HIGHLY manipulative, can be unbelievably charming and
entertaining, awful bullies and totally ruthless if crossed, they believe
their own BS, always have their own agenda, lack empathy and have no
conscience. When you’ve known a couple of these Beasts, the characteristics
become easier to spot.
Users and abusers with politics, big business and
the entertainment industry being riddled with some of the best – no doubt the
reason why we are where we are today!

Moor
Larkin January 19, 2013 at 18:28

So what exactly is Armstrong to be condemned for? Being a bit of a
cheater or having a mental disorder?…….

Lilith January 19, 2013 at 19:07

Er, for ruthlessly taking out/destroying anyone who called him for
doping?

Moor Larkin January 19, 2013 at 19:35

That’s part Two apparently….. http://www.nation.co.ke/sports/Armstrong-set-to-focus/-/1090/1669428/-/sm7blr/-/index.html

Victims…. Now where have I heard that before?

GildasTheMonk January 19, 2013 at 22:22

Exactly Lilith!

Mina Field January 19, 2013 at 17:40

No idea whether he has been examined and diagnosed by a psychiatrist as
having any conscience or any mental disorder or not. Same goes for Jimmy
Savile. Beats me how lay onlookers can churn out these diagnoses.
I watch
people tell lies on a daily basis in an attempt to escape justice. Its just a
normal physiological survival mechanism in my opinion.

JuliaM January
20, 2013 at 05:50

It’s part of the modern desire to have everything explained, preferably
with a medical-type diagnosis.

Moor
Larkin January 19, 2013 at 17:13

I’ve always taken it as a given, that you would have to be on drugs to even
want to attempt Le Tour…….

Given that the bikers have been getting done for drugs since Adam was a
lad, I’m not really sure what all the fuss-extremis is all about. There are
plenty of athletes who have used drugs who are running again. I would guess it
is that business about Armstrong having been a Cancer-recoverer and his story
being “inspiring” creating that empathy that people like to have for their
celebrities or sporting heroes these days. It’s noticeable that Andy Murray is
generaly disliked by many of those who watch, because he doesn’t give the
public the ability to wallow in his emotions. I recall I used to like Bjorn
Borg because he just did it, rather than make a fuss about it, but he was
never very popular in Britain, whereas a loudmouthed bad loser like John
McEnroe is still feted by the British public and media to this day

Insofar as Armstrong’s *bullying* goes, so far as I can see he only had the
power to do that because those in authority around him wanted to kow-tow to
his celebrity too. At the end of the day he just rode a bike fast – it wasn’t
rocket science…. the guys who were supplying the technology might have been
rocket-scientists of course, but who cares about those who merely push.

Saul January 19, 2013 at 17:12

Cyclopath….

Respect!

Brian January 19,
2013 at 16:21

Gildas,
I thought that sociopaths and psychopaths had the same symptoms
but psychopaths were born whereas sociopaths were made by their environment;
the classic nature and nuture. I have come across several such ‘paths in my
life and have always come off worse because I can see the other chap’s point
of view and believe in fairness. Two characteristics which enable one to work
well with other reasonable people. Unfortunately, ‘paths see those traits as
weaknesses to be exploited.

GildasTheMonk
January 19, 2013 at 17:20

That is not quite the way it has been explained to me Brian. I think
psychopaths have an inherent need for violience whereas a sociopath has no
such craving, simply no remorse.
Another point which was raised by a so
called “expert in body language” was the very fixed and controlled way Mr
Armstronmg gave his interview. One of the constants in the people that I
have come across in this catagory is the ability to look you unflinchingly
in the eye and lie. And as a technique of manipulation, make you feel
ashamed to have even asked the question. This was a particular feature of
Armstrong as he was willing without any compunction at all to lie on oath,
in interviews, whenever and wherever.
These people always cause extreme
harm to those they encounter, as I too can testify Brian. It is very
difficult for “ordinary” people to deal with people who have no morals or
compunction about anything at all.
That is partly why I detest them so
much.
Let justice be done upon him.
Amen

Tractor Gent
January 19, 2013 at 21:30

Where I grew up, our neighbour died, and the new owner rapidly became,
in the modern phrase, the neighbour from hell. He had many rows with my
father over various issues, and at one stage, diddled him over a land deal
to extend our gardens by buying the surrounding field. I remember reading
a Pelican book by Anthony Storr (I think) on mental illness, and when he
described the characteristics of a psychopath, it was our neighbour to a
tee. He wasn’t violent, though he could argue, certainly not the ‘serial
killer’ stereotype. He was an antique dealer, and bragged he was a member
of this & that club – Rotary etc. Perhaps in modern terminology he was
a sociopath. Luckily he was not in good health & died after a few
years.

GildasTheMonk January 19, 2013 at 22:16

Amen!

Jeremy
Poynton January 20, 2013 at
09:06

No remorse.
No empathy.
No compasion.

Hence – extremely dangerous. I have had the misfortune to tangle with a
full on Narcissist, and it was a very unpleasant experience. Indeed, he
was an old college mate of mine, and we had know each other for 30 years,
when I discovered he had behaved appallingly to a woman I knew well. I
challenged him about it, and he went nuts on me. A very very nasty
experience indeed, which has had one benefit – I can now spot them a mile
off.

Mudplugger January 19, 2013 at 15:45

The 2014 Tour de France starts in Yorkshire and the promoters are promising
£100m of trade to the region. All the local pharmacies on the route are
expecting £99m of that dosh to rattle into their tills – with or without
Anderson, it remains the ‘sport’ of medics, not cyclists. Sad.

Mudplugger
January 19, 2013 at 16:18

Apologies to all Andersons – obviously Armstrong fits better.

macheath January
19, 2013 at 15:35

I have had the misfortune to know one sociopath personally. What strikes me
about this is that he, too, had survived cancer; he seemed to think this
endowed him with some kind of superior status and entitlement – as well as
abundant opportunity for emotional blackmail. He was fond of saying that he
felt he had been spared for a reason, as if this justified the blatant
manipulation and bullying that characterised his dealings with his
subordinates at work (and women in general) – and of talking about himself in
the third person, just as Armstrong does in the interview.

He he is currently under investigation for allegedly bullying a member of
staff under his management; if found guilty, I have no doubt that he, too,
will produce some kind of public confession of guilt tinged with arrogance in
the full expectation of restoring the status quo.

Dave January 19, 2013 at 15:17

“As a consultant psychiatrist put it to me some time ago, sociopaths simply
do not have that part of the mind or the brain which normally gives rise to
the phenomenon of “conscience”, “guilt” or concern for others. It is utterly
missing.
Another feature of these interesting individuals which I have
observed is they have the remarkable capacity to believe their own propaganda
and lies as objective fact. Truth and falsehood are meaningless to the
sociopath. There is only what they want to believe, and can get away
with.”

A personality defect shared by A Blair methinks.
Good post!

Demetrius January
19, 2013 at 15:16

Alas, we are spoiled for choice and not just in politics. Rowan’s Blog
today should be read on Barclays (longish but readable). What hurts is that we
have followed the Tour for decades, allowing for the odd scandal. But this is
something else entirely. You are right though, too many of our our
increasingly self appointed leaders exhibit this behaviour and
characteristics. It has now become destructive.