Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it were just a job, anyone could do it So no, it's more than that. It's a competitive sport with rules that he (most likely) violated in order to win. That makes him (most likely) a cheat.
I think the media is portraying Lance Armstrong in a much more negative light than what is needed. Cycling is one of the dirtiest sport especially in the new millennium (just look up "list of doping cases in cycling" in Wikipedia) and I've heard from multiple radio hosts, avid cycling fans and sports fans alike, that it wouldn't surprise them if >80% of the cyclists in Tour De France used some sort of performance enhancing drugs...And I don't disagree with them. Cycling 200km a day for 20+ days is NUTS!
Now let's look at it like this: if no one in the whole race was using performance enhancing drugs, then wouldn't you think that Armstrong would still be the best cyclist to emerge out of the whole group? But unfortunately PED use is pervasive in cycling, and it makes sense for the cyclists to use drugs in order to level the playing field with everyone else violating the rules. It's sad and it's scathing to the integrity of sports but that's just the reality.
Obviously not every cyclist gets tested on a regular basis for PEDs and only the elite ones like Armstrong will be the subject of most scrutiny. But when they do get tested, with the advances in science and technology, scientists are able to come up with newer and modified substances that are not on the list of banned substances that allow the cyclists to pass the test surreptitiously. And when committees like USADA includes more drugs to banned PEDs, there will be substances in altered form that will be able to bypass the tests undetected.
I'm not saying what Armstrong did is right (if in fact it's true) nor the pervasive use of PEDs in sports, which is the reality of sports today. But out of this came something good, the LIVESTRONG Foundation which raised hundreds of millions of dollars for a good cause to help cancer patients and to provide hope. Whether you think he did this for his own stardom or to sway the attention away from his doping allegations is up to you, but you can't deny that this philanthropic organization is bad for the world, or not enough to overshadow the blemish in his lustrous cycling career.
I'd be willing to guarantee that if any other cyclists used whatever PEDs that Armstrong used for his Tour De France career, he would not come remotely close to winning 7 TDF titles in his career. This allegation is much to meager in contrast to the accolades and accomplishments that he achieved in his career and I think that all this diatribe about Lance Armstrong needs to stop.
He used a drug he should not have used: no, I have no sympathy for him..Yes, he has raised a lot of money and done a lot of good, this doesn't make up for cheating....Are you trying to say, it is ok cause being a super star is how he was able to raise the money he did? I guess you think it is ok to steal from your employer if you also give to charity? Maybe you want to bring Robinhood back? Oh, I forgot, we already have him, his name is Obama...Geeze!!!!!
Tyler Hamilton is a piece of crap that got caught doping, and decided to enact revenge on those he thought had done him wrong. There is no doubt that Armstrong is a jerk, but that doesn't change that fact the he NEVER failed a drug test, but Hamilton did.
This is a witch hunt, through and through. Did Armstrong dope? Maybe. But to convict someone in the court of public opinion based on testimony of disgruntled former friends bent on revenge, with no concrete scientific proof, is disgusting.
I think its a reasonable assumption that he doped. Does it mean anything to me? No, but to many former team mates, some as highly respected in the sport as Armstrong was, have said he doped.
Like I said, to me, its the fact he's lied about it for so long thats so disappointing to me.
So you've decided that Armstrong is lying, but his teammates are telling the truth? How did you decide they could be trusted, and Armstrong not? Just curious.
So you've decided that Armstrong is lying, but his teammates are telling the truth? How did you decide they could be trusted, and Armstrong not? Just curious.
If you want to say that Livingston had a vendetta you might have a point, but not the whole team.
They also posted an article about the "key players," including a videotaped deposition of Armstrong in the SCA case (He firmly states under oath that he never used performance enhancing drugs): The World According to Lance - key players
I think the media is portraying Lance Armstrong in a much more negative light than what is needed. Cycling is one of the dirtiest sport especially in the new millennium (just look up "list of doping cases in cycling" in Wikipedia) and I've heard from multiple radio hosts, avid cycling fans and sports fans alike, that it wouldn't surprise them if >80% of the cyclists in Tour De France used some sort of performance enhancing drugs...And I don't disagree with them. Cycling 200km a day for 20+ days is NUTS!
Now let's look at it like this: if no one in the whole race was using performance enhancing drugs, then wouldn't you think that Armstrong would still be the best cyclist to emerge out of the whole group? But unfortunately PED use is pervasive in cycling, and it makes sense for the cyclists to use drugs in order to level the playing field with everyone else violating the rules. It's sad and it's scathing to the integrity of sports but that's just the reality.
Obviously not every cyclist gets tested on a regular basis for PEDs and only the elite ones like Armstrong will be the subject of most scrutiny. But when they do get tested, with the advances in science and technology, scientists are able to come up with newer and modified substances that are not on the list of banned substances that allow the cyclists to pass the test surreptitiously. And when committees like USADA includes more drugs to banned PEDs, there will be substances in altered form that will be able to bypass the tests undetected.
I'm not saying what Armstrong did is right (if in fact it's true) nor the pervasive use of PEDs in sports, which is the reality of sports today. But out of this came something good, the LIVESTRONG Foundation which raised hundreds of millions of dollars for a good cause to help cancer patients and to provide hope. Whether you think he did this for his own stardom or to sway the attention away from his doping allegations is up to you, but you can't deny that this philanthropic organization is bad for the world, or not enough to overshadow the blemish in his lustrous cycling career.
I'd be willing to guarantee that if any other cyclists used whatever PEDs that Armstrong used for his Tour De France career, he would not come remotely close to winning 7 TDF titles in his career. This allegation is much to meager in contrast to the accolades and accomplishments that he achieved in his career and I think that all this diatribe about Lance Armstrong needs to stop.
Lying and cheating can be excused if others are doing it. Is that what your workplace is like?
I'm mad at Lance because he spawned a culture of middle aged dorks taking to the street on $3000 bikes wearing embarrassing outfits. IMHO, this is a much greater crime than doping,
So even though he was a better cyclist than the rest, he was supposed to just let almost all the others who were juicing beat him while he didnt?
"All the others did it" is not a valid excuse from a grown man.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
