Lance Armstrong - well ... damn

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by stevew

What is the point of all these awareness charities? If you aren't researching, you're wasting money. Everyone knows what the fuck cancer is.

I had a long conversation over the holiday with my brother about this. He's a PHD in Biochemistry and works in the research field.

First, he did say awareness helps sometimes because the best result for cancer survival is catching it early. So getting people to look for that stuff or get proper exams is a huge thing.

But outside of that, he felt it was just a sham to prop up themselves. That research is incredibly expensive and doesn't get you the same attention as a billboard at a stadium does. So groups like Komen and Livestrong don't bother doing it because it doesn't benefit them (they don't give a shit about cancer).

He says the best way to fight cancer for these groups is to get people in for exams. To pay for the exams of people who can't afford it. Catching it early is everything. And then putting the rest toward researching new drugs and technology that will detect cancer earlier.

[Autumn]

Yeah, I don't think awareness is a waste. A lot of our clients do health research and I'd say the number one problem in a lot of fields: cancer, diabetes, obesity, etc., is simply that people don't actually do the simple measures that might prevent things to start with. Getting people to do screenings when they're recommended, or do breast cancer checks, etc., would probably save as many lives as any new drug could. Of course it's kind beating your head on a wall to get people to take care of themselves.

[molson]

I don't know exactly what Livestong does, but it appears to be more about providing support to cancer patients than creating awareness about early detection or anything. As in, they're not "looking for a cure", they're providing some type of services and support to cancer patients (or at least, that's what they purport to do, I have no idea one way or another) That's a worthy mission for a charity I think, though I was as creeped out with the associated Lance worship and promotion as everyone else. Putting the best possible spin on it, Livestrong encouraged donations from people who don't typically donate to charities. And maybe that resulted in a net gain to the universe, who knows.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know exactly what Livestong does, but it appears to be more about providing support to cancer patients than creating awareness about early detection or anything. As in, they're not "looking for a cure", they're providing some type of services and support to cancer patients (or at least, that's what they purport to do, I have no idea one way or another) That's a worthy mission for a charity I think, though I was as creeped out with the associated Lance worship and promotion as everyone else. Putting the best possible spin on it, Livestrong encouraged donations from people who don't typically donate to charities. And maybe that resulted in a net gain to the universe, who knows.

it does this

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know exactly what Livestong does, but it appears to be more about providing support to cancer patients than creating awareness about early detection or anything. As in, they're not "looking for a cure", they're providing some type of services and support to cancer patients (or at least, that's what they purport to do, I have no idea one way or another) That's a worthy mission for a charity I think, though I was as creeped out with the associated Lance worship and promotion as everyone else. Putting the best possible spin on it, Livestrong encouraged donations from people who don't typically donate to charities. And maybe that resulted in a net gain to the universe, who knows.

My fiancee used to work for an organization that provided direct support for children with cancer and their families, beginning two days after diagnosis. A good amount of it is emotional support, but there's also direct financial assistance to the family (helping with bills, providing gas cards, grocery store gift cards, etc) as in most cases after a child is diagnosed, a family goes from having two incomes to having one as one parent will stay in the hospital with the child 24/7. They also help pay for funerals.

These types of charities are seriously underfunded compared to the research-driven orgs.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know exactly what Livestong does, but it appears to be more about providing support to cancer patients than creating awareness about early detection or anything. As in, they're not "looking for a cure", they're providing some type of services and support to cancer patients (or at least, that's what they purport to do, I have no idea one way or another) That's a worthy mission for a charity I think, though I was as creeped out with the associated Lance worship and promotion as everyone else. Putting the best possible spin on it, Livestrong encouraged donations from people who don't typically donate to charities. And maybe that resulted in a net gain to the universe, who knows.

I always thought it was a triathlete training organization for douche bags. They support cancer awareness?

[Drake]

I think they should change their name to the Susan B. Komen Foundation for Living Stronger...or maybe Livestrong for the Cure.

The lawsuits flying back and forth between these two bitches for the next decade would be enough entertainment value to make it all worth it.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I always thought it was a triathlete training organization for douche bags. They support cancer awareness?

That's Team in Training. And yes, they are generally looked down upon by most runners/triathletes.

[Thomkal]

Just in case you aren't watching the interview on Oprah's channel-he fully admitted to doping-just about every kind possible, and was doping during all seven of his Tour De France wins.

[stevew]

Oprah has a channel?

[Easy Mac]

OWN - Oprah and Lance Armstrong: The Worldwide Exclusive for people out west.

[Drake]

Oprah sucks at building drama, that's for sure.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

Oprah has a channel?

Heh, that's not an uncommon response really. Tonight should be a Star Trek moment for OWN , as men boldly go where no men have gone before.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Just in case you aren't watching the interview on Oprah's channel-he fully admitted to doping-just about every kind possible, and was doping during all seven of his Tour De France wins.

And he joins the small club with Pete Rose of guys I used to hold in the highest esteem, who I wanted to root for, but now just shake my head in extreme disappointment.

[Groundhog]

For some odd reason I know a lot of people that cycle on weekends fairly seriously, and it surprises me that the general consensus seems to be "I don't care, he's still a legend". Uh, no. What made him "legendary" was his success, and what made him succeed was cheating, so, no. Sorry. Unless you mean legendary at bypassing security checks.

[Logan]

Is there anything to watch for that could be considered a new development?

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Logan

Is there anything to watch for that could be considered a new development?

That depends. Do you still believe Armstrong was never doping?

[Thomkal]

Said he didn't feel bad or that it was wrong during that time, or that he was cheating, but it was a level playing field.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by mckerney

That depends. Do you still believe Armstrong was never doping?

I think the last time I thought he might be clean was during his conversation with Peter LaFleur.

[JonInMiddleGA]

OMG, an honest & not particularly obnoxious column by Rick Reilly.
Lance Armstrong's history of lying - ESPN

[Easy Mac]

Livestrong!

Lance Armstrong in the movie. Its true about the sport. "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story" - YouTube

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Said he didn't feel bad or that it was wrong during that time, or that he was cheating, but it was a level playing field.

I sort of buy the "level playing field" argument. At this point I 100% believe they're all cheating, so why not just legalize it and regulate it and then we can actually have a fair competition.

I mean hell - they can't even award most of the TdF's they're stripping him too, because all of the other Top 10 finishers have been busted for doping. That's ridiculous.

[Thomkal]

claims that their was never a positive test for EPO in the Tour De Swiss as others have reported-no bribing them or otherwise coercing them to cover up.

[DaddyTorgo]

Also claims he didn't dope after 2005, so his third place in 2009 is legit according to him, because of the biological passport

[jeff061]

I have a hard time believing anyone could finish third clean.

[WheelsVT]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I sort of buy the "level playing field" argument. At this point I 100% believe they're all cheating, so why not just legalize it and regulate it and then we can actually have a fair competition.

I mean hell - they can't even award most of the TdF's they're stripping him too, because all of the other Top 10 finishers have been busted for doping. That's ridiculous.

Neo-pros would not be given the keys to a world class program costing millions. While "everyone was doing it", there are so many ways to dope and financial costs, logistics, etc, that not everyone could afford the same effective program. There's no way it was a level playing field.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I have a hard time believing anyone could finish third clean.

Yes - well that is his claim.

But that also helps make my point - they're all doping...so I don't know...I don't admire him for doping and winning, but on SOME level (i dunno WHAT level, but SOME level) it's still an accomplishment, ya know?

[heybrad]

The guy is smirking and laughing at how he completely trashed some lady and I guess, ruined her husbands career. I don't know the whole story, but wow... what an asswipe.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by WheelsVT

Neo-pros would not be given the keys to a world class program costing millions. While "everyone was doing it", there are so many ways to dope and financial costs, logistics, etc, that not everyone could afford the same effective program. There's no way it was a level playing field.

fair point

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I sort of buy the "level playing field" argument. At this point I 100% believe they're all cheating, so why not just legalize it and regulate it and then we can actually have a fair competition.

I mean hell - they can't even award most of the TdF's they're stripping him too, because all of the other Top 10 finishers have been busted for doping. That's ridiculous.

See I just can't buy that argument, but then I'm not a competitive athlete who by his own words was trying to win at all costs. Cycling is a sport like any other-doesn't matter how big it is here in the US or in comparision to others, you don't just cheat period. And you don't just sit back and watch it happen all around you either and decide you have no choice but to follow suit.

[Easy Mac]

Betsy Andreau is not fat. she may be crazy, a bitch and fat, but she is not a porn star!

[Groundhog]

Just walked into the kitchen here at work and caught 5 mins of it. He was talking about how him coming back was what got him busted. Asked if he regretted 'The Comeback' (as opposed to 'MY Comeback'), he says yeah, if not for that he wouldn't be sitting there. Meaning, he would've gotten away with it. No remorse.

[Peregrine]

The problem I have with all the people who say "Everyone was doping, so it's still essentially a level playing field" is that at that point the playing field is no longer an athletic competition but who has the best drugs, the best doctors, the best doping regimen - is that an accomplishment in my eyes? I say no.

[Groundhog]

It's like car racing. Who has the most money and technology behind them.

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

It's like car racing. Who has the most money and technology behind them.

But those are essential parts of car racing, without money and lots of tech you're just some guy trying to drive a Camry in the 24 Hours of Le Mans. Take drugs out of bike racing and you have left - bike racing.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

But those are essential parts of car racing, without money and lots of tech you're just some guy trying to drive a Camry in the 24 Hours of Le Mans. Take drugs out of bike racing and you have left - bike racing.

Yah I'm not knocking car racing - it's a technology-based competition, which is not what a physical-based competition like cycling should be reduced to.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Take drugs out of bike racing and you have left - bike racing.

Surely though theres a heck of a lot of 'tech' in the make up of the bikes etc. - the competition for improvements for them has been furious at times.

(not saying its as 'expensive' as car racing - but its an element involving who wins)

[Peregrine]

Definitely Marc, I'm sure there's a lot of tech in bike design, etc.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I sort of buy the "level playing field" argument. At this point I 100% believe they're all cheating, so why not just legalize it and regulate it and then we can actually have a fair competition.

I mean hell - they can't even award most of the TdF's they're stripping him too, because all of the other Top 10 finishers have been busted for doping. That's ridiculous.

No. Just no. Compare times up climbs now to 10 years ago. Compare average speeds. Compare watts outputs. Look at the riders crossing the finishing lines. All are significantly worse than now than they were 10 years ago.

I'm not saying non-one is doping, because the will be an an element in every sport, but while 10 years ago it seems 90% were cheating, now it is at least 90% clean

It's a very ill-informed and ignorant attitude to say all cyclists are (present tense) drugs cheats

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Just walked into the kitchen here at work and caught 5 mins of it. He was talking about how him coming back was what got him busted. Asked if he regretted 'The Comeback' (as opposed to 'MY Comeback'), he says yeah, if not for that he wouldn't be sitting there. Meaning, he would've gotten away with it. No remorse.

That was I thought was the major news: admission, but he was sorry about having to admit it rather than the action itself

[Icy]

As somebody pointed before, for the main issue with him besides cheating is how he tried to cover it during all those years, using his fane and power to destroy everybody who accused him, including ex-team mates.

Imho besides the sports related bans, he should be prosecuted by the law authorities for coercing, threatening, lying, and in resume for all the damage he has done outside cheating.

[RedKingGold]

I would bet the statute of limitations ran on most of the claims which could have been brought against Lance before the interview last night.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Icy

As somebody pointed before, for the main issue with him besides cheating is how he tried to cover it during all those years, using his fane and power to destroy everybody who accused him, including ex-team mates.

Imho besides the sports related bans, he should be prosecuted by the law authorities for coercing, threatening, lying, and in resume for all the damage he has done outside cheating.

I also doubt anything will be done criminally, but I am sure he is in for a whole bunch of civil issues.....And deservedly so.

Takes a lot of balls (no pun intended) to sue someone and take their money when you know their accusations are correct.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by AlexB

No. Just no. Compare times up climbs now to 10 years ago. Compare average speeds. Compare watts outputs. Look at the riders crossing the finishing lines. All are significantly worse than now than they were 10 years ago.

I'm not saying non-one is doping, because the will be an an element in every sport, but while 10 years ago it seems 90% were cheating, now it is at least 90% clean

It's a very ill-informed and ignorant attitude to say all cyclists are (present tense) drugs cheats

Only if you ignore history. I would bet each team is also actively trying to figure out how to get away with it again.

[AlexB]

On the contrary, it's only by comparing to history that you can say with any degree of certainty that things are different now: ignoring history would mean you had no control data. Found this which pretty much sums up what my thoughts are

BBC News - Tour de France: Are drug-free cyclists slower?

[jeff061]

Pardon me for quoting myself:

Originally Posted by jeff061

I have a hard time believing anyone could finish third clean.

Lance Armstrong May Have Lied to Oprah to Cover Crimes: Investigators - ABC News

[booradley]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

The problem I have with all the people who say "Everyone was doping, so it's still essentially a level playing field" is that at that point the playing field is no longer an athletic competition but who has the best drugs, the best doctors, the best doping regimen - is that an accomplishment in my eyes? I say no.

I agree with you. We admire athletes for their rare ability and spirit, not for the drugs they take. The concepts of fair play are also violated by PED-users, as essentially you're mandating that EVERYONE who dreams of competing at a top level will be required to dope and deal with the potentially-hazardous consequences. Otherwise - dream over. That'd be a WONDERFUL message to give to our children. I could go on and on here, but I think I'd rather go out and grab a beer.

[Raiders Army]

Sort of wonder about that Adrian Peterson guy who bounced back from a total reconstruction in record time to threaten the single season rushing record.

[Matthean]

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Sort of wonder about that Adrian Peterson guy who bounced back from a total reconstruction in record time to threaten the single season rushing record.

Did you mention the NFL? lalalalalalalalaalala we're not listening!!!!!