Jeep Wrangler Forum - Reply to Topic
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > General Discussion Forums > Off-Topic > Lance Armstrong

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Thread: Lance Armstrong Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
10-31-2012 02:35 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsbad0331 View Post
I hope you did not find my post offensive, but after reading it again I could see how that could happen. I had guessed that you were either an attorney or college level professor by your writing style.
In any event, there have been good points made on both sides of the discussion!
Carry on...
Offensive? Nonsense--I saw truth!
10-31-2012 11:48 AM
Carlsbad0331
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH View Post


In fairness, I'm a lawyer who spends a LOT of time writing briefs, motions, etc. in complex civil litigation matters. I can write a lot, in a reasonably organized way, very fast. Probably a lot faster than most folks.

And yesterday was one of those writing days, meaning I could have WF running in the background pretty much all day.

But . . . I don't think there's any dispute that many of us waste . . . err, excuse me, "spend" . . . WAAAAAY too much time here.
I hope you did not find my post offensive, but after reading it again I could see how that could happen. I had guessed that you were either an attorney or college level professor by your writing style.
In any event, there have been good points made on both sides of the discussion!
Carry on...
10-31-2012 09:07 AM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsbad0331 View Post
Wow, you guys really have alot of time on your hands to discuss this in such depth...
Kudos to you for having such strong opinions and the time to express them!


In fairness, I'm a lawyer who spends a LOT of time writing briefs, motions, etc. in complex civil litigation matters. I can write a lot, in a reasonably organized way, very fast. Probably a lot faster than most folks.

And yesterday was one of those writing days, meaning I could have WF running in the background pretty much all day.

But . . . I don't think there's any dispute that many of us waste . . . err, excuse me, "spend" . . . WAAAAAY too much time here.
10-30-2012 08:37 PM
Carlsbad0331 Wow, you guys really have alot of time on your hands to discuss this in such depth...
Kudos to you for having such strong opinions and the time to express them!
10-30-2012 06:53 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ View Post
That is the greatest shame. But no, our media must find a bad guy, so we can be good guys. There must always be a villan. Lance got the call, and no, it is not fair.
Yup, agreed.
10-30-2012 06:21 PM
BlueRidgeYJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Lew
...
BTW......you do realize that people with tons of money HAVE TO look for something to write their money off with (donations)? ...
I presume you mean else the Big Bad Guberment come take it all? Shame it has to be that way to get those with the ability to to actually do it.

I agree there are much easier (and more lucrative) ways of obtaining writeoffs than starting any 501.
10-30-2012 06:12 PM
BlueRidgeYJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH
...That's tragic. What an awful choice to give a bunch of twenty-somethings who had spent their entire young lives trying to become pro...
The choice in SEC football locker rooms, ACC basketball locker rooms, and Ivy league rowing (no I'm kidding here) - It is an indoctrination of culture, unfortunately. Like the baseball analogy so many try to make: Nearly every record setting baseball allstar dopes. Period. It started long ago, and got big with Sosa, Clemens, Conseco, & Bonds. Worse, MLB knows it. BUT, you will not watch a 1-0 baseball game. 99% of Americans call that boring, 2 people playing catch, etc, etc. so they turn a blind eye to get 6-14 final scores, and a dramatic increase in sales. We all want to be there when that record was set, when Don Larson (right?) threw that final pitch, when Gale Sayers caught that record kickoff, when Phelps hit that wall, when Schumacher won the 8th circuit, etc. Owners are happy to oblige, at 55$ a seat and 10$ a dawg or beer.

That is the greatest shame. But no, our media must find a bad guy, so we can be good guys. There must always be a villan. Lance got the call, and no, it is not fair.
10-30-2012 05:48 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Lew View Post
Lance Armstrong has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from cycling. Pat McQuaid, president of the International Cycling Union, the sport’s governing body, said Armstrong, “deserves to be forgotten.”





It may be that Mr. McQuaid’s words were exactly wrong and also a key to understanding the weakness in a man named Lance Armstrong.
Armstrong’s life story is, from a psychological perspective, less noteworthy for its triumphs than its tragedies, and his racing away from them seems to have failed, as it always does. In life, the truth always wins, no matter how cagey a person might think he is in outsmarting it.
Armstrong’s truth—and likely the driving force in his winning seven Tour de France titles while allegedly injecting himself with steroids and mainlining his own blood—is that his father abandoned him at age 2. To this day, Armstrong has refused to meet him. His mother then married another man with whom Armstrong did not get along, and with whom he has had no contact for years.
An abandoned and forgotten boy is—absent extraordinary healing—forever an abandoned and forgotten boy. Two years old is plenty old enough to be torn apart at the level of the soul by the abrupt severing, without explanation, of a father-son bond. It is plenty old enough to be shredded by the haunting suspicion that one is unworthy and unlovable. It is plenty old enough to set the stage for a decades-long race for enough fame and adulation to fill the emotional black hole inside you that keeps threatening to make you disappear into it.
Armstrong’s truth—and likely the driving force in his winning seven Tour de France titles while allegedly injecting himself with steroids and mainlining his own blood—is that his father abandoned him at age 2.

-


And, so, Armstrong seems to have pedaled faster and faster. And if his teammates and adversaries wondered how a man could be so driven as to declare himself a winner when he was not, again and again and again, to have seemingly no compunction about celebrating hollow victories, and to maintain a synthetic fiction in the face of seemingly incontrovertible fact, they need only remember the hollowness inside that man, born of being a forgotten boy—that black hole and the threat of complete psychological disintegration it represented to him, if only unconsciously.
If the contentions of the officials who banned Armstrong are correct, the vacuum of real self-esteem that could reside within him predicts that he will continue—probably forever—to deny that he ever used performance enhancing substances and keep fleeing his core feelings, until he can’t come up with any other way to dodge them.
So, he is likely now to try to reinvent himself—perhaps by starting his own cycling league, perhaps by starring in a reality show. Anything, but anything to avoid the reality that he was unloved by the first man in his life.
I hope my readers will not mind terribly much if I burden them with some of the finer psychological poetry of this forgotten, weak , boy-man named Armstrong. Because it is not lost on this psychiatrist that Lance Armstrong, in a game of tragic of one-upmanship spent his life racing away from other men, when his father raced away from him.
It is not lost on this psychiatrist that he allegedly spent decades injecting himself with male hormones, as if to be male enough to be a worthy son, rather than forgotten one.
It is not lost on this psychiatrist that the very attempt to cheat the truth—to bury grief and rage, rather than facing them—could turn one’s very manhood into a cancer and make malignant the most graphic anatomic symbol of masculinity and fatherhood.
And it is not lost on this psychiatrist that Pat McQuaid, president (father, if you will) of the International Cycling Union, would stumble into repeating the biggest psychological trauma in Armstrong’s life, by calling him “forgettable.”
Everything in the world and every person in it and every act is explainable. And, very often, the explanations are very sad, indeed.
You see, to truly Livestrong after being injured catastrophically as a boy by abandonment requires looking at your pain, sitting with it, really feeling it, not trying to outdistance it—which is impossible and a race to oblivion. It requires realizing that you were always loveable, even if you were unloved, and that false fame and a Superman-lean frame will only separate you from that healing reality, which many people correctly call God.
And, so, it is with that knowledge that I wish Lance Armstrong Godspeed on his continuing journey toward the certain knowledge that he was always a worthy person, even if his father was too broken to love him. That is the only race worth winning in Lance Armstrong’s life, and it is the beauty of this miraculous existence of ours, that it can still be won.

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist.

Very interesting, yes. I saw that too back when it was first published. It's just a theory of course, but it is interesting. Like I mentioned in a prior post, it might not have been "all about the Benjamins."

And again, whether it's spot on correct or not is really not the issue. I'm not saying Armstrong's behavior was good and ethical. I'm objecting to the handling of the matter by the media and cycling's governing bodies, which want to make this all about Armstrong and are doing so by publicly excoriating him, when the reality Armstrong was in all likelihood merely a symptom of cycling's tremendously widespread doping problem.

I'm also lamenting the fact--well, I believe it to be fact--that had all of cycling been a clean sport, Armstrong would have competed clean and would have won just the same. But we as a sporting public have effectively been cheated out of that incredible performance.

Who shares the blame for that? No doubt part of it rests on Armstrong. But a lot of it rests on cycling as well--the powers that be just don't want to say that or have any of that attention directed their way. And so they beat the drum about Armstrong while they quietly clean house.
10-30-2012 05:47 PM
Big Lew
Lastly......

Be a follower of NO man.

Have a great day everyone!
10-30-2012 05:45 PM
Big Lew
interesting reading.....

Lance Armstrong has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from cycling. Pat McQuaid, president of the International Cycling Union, the sport’s governing body, said Armstrong, “deserves to be forgotten.”
It may be that Mr. McQuaid’s words were exactly wrong and also a key to understanding the weakness in a man named Lance Armstrong.
Armstrong’s life story is, from a psychological perspective, less noteworthy for its triumphs than its tragedies, and his racing away from them seems to have failed, as it always does. In life, the truth always wins, no matter how cagey a person might think he is in outsmarting it.
Armstrong’s truth—and likely the driving force in his winning seven Tour de France titles while allegedly injecting himself with steroids and mainlining his own blood—is that his father abandoned him at age 2. To this day, Armstrong has refused to meet him. His mother then married another man with whom Armstrong did not get along, and with whom he has had no contact for years.
An abandoned and forgotten boy is—absent extraordinary healing—forever an abandoned and forgotten boy. Two years old is plenty old enough to be torn apart at the level of the soul by the abrupt severing, without explanation, of a father-son bond. It is plenty old enough to be shredded by the haunting suspicion that one is unworthy and unlovable. It is plenty old enough to set the stage for a decades-long race for enough fame and adulation to fill the emotional black hole inside you that keeps threatening to make you disappear into it.
Armstrong’s truth—and likely the driving force in his winning seven Tour de France titles while allegedly injecting himself with steroids and mainlining his own blood—is that his father abandoned him at age 2.
-


And, so, Armstrong seems to have pedaled faster and faster. And if his teammates and adversaries wondered how a man could be so driven as to declare himself a winner when he was not, again and again and again, to have seemingly no compunction about celebrating hollow victories, and to maintain a synthetic fiction in the face of seemingly incontrovertible fact, they need only remember the hollowness inside that man, born of being a forgotten boy—that black hole and the threat of complete psychological disintegration it represented to him, if only unconsciously.
If the contentions of the officials who banned Armstrong are correct, the vacuum of real self-esteem that could reside within him predicts that he will continue—probably forever—to deny that he ever used performance enhancing substances and keep fleeing his core feelings, until he can’t come up with any other way to dodge them.
So, he is likely now to try to reinvent himself—perhaps by starting his own cycling league, perhaps by starring in a reality show. Anything, but anything to avoid the reality that he was unloved by the first man in his life.
I hope my readers will not mind terribly much if I burden them with some of the finer psychological poetry of this forgotten, weak , boy-man named Armstrong. Because it is not lost on this psychiatrist that Lance Armstrong, in a game of tragic of one-upmanship spent his life racing away from other men, when his father raced away from him.
It is not lost on this psychiatrist that he allegedly spent decades injecting himself with male hormones, as if to be male enough to be a worthy son, rather than forgotten one.
It is not lost on this psychiatrist that the very attempt to cheat the truth—to bury grief and rage, rather than facing them—could turn one’s very manhood into a cancer and make malignant the most graphic anatomic symbol of masculinity and fatherhood.
And it is not lost on this psychiatrist that Pat McQuaid, president (father, if you will) of the International Cycling Union, would stumble into repeating the biggest psychological trauma in Armstrong’s life, by calling him “forgettable.”
Everything in the world and every person in it and every act is explainable. And, very often, the explanations are very sad, indeed.
You see, to truly Livestrong after being injured catastrophically as a boy by abandonment requires looking at your pain, sitting with it, really feeling it, not trying to outdistance it—which is impossible and a race to oblivion. It requires realizing that you were always loveable, even if you were unloved, and that false fame and a Superman-lean frame will only separate you from that healing reality, which many people correctly call God.
And, so, it is with that knowledge that I wish Lance Armstrong Godspeed on his continuing journey toward the certain knowledge that he was always a worthy person, even if his father was too broken to love him. That is the only race worth winning in Lance Armstrong’s life, and it is the beauty of this miraculous existence of ours, that it can still be won.

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist.


10-30-2012 05:44 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Lew View Post
EVERY ONE ELSE WAS DOPING???? are you sure that every person that raced in those races was doping? I could not agree with you at all on what you stated here.
Twenty of the twenty-one Tour de France podium finishers from Armstrong's era have been credibly linked to doping allegations. And that's just the guys on the podium.

Testimony is now coming out regarding a standing omerta among all riders.

So many were doping that cycling's governing bodies are going to make no effort to reallocate the titles or places from those years, as there are so many riders who have been linked to doping that it would be a hopeless endeavor to even try to find any "clean" riders to give the titles to.

Was literally everyone doping? Maybe not. But it was damn close, and it might have been everyone. So yes, I'm pretty sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Lew View Post
BTW......you do realize that people with tons of money HAVE TO look for something to write their money off with (donations)? Armstrong is the worst of the worst in my book . . . .
I do realize that qualified charitable contributions result in tax deductions. Beyond that, I'm not sure I see the point. Are you suggesting Armstrong started a charity from a grassroots base and brought it to international acclaim to achieve tax deductions? Were there not existing 501(c)(3) organizations he could have donated to without having to do all that work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Lew View Post
and yes, I am a cancer survivor.
Hats off to you sir, and I hope you stay cancer free. I watched my dad fight it and lose. It's a terrible thing.
10-30-2012 05:39 PM
gimp5561 so who held on to his pee all this time ????
does he own a jeep
10-30-2012 05:27 PM
Big Lew
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH View Post
I knew somebody would come along with this view eventually.

If we assume everything that's been published by the USADA is true, then the inescapable conclusion is that Armstrong along with every other significant cyclist (and the vast majority of insignificant cyclists) of that era doped.

Indeed, as noted above, at least 20 of the 21 podium finishers from Armstrong's Tours de France have been credibly linked to doping.

That's breaking the rules, but when the scale becomes that large, it's no longer "cheating." Cheating implies an unfair advantage, and if everyone was doing it, that's not what Armstrong had. This wasn't cheating--it was participating in an entire rule breaking culture.

This brings up the moral dilemmas I mentioned earlier, which I assume you fellas have answers to that you plan to share. I say this is principally a failing of the sport's regulatory bodies. A massive, massive failure. What should an athlete coming to pro cycling in 2000 have done? Cycle clean? He'd lose--all of the time. Come to the media or authorities? Some did, but they were shunned and never had any impact. Quit? Good in principle I guess, but it accomplishes nothing besides making you NOT a pro athlete.

The choice was dope and compete, or don't and go away. That's it.

That's the problem when PEDs are allowed to spread unabated. Without any check on their spread, they became a "cost of doing business" as an elite cyclist. Using them wasn't cheating--it was leveling the playing field to compete at all.

My mind could be changed of course. Perhaps Armstrong's doping was "extra special." Maybe he had more doping and better doping than anybody else. If that's the case, then I agree it was unfair. But I don't believe that for a second. All of these teams had sophisticated and expensive doping protocols in place. Cycling may be a niche sport here, but it's huge in Europe. Tens and tens of millions were at stake.

For what it's worth, I haven't heard any cyclist of the era claim that they could've beaten Armstrong had he not been doping. Think about that for a minute. Not only does it say a lot about who else was doping, it also says a lot about just how good Armstrong was. Everybody was doping like crazy, but nobody could beat him.

He's one of the best athletes of probably the last hundred years.

Finally, I note that the robber/little league comment is ridiculous. Armstrong never robbed any banks or committed any violent crime. He participated in a rule breaking culture along with substantially all of the other participants. That's not the same thing. And he didn't coach little leaguers--he spearheaded an epic cancer charity that has set the bar world wide. Again, not the same thing.

I'm fine with him losing his titles. (Note they're not reallocating those titles either--because everybody else was doping too.) I'm just not keen on him being "disgraced." He broke the rules, but he's still the best there's ever been. And I'm not keen in this being "about him"--it's about cycling, and the deeply entrenched, endemic problems it has. Armstrong was a symptom, not a cause. It's too bad he wasn't just starting out now.
EVERY ONE ELSE WAS DOPING???? are you sure that every person that raced in those races was doping? I could not agree with you at all on what you stated here.
BTW......you do realize that people with tons of money HAVE TO look for something to write their money off with (donations)? Armstrong is the worst of the worst in my book, and yes, I am a cancer survivor.
10-30-2012 05:25 PM
Raiderfan001 I wonder how many baseball records would be expunged because of steroid use. It would probably be easier to list which ones were left.
10-30-2012 05:18 PM
BlueRidgeYJ Raiderfan - I would hope any athelete, race team, or orginization producing records year after year at the most prestigious level are more heavily scrutinized.

Farnham - I really want to see your point of view, and I understand some of it, but I don't understand all the vengence. Why should any man be deprived of livelihood for a past transgression?

Johnnymoto - He has, and then some. Livestrong gave some 28 million $ and change last year to cancer support. Primarily to survivor efforts and awareness, not to an actual cure. I personally do not appreciate the efforts of orginizations to "raise awareness" (through sales) instead of funding research. Take Komen for instance, they sell cosmetics with carcinogens to women and donate a portion to cancer awareness. Wtf is the point in that? I don't know of anything that crazy in Livestrong, but research is better any day than awareness.
10-30-2012 04:52 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
So doping just cause everyone else did isn't?
No, I agree what he did was unethical.

As I've said many times, I'm not suggesting Armstrong was RIGHT or what he did was GOOD.

I'm saying that the media reaction and the effort by the governing bodies to hang this all on him is ridiculous.

He's an incredible athlete that achieved incredible things. However, it turns out that he and his entire sport at the time was harboring an EPICALLY ubiquitous, secret culture of PED use.

The entirety of it needs to be aired out, with Armstrong as a mere piece of an entire sport's problem. It's preposterous to try to hang him for what was really a failing of the entire sport. It was terribly unfair to the competitors that this environment was allowed to grow--again, dope and compete, or don't dope and don't compete. That's tragic. What an awful choice to give a bunch of twenty-somethings who had spent their entire young lives trying to become pro cyclists.

THAT'S what I'm saying. The entire sport needs to look in the mirror and question its ethics. Not just Armstrong. The media (and--shock!!--the sport's governing bodies, who really need to own a lot of this) want this to be about Armstrong, and I just don't see it. He's one guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderfan001 View Post
Que? He never said that made it ethical. The post you even quoted he said it was unethical...

I think you're missing the point. The fact is that only Armstrong is being burned at the stake when the entire sport is filled with witches just as guilty.
Ding ding ding ding ding!!!
10-30-2012 04:49 PM
Raiderfan001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
So doping just cause everyone else did isn't?
Que? He never said that made it ethical. The post you even quoted he said it was unethical...

I think you're missing the point. The fact is that only Armstrong is being burned at the stake when the entire sport is filled with witches just as guilty.
10-30-2012 04:43 PM
Farnham21
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH

I agree it was unethical.
So doping just cause everyone else did isn't?
10-30-2012 04:31 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnymoto View Post
I have to disagree with some. I am an Aircraft Mechanic. Lets just say, just to illustrate my position, that I use drugs ( which for the record, I DON`T ). Will you let me fix your plane ? Even if I am the very best ever Mechanic on Earth, it`s not ethical to do it if I hold a responsibility for my actions. Lance knew he was an example to others, specially to kids, why in the hell did he mess with that stuff if it was not Ethical, regardless of anything else that we can think of ?????? I think it was more important winning than competing. Now, if he donated every penny he ever earned, to Charity, then I would consider him a Robin Hood !!!!!!!!!
I agree it was unethical.
10-30-2012 04:30 PM
MTH Closer . . . again, comment-by-comment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
If he is this so strong person and all and has all this mental toughness, why did he cheat?
Because his competitors were all elite athletes and they were doping. Just because he's an amazing once-in-a-lifetime athlete doesn't mean he can compete clean and still beat ALMOST amazing once-in-a-lifetime athletes that are heavily doped. Against the rules or not, if he was going to have a chance, he needed a level field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
If he was the man he portrayed himself to be, he wouldn't have gave into the peer pressure put on him by everyone else doing it just to win.
He didn't do it just to win. He did it to compete fairly with the other dopers. Doping doesn't win--as evidenced by the countless dopers who lost.

His choice was dope and compete, or don't dope and don't compete. That's it. You can criticize which of those routes he chose, but you can't say there were other routes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
He beat cancer and its amazing he even got on the bike an that should have been enough. He was greedy and anyone who says he wasn't is oblivious to what being an athlete or even a good human being means.
Actually, I think he did it because he's competitive as hell and couldn't stand the idea that anyone had any kind of edge he didn't have. I doubt money had much to do with it. Just a guess though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
He cheated that's it, it's over and he is receiving the punishment he deserves and will hopefully never recover from it.
It's far from over. We have yet to see who will be punished or how. I'm not sure whether a retired athlete "recovers" from something like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
And your statements about athletes is completely wrong, real athletes who actually care about the sport (and participate in real sports not hobbies) dot just care about themselves like he did.
So presumably your position is that just about every cyclist from that era was not a "real athlete"? I'm not sure what you mean about caring about the sport rather than just themselves . . . the only related objective metric I can think of is how much a particular athlete "did" for a sport. And of course, Armstrong did a whole hell of a lot for cycling. So I'm not sure how that argument shakes out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
Cycling to me is a huge joke because of this if everyone is a cheater why would anyone want to watch it and everyone should and will be punished for it.
Everyone should be punished in accord with their culpability. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen. If the current media coverage is any indicator, Armstrong is to be punished and nothing happens to anybody else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
This is true for every sport and when someone is accused of steroids or doping they're not viewed the same by fans or teammates.
What about when everybody is accused of cheating?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
Would you want to play on a team where someone is cheating and taking away from the credit you really deserve?
Only if I got to cheat too . . . which is what was happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
An when they get caught what does that say about you a. And b. your team for allowing it. It makes the team look stupid and makes anything you may have accomplished much less accredited.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
Lets say baseball for an example, if you are batting behind the steroid user who gets on base all the time and drive him in for an RBI quite often, the stats you got are really void because who knows if without the drugs he would have even got on base?
The difference is in baseball the users were the exception, not the rule.

As a result, Armstrong was competing against other dopers. Taking your baseball analogy, it'd be like you--while on steriods--were batting behind another guy on steriods.

Is either one of you in an ethically superior position? No.

If the other guy still batted better than you, can you really claim that was only due to the steriods? No, you both had the same chemical advantage and he was simply better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
It's a whirlwind of negativity that comes from it and it doesn't matter if everyone was doing it it just doesn't.
It matters in some very important ways that everyone was doing it. That removes the "unfairness" aspect of doping that fuels so much of the vicious reaction the public has to proof of PED use. It's only "unfair" when just a few people do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
If lance Armstrong was a real man and a true fighter, he wouldn't have created bottom line.
Maybe. Like I said, the choice was dope and compete, or don't dope and don't compete. Given how competitive he was, I'm not surprised at the route he took, even if it was ethically wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
Another prime example of how greed can ruin a persons life legacy and career.
Competitiveness maybe. Remember, apparently almost everybody was doping. They're not all millionaries. It's not all about the Benjamins.

And one more from your next post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
You didn't win $hit lance Armstrong
A little sketchy on this. I agree he can no longer claim he "won" the Tour de France. To make that claim, you have to do it within the rules, which he did not. However, he did cross the line first among a group of folks doping just like he did. He was undoubtedly the best of the time. Not sure that's all "$hit."
10-30-2012 04:26 PM
Farnham21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnymoto
I have to disagree with some. I am an Aircraft Mechanic. Lets just say, just to illustrate my position, that I use drugs ( which for the record, I DON`T ). Will you let me fix your plane ? Even if I am the very best ever Mechanic on Earth, it`s not ethical to do it if I hold a responsibility for my actions. Lance knew he was an example to others, specially to kids, why in the hell did he mess with that stuff if it was not Ethical, regardless of anything else that we can think of ?????? I think it was more important winning than competing. Now, if he donated every penny he ever earned, to Charity, then I would consider him a Robin Hood !!!!!!!!!
Agreed the problem is is that he probably generated personal money from that charity due to endorsements and sponsors from it. It makes me sick to think about al the kids he convinced and tried to lecture about how I won 7 titles and beat cancer. You didn't win $hit lance Armstrong
10-30-2012 04:16 PM
Johnnymoto I have to disagree with some. I am an Aircraft Mechanic. Lets just say, just to illustrate my position, that I use drugs ( which for the record, I DON`T ). Will you let me fix your plane ? Even if I am the very best ever Mechanic on Earth, it`s not ethical to do it if I hold a responsibility for my actions. Lance knew he was an example to others, specially to kids, why in the hell did he mess with that stuff if it was not Ethical, regardless of anything else that we can think of ?????? I think it was more important winning than competing. Now, if he donated every penny he ever earned, to Charity, then I would consider him a Robin Hood !!!!!!!!!
10-30-2012 04:10 PM
Farnham21 If he is this so strong person and all and has all this mental toughness, why did he cheat? If he was the man he portrayed himself to be, he wouldn't have gave into the peer pressure put on him by everyone else doing it just to win. He beat cancer and its amazing he even got on the bike an that should have been enough. He was greedy and anyone who says he wasn't is oblivious to what being an athlete or even a good human being means. He cheated that's it, it's over and he is receiving the punishment he deserves and will hopefully never recover from it. And your statements about athletes is completely wrong, real athletes who actually care about the sport (and participate in real sports not hobbies) dot just care about themselves like he did. Cycling to me is a huge joke because of this if everyone is a cheater why would anyone want to watch it and everyone should and will be punished for it. This is true for every sport and when someone is accused of steroids or doping they're not viewed the same by fans or teammates. Would you want to play on a team where someone is cheating and taking away from the credit you really deserve? An when they get caught what does that say about you a. And b. your team for allowing it. It makes the team look stupid and makes anything you may have accomplished much less accredited. Lets say baseball for an example, if you are batting behind the steroid user who gets on base all the time and drive him in for an RBI quite often, the stats you got are really void because who knows if without the drugs he would have even got on base? It's a whirlwind of negativity that comes from it and it doesn't matter if everyone was doing it it just doesn't. If lance Armstrong was a real man and a true fighter, he wouldn't have created bottom line. Another prime example of how greed can ruin a persons life legacy and career.
10-30-2012 04:06 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ View Post
MTH, great points. Fine points by all, really.

I certainly concede that he is one of the best natural cyclists in history, if not the best.
I also concede that while recovering and after surviving cancer, steroids of some type are required for anything requiring strength or endurance, meaning if any should have taken it would be him. Thats just the composition of humans.
I am in complete agreement that all involved, including those responsible for ensuring and testing against doping, be held to the fire as well.
No way would he have had any traction whistleblowing, nor recieved any awards for not doping.

I am also deeply concerned over the criminal allegations I brought up earlier, with the Coke, Doctor, Teammate fiasco. If true, that elevates the whole thing and his involvement, and makes what was "bad" into criminal. But thats for his peers to decide, not me.

I have left 3 good jobs, GOOD jobs, because I did not feel the companies operated ethically. How many good, honest men in this world have sacrificed dreams to hold morals? Imo, some things are just more important. None of them got awards, riches, or fame, and that is just fine with them.

Now for clarity, I am no saint. I have done things I shouldn't have, I have done things that are illegal. I've not commited violent crimes, but to my knowledge neither did mr Armstrong. I do not mean to sound holier than anyone, but the decisions I made as a younger feller made me the man I am today. I speak my mind, and try to do what I feel is right. Nohing more to it.

I'm sure there are more points I missed that I would like to make, but I am getting a bit wordy now, so all for now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderfan001 View Post
The only reason they're on the witch hunt for Armstrong and Armstrong alone is because an American won their prestigious Tour De France 7 times in a row. . . . . If it was a French guy that won 7 in a row they never would have scrutinized and drug tested him so much. . . . .
There is definitely some of that going on as well. I also think it's very convenient for them to have someone with Armstrong's celebrity to focus on, as it keeps the attention off of their own shortcomings while they clean house. Of course, one could argue that's the risk you take when you break the rules and you can't really complain, but I still find it obnoxious.
10-30-2012 03:40 PM
MTH Farnham, you're overlooking quite a bit here. This is what I'm talking about--too much snap reaction and not enough critical thinking.

Let's take your comments one-by-one . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
What's your excuse for the other hundreds of athletes that do it then? Are they more guilty because they didn't raise money for cancer?
No. The incredible work he's spearheaded for the cancer fight has little to do with the issues I'm raising other than it does build him some good will. To the extent there are issues that could "go either way," he should probably get the benefit of the doubt. But that's about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
From an athlete point of view that's a low blow and disrespectful to every athlete in the world who works hard to achieve what they have achieved.
False.

Every other athlete in the world isn't competing in a sport that has a ubiquitous doping culture. At least we hope they're not, and if they are, then they're doping too so he's definitely not disrespecting them.

The report published by the USADA indicates that the vast majority--maybe even all--cyclists who mattered (and presumably many who didn't matter) from that era were dopers.

He was a doper competing among other dopers. That breaks the rules and so on and he should be punished, but it's not "disrespectful" to clean athletes who compete with clean athletes.

The better argument to be honest is that he (and the other cyclists) disrespected the PUBLIC, who watched under the mistaken belief they were watching ordinary humans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
He deserves to be shunned by the sports community and by the company (live strong) that he promoted with the money he won by cheating!!!
Not really false, but I disagree.

The "shunned by the sports community" part is responded to in my comment above.

The "he won by cheating" part, while technically accurate, misconstrues the facts. Everybody was "cheating." He won the money by being the best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
While I'm happy he have so much to cancer, do you know how much he gained from sponsorships and living a lie?
To the extent he defrauded anybody such that they have a real legal claim to a return of any money, he should have to pay it back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
His whole legacy of overcoming testicular cancer to be a great athlete is nothing now, he's just like any other cancer survivor now there is no longer something special about him or what he did.
False.

Are you really arguing that there's nothing special about this guy? Seriously? Do you really believe that if I gave you some EPO you could overcome metastasized cancer and win the Tour de France seven times in a row all while every other important competitor is using the same EPO?? You can't be serious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
He has spoken to children with cancer telling them you can overcome and do anything, an he WAS CHEATING THE WHOLE TIME!!!! Some role model right.
I agree his status as a role model is in doubt.

He made the wrong choice when faced with the following dilemma: Either (a) engage in widespread behavior he knew was wrong, but obtain great success, or (b) refuse to engage in widespread behavior he knew was wrong, but be just a "regular guy."

In other words, he choose riches over ethics. For that, being a children's role model is probably no longer appropriate.

However, I don't agree that his message of "overcome and do anything" is in doubt.

As to his racing, even assuming he did break the rules, he did in fact compete fairly vis-a-vis his competitors and did in fact achieve amazing things. As to his cancer recovery, he didn't "cheat" or "dope" his way out of cancer, so I can't see what your point is there really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
He deserves to have nothing people who lie to only benefit themselves like that are disgusting.
This is a tricky one for me.

As I said, he competed fairly among his competitors. Of course, he broke the rules in doing so--as they all did. So I say he deserves to forfeit whatever amounts of old prize money or bonuses other riders of that era are forfeiting. I expect that number will be somewhere around $0. (This highlights the issue I've been hammering on--this shouldn't be "about" Armstrong. It's the ENTIRE SPORT.)

As to his sponsor deals, he held himself out as a "clean" rider, which presumably landed him deals he wouldn't otherwise have gotten. The problem though is determining what he really should give back--what the law calls "damages." Companies don't provides sponsorships just because they're nice folks. If Trek bicycles gave him sponsorship money, they did so because they expected their sales would increase as a result of their affiliation with him by more than the amount they paid him.

For old sponsorship deals that ended long ago, I think it's unfair to pay them back. They made their money back already. Trek for example sold millions of bikes they never would have sold but for Armstrong's endorsement, and it'd be a windfall to them to give back their original payments as well. So I expect claims of fraud and the like from older contracts will likely be foreclosed for this reason (and some others).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
He could have started live strong without the titles and cycling. It was a good cause and would have caught on eventually just not as fast.
True and maybe, respectively. Not sure what the point is though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnham21 View Post
But to endorse something [(cancer recovery)?] that requires so much fight and hard work to overcome when your a god damn phony cheating dope head??? Doesn't fly in my book
Remind me how he is a "phony cheating dope head" with regard to overcoming cancer again? I can't quite see it. Are you saying that the use of EPO by him and hundreds and hundreds of other riders at future Tours de France retroactively overcame his cancer from years before he rode the Tour?
10-30-2012 03:38 PM
Raiderfan001 The only reason they're on the witch hunt for Armstrong and Armstrong alone is because an American won their prestigious Tour De France 7 times in a row. Most Americans couldn't care less about the TDF. Even after he won 7 in a row most Americans don't give a crap about the TDF. Sure a lot of us recognize his name and know that he did it...but it's still a very minor event to mainstream America. If it was a French guy that won 7 in a row they never would have scrutinized and drug tested him so much. But an American won their precious Tour De France? Le Gasp! Burn Ze Cheater! Mes culottes sont dans une torsion!
10-30-2012 03:21 PM
BlueRidgeYJ MTH, great points. Fine points by all, really.

I certainly concede that he is one of the best natural cyclists in history, if not the best.
I also concede that while recovering and after surviving cancer, steroids of some type are required for anything requiring strength or endurance, meaning if any should have taken it would be him. Thats just the composition of humans.
I am in complete agreement that all involved, including those responsible for ensuring and testing against doping, be held to the fire as well.
No way would he have had any traction whistleblowing, nor recieved any awards for not doping.

I am also deeply concerned over the criminal allegations I brought up earlier, with the Coke, Doctor, Teammate fiasco. If true, that elevates the whole thing and his involvement, and makes what was "bad" into criminal. But thats for his peers to decide, not me.

I have left 3 good jobs, GOOD jobs, because I did not feel the companies operated ethically. How many good, honest men in this world have sacrificed dreams to hold morals? Imo, some things are just more important. None of them got awards, riches, or fame, and that is just fine with them.

Now for clarity, I am no saint. I have done things I shouldn't have, I have done things that are illegal. I've not commited violent crimes, but to my knowledge neither did mr Armstrong. I do not mean to sound holier than anyone, but the decisions I made as a younger feller made me the man I am today. I speak my mind, and try to do what I feel is right. Nohing more to it.

I'm sure there are more points I missed that I would like to make, but I am getting a bit wordy now, so all for now.
10-30-2012 02:43 PM
Farnham21
Quote:
Originally Posted by fltopp1
Shows how much you know about it, he didnt shoot up. He is accused of blood doping, its a whole different issue. And his "In the public eye only" stuff is crap. He didnt have to raise awareness to cancer and raise 29 million last year alone.
What's your excuse for the other hundreds of athletes that do it then? Are they more guilty because they didn't raise money for cancer? From an athlete point of view that's a low blow and disrespectful to every athlete in the world who works hard to achieve what they have achieved. He deserves to be shunned by the sports community and by the company (live strong) that he promoted with the money he won by cheating!!! While I'm happy he have so much to cancer, do you know how much he gained from sponsorships and living a lie? His whole legacy of overcoming testicular cancer to be a great athlete is nothing now, he's just like any other cancer survivor now there is no longer something special about him or what he did. He has spoken to children with cancer telling them you can overcome and do anything, an he WAS CHEATING THE WHOLE TIME!!!! Some role model right. He deserves to have nothing people who lie to only benefit themselves like that are disgusting. He could have started live strong without the titles and cycling. It was a good cause and would have caught on eventually just not as fast. But to endorse something that requires so much fight and hard work to overcome when your a god damn phony cheating dope head??? Doesn't fly in my book
10-30-2012 11:57 AM
Johnnymoto I vote leave the man alone, without the Titles. And leave all the racers alone, without the titles. Now lets go racing !!!!!
10-30-2012 11:53 AM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by fltopp1 View Post
I agree with you Johnny, let them all dope, or prosecute them ALL. They have stripped Lance and he will always be know as a cheater, so lets make sure everyone is clean before we all claim the "He did it" status.
Right. You're either in or your out.

If we're going to burn the guy for doping, then let's burn everybody who doped. Here, that means LITERALLY everybody. And let's not forget the governing bodies and everyone else who tacitly allowed it (or worse, encouraged it).

But I have yet to see a single story on CNN to that effect. It's always just about Armstrong and how he's a fraud, a failure, etc.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:44 AM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC