Lance Armstrong... greatest doper there was or ever will be

so Armstrong thinks that this evidence has got him nailed and fears losing in court yet nobody is taking him to court? people are afraid of taking him to court because it's just their word against his and now there is supposed water tight evidence nobody is doing anything against the worlds biggest sporting conman?

I imagine that if anyone had a loved one or friend who had cancer, was visited by Armstrong or money from his foundation was used to help them and they then recovered from cancer and chose to attribute those actions towards their survival and then found out Armstrong was doping they wouldn't give a flying toss and neither would the person who survived cancer.
one thing Armstrong definitely does and that is give people who like climbing on moral high horses plenty of such opportunities. and this forum seems to be one such place for that.
fact - armstrong has helped more people with cancer than anyone on this forum and that's by a million miles.
fiction - armstrong is some kind of evil demon to be vilified like some kind of cartoon character

so Armstrong thinks that this evidence has got him nailed and fears losing in court yet nobody is taking him to court? people are afraid of taking him to court because it's just their word against his

and whoever works for the UCI,Trek, Nike, every other doping cyclist he rode with and most of the media

fact - armstrong has helped more people with cancer than anyone on this forum and that's by a million miles.

does that make doping o.k?

fiction - armstrong is some kind of evil demon to be vilified like some kind of cartoon character

that's down to personal opinion. never met the guy but from what i have read he's not exactly a nice person to be around.

no amount of money that is raised by the Livestrong foundation can justify that.

but perhaps he knows it's a viable justification and will help the redemption?
he gets undeniably proven as a doper but the fact he's a lifesaver will help people forgive him?

if the evidence is there all of those institutions you listed will drop him like a ton of bricks.

ok, let's say armstrong doped and he did it to win races to raise his profile and raise money for cancer and become stonkingly rich. your question...does that make doping ok? well if he looked at the peleton in 1999 and saw it was riddled with doping cheats and that the only way to achieve said agenda was to dope....you answer your own question. (it's all hypothetical though)

all this anti armstrong stuff just smacks of moralising and the usual conspiracy theorists you find on the net. for all the things you read from people that say armstrong was a bully etc you read things that say what a great guy he is. I reckon that could be said for each and everyone of us. I suspect that there are many personal motives for people to hate armstrong on here that have more to do with peoples own lives than armstrong.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

you bully ^ :)

it's got nothing to do with theorising on the net. Anyone who follows cycling remotely closely, by reading journalists and reporters, will be aware of the massive gulf between Armstrong's popular image and the reality.

if the evidence is there all of those institutions you listed will drop him like a ton of bricks.

ok, let's say armstrong doped and he did it to win races to raise his profile and raise money for cancer and become stonkingly rich. your question...does that make doping ok? well if he looked at the peleton in 1999 and saw it was riddled with doping cheats and that the only way to achieve said agenda was to dope....you answer your own question. (it's all hypothetical though)

well he is worth too much to drop. there is far too much money tied up in keeping things sweet. something he will do everything in his power to do.
like when he chased down Simeoni

" "I was protecting the interests of the peloton," Lance Armstrong said, when asked by French television why he chased down Filippo Simeoni, the Italian who tried to join what became the winning breakaway on stage 18 of the Tour de France. There's been no love lost between the two riders since Simeoni testified against Italian sports doctor Michele Ferrari as part of an Italian drugs inquiry. Armstrong has worked, and continues to work, with Ferrari, and has accused Simeoni of being "an absolute liar". In response, Simeoni has instigated legal proceedings against Armstrong for defamation of character. "I don't know why a great champion like Armstrong is preoccupied with a small rider like me in a race as big as the Tour," Simeoni said for his part. "I tried to chase the front group, but it was impossible with Armstrong there." Some sources within the race convoy claimed that Armstrong told Simeoni: "Either you stop racing, or the breakaway gets caught." "He showed today in front of the whole world what kind of person he is. It's a sin," Simeoni said. "I didn't want to be the reason why the breakaway didn't succeed, so out of respect for my colleagues, I gave up the attack." Armstrong, however, suggested that many of the riders in the peloton were on his side. "Simeoni is not a rider that the peloton wants to see in the front group. All he does is attack cycling and say bad things about the riders and the group in general," said Armstrong. "When I came back to the peloton, I had a lot of people patting me on the back. They don't want somebody inside the sport destroying it. All he wants to do is to destroy cycling, and destroy the sport that pays him.""

so Armstrong thinks that this evidence has got him nailed and fears losing in court yet nobody is taking him to court? people are afraid of taking him to court because it's just their word against his and now there is supposed water tight evidence nobody is doing anything against the worlds biggest sporting conman?

**I don't know how you missed my point so here it is again; when L'Equipe published the results of the 99 tests, under the headline "Armstrong's Lies", he did not sue. He had previously sued many people when it was his word against their's rather than his word against the validity of an EPO test.
It is not certain yet that no legal action will result from Landis' allegations.
And Armstrong's legal battle with LeMond ended out of court recently with a large payment being made to LeMond's charity. A court case would have hinged on the very evidence that you and Armstrong say is so weak/non-existent.
**
I imagine that if anyone had a loved one or friend who had cancer, was visited by Armstrong or money from his foundation was used to help them and they then recovered from cancer and chose to attribute those actions towards their survival and then found out Armstrong was doping they wouldn't give a flying toss and neither would the person who survived cancer.
Neither of us know that one way or the other. I didn't speculate on that, I just pointed out that he lies to the people he says he cares about.

fact - armstrong has helped more people with cancer than anyone on this forum and that's by a million miles.
No doubt that is true;** since none of us are multi millionaire sportsmen with a charitable foundation it is hardly surprising. But he is not the only philanthropist in the world. Better for sure that he uses his fame for some good but that is neither here nor there when it comes to whether or not he doped.**

if the evidence is there all of those institutions you listed will drop him like a ton of bricks.
Why would Trek or Nike drop him until he is sanctioned for doping; which none of us are claiming he has been. Until then they will carry on making millions from him and, like his fans, pretend that the damning evidence against him does not exist
ok, let's say armstrong doped and he did it to win races to raise his profile and raise money for cancer and become stonkingly rich. your question...does that make doping ok? well if he looked at the peleton in 1999 and saw it was riddled with doping cheats and that the only way to achieve said agenda was to dope....you answer your own question. (it's all hypothetical though)
Not hypothetical; it's clearly a choice many riders faced. Some, very few, but they exist, chose to race clean. So maybe that also answers the question
all this anti armstrong stuff just smacks of moralising and the usual conspiracy theorists you find on the net. for all the things you read from people that say armstrong was a bully etc you read things that say what a great guy he is. I reckon that could be said for each and everyone of us. I suspect that there are many personal motives for people to hate armstrong on here that have more to do with peoples own lives than armstrong.
**Give over; it is clear that your liking of Armstrong and dislike of LeMond has a lot to do with your view of what a 'man' should be. Don't talk about Alpha males and then suggest that every one else has some kind of hidden psychological agenda. If you want to have a man-crush on the great fraud that is fine; it has nothing to do with the reams of documented evidence which show Armstrong cheated. **

.

whatever the outcome it's a fascinating story. you couldn't make all the crazy stuff up.
more twists and turns than a twisty turny thing.

The sexual attraction to Armstrong probably stems from his very upright/on the hoods climbing style, with a thousand yard stare, refusing to relent until the job is finished, very much like visions of Gary Linekar, although he'd have a benevolent smile, and you'd probably grab his ears and make him choke or something. I dunno, it's not really my thing. I'm not into fucking deluded rednecks or boyish upstarts from crisptown.

start a list of sports that people don't cheat in

1. Monkey Tennis
   

1. Monkey Tennis
   
2. UFC
   

A good call IMHO.

Golf?

No-one cheats like Tiger Woods?

The sexual attraction to Armstrong probably stems from his very upright/on the hoods climbing style, with a thousand yard stare, refusing to relent until the job is finished, very much like visions of Gary Linekar, although he'd have a benevolent smile, and you'd probably grab his ears and make him choke or something. I dunno, it's not really my thing. I'm not into fucking deluded rednecks or boyish upstarts from crisptown.

I always thought it was just because Armstrong looks like a penis.

Isnt there a B sample floating around somewhere?

A good call IMHO.

Nope.

Just so everyone knows, my Christmas present is still for sale:

https://www.lfgss.com/thread35244.html

.

it's quite clear from the length of that previous really long post that you have some sort of crush on my beta male personality. get to the back of the queue ;)

Maybe we should get Lance one of these neuticle's:

http://www.monochrom.at/english/2005/08/neuticlesintro-thank-you-for-your.htm

lemond is a loser with some serious mental health issues. when i read this guys interviews or see him speak i cringe. loved his riding but what a twat. can you imagine having to share a beer with this guy whining on?

Tim, I find the undercurrent of blaming LeMond for his own abuse fairly troubling here. In terms of his competitive history, LeMond of course is anything but a 'loser'. What has come out, of course, is that he was sexually abused when he was a child, which is one of the worst things that can happen to anyone. This does not have any bearing on his criticism of the kind of doping, in particular, that started in the early Nineties.

And while we're at it...how comes merckx, hinault, lemond haven't been fingered for drugs.? come on per..leaz

It must have been said already in this thread but I couldn't find it--because those were different times, and because with EPO doping leapt to a new plane. The methods that people used earlier were effective but not anywhere near as effective as EPO doping or other blood doping methods. (And Andy will be able to put that much better, as he knows much more about it.)

didn't lemond finally put his hand up and acept responsibility for the all family issues he had?

Not all of them, of course--what happens to you as a child is largely before the 'age of responsibility'. However, I think he has accepted responsibility for the troubles in his own nuclear family, which were caused by his past history, and has worked hard on repairing the damage.

Be careful trying to reduce these cases, as Armstrong habitually does, to personal and procedural issues--e.g., attacking people and insisting that the only thing that could possibly be of any relevance are legal processes, not the 'meat' of what is being said, from which he tries to distract. I accept, of course, that things need to be proven, and I can't work out what and how much has been proven as I don't know what to trust, but the allegations seem to me to be pretty consistent and getting added to over time.

(For the record, as I've said before, in the context of elite sport, which I don't rate very highly, I think doping isn't particularly shameful as such, but a fairly logical consequence of the extremes of elite sport--the secrecy and lack of truthfulness is of course a different matter.)

tut tut landis! Look like Lance is in for some trouble. Used to like him...Now less and less over the years.

Well the LA payment to the UCI that a) didn't happen at all or b) was a one time only $25k (both according to LA) was definitely $100k that was paid in 2005 but was originally promised to be paid by LA in Apr 2002 and he had to be pursued for payment...

yet more proof of nothing. thanks for linking us to that :D

Looks like the Feds are going to investigate Armstrong. Given the investigator's track record, if he doesn't get him, no-one will.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/magazine/05/25/lance.armstrong/index.html?eref=sihp