# Lance Armstrong to lose Tour de France titles



## Karen G (Aug 24, 2012)

I just noticed this article online.


----------



## am1 (Aug 24, 2012)

I guess he can only deny everything for so long.  

To me this is an admission of guilt but a way that his followers will still believe him.  

If your innocent you fight till the end.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 24, 2012)

http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147566&highlight=lance+armstrong

I recall discussing the Lance Armstrong deal last year on TUG, and the LA supporters brought out the fact that he was never proven to have used PEDs.  Well, is this the proof that some have needed?  I'd be curious to hear what the defenders from that thread think today.

Again, I've always been a big fan of LA, but have to say I'm disappointed that he used the PEDs to win.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 24, 2012)

No admission of guilt, this. Just a bowing to the unbeatability of his accusers. Supporters will continue to support him, and detractors will continue to flame him. For more: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/48774219/ns/sports-cycling/
The fact remains that he is the most drug-tested athlete of all time. Period.

LiveStrong!

Jim

Nike says, "Lance is still our guy."


----------



## geoand (Aug 24, 2012)

I understand the sentiments of fighting to the end.  However, it is something that we may believe in but we don't know until we are put to the test.

I understand why he may have decided to stop the fight.

I also remember a Federal agency that ran amok with the law and ruined the career of a long standing Senator.  There are several instances of fed agencies being wrong after the process.


----------



## Fern Modena (Aug 24, 2012)

I can't decide if I think he is guilty or not, nor do I really care (except for the fact that kids look up to sports figures).  

IMHO, though, the fact that he decided not to appeal gives the impression that he was guilty.  Then again, he may just have gotten tired of fighting.  

I'm mostly on the fence about this one.

Fern


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 24, 2012)

Fern Modena said:


> I can't decide if I think he is guilty or not, nor do I really care (except for the fact that kids look up to sports figures).
> 
> IMHO, though, the fact that he decided not to appeal gives the impression that he was guilty.  Then again, he may just have gotten tired of fighting.
> 
> ...


That sums up my thoughts as well.

I do not understand how a US agency can strip him of French awards?  How does that work?


----------



## ricoba (Aug 24, 2012)

Fern Modena said:


> I can't decide if I think he is guilty or not, nor do I really care (except for the fact that kids look up to sports figures).
> 
> IMHO, though, the fact that he decided not to appeal gives the impression that he was guilty.  Then again, he may just have gotten tired of fighting.
> 
> ...



+ 2

When I saw this last night, I wasn't sure what to think of the whole thing.


----------



## presley (Aug 24, 2012)

Fern Modena said:


> IMHO, though, the fact that he decided not to appeal gives the impression that he was guilty.  Then again, he may just have gotten tired of fighting.



I agree.  I've had plenty of times in my own life where I've chosen to just get rid of a situation/person, than let it take up precious time away from the important things in my life.  

Overall, I'd much rather close a door of negativity, than allow it to take on any type of importance in my daily life.  I don't know whether he is guilty or not.  I don't even care at this point.  I saw some doctor on the news saying that "maybe LA took something that they didn't know existed at the time and therefore he wasn't tested for it."  Yeah.... well, we could say that about every athlete.


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 24, 2012)

Read Lance's own words on this latest development.  It is a very good statement from him, and he make some compelling arguments for quitting the fight -- I certainly can't blame him for doing so.

Kurt


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 24, 2012)

PigsDad said:


> Read Lance's own words Kurt



    Jim


----------



## cgeidl (Aug 24, 2012)

*Made his millions*

If Lance was really such a fighter he would fight this to the end nut with the massive numbers of ex teammates willing to testify he might look almost like Sandusky.He is not and probabbly will not be proven guilty but the Freanch will take away his 7 victories gleefully!


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Aug 24, 2012)

PigsDad said:


> Read Lance's own words on this latest development.  It is a very good statement from him, and he make some compelling arguments for quitting the fight -- I certainly can't blame him for doing so.
> 
> Kurt



Kurt,

Thanks for the link.  I agree with Lance.  


Richard


----------



## pedro47 (Aug 24, 2012)

Fern Modena said:


> I can't decide if I think he is guilty or not, nor do I really care (except for the fact that kids look up to sports figures).
> 
> IMHO, though, the fact that he decided not to appeal gives the impression that he was guilty.  Then again, he may just have gotten tired of fighting.
> 
> ...



I agree with Fern comments.  I only feel that the media & someone in the drug industry need another Roger Clemen story.

Today's modern sport figures are not clean.
That is my opinion only.


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 24, 2012)

MULTIZ321 said:


> Kurt,
> 
> Thanks for the link.  I agree with Lance.
> 
> ...



+ 100 - this witch hunt only proves how petty petty bureaucrats can be.

As Lance said:  "The toll this has taken on my family and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today — finished with this nonsense."


----------



## Laurie (Aug 24, 2012)

To me this is tragic, very sad, and almost makes me sick. 

It does remind me of the witch hunts of yesteryear, when they'd throw the accused woman into the water. If she drowned, she was deemed innocent. If she could swim, that was considered proof of her guilt, and they burned her at the stake. 

I wish this time and energy would be used to go after real criminals (like the folks who wrecked this economy and affected millions of people's lives, for starters ... moving onto rapists, child molesters etc) instead of aiming to undo and destroy one sportsperson's life.


----------



## Kay H (Aug 24, 2012)

I just don't get that if he tested negative those many many times,they will take his many awards away.  It seems to me they have no proof so what is the problem.  I can understand how someone can I think it is terrible.get sick and tired of caving in to other peoples endless requests.


----------



## Carol C (Aug 24, 2012)

Laurie said:


> To me this is tragic, very sad, and almost makes me sick.
> 
> It does remind me of the witch hunts of yesteryear, when they'd throw the accused woman into the water. If she drowned, she was deemed innocent. If she could swim, that was considered proof of her guilt, and they burned her at the stake.
> 
> I wish this time and energy would be used to go after real criminals (like the folks who wrecked this economy and affected millions of people's lives, for starters ... moving onto rapists, child molesters etc) instead of aiming to undo and destroy one sportsperson's life.



+1. Well said, Laurie!


----------



## Luanne (Aug 24, 2012)

I've been a huge fan of his ever since reading his book "It's Not All About the Bike".  I will continue to believe in him.


----------



## hypnotiq (Aug 24, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> + 100 - this witch hunt only proves how petty petty bureaucrats can be.
> 
> As Lance said:  "The toll this has taken on my family and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today — finished with this nonsense."



Yup, I dont blame him for throwing in the towel. Its clear the witch hunt will never end...

So you strip him of his titles and give them to 2nd place...oh wait, they were disqualified for doping. Good call guys.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Aug 24, 2012)

Since when did the legal system and justice have anything to do with each other?


----------



## amycurl (Aug 24, 2012)

During the years he won, and was tested, there wasn't a test that could detect EPO. His first retirement coincided with the development and implementation of that test. My understanding, based on my reading, is that they have retroactively tested samples from the times prior to his first retirement with the new test, and those samples have tested positive for EPO. This is the main physical evidence they have.

As for the "toll taken on his family," I would think that divorcing the wife that bore and nurtured his children, and cared for him during cancer treatment, so that he could date an series of celebrities would take a much, much bigger toll on his family. 

I don't know whether he is truly guilty or not. Marion Jones denied her use for *decades.* With so much of his lifestyle predicated on his integrity, I think he made a smart choice. He doesn't want to be the next Marion Jones.


----------



## am1 (Aug 24, 2012)

It seems like not fighting it has gotten him the outcome he wanted.  People will now make him out to be the victim.

USADA has jurisdiction over US athletes.  

How is it possible that so many others tested positive and admit it but the 7 time winner was clean?  

The doctors of the dopers are better than those testing.  

Marion Jones went broke fighting everything and ended up in jail.  Lance will save his money and probably will avoid jail.


----------



## Kona Lovers (Aug 24, 2012)

amycurl said:


> As for the "toll taken on his family," I would think that divorcing the wife that bore and nurtured his children, and cared for him during cancer treatment, so that he could date an series of celebrities would take a much, much bigger toll on his family.



This is what went through my mind also.


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 24, 2012)

amycurl said:


> During the years he won, and was tested, there wasn't a test that could detect EPO. His first retirement coincided with the development and implementation of that test. My understanding, based on my reading, is that they have retroactively tested samples from the times prior to his first retirement with the new test, and those samples have tested positive for EPO. This is the main physical evidence they have.



Another twist: Armstrong was most likely given EPO when he was recovering from cancer* under a doctor's treatment*. So what do we do with that - disallow any athlete who has had Chemo?

Here is the *bottom line* for me - While Lance raced in the Tour De France I watched it - I never watched it before and I haven't watched it since.


----------



## 14thMed (Aug 24, 2012)

When Lance was winning he was beating people that were doping. If and again if he was clean he must be superhuman.
Even more important if he would of went to the arbitration hearing the results would have been released. In my mind this is what he was afraid of.


----------



## bshmerlie (Aug 24, 2012)

I have no idea if he did or didn't...but he's retired now....why do we care?

Just saying...


----------



## Talent312 (Aug 24, 2012)

I heard it said that one could look at a TDF photo of the competitive cyclists around Armstrong and see that almost every one was caught doping at some point.

My take: Have you seen those mountains these guys climb?
Of course, they're doing drugs! How could they not.

Anyway, Nike and other sponsors are reportedly staying with Armstrong.
He'll be fine.  IMO, the past is the past.  Time to move on.


----------



## amycurl (Aug 24, 2012)

I agree that his "story" made cycling a lot more compelling to a lot of people. That's one of the reasons why the UCI often defended him. But my friends who watch the Tour watched it before him, and watched it after him. 

The guests on NPR's "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me," went on an improvised spree with this story a few weeks ago, debating who would end up with those Tour de France medals....a guy on an exercise bike in Hoboken? A paper boy on a bike in Spokane? To which one of the other guests quipped, "Oh, he's doping, too! Those papers don't throw themselves!"  

Lemme see if I can find a link....the Podcast descriptions aren't as detailed as they need to be in order for me to find it. Oh, well. Here's a completely unrelated, but equally funny bit--Bill Clinton plays "Not My Job" and answers "My Little Pony" trivia questions:
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=156251707&m=156251694


----------



## am1 (Aug 24, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> Here is the *bottom line* for me - While Lance raced in the Tour De France I watched it - I never watched it before and I haven't watched it since.



Great attitude for the kids.  

For the believers what would be a fair punishment if new tests came back  positive or admitted it?


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Aug 25, 2012)

I think that the way the USADA is set up does not allow for due process of law. 

In almost every crime (except for murder and child molesting) there is a statute of limitations. People are entitled to a speedy trial. There is a rational basis for those limitations. People's memories fade. People lose touch with one another. And in this case it seems that petty jealousies have had an influence also.

People should not be persecuted years and years after an event occurred. That type of delay makes mounting a defense almost impossible. It offends my since of justice.

elaine


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 25, 2012)

It seems to me that this is something he would not quit fighting unless they had him dead to rights.  The bottom line is NO Tour De France Title = No Lance Armstrong.  The public would never have heard about the guy.  He would be as recognizable as John Doe.  I believed he did not dope - until now. His reputation as a world champ who beat cancer and won racing titles to boot is now completely ruined.  He is now the guy who cheated and lied.


----------



## Patri (Aug 25, 2012)

If the race titles go to other bikers, were they also tested, and the specimans kept til now to be checked for all the new drugs? Maybe they should not give any awards ever.


----------



## bogey21 (Aug 25, 2012)

The title to this thread says Lance *to lose* his titles.  I'm not sure this is accurate.  My understanding is that the entity he was fighting with is not the same entity that can strip him of his titles.  If I am right, the title should be changed to *may lose* his titles.  Otherwise we just perpetuate the character assination of Lance Armstrong.

George


----------



## am1 (Aug 25, 2012)

Sometimes you check your rights at the door.  This is one of those cases.


----------



## Margariet (Aug 25, 2012)

Patri said:


> If the race titles go to other bikers, were they also tested, and the specimans kept til now to be checked for all the new drugs? Maybe they should not give any awards ever.



It will be totally useless to give the titles of the Tour de France to other bikers. In some years only the fifth or seventh will qualify. The others were all involved in some doping scandal at one point in their career. The whole operation is IMHO 'ridicule'.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 25, 2012)

bogey21 said:


> The title to this thread says Lance *to lose* his titles. I'm not sure this is accurate. My understanding is that the entity he was fighting with is not the same entity that can strip him of his titles. If I am right, the title should be changed to *may lose* his titles. Otherwise we just perpetuate the character assination of Lance Armstrong.
> 
> George


 
The titles are lost. It's a done deal. I don't understand the point you're trying to make, but the reality is the titles no longer belong to Lance because he cheated. The tour de France titles are still in question by the ICU, but the USADA has stripped him of the titles.  There is no character assination here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...f7d382-ee04-11e1-afd6-f55f84bc0c41_story.html

_In June, USADA announced it had assembled 10 former Armstrong teammates who were willing to testify that Armstrong cheated, and it had also found tests results that were “fully consistent” with blood doping._


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 25, 2012)

Of course he was doping.  He was doping to try and survive from Stage IV testicular cancer with brain mets!  To win 7 Tour De France's after an experience like that is a remarkable achievement - doping or not!   The guy should've been dead or at the very least somewhat incapacitated.  Again, doping or not, he should still serve as a great inspiration for anybody diagnosed with cancer!

The guy's not perfect, but he has raised over 500 million for cancer research!

I'm not an expert by any means, but it seems like the greater story line developing is the unmitigated power the USADA seems to have.  My libertarian senses start to get this disturbing tingly feeling to them when I start hearing expert opinions about them and what they're allowed to do.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 25, 2012)

Clemson Fan said:


> Of course he was doping. He was doping to try and survive from Stage IV testicular cancer with brain mets!
> ...
> I'm not an expert by any means, but it seems like the greater story line developing is the unmitigated power the USADA seems to have.


 
If he was doping then he cheated, regardless of whether he had cancer or not.  Should we give all cancer patients an extra advantage in all sports just because they have or have had cancer?  If so, where would you draw the lines?  That's ridiculous.

I don't know much about the USADA - what unmitigated power are you referring to?  Seems to me that they have an obligation to ensure a level playing field for all.  And if they catch someone cheating it is their obligation to deal with the matter.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 25, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> If he was doping then he cheated, regardless of whether he had cancer or not.  Should we give all cancer patients an extra advantage in all sports just because they have or have had cancer?  If so, where would you draw the lines?  That's ridiculous.
> 
> I don't know much about the USADA - what unmitigated power are you referring to?  Seems to me that they have an obligation to ensure a level playing field for all.  And if they catch someone cheating it is their obligation to deal with the matter.



That's your opinion - not mine.  My opinion is stated above in my post - not the truncated quote in your post.

Again, I'm no expert, but a lot of the stories I'm hearing on the radio and on TV there's a story line developing regarding what seems to be the great power, which appears to be somewhat unmitigated, of the USADA.  I really don't care that much about Armstrong, but I do care about government organizations potentially possessing unmitigated authority!  That's what really interests me about this story.


----------



## wilma (Aug 25, 2012)

Clemson Fan said:


> Again, I'm no expert, but a lot of the stories I'm hearing on the radio and on TV there's a story line developing regarding what seems to be the great power, which appears to be somewhat unmitigated, of the USADA.  I really don't care that much about Armstrong, but I do care about *government organizations potentially possessing unmitigated authority!*  That's what really interests me about this story.



The USADA is not a government organization. According to their website:
"*As a non-profit, non-governmental agency*, our programs:
 Provide deterrence and preservation of sport for athletes, coaches, students, teachers, parents, scientists and more through education and resources;
Include numerous protections for athletes to ensure that only athletes who are guilty of a doping violation are sanctioned;
Strive to systematically identify and sanction those individuals who are engaged in the effort to gain an advantage over athletes who are competing clean; and
Fund pioneering research for the detection of doping substances and techniques, and the pursuit of scientific excellence in doping control."


----------



## amycurl (Aug 25, 2012)

> I'm no expert,...I do care about government organizations potentially possessing unmitigated authority! That's what really interests me about this story.



No, not an expert. The USADA is *not* a governmental organization. It is a private, non-profit, 501(c)3. The authority of the USADA comes from its contractual relationships with the USOC and the governing bodies of a variety of sports (USA Swimming, USA Diving, etc.)

As a private nonprofit, oversight authority is through its board of directors, the state in which it's incorporated, and their contractual partners. One of the criticisms may be that, as a non-governmental organization, there is not governmental oversight. But then one can't criticize it as a "government organization...possessing unmitigated authority."

Wilma beat me to it...too busy editing...


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 25, 2012)

I guess I am in the minority. Yes he was doping. Multiple witnesses have testified to this fact. It had nothing to do with his cancer. (If it did, why were his teammates doing the same thing?) His attitude appears to be, if they couldn't detect it at the time, that made it legal at the time. I'm sorry. If I steal, but they can't catch me, does that make it okay?

I admit that I listen to a set of sports announcers who have said for years he was guilty. Time has proven them to be right.


----------



## Talent312 (Aug 25, 2012)

wilma said:


> The USADA is not a government organization."



That's like saying the Postal Service is not a government agency.

The agency has been designated by the U.S. Congress as "the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States." The agency receives most of its funds from the WH Office of National Drug Control Policy, about $9 million per year in taxpayer $$.

On July 12, 2012, Cong. Sensenbrenner (R-WI) sent a letter to ONDCP -- an abridged version:

Dear Director Kerlikowske:

Congress has no role in determining whether an individual athlete doped, but we do have a great interest in how taxpayer money is spent.  As USADA’s main funding source, ONDCP should take interest in the agency’s conduct. Just as Congress’s spending authority creates an obligation to ensure that appropriated funds are used effectively, ONDCP should take a serious interest in how its funds are spent.  

USADA’s authority over Armstrong is strained at best.  The agency seeks to strip Armstrong of earnings and titles dating from before its own existence. Congress designated USADA as the United States’ National Anti-Doping Organization in 2000, but the agency seeks to sanction Armstrong for conduct beginning in 1998.  During Armstrong’s cycling career, the International Cycling Union (UCI) had exclusive authority to sanction Armstrong for violation of its anti-doping rules.

Even if USADA had jurisdiction over Armstrong, the majority of Armstrong’s cycling career should be protected by USADA’s 8 year statute of limitations.  To circumvent its jurisdictional challenges and its statute of limitations, USADA has adopted a novel conspiracy theory.

USADA asserts that Lance Armstrong must either accept the sanctions it proposes or contest the charges to an arbitration panel subject to USADA’s rules where the burden of proof will rest on him.  

At the arbitration hearing, the witnesses could refuse to be cross-examined and would not be required to testify in person.  USADA has no obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence. USADA has no obligation to disclose what inducements were offered them.  Arbitrators are not chosen under the procedures of the Federal Arbitration Act. The only judicial review permitted would be in Switzerland, not the United States.  It is clear that the USADA arbitration process lacks the most basic due process.

Athletes are charged or cleared in an apparently ad hoc manner within the sole discretion of USADA.  While USADA’s charging letter accuses Armstrong of a vast conspiracy involving numerous riders, the agency has not charged any associated athletes other than Armstrong.

I wholeheartedly support the USADA’s mission, but fairness on the field cannot come at the expense of fairness off the field.  USADA, an agency created to ensure fairness, must proceed fairly.  

Please describe the role ONDCP plays in ensuring that USADA fulfills its Congressional mandate in a manner that protects the due process rights of athletes subject to its authority.

Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner
Member of Congress


----------



## amycurl (Aug 25, 2012)

As I said, its oversight is through its contractual partners, the largest of which is  a US Government agency. Although many people are surprised by it, the majority of services that the US Government provides, they outsource to private nonprofits, who--just like private for-profits--can often provide a service either cheaper or more effectively than the government itself. 

And, like all nonprofits, the USADA is accountable to their funders and stakeholders, one of which--in this case--is the US Congress. 

But this does not change the fact that if the US Congress pulled their funding, they would still exist, because they are, in fact, a private, independent, 501(c)3 nonprofit. (Now, how long they would survive would be dependent on their ability to replace that funding source and maintain their contracts with the USOC, etc.)

The American Red Cross, another 501(c)3 nonprofit, was actually chartered by Congress. But they are still private and independent--and most of their funding is private as well. Recognition or designation by Congress does not change how a nonprofit fundamentally operates.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 25, 2012)

I guess if you really want to make yourself believe that Lance is innocent, you have to discredit the USADA.  And then you have to discredit all the 10 teammates that are willing to testify they saw him doping (spanning multiple years).  Makes sense to me.


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 25, 2012)

glypnirsgirl said:


> I think that the way the USADA is set up does not allow for due process of law.


This is an interesting article in the LA Times on the fairness of the anti-doping authorities.

Kurt


----------



## bogey21 (Aug 25, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> The titles are lost. It's a done deal. I don't understand the point you're trying to make, but the reality is the titles no longer belong to Lance because he cheated. The tour de France titles are still in question by the ICU, but the USADA has stripped him of the titles.  There is no character assination here.



My point is that I'm not sure the loss of the titles is a done deal.  Although I'm no expert on who actually controls the Tour de France titles some of what I read indicates that the USADA only has the power to "recommend" that he be stripped of his Tour de France titles and that another organization possibly the International Cycling Union and/or the Amaury Sport Organization actually control the titles.

George


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 25, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> I guess if you really want to make yourself believe that Lance is innocent, you have to discredit the USADA.  And then you have to discredit all the 10 teammates that are willing to testify they saw him doping (spanning multiple years).  Makes sense to me.



I actually don't believe Lance is innocent and nor do I really care.  Again, I think the greater story coming out of this is summed up pretty well by the Congressman's Letter.

I've heard some cycling experts state that those 10 teammates were given a mafia type of "offer they can't refuse" by the USADA to testify.  This story seems to have a tinge of McCarthyism to it.  In fact, I'm in the process right now of reporting Ace as a communist.


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 25, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> I guess if you really want to make yourself believe that Lance is innocent, you have to discredit the USADA.  And then you have to discredit all the 10 teammates that are willing to testify they saw him doping (spanning multiple years).  Makes sense to me.



Here is an example of how "credible" some of these "anecdotal stories" are:


> In 1996, Betsy and Frankie Andreu were visiting Armstrong at a hospital at the University of Indiana after Armstrong had brain surgery.
> 
> "One of the questions the doctor asked him was, 'Have you *ever* used performance-enhancing drugs?' " Betsy Andreu recalled. "Lance said, 'Yes, I have. EPO. Testosterone. Growth hormones. Steroids.'


.

Never mind that they were eavesdropping on a confidential conversation - perhaps just perhaps could Lance have been just be answering the question re;*ever* - like when he was undergoing cancer treatment?

Do you *REALLY REALLY REALLY *have a gripe with Lance getting EPO, Testosterone, HGH and Steroids while fighting cancer? If you *do * - I pity you, if you ever get the big C.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 25, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> Do you *REALLY REALLY REALLY *have a gripe with Lance getting EPO, Testosterone, HGH and Steroids while fighting cancer? If you *do * - I pity you, if you ever get the big C.



Well said!  

I'm actually not a Lance fan per say and I've never owned one of those livestrong wristbands, but I do give him a pass on all this doping stuff because recovering from Stage IV cancer to become as vibrant athlete and fundraiser I find to be pretty amazing.

Is he a flawed human being - sure, but let he who cast the first stone...


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 25, 2012)

Clemson Fan said:


> Is he a flawed human being - sure, but let he who cast the first stone...



Well said back at ya.

My gripe is people who have *NO CREDIBLE DATA - LET ALONE PROOF *deciding he must be guilty of cheating and ragging on the guy.

I am a fan of people who overcome crap like that - that he decided the cost to overcome was just too great is *NOT NOT NOT* proof in and of itself that he cheated - it is only proof that he knew the deck was stacked with innuendo and bad science - and he likely didn't see it as a climbable hill.

EOM


----------



## Talent312 (Aug 25, 2012)

I don't see any "clean hands" in this. It's reasonable to assume that USADA had ample evidence to support it's conclusions. But he was he was a high-value public-target, they engineered a case to take him down, and they used a tortured rationale to assert jurisdiction.

If TDF runners-up are annointed "winners," they'll likely be  dopers, too...  Jan Ullrich would "win" 3 TDF races, but he was suspended in February for 2 years and all his results after May 2005 were annulled. Andreas Kloeden would "win" a TDF, but he was accused of doping in 2009 in a probe of two doctors for the T-Mobile team.

So much for cleaning up the sport.


----------



## am1 (Aug 25, 2012)

All that matters is if he used drugs to win.  Lot of evidence says the he did.  He gave up fighting it.  I would be happy if no one was awarded the wins  I will not and have not supported the sport of cycling.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 26, 2012)

am1 said:


> All that matters is if he used drugs to win. Lot of evidence says the he did. He gave up fighting it.


 
He gave up fighting it because he wanted to avoid the upcoming public hearing.  There were 10 former teammates prepared to testify against him.  They went back and tested his previous samples and found that he definitely abused PEDs.  

In the past, when it was just one teammate coming out, he could always trash that person's reputation and say they were money-driven liars, etc.  It's hard to say that about 10 different teammates. 

What do Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Manny Ramirez, and A-Rod have in common?  They all passed multiple drug test after drug test.  They all publicly denied being PED users. They all publicly defamed and denigrated their accusers.  They all were full of righteous indignation, full of fight and pride, and each of them played the role of the unfortunate victim.

So now, we have to ask ourselves is everyone else liars and Lance the only one telling the truth?  Sorry, I'm not buying into it.  I know that offends many who still currently have Lance on a pedestal, but that's how I feel.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 26, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> Do you *REALLY REALLY REALLY *have a gripe with Lance getting EPO, Testosterone, HGH and Steroids while fighting cancer? If you *do *- I pity you, if you ever get the big C.


 
Thank you for your concern, but other than this, I won't respond to foolishness.


----------



## Talent312 (Aug 26, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> He gave up fighting it because he wanted to avoid the upcoming public hearing.  There were 10 former teammates prepared to testify against him.  They went back and tested his previous samples and found that he definitely abused PEDs.



As I said, its a fairly safe assumption that he was a doper, but I don't see the case as all that strong. No positive results from any retests has been reported, merely am assertion that they were consistent with blood transfusions, meaning "we didn't find anything, but its darn suspicious." And the use of witnesses who were either intimidated or had their own axes to grind is a legitimate issue. 

It will be interesting to see what the UCI and World ADA does with this.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 26, 2012)

Talent312 said:


> As I said, its a fairly safe assumption that theyt built a strong case, but distorting the evidence doesn't advance that cause. *_No_ positive results from any retests has been reported*, merely am assertion that they were consistent with blood transfusions, meaning "we didn't find anything, but its darn suspicious." And the use of witnesses who were either intimidated or had their own axes to grind is a legitimate issue.
> 
> It will be interesting to see what the UCI and World ADA does with this.


 
Your statement here is wrong.  There have been positive results reported by the USADA.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ws-truth-is-holding-on-to-baseless-soundbites

_But he pointed to the USADA's __charging letter against Armstrong__. A test from 1999, he said, was re-tested and showed a positive EPO result. EPO is banned substance that increases the production of red blood cells. Tygart said they had evidence that a positive test that same year was covered up by the team. Further in 2001, a test was suspicious but "did not go through." In 2009 and 2010, said Tygart, tests showed signs that Armstrong had received blood transfusions._


----------



## Talent312 (Aug 26, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> There have been positive results reported by the USDA... "A test from 1999, [Tygart] said, was re-tested and showed a positive EPO result."



Apparently adopting a discredited retest of a 'B' sample from 1999 by a French lab in 2004.
From a story about this in USA Today --

_L'Equipe, the leading sports daily newspaper in France, published a report that said six different urine samples Armstrong provided during the 1999 Tour tested positive for the performance-enhancing drug EPO when examined in 2004 by a French lab fine-tuning EPO testing. The lab tested all the B samples from the 1999 Tour. EPO, which builds endurance, was a banned substance in 1999 but there was no approved test for it. L'Equipe reporters matched the samples' identification numbers in the lab report with information Armstrong released to French judicial investigators in a 2000 doping probe._

Perhaps something should have come of it then, but nothing did.
I don't doubt he was doping, but the UADA's case isn't as cut+dried as they would have us believe.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 26, 2012)

Talent312 said:


> Perhaps something should have come of it then, but nothing did.


 
I'm convinced that no matter what the evidence is, some will twist this to whatever they *want* to believe.  

Again, I guess all 10 of his former teammates and the USADA are liars, and I guess Lance is the only one telling the truth.  And to believe Lance in this matter, you have to wonder how he managed to make so many enemies throughout his lifetime.  It's getting comical and this will be my last post on this subject.


----------



## hvacrsteve (Aug 27, 2012)

It took them how many years to come to this conclusion!

I think all the employees of the USADA need to be tested!

Leave the man alone! He was fighting Cancer for Christ sakes!
In my opinion, the USADA just discredited itself in my mind for my life time!
Another agency with an agenda!

So I believe in LA!

I do not believe the USADA at all!
They have lost all of their creditials in my opinon!


----------



## ScoopKona (Aug 28, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> I'm convinced that no matter what the evidence is, some will twist this to whatever they *want* to believe.
> 
> Again, I guess all 10 of his former teammates and the USADA are liars, and I guess Lance is the only one telling the truth.  And to believe Lance in this matter, you have to wonder how he managed to make so many enemies throughout his lifetime.  It's getting comical and this will be my last post on this subject.



This.

I can't believe anyone feels differently. If someone was on my team and I saw no evidence of that person being anything but a straight-up fair player, then I would testify every day of the week to that fact. And if I saw someone cheat, I would be right there to say, "He or she cheated." Now we have 10 teammates willing to testify, "He cheated." Not one or two. Ten.

The statistical chances that Lance Armstrong isn't a doper are ridiculously low. Not with 10 people willing to take the stand and testify, "cheater." One teammate? OK, I can see that as someone with an axe to grind. Two? Three? OK benefit of the doubt. Ten? Unacceptable. Where there's smoke, there's fire.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 28, 2012)

ScoopLV said:


> This.
> 
> I can't believe anyone feels differently. If someone was on my team and I saw no evidence of that person being anything but a straight-up fair player, then I would testify every day of the week to that fact. And if I saw someone cheat, I would be right there to say, "He or she cheated." Now we have 10 teammates willing to testify, "He cheated." Not one or two. Ten.
> 
> The statistical chances that Lance Armstrong isn't a doper are ridiculously low. Not with 10 people willing to take the stand and testify, "cheater." One teammate? OK, I can see that as someone with an axe to grind. Two? Three? OK benefit of the doubt. Ten? Unacceptable. Where there's smoke, there's fire.



Agree completely. What type of person is willing to essentially perjure themselves to falsely accuse a former teammate? Doesn't it beg a very simple question: why? One or two jealous former teammates, willing to lie just to get back at someone? Doubtful, but ten people??? C'mon!

I can understand the Lance supporters out there unwilling to accept the fact that this man cheated. Emotion drives many people's thinking and opinions these days, rather than logic. And he should be given a pass because he had cancer, and his outside intererests in cancer awareness? I beg to differ. Again, ask yourself if that kind of opinion isn't also based in emotion instead of simple logic.


----------



## hvacrsteve (Aug 29, 2012)

So why wait this long to come forward?  I haven't heard from any of them myself, certainly not 10 of them!
Where is their testimony?
The whole thing stinks!
Someone has a real axe to grind with other peoples money!

The USADA has lost my vote of confidence!
Far too much time has passed!


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 29, 2012)

:deadhorse:

Comeon matilda I gave you the HGH - now go!


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 29, 2012)

hvacrsteve said:


> So why wait this long to come forward?  I haven't heard from any of them myself, certainly not 10 of them!
> Where is their testimony?
> The whole thing stinks!
> Someone has a real axe to grind with other peoples money!
> ...



*June 15, 2004*:

Right before the start of the Tour de France, Lance Armstrong is accused of taking performance-enhancing drugs in a book written by David Walsh and Pierre Ballester. Walsh reported that when Armstrong met with his doctors, when he was diagnosed with testicular cancer, he had admitted that he had previously taken performance-enhancing drugs. 

*August 23, 2005*:

A month after winning his seventh Tour de France, Armstrong is accused of testing positive for erythropoietin (EPO) by L'Equipe, the French sports paper.

*April 9, 2009:*

Accused of not cooperating with a drug tester by France's anti-doping agency, Armstrong denies any wrongdoing. Armstrong was cited for not remaining "under the direct and permanent observation" of those administering the drug test, per the established rules.

..................and on and on it goes. 

LA lost many peoples confidence long ago. By the way, I'm a former bicycle racer, and former LA fan.


----------



## Talent312 (Aug 29, 2012)

Sounds like "1+1+1 = 5" to me.
I'm not impressed by rehashing ancient anecdotes that went nowhere.

There's a saying in the legal profession that you can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. In this case, the USADA is the Grand Jury, Trial Jury, Judge & Executioner.

To single out a target and engineer the "testimony," long after the guy's  retired, tells me that they had an adgenda and leads to a fair-minded suspicion that they built a case to fit a pre-determined result, not to get the truth.

Is it possible that they're right? Sure.
But they were not acting as dispassionate arbiters of the truth, and that's what stinks.


----------



## ampaholic (Aug 29, 2012)

Phydeaux said:


> *June 15, 2004*:
> 
> Right before the start of the Tour de France, Lance Armstrong is accused of taking performance-enhancing drugs in a book written by David Walsh and Pierre Ballester. Walsh reported that when Armstrong met with his doctors, when he was diagnosed with testicular cancer, he had admitted that he had previously taken performance-enhancing drugs.


*SHEESH* - Ballester and Walsh were printing the "anecdotal story" originally started by Betsy and Frankie Andreu



> In 1996, Betsy and Frankie Andreu were visiting Armstrong at a hospital at the University of Indiana after Armstrong had brain surgery.
> 
> "One of the questions the doctor asked him was, 'Have you *ever* used performance-enhancing drugs?' " Betsy Andreu recalled. "Lance said, 'Yes, I have. EPO. Testosterone. Growth hormones. Steroids.'



So 4 "accusers" from one incident of LA telling his MD about his *MEDICAL HISTORY*

Perhaps could Lance have been just answering the medical history question re;ever - *like when he was undergoing cancer treatment*?




Phydeaux said:


> *August 23, 2005*:
> 
> A month after winning his seventh Tour de France, Armstrong is accused of testing positive for erythropoietin (EPO) by L'Equipe, the French sports paper.



Oh, now five accusers from one incident!!!! so all "ten accusers" is really two eavesdroppers to a *MEDICAL HISTORY* and 8 "repeaters"??????

*Rumor mongering at it's finest.*



Phydeaux said:


> *April 9, 2009:*
> 
> Accused of not cooperating with a drug tester by France's anti-doping agency, Armstrong denies any wrongdoing. Armstrong was cited for not remaining "under the direct and permanent observation" of those administering the drug test, per the established rules.



"Not cooperating" is certainly positivly *EXACTLY THE SAME* as "guilty" (and for Sheldon - yes sarcasm)


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 29, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> *SHEESH* - Ballester and Walsh were printing the "anecdotal story" originally started by Betsy and Frankie Andreu
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lighten up Francis. A lot of folks believe in alien abductions, Sasquatch and global warming too. Whatever. You have your beliefs and I have mine. A cheating doper, afraid to face his 10 **former teammates**. Last comment fromme on this one. I'll wait for the alien abduction crowd now.


----------



## hypnotiq (Aug 29, 2012)

Talent312 said:


> Sounds like "1+1+1 = 5" to me.
> I'm not impressed by rehashing ancient anecdotes that went nowhere.
> 
> There's a saying in the legal profession that you can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. In this case, the USADA is the Grand Jury, Trial Jury, Judge & Executioner.
> ...



Ding! Ding! Ding!


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 29, 2012)

Talent312 said:


> Sounds like "1+1+1 = 5" to me.
> I'm not impressed by rehashing ancient anecdotes that went nowhere.
> 
> There's a saying in the legal profession that you can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. In this case, the USADA is the Grand Jury, Trial Jury, Judge & Executioner.
> ...



Very well said again!     I couldn't agree more!

Again, I'm not a LA supporter who believes he didn't dope.  He probably did.  To me the much bigger story is how the USADA went about their "business" using our tax payer money.

It harkens back to the old saying of "Do the ends justify the means?"


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 29, 2012)

Phydeaux;1351670.... I'll wait for the alien abduction crowd now. :rolleyes:[/quote said:
			
		

> You may want to invest in one of these: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ :hysterical:


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 29, 2012)

Talent312 said:


> Sounds like "1+1+1 = 5" to me.
> I'm not impressed by rehashing ancient anecdotes that went nowhere.
> 
> There's a saying in the legal profession that you can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. In this case, the USADA is the Grand Jury, Trial Jury, Judge & Executioner.
> ...


I couldn't disagree with you more.

Yes, there has been plenty of old stuff out there for a long time (google Emma O'Reilly for example), but nothing that would stand up in the face of persistent denials (and the constant threat of lawsuits).  But now,after you have three former members of Armstong's teams (Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, and Stephen Swart - the latter calling Armstong the instigator for having the entire team take drugs) going public with their accusations, you want the USADA to pull a Penn State and purposely not do what it is supposed to do (investigate the use of drugs in athletics) and ignore the charges.

Armstong says that he is not pursing the case any longer because he does not think he can get a fair hearing.  (This is the guy who says "quitting lasts forever" and "giving up is not an option.")  He would have had nothing to lose by going into arbitration in that all that the USADA could do is confirm the penalty that it already imposed.  It would also have to make public all the testimony that the USADA used in coming to its determination.  That could only benefit a clean Armstrong in that he could then mount a lawsuit against the USADA for imposing a penalty with inadequate evidence.

On the other hand, maybe Armstong would have something to lose - public viewing of the testimony of ten of his former teammates, plus a few others.

I think that the one thing that we might agree upon is that there should be more openness.  It is Armstrong's refusal to push the case that is preventing this from happening.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 29, 2012)

Rose Pink said:


> You may want to invest in one of these: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ :hysterical:



here you go Rose: 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm?s=t


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 29, 2012)

Phydeaux said:


> here you go Rose:
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm?s=t


I was just playing along with your sarcasm. Guess mine was lost on you.


----------



## MuranoJo (Aug 30, 2012)

Rose, I like your tagline with the Bob Hope quote.

(Hope this adds value to the thread, but probably not.  )


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 30, 2012)

muranojo said:


> Rose, I like your tagline with the Bob Hope quote.
> 
> (Hope this adds value to the thread, but probably not.  )


 
Frankly, I think this thread could use some lightening up--hence the AFDB link, which was meant to relieve tension through a good laugh.  I hate it when tuggers fight with and are rude to each other.  

It has been interesting, though, to see the differing opinions and rationales for those opinions.  In the end, it is what it is, whatever that is.


----------



## esk444 (Aug 30, 2012)

hvacrsteve said:


> So why wait this long to come forward?  I haven't heard from any of them myself, certainly not 10 of them!
> Where is their testimony?
> The whole thing stinks!
> Someone has a real axe to grind with other peoples money!
> ...



There is a simple explanation for this.  There is basically an omerta in sports, especially in cycling.  Things stay within the team and no one rats each other out (drugs, affairs, cheating, anything embarrasing).  If you do, you get blackballed, from other teams and in the peloton.  

One of the very most aggressive person in enforcing the omerta is Lance Armstrong.  It is well known that if you make an accusation against him he will work with his lawyers, teams, sponsors, etc. to blackball you from cycling, he will sue you for defamation, he and his surrogates will start a whisper campaign against your alleged doping with all of your business contacts and sponsors, and then his PR firm will destroy you publicly and through leaks to friendly press.  Lance even chased down riders in the Tour that made statements that the Peloton is mostly doped to prevent them from winning stages just to make a point.

Just look at Greg Lamond and Frankie Andreu, he destroyed Greg Lamond's business by pressuring Trek to dissociate with him.  It makes perfect logical sense to keep your mouth shut and most did.

What changed?  Two huge things.  First, Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis got caught, lied for years, and eventually confessed because they had nothing to lose.  That led to a criminal investigation.

Second, the U.S. Attorney's Office went after Lance Armstrong.  Those teammates that wanted to keep their mouth's shut to protect their business careers and finances were not willing to go to jail by committing perjury for Lance.  It is strongly rumored when the U.S. Attorney closed its criminal case against Lance (for defrauding the U.S. Post Office of sponsorship money-always a dubious case since the Post Office got millions of dollars of publicity from Lance winning), it gave the USADA the names of those that confessed.

After already spilling the beans with the grand jury, it was easier for those 10 former teammates to come forward to the USADA.


----------



## esk444 (Aug 30, 2012)

Talent312 said:


> Sounds like "1+1+1 = 5" to me.
> I'm not impressed by rehashing ancient anecdotes that went nowhere.
> 
> There's a saying in the legal profession that you can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. In this case, the USADA is the Grand Jury, Trial Jury, Judge & Executioner.
> ...



I don't think that is true based on my experience.  Federal grand juries will give prosecutors the benefit of the doubt on things like murder, drugs, gun charges, violent crimes, etc.  However, grand juries have never been that easy to return an indictment for white collar crimes on gray issues of law.  Lance wasn't being investigated for perjury (like Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds) or doping, it was defrauding the Post Office.  Lance and his teams trained in Spain most of the year and they weren't likely to prosecute any drug crimes that occurred there.  Even if they found evidence of systematic doping by Lance Armstrong, many of those crimes would have occurred outside the jurisidction of U.S. controlled substances laws.  If they thought their fraud case was weak, a referral to the USADA would have been a logical alternative to resolve the case.


----------



## "Roger" (Aug 31, 2012)

Absolutely no surprise, there was going to be a tell all book.  The only question was who was going to come out with one first.  Here is a synopsis of Tyler Hamilton's acccount of what was happening.


----------



## hvacrsteve (Sep 1, 2012)

Is there no statue of limitations on this?
The guy is retired!
I just think there are far better things to do than go after a guy after he is retired!
He was fighting cancer and he probably did a lot of other things!
However he still finished first 7 times!
I could take all the drugs I wanted and I couldn't win that race!
Bring them on, I would love to say I beat LA!


----------



## am1 (Sep 1, 2012)

hvacrsteve said:


> Is there no statue of limitations on this?
> The guy is retired!
> I just think there are far better things to do than go after a guy after he is retired!
> He was fighting cancer and he probably did a lot of other things!
> ...



You are welcome to your opinion.....

Samples are saved for a reason.  It is not just about going after him but in sending a message that using drugs is wrong and there will be punishment.  It is sad that people in society think cheating and lying is okay.


----------



## hvacrsteve (Sep 1, 2012)

http://news.yahoo.com/french-pessimism-nears-time-high-poll-120633463--finance.html

Does this have anything to do with it?
Seems like the French are really unhappy right now, not sure why though.

It was a French race!


----------



## Phydeaux (Sep 1, 2012)

am1 said:


> You are welcome to your opinion.....
> 
> Samples are saved for a reason.  It is not just about going after him but in sending a message that using drugs is wrong and there will be punishment.  *It is sad that people in society think cheating and lying is okay.*



Amen. Thanks.


----------



## hvacrsteve (Sep 1, 2012)

Personally I think cheaters and liars should all be shot, but more than half the country would be dead if we did that.

Most people cheat and lie, weather we want to hear that or not its a fact!
I catch people all the time lying about somethiing, whether its for their kids or something else they can simply explain away its a lie.


Some people call them little white lies etc.

But they are still lies.


----------



## ScoopKona (Sep 2, 2012)

hvacrsteve said:


> Personally I think cheaters and liars should all be shot, but more than half the country would be dead if we did that.
> 
> Most people cheat and lie, weather we want to hear that or not its a fact!
> I catch people all the time lying about somethiing, whether its for their kids or something else they can simply explain away its a lie.
> ...



Be careful what you wish for.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...king/My-Life-With-Lance-Armstrong.html?page=1


----------



## Talent312 (Sep 2, 2012)

hvacrsteve said:


> I could take all the drugs I wanted and I couldn't win that race!



I'd have to be on drugs just to try those mountains
... and I'd still roll backwards. Take a look at L'Alpe d'Huez:






A 13.8 km climb with an average grade of 8% and 21 hairpin bends.


----------



## am1 (Oct 17, 2012)

Interesting developments.  

I make a lot less money than nike execs but knew he was guilty for years.  

Now all the Nike athletes will come out against him.


----------



## ace2000 (Oct 17, 2012)

am1 said:


> Interesting developments.
> 
> I make a lot less money than nike execs but knew he was guilty for years.
> 
> Now all the Nike athletes will come out against him.


 
Nothing to worry about.  No matter what the evidence, there will always be people willing to defend him.  Just look back on this thread.


----------



## esk444 (Oct 17, 2012)

am1 said:


> Interesting developments.
> 
> I make a lot less money than nike execs but knew he was guilty for years.
> 
> Now all the Nike athletes will come out against him.



It's probably an interesting story because Nike reasserted its support for Lance a few days ago.  They generally do for their athletes in trouble (i.e. Kobe rape trial, Michael Vick animal cruelty trial, Paterno firing).  I wonder what changed and it probably relates to Phil Knight wanting to support Lance and the board or lawyers convincing him that wasn't good for the company.


----------



## DaveNV (Oct 17, 2012)

I'm not going to roll back through this whole thread to see if I defended him earlier, but recent news about Lance brings a whole different perspective to the meaning of his book title.  Obviously, it definitely is "not about the bike."  

I hate it when my heroes are unmasked.

Dave


----------



## Passepartout (Oct 17, 2012)

Sooooo, as of today, it's Lance who?

Guess the Emperor does have no clothes. 

I think I heard last night that something like 22 out of the last 23 Tour de France winners are now proven dopers. I wonder how that other guy got away with it? 

(edited) Hmmm. See my post #4. So it goes.

Jim


----------



## DavidnRobin (Oct 17, 2012)

I don't normally comment on TUG Lounge or about such things - but at this point the LA-fanboys/girls that were going on-and-on about his innocence, and what a champion he is/was, and how this is just a witch hunt... - really (really) need to take a reality check - because defending him at this point is just plain sad.

This is like doubting Jose Canesco when he came out early on and claimed most Baseball Players were doping (at least to some level - as this can also become a fuzzy line - see testo testing...) - when he was proved to be right all along (e.g. Mark McGuire, ARod, Clemens, etc.)

btw - Barry Bonds never tested positive either... (at least upon initial testing of samples using accepted testing methods at the time) - but no one doubts that he was doping


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Oct 17, 2012)

Hey Lance!  Thanks for the phony memories of your victories and a special thanks for the time I wasted watching you race your bike.  I never would have watched except that you were the cancer patient who overcame it all to become a champion.   Thanks for the false hope you gave to other cancer patients who are probably wondering whether they were fools to believe they could overcome their cancer also.  Thanks from everyone who ever supported you or admired you only to learn they were played like a tin drum. 

It is bad enough you lied about doping but you made yourself a victor over the ravages of cancer!  You played on the hopes and sympathies of sick people!  Thanks again Lance for all you have done to HURT others.


----------



## Talent312 (Oct 17, 2012)

IMHO, it was absurd to spend so much time+effort unmasking the past.
And it's just as absurd to personally invest much in idolizing any individual.

I've never put much stock in the honesty of the sport... or any sport.
Any wonder why they're not gonn'a name the runners-up as winners?

Like I said... Of course they were doping.
I was always more interested in the spectacle anyway.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Oct 17, 2012)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Hey Lance!  Thanks for the phony memories of your victories and a special thanks for the time I wasted watching you race your bike.  I never would have watched except that you were the cancer patient who overcame it all to become a champion.   Thanks for the false hope you gave to other cancer patients who are probably wondering whether they were fools to believe they could overcome their cancer also.  Thanks from everyone who ever supported you or admired you only to learn they were played like a tin drum.
> 
> It is bad enough you lied about doping but you made yourself a victor over the ravages of cancer!  You played on the hopes and sympathies of sick people!  Thanks again Lance for all you have done to HURT others.



I find your diatribe to be absolutely absurd! 

I find these demonization’s of people like Lance Armstrong and others to be really ridiculous.  People getting on their soapboxes with diatribes about how Lance destroyed the lives of people or gave them "false hope" is just ridiculous.  Did he lie – sure, but if him lying has ruined your life or your hope then you my friend have issues.  His foundation has raised 470 million dollars for cancer research and he’s personally reached out to thousands of people with cancer.  Are you saying that him surviving Stage IV cancer with brain mets is also a lie?  

If I had a family member who was personally helped by Lance who was now distraught over his lie, I would remind them to look back as to how he personally helped them with their cancer battle.  There’s nothing wrong with that and I’m sure it was genuine.  Even if it wasn't genuine, if it helped you at the time get through a rough spot of your treatment then that's all that really matters in the end.  I would also remind them that no one is a saint and EVERYONE has lied sometime in their life.  It doesn’t make it right, but you also don’t need to take it as a personal affront against you.  NEWS FLASH – He’s human just like all the rest of us!


----------



## hvacrsteve (Oct 18, 2012)

Lance is not the first or the last to cheat and lie!

We as a society seem to believe its OK to do both!
So what does that say about all of us for accepting it.

Lance was a Master at doing it and hiding it for so may years!
He has still been a great success no matter what happens from this point forward!

He has inspired many people and gave them hope.

I could make a list with thousands of names that have done far worse and even killed many people, yet we still support them even though they are responsible for killing people.
Lance didn't do any of that, he just rubbed the wrong people the wrong way and dared them to prove, maybe they finally have.

Maybe even Monica will get here justice soon too!


----------



## esk444 (Oct 18, 2012)

Clemson Fan said:


> I find your diatribe to be absolutely absurd!
> 
> I find these demonization’s of people like Lance Armstrong and others to be really ridiculous.  People getting on their soapboxes with diatribes about how Lance destroyed the lives of people or gave them "false hope" is just ridiculous.  Did he lie – sure, but if him lying has ruined your life or your hope then you my friend have issues.  *His foundation has raised 470 million dollars for cancer research *and he’s personally reached out to thousands of people with cancer.  Are you saying that him surviving Stage IV cancer with brain mets is also a lie?
> 
> If I had a family member who was personally helped by Lance who was now distraught over his lie, I would remind them to look back as to how he personally helped them with their cancer battle.  There’s nothing wrong with that and I’m sure it was genuine.  Even if it wasn't genuine, if it helped you at the time get through a rough spot of your treatment then that's all that really matters in the end.  I would also remind them that no one is a saint and EVERYONE has lied sometime in their life.  It doesn’t make it right, but you also don’t need to take it as a personal affront against you.  NEWS FLASH – He’s human just like all the rest of us!



That's serious B.S., courtesy of the Lance PR machine.  In the early days of the foundation, they did provide some research grants to researchers trying out experimental stuff to see if they could develop stuff into something that would attract larger grants.

They found out that researchers weren't interested in their small dollar grants and there just wasn't a lot of interest.  Grants with the government and larger organizations became easier and made them unnecessary, so the foundation shifted its focus to cancer awareness.  Unfortunately, the so-called cancer awareness isn't really cancer awareness, meaning publicizing early warning signs of cancer and identifying those were significant risk factors and get them to screening.

It basically meant promoting the Lance Armstrong brand and purchasing a ton of his books and products to give to cancer survivors to give them hope and courage.

The one thing that Livestrong does very well and should be admired for is to promote services to provides assistance, knowledge, and comfort for those already diagnosed with cancer.  It's a scary time and cancer patients don't often get a lot of support.  That area was very much underserved by other cancer charities and that's where they stepped into the void when the cancer research endeavors went nowhere.

Of course, Livestrong and Lance Armstrong never say this and still falsely promotes that they are for cancer research and are fighting for a cure.

All of this is described in a bunch of news articles from the past year or so.  I don't think Livestrong is a bad organization at all, it's just how Lance Armstrong used it to protect himself and try to slime his accusers that they were against finding a cure for cancer is such shady B.S. from a con man.  

Almost all prominent con-men and even crime lords donate a lot of money to charities to deflect criticism (i.e. Bernie Madoff).


----------



## "Roger" (Oct 18, 2012)

"Lance was just doing what everyone else was doing."  Well, yes and no.

1.  First of all, Armstrong was positively nasty to anyone who called attention to what was happening.  He helped drive one member off the tour.  In addition, he legally pursued anyone who spoke out.  When Emma O'Reilly spoke her mind "Since I spoke to David Walsh, I have received so many subpoenas that the policewoman who brought them got friendly enough with my boyfriend that she would call before coming and he’d put the kettle on for her."

2.  "Since so many people on the tour were taking illegal drugs, you have to give him credit for being the best on an equal playing field."  Maybe.  Then again, he might have been more successful at using better drugs more often than his competitors.  The documents seem to suggest this.

3.  Why was it important to bring all this to light and clean house?  Imagine having your son get interesting in competive cycling.  Would you want to say that sounds great, but of course you need to start taking drugs and doing things that might be medically unsound.

Sorry, I don't cry for Armstrong.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jan 5, 2013)

As Gomar Pyle would say, sooprahz, sooprahz, sooprahz!!

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/if-lan...to-those-tour-de-france-titles-051119475.html

Plenty of helping of crow to go around here...


----------



## Phydeaux (Jan 5, 2013)

esk444 said:


> There is a simple explanation for this.  There is basically an omerta in sports, especially in cycling.  Things stay within the team and no one rats each other out (drugs, affairs, cheating, anything embarrasing).  If you do, you get blackballed, from other teams and in the peloton.
> 
> One of the very most aggressive person in enforcing the omerta is Lance Armstrong.  It is well known that if you make an accusation against him he will work with his lawyers, teams, sponsors, etc. to blackball you from cycling, he will sue you for defamation, he and his surrogates will start a whisper campaign against your alleged doping with all of your business contacts and sponsors, and then his PR firm will destroy you publicly and through leaks to friendly press.  Lance even chased down riders in the Tour that made statements that the Peloton is mostly doped to prevent them from winning stages just to make a point.
> 
> ...



Coming from an extensive cycling background, I find this as very astute, and accurate. Great post! I missed it until just now.


----------



## am1 (Jan 8, 2013)

Lance going on Oprah has to be for him to admit he made mistakes in the past but wants to move forward.  I am sure he will dance around it and she will let him.  Hopefully it is enough to open him up to liability. 

How much money has his charity raised and how much of that has gone to good causes?  If he's a fraud its possible the charity was just a front.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jan 9, 2013)

am1 said:


> Lance going on Oprah has to be for him to admit he made mistakes in the past but wants to move forward.  I am sure he will dance around it and she will let him.  Hopefully it is enough to open him up to liability.
> 
> How much money has his charity raised and how much of that has gone to good causes?  If he's a fraud its possible the charity was just a front.



Watch him come out of this whole thing like the victim. He'll be the hero. Makes me sick. 

How on God's green earth can the Tour de France continue? It's an absolute farce.


----------



## Talent312 (Jan 9, 2013)

Phydeaux said:


> How on God's green earth can the Tour de France continue? It's an absolute farce.



I don't watch for the riders. I watch for the scenery.
It makes want to go back to France.

But it's sometimes fun to see the riders go off the road.
.
.


----------



## ace2000 (Jan 14, 2013)

*Lance Armstrong apologizes to Livestrong staff*

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/01/14/lance-armstrong-livestrong-apology-oprah-winfrey/1833641/

What, seriously?  I thought he was framed?  What's he apologizing for?


----------



## CarolF (Jan 14, 2013)

Just another creep addicted to fame.


----------



## Passepartout (Jan 14, 2013)

It is absolutely impossible to overemphasize how little I care about this.

When did it become _de rigueur_, and the appropriate thing to do to pre-arrange and build hype for some admission of personal 'coming out'? Lance A. on this doping. (like he could've won 7 times over the world's strongest riders without chemical help) And another: Jodie Foster's 'coming out' as gay during a rambling acceptance speech at the Golden Globe Awards.

Ho-hum! Yawn.

Jim


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 17, 2013)

am1 said:


> How much money has his charity raised and how much of that has gone to good causes?  If he's a fraud its possible the charity was just a front.



                     470 million.  According to the vast majority of reports, Livestrong is a real organization that is not nefarious in any way.

  Whenever stuff like this breaks, I always find it interesting the demonization that goes on.  I also find it interesting how a lot of people who have no affiliation with him take it so personally like he lied directly to them and they’re looking for an “honest” apology.  I could care less if he apologizes or not because he didn’t lie to me.

  I listen to a lot of ESPN radio and people are coming out of the woodwork to say how bad and nasty of a guy he is.  Most of these people interestingly are not “clean” themselves.  It does certainly look like he was pretty vengeful against anybody who ratted him out which at least to me is really most unsavory thing I find about him.  I actually could care less about the PED’s and cycling in general :zzz:, but it’s a good lesson about what can happen if you are caught in a big lie and you do everything in your power to sustain it.

  I don’t think one can discount what he’s done with Livestrong.  I listened to Stuart Scott today on ESPN and I really agreed with what he said.  He was just diagnosed with recurrent cancer for the 3rd time and he personally knows Armstrong and he really praised him for the help he and Livestrong has provided him and countless others who are battling cancer.  Armstrong’s cancer story is truly remarkable and I do hope it continues to inspire people battling the disease!

  He’s certainly a very complex individual and I never thought he was the saint people made him out to be.  On the other hand I don’t think he’s the demon many people are labeling him as now.





BTW, how many people have fallen in love with Usain Bolt and the Jamaican Sprinting Team?  I think if you open your eyes it’s pretty obvious what’s going on there.   Again, I don't really care and I did enjoy seeing him in the Olympics.


----------



## ace2000 (Jan 17, 2013)

Clemson Fan said:


> I listen to a lot of ESPN radio and people are coming out of the woodwork to say how bad and nasty of a guy he is.


 
Think about all the people he trashed along the way, just to keep this whole charade going.  And he really did his best to keep it going.  Just go back and look at the number of defenders that are in this thread and the level of intensity defending him.  This was after all the evidence said he was guilty, but people still wanted to go out of their way to defend him.

You reap what you sow.  I don't feel sorry for him, that's for sure.


----------



## pacodemountainside (Jan 17, 2013)

*Finding Oprah*

http://www.oprah.com/own


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jan 17, 2013)

One of my very best friends in 1984 had the same cancer as Lance got. He was treated at some of the very best cancer hospitals in the Northeatern US - Sloan-Kittering, U of P, etc. It was into his brain and lungs. 6 bouts of first surgery and then chemo. 6 times. He looked like death walking. 6 weeks after surgery, then chemo followed 3 weeks later with more surgery. When they cracked his rib cage at Sloan Kittering in NYC, they pulled each lung out and scrapped the cancer tissue off.

He went from 185 at 6'2" down to 80 lbs. 

Everyone expected and knew he could not live. It was the only possible outcome -- even when he was arrested for having a bale of pot in the back of his pickup truck, the county sheriff's officiers just let him sit in their break room til he was bailed out. He was placed on 2 years probation with a $25,000 fine -- which he paid on his first visit and was then immediately discharged. 

It has been close to 29 years and I still think of him every time Lance and his cancer comes across the news. There is NFW Lance could have been that sick and still rode those races to completion, much less being the 7 times winner Tour de France without a LOT OF CHEMICAL help.

PS My friend can only breathe each day IF he takes his steriods. He knows within 3 hours of walking up, if he forget to take those meds.


----------



## bogey21 (Jan 17, 2013)

I didn't give a darn when Lance Armstrong won those races and I don't give a darn now.  Both events just give the press something to blabber about.

George


----------



## ScoopKona (Jan 20, 2013)

Lance should have started a cult instead of racing bicycles. He sure seems to have a knack for it.

The three stages of Lance Armstrong fanboydom.

Stage 1) He's innocent! Nobody ever found anything in his system! I will defend him online despite mountains of evidence!

Stage 2) So what! It's in the past. Everyone did it! He's still the best!

Stage 3) [Crickets.]


----------



## Luanne (Jan 20, 2013)

It's amazing (to me at least) how many people who claim to have NO interest in this subject are reading this thread and feel compelled to post anyway. 

Personally I'm just very sad about the whole thing.  Take that any way you like.


----------



## ScoopKona (Jan 20, 2013)

Luanne said:


> It's amazing (to me at least) how many people who claim to have NO interest in this subject are reading this thread and feel compelled to post anyway.
> 
> Personally I'm just very sad about the whole thing.  Take that any way you like.



I have PLENTY of interest in the subject. I'm interested in why people continue to defend him. Doping was the least-slimy thing he did over his career. He ruined lives, destroyed careers, and yet people continue to defend him.

I see little difference between the Livestrong-drones and the Manson family. Sure, Lance didn't order anyone's death. (Although that wouldn't surprise me, either.) But the level of blind, rabid devotion approaches that of Squeaky Fromme and Susan Atkins.

So, yeah, The Cult of Armstrong. I find it fascinating. Especially on other forums where people are finally taking off the blinders and saying things like, "I had no idea he was such a bastard."

Really?


----------



## Sandy VDH (Jan 20, 2013)

I would love it if someone who does body language interpretation would comment on Lance's.  

He looked pretty pissed, with pursed lips, apologizing.  

He said it, but I don't think he believes he really was at fault.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jan 20, 2013)

ScoopLV said:


> I have PLENTY of interest in the subject. I'm interested in why people continue to defend him. Doping was the least-slimy thing he did over his career. He ruined lives, destroyed careers, and yet people continue to defend him.
> 
> I see little difference between the Livestrong-drones and the Manson family. Sure, Lance didn't order anyone's death. (Although that wouldn't surprise me, either.) But the level of blind, rabid devotion approaches that of Squeaky Fromme and Susan Atkins.
> 
> ...



I've noticed the LA cheerleaders from the earlier pages of this thread have vanished.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 20, 2013)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

His power was based on a lie and he did everything in his power to maintain it.  It's really as simple as that.  There are a lot of powerful people that fall into that trap.  Hence the above saying.

He did a lot of bad things to protect that power, but he also did a lot of good things.

I still don't view him as a demon.  I think every murderer, rapist, etc. are much worse then Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 20, 2013)

Phydeaux said:


> I've noticed the LA cheerleaders from the earlier pages of this thread have vanished.



Really, I haven't noticed that? 

Who are the Lance Armstrong cheerleaders?


----------



## Phydeaux (Jan 20, 2013)

Clemson Fan said:


> Really, I haven't noticed that?
> 
> Who are the Lance Armstrong cheerleaders?




Really? What, you need someone to call them out for you?


----------



## Phydeaux (Jan 20, 2013)

Clemson Fan said:


> Absolute power corrupts absolutely!
> 
> His power was based on a lie and he did everything in his power to maintain it.  It's really as simple as that.  There are a lot of powerful people that fall into that trap.  Hence the above saying.
> 
> ...



Perhaps our society has simply become desensitized to another human being looking them straight in the eyes and lying to their face. 

Very scary indeed.

That what we tolerate today, we embrace tomorrow.

Think about it.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 20, 2013)

Phydeaux said:


> Really? What, you need someone to call them out for you?



I'm re-reading a lot of the thread and I really don't see "LA Cheerleaders".  I see a lot of people questioning how the government seemed to be going after him.  That has proven to be correct and I admit I was wrong on that aspect.

I see a lot of respect for his recovery from Stage IV cancer with brain mets and for what he's done with Livestrong.  I see a lot of respect for the 470 million Livestrong has raised for cancer awareness and support.  I see a lot of respect for the 1000's of cancer patients and families Livestrong has helped.  All that still remains factual and hasn't been attacked as being a false or nefarious organization.

I do find comparing Livestrong to the Manson Family to be pretty debasing, but haters will continue to be haters I guess. 

Again LA has proven to be a corrupt individual who did some nasty things to anybody who tried to expose him and for that he will pay dearly and deservedly so.

Livestrong, however, is a completely different aspect of the story and I hope it continues to do its very good work which I think it will.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jan 20, 2013)

It's a simple fact that resources influence the care and treatment, thus outcome of medical treatments. If anyone here believes otherwise, you clearly have little understanding of the system, or choose to ignore it. People with money have better outcomes. Is that a surprise to anyone? Now, how did they aquire the money? Did they earn it, fairly, with a honorable profession, or did they aquire it from questionable means? Does it matter? 

Thus, "respect" for someone's overcoming of a disease or pathology? Really? Respect?? Interesting...

Consider the corrupt police officer that puts on a uniform, goes to work, and then does bad things under the cover of that uniform. Do they do bad things during their entire shift, every hour of every day? Of course not. They simply use their position to leverage opportunities and distract attention from their evil deeds. A distraction. So, do we we respect this officer? After all, they're cops, and theyve done so much good, despite the fact that they were corrupt, and may have destroyed people's lives through their actions.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 20, 2013)

Phydeaux said:


> It's a simple fact that resources influence the care and treatment, thus outcome of medical treatments. If anyone here believes otherwise, you clearly have little understanding of the system, or choose to ignore it. People with money have better outcomes. Is that a surprise to anyone? Now, how did they aquire the money? Did they earn it, fairly, with a honorable profession, or did they aquire it from questionable means? Does it matter?
> 
> Thus, "respect" for someone's overcoming of a disease or pathology? Really? Respect?? Interesting...



I'm actually a physician and I actually think luck played more of a role in LA surviving Stage IV cancer more than anything.

What I do respect is the Livestrong Foundation which has provided a tremendous amount of resources and support to cancer patients and their families.  I agree with you that I do believe resources positively influence outcomes, and Livestrong has provided those resources for thousands of cancer patients and their families.

Again, comparing the Livestrong Foundation to the Manson Family I find to be very distasteful and extremely debasing.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jan 20, 2013)

Phydeaux said:


> Consider the corrupt police officer that puts on a uniform, goes to work, and then does bad things under the cover of that uniform. Do they do bad things during their entire shift, every hour of every day? Of course not. They simply use their position to leverage opportunities and distract attention from their evil deeds. A distraction. So, do we we respect this officer? After all, they're cops, and theyve done so much good, despite the fact that they were corrupt, and may have destroyed people's lives through their actions.



One of my favorite symbols is the Yin Yang.  I find that it applies to 99% of the population.  LA is more on the dark side with the little bit of white, but that little bit of white is still there.  Very few people are >85% evil or >85% good.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jan 20, 2013)

The bad cop analogy was to point out the hypocrisy of the Livestrong connection. A brilliant distraction that had positive results.

Amazing it's had such staying power. Still don't understand why it's brought up in the context of the real issue. Cheating, lies and corruption. It's as distracting to some now as much as it was during all the years of corruption and lies. Have to admit, it worked.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Jan 20, 2013)

Armstrong's Fortune Likely to Withstand Doping Charges - by Paul Sullivan/ Business Day/Your Money/ The New York Times.com


Richard


----------



## Talent312 (Jan 20, 2013)

Clemson Fan said:


> Livestrong is a real organization that is not nefarious in any way...
> 
> He’s certainly a very complex individual and I never thought he was the saint people made him out to be.  On the other hand I don’t think he’s the demon many people are labeling him as now.



On SNL, they said that the only person left who didn't know he doped was Manti T'eo. 
He said that what drove him to cheat was the same mind-set he used to beat cancer...
_Do whatever it takes, win at all costs, and nothing is out-of-bounds._ I can believe that.

But our obsession with this guy seems out of hand. Our culture goes overboard with hero
worship. Last-year's hero, Tebow, may be genuine, but no one should matter to so many.

I've seen and heard interviews of folks helped by Livestrong. They do important work.
Unless you paid for one of those little wristbands, you don't have an oar in that boat.
.
.


----------



## ScoopKona (Jan 21, 2013)

Clemson Fan said:


> I do find comparing Livestrong to the Manson Family to be pretty debasing, but haters will continue to be haters I guess.



Re-read. I didn't say "The Livestrong Foundation." I said the "Livestong-drones." You know, the people who defend this guy in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I don't know why this cult of personality has taken root. Or why it is so unshakeable. But a cult of personality it is. People have so much invested for whatever reason, and this rabid devotion fascinates me.


----------



## Tia (Jan 21, 2013)

Talent312 said:


> .... Our culture goes overboard with hero
> worship. ...
> .



I also believe that the power/position went to his head.


----------



## ace2000 (Jan 21, 2013)

Clemson Fan said:


> Really, I haven't noticed that?
> 
> Who are the Lance Armstrong cheerleaders?


 
The cheerleaders were the LA believers that said he wasn't guilty, or that he was framed, or that "nobody has been tested so much", etc., etc, etc.  This was despite the mountain of evidence that proved otherwise.  

Now, they either don't come back or they say they "don't care" about this story.   Go back and read, you'll find them pretty easily.


----------



## ScoopKona (Jan 21, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> The cheerleaders were the LA believers that said he wasn't guilty, or that he was framed, or that "nobody has been tested so much", etc., etc, etc.  This was despite the mountain of evidence that proved otherwise.
> 
> Now, they either don't come back or they say they "don't care" about this story.   Go back and read, you'll find them pretty easily.



They've moved past denial and are now angry. Can't wait to see how they manage to bargain in the next step...


----------



## am1 (Jul 26, 2013)

The story just gets worse:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324328904578624563537684642.html

If this is a legal defence then I agree he should be found not guilty.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 26, 2013)

am1 said:


> The story just gets worse:
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324328904578624563537684642.html
> 
> If this is a legal defence then I agree he should be found not guilty.



How many babies are starving while we are talking about Lance Armstrong?  

Lance is yesterday's news, and will ride off into the sunset, never to be heard of again.


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 26, 2013)

I find it fascinating that we hold our athletes like Lance Armstrong and Ryan Braun to higher standards and accountability than our elected officials that govern our lives.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 26, 2013)

Phydeaux said:


> I find it fascinating that we hold our athletes like Lance Armstrong and Ryan Braun to higher standards and accountability than our *elected officials that govern our lives*.



Please don't go there....


----------



## am1 (Jul 26, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> How many babies are starving while we are talking about Lance Armstrong?



Not quite sure what the two have in common.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 26, 2013)

am1 said:


> Not quite sure what the two have in common.



Just wondering if our time could be put to better use, rather than discussing  one tired old cheater:



am1 said:


> *How many thousands of babies will go hungry today* while everyone is watching one baby?
> 
> Its great for the parents, the baby and everyone close but *peoples time could be put to better use.*


----------



## am1 (Jul 26, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> Just wondering if our time could be put to better use, rather than discussing  one tired old cheater:



Seems childish on your part.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 26, 2013)

am1 said:


> Seems childish on your part.



Just my opinion.


----------



## svwoude (Jul 26, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> How many babies are starving while we are talking about Lance Armstrong?
> 
> May as well shut the whole board down, if that is the case!


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 26, 2013)

svwoude said:


> DeniseM said:
> 
> 
> > How many babies are starving while we are talking about Lance Armstrong?
> ...


----------



## Patri (Jul 26, 2013)

The rest of us get it. :rofl::hysterical:


----------



## am1 (Jul 26, 2013)

DeniseM said:


> svwoude said:
> 
> 
> > I think you missed the point - I was quoting am1...
> ...


----------



## Luanne (Jul 26, 2013)

am1 said:


> Denise you claim its a gentle poke but I think its bad manners.  I think people are free to discuss what they want on tug.



And some of us want to talk about the royal baby.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 26, 2013)

I propose the moderators close this thread asap!  I think this thread has run it's course...


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 26, 2013)

> No I think the various resources spent on the royal baby could be put to better use. How many police officers were needed around the hospital? How much of the hospital was closed off to other patients in need? How many gifts will be sent that are never even used? It is not about the time spent watching this but the time man hours and money wasted to cater to one birth.



By the same token, how many resources are "wasted" on bike races, and track and field events?   How many resources have been wasted on Lance Armstrong?  Look at all the adulation that athletes get - what a waste of time and money!  

Would eliminating these sports feed hungry babies?  Of course not!  But then you like sports, so you would never suggest that they are a waste of resources.

So yes, I agree with you 100% - people can and should post about their interests on TUG, whether it's long rants about athletes with artificial legs, or fluffy posts about royal babies - neither one is going to cure cancer, or save the world, or feed babies...


----------



## am1 (Jul 26, 2013)

Luanne said:


> And some of us want to talk about the royal baby.



That is fine.  But the resources that were used so one person could give birth to one baby could have been put to better use elsewhere. Possibly to help babies that go hungry.  Or there are any number of other causes.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jul 27, 2013)

am1 said:


> DeniseM said:
> 
> 
> > No I think the various resources spent on the royal baby could be put to better use.  How many police officers were needed around the hospital?  How much of the hospital was closed off to other patients in need?  How many gifts will be sent that are never even used?  It is not about the time spent watching this but the time man hours and money wasted to cater to one birth.
> ...


----------



## ScoopKona (Jul 29, 2013)

And this has anything to do with a lying, cheating, backstabbing bully who happens to race bicycles, how?

Other than the egregious sense of entitlement both Lance and the royals have?


----------

