Please get a freaking clue!
The issue with Lance that makes him a complete and total asshole is his decisions and actions to destroy, utterly destroy those who dared to tell the truth.
Nothing else is relevant.
Stop with the "Oh, let's not judge his doping so harshly..." Sure, he doped. So did many others in many sports. It's cheating and should be handled as such. It is not enough for folks to pile on and that is not what people are piling on about. Please try to catch up.[/quote]
He said she said B.S.
All I am looking for are the other parts to this equation. You are just like all my other Freshman students.
It seems to me that's what you and the rest of the Armstrong haters are doing.
I take offense at this too, but not because of Lance, but because I like to vacation in Hawaii.
Wilbon is absolutely right. Nothing in sports broadcasting over the past decade has delighted me more than the way in which the Big Voices actually get the point.
Lance was a hero. He was compelling TV. I fell in love with the Tour de France and the two commentating teams (UK and US) because of Lance. Every July meant long draining AM runs in the Mississippi swamp heat followed by Gatorade and Lance running 'em ragged in the mountains. I loved that.
I defended Lance as at least potentially innocent of all charges for a long time around here. Assuming he was in fact innocent, I found it easy to ignore the harsh things he said about the folks who had worked or ridden with him and who came clean. I thought Floyd Landis was the pig, the loser, for example.
Lance turned out to be a fake and a bully. Great rider, in his own way, and I don't actually begrudge him that. But to the extent that I ever looked up to him as a hero, that's all gone, and has to be gone. He's got a big pump, as athlete's hearts go, but a really small heart.
He mercilessly accused all those who told the truth of being incorrigible liars. He repeatedly, without conscience, slandered his own teammates once they decided to fess up rather than commit perjury.
Lance, accusing them, did his best to make their truthtelling look like perjury and his own perjury look like integrity.
That's why Wilbon is spot-on. He gets it. To my amazement, a lot of sports folk get it.
This isn't about the drug-soaked sport of professional cycling and how Lance merely did what he had to do. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how he kept lying, and slandering, even when others in that drug-soaked sport told the truth.
Believe it or not, I'll remain inspired by those July days. I won't even put much of a mental asterisk next to Lance's performances. But I'll also know that the only reason he even got a chance to win those seven Tours is that he was just about the greatest liar, the most deceitful athlete, the world has ever known. That sickens me. I expected more, and had a right to expect more.
Most people who are Pro-Armstrong aren't saying he didn't dope. Most people who are Pro-Armstrong are humanists who don't believe it is right to obliterate someone for mistakes. I am not saying what he did was right, I am looking for some compassion and empathy. In the doping era they don't have the same idioms we do now and therefore it wasn't sacrilegious to dope. He isn't totally immoral. He still has done some miraculous things.
Also, don't pretend to know people's motivations. You have no clue what Lance's interests are concerning cancer.[/quote]
No offense, but most pro-Armstrong fanboys have only just recently started admitting that he actually doped. Just months ago we were still hearing the battle cries of "he's never tested positive" or "he's the most tested athlete of all time." Usually followed by "you f*ckin' losers don't know greatness when you see it."
"Obliterate" is an appropriate description of what Lance did to anyone who dared to question the myth or speak honestly about what was occurring in cycling. He would certainly deserve compassion and empathy if he ever sincerely showed remorse for how sh*tty he treated countless people. To be honest, the more I read about his actions, I'm not sure he isn't "immoral."
"Miraculous things?" If referring to cancer, most will tell you that two things matter most: luck and access to the excellent medical care. If you're implying his races in France, ironically had the UCI done its job in 1999 and not accepted his backdated TUE, he would have been thrown out of the Tour before any of his 7 "wins." Instead, he was able to build a unique and privileged relationship with cycling's governing body.
to those that support steroid usage: if lance bribed an insider and was given more leeway with drug testing, then that wouldn't be fair at all to other cheaters.
he could have increased his dosage or frequency or achieved a higher testosterone ratio while the accomplice was paid to look the other way.
i don't know why it's so hard to see that lance was ruthless and didn't leave any stone unturned. he was hungry to look for any advantage over his competitors and to keep it hidden.
remember, just 1% improvement in performance through cheating can mean the difference if the tour de france lasts 87 hours.
why are the lance fans so adamant about how the entire competition was 100% equal, and that lance's antics, connections, funds, and drugs could not have possibly yielded any advantage whatsoever.
maybe you're a gym rat and prick your skin with a needle from the local steroid dealer and don't know exactly what an elite millionaire would actually do..
|Stater of the Oblivious|
The issue has become the lack of investigative journalism. Because without it, we are left with a story generated by a boxscore or a well edited snippet of the days events that ultimately promote a lie- A NOTHING.
What is baseball going to do? Deny Hall of Famers for ten years because of PEDs? Guys played hard; they deserve to be in the HoF.
Fans are fans. And journalists are journalist. When they cross into fandom, they lose their journalistic objectivity, and we get fraud like Lance Armstrong.
I wholeheartedly agree that Letsrun staff, namely Rojo, have been entirely unprofessional with regards to the expression of their views on the LA debacle. Their narrow minded, simplistic and self righteous views have done nothing to add perspective or insight to an overplayed story. Instead their overt condemnations have confirmed the childish, knee jerk, jump on the bandwagon nature behind the reporting and management of this website. How amateur.
Ummm...No. Pamela Anderson was not cheating. She was not lying. And she was not actively destroying the lives of folks who committed the grave crime of telling the truth.
So, your analogy is complete bullshit.
As far as your truly brilliant "THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS" - Really? How insightful! I spend a few minutes to respond to stupid posts such as yours. Then I happily go about my life sending flowers and shopping for golf bags. I seriously doubt I spent more time typing up such a response than you did typing up yours. The only difference is mine makes sense while yours is idiotic.[/quote]
Snore. Unless you type north of 150wpm, you lose!
You get the point, the adult world is full of fake, phoney, liars, cheaters and aholes. Oh wait, your post made you sound like a shout down ahole...just like Lance. See, the adult world isn't always nice...and you are a part of that not nice.
Listen to the people that are telling you...we get it already, we agree LANCE=BAD, even LANCE=HORRIBLE.
However you take part on a forum here wherein the owners have allowed a straight, Catholic kid to be called "gay" in every imaginable way...just because they hate Nike.
Lance corrupt and awful, owners of this site corrupt and awful in their own way. When Rojo was called on this the other night by a handful of people...he deleted the thread.
In case it wasn't clear to you, I think what Lance did for years was was horrible. I just don't want to see the LRC front page made into a gleeful hateful froth over it every day...
And btw, you sound hateful. Get help.