What would you do if you were Lance right now?

I think you have given us the best summary of how intelligent people should look at this whole sad, disgusting affair.

heresthediff wrote:

i understand and have for a long time that cycling was a hugely dirty sport. I think the reason people are super pissed about lance armstrong is that he didnt just win, get rich and go away he held himself out as some sort of physiological miracle, a cycling ubermensch. Story after story about how his body was mutant like and he did not produce as much lactic acid or whatever. Statements that he was perhaps the greatest athlete of all time etc...etc... so i think really that is why people have an extra level of hate and aggression towards him and i think it's totally justified. He should be ostracized at every turn by everyone because he is a coward and a joke. Only in this uncritical and uninformed society would people hang on his legend for so long.

jsjs wrote:

knuckles wrote:

How is the 1,000 of clean riders who never got a chance Lance's fault? Why isn't it Hamilton's or Hincappie's fault? Lance wasn't the first man to dope then everyone followed. This rabbit hole goes waaaay back. How many tests did Merckx's (sp?) fail? Lance doped because others were doping.

It's no just Lance's fault. It's all of the dopers' fault. Lance is the only one famous enough to make the news. That's why you are only hearing about him.

It's not just that Lance is famous. It's that he's a sanctimonious piece of shit. It wasn't enough for him to deny his doping over the years. Instead, he loudly proclaimed his innocence while accusing others of doping. He also used his PR machine to smear the reputations of those who had the courage to tell the truth.

Lance Armstrong is a cheat, a fraud, and a liar. All his notable accomplishments—including his cancer charity—are the result of his years of cheating and lying. He's garbage.

Dixon Hurbut wrote:

I would call up Ashley Olsen and ask if she wants to taste a little champion juice again.

No, No-double down. Both Mary Kate and Ashley, then write a book.

Is it true Stephanie Tanner is a meth head?

SealTeamSix wrote:

Continue to not give a shit what uneducated message board posters think about my status as a "total dbag and complete a-hole" and continue advancing the world's largest cancer research charity.

Wrong. His charity does nothing for cancer research. Yet many people, like you, continue to believe they do.

Nothing. He is not going to lose the money he accrued.

Unless something hurts his ability to make $$$$ he is not going to care. Even with all the folks saying LA did it and led the doping effort, some will not think it is true (remember a lot of folks deny the moon landing, the Holocaust, etc). Then some will still support Livestrong because of the cancer.

Now if Livestrong and the interest in having LA speak starts to dry up, he will figure something out. I think he likes flying in the private Livestrong jet too much to give it up.

If that starts to go south, then he will come out and say "I did it" and eventually Americans will forgive him.

host saturday night live.

He won't admit anything. He'll face perjury and libel charges all over the place.

been around longer wrote:

#YOBRO wrote:

Every cycling fan supports a doper and a cheater. CAT 2 and 3 guys dope. Name one clean rider. They don't exist. The associations and anti doping orgs don't give a crap about drugs only money.

Eddy Merckx in 69 Lucien Van Impe in 76 Hinault, Lemond.

Before your time kiddo.

Merckx tested positive three times, which is three more times than Armstrong.

Perhaps he could start with this "research" - don't take cheap and sh_itty steroids at the beginning of your cycling career so you never get cancer in the first place.

Clown.

Hincapie never tested positive either. Lance did test positive at least once. Have you read anything? The cortisone results were a positive test early in his career. They had to fabricate some back dated Dr. note to slide out of that one. Anyone who attempts to stand on the 'never tested positive' argument is just a blind fool, probably incapable of adding two and two together.

Lance should lead life to the fullest, in whatever he wishes.

Lance has a public face and he has a private face.

The one that he looks at in the mirror is most important, not the public one.

There is a hint of 'you can't handle the truth' to this whole saga, but that cat is out of the bag now.

If George Hincapie doped, then I do not know who is clean or has doped at some point in their career.

If I were Lance, I would swallow my pride. Admit guilt, pay the penalites, serve my time, and fade away into nothing. He can still hang his hat on pre-cancer wins and the fact he survived cancer.

I was a huge Lance supporter, but there is a lot of evidence against him.

knuckles wrote:

How is the 1,000 of clean riders who never got a chance Lance's fault? Why isn't it Hamilton's or Hincappie's fault? Lance wasn't the first man to dope then everyone followed. This rabbit hole goes waaaay back. How many tests did Merckx's (sp?) fail? Lance doped because others were doping.

You said in your post before that "I don't get how Lance is a fraud . . . because everyone else did it" First of all, that is not true. Most of the Tour riders, yes, but I'm pretty sure there were hundreds, if not thousands of aspiring and talented riders beaten and denied the chance to compete in the Tour because they did not dope. Just because more than a few doped, does not make it okay. That is a reeeeaaal slippery slope!

And secondly, he cheated to win money. What's not fraudulent about that?

If he didn't do anything wrong, why did he feel that he had to lie about it???

Tell the world to suck it. I'm a mo fo millionaire and kicked the ass of every other doper racing. Legalise drugs cause everyones on em.

Seems I'd sell my jet:

www.leas.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=uNT%2bKl6bmk8%3d&tabid=142

Team up with John Daly and learn how to play golf....John would teach Lance the game, and Lance would help John get his fat, Irish ass in shape to win again.

luv2run wrote:

Nothing. He is not going to lose the money he accrued.

Are you sure?

His management company sued and beat an insurance company to make them pay his massive consecutive-tour-winning bonus; AFAIR they wanted to wait a while and ensure no bad doping news emerged later. And then there are all the people whose reputations he ruined along the way.

Don't forget the Bruyneel hearing will air this evidence soon, test it properly in open arbitration, and end up adding a lot of weight to the Reasoned Decision if (as most people expect) Bruyneel goes down.

There has to be a chance that if he (and even his co-managers and the UCI) digs in and denies, they will get embroiled in enough legal battles, and eventually start losing them with massive costs, that he might end up penniless.