Once again, Nike makes another great commercial

Nice.

Yawn.

Wait... Lance Armstrong had cancer? Wow, I had no idea.

Completely absurd. What does this have to do with buying any Nike product? Did Nike ever claim anywhere that their equipment will make you faster or prevent injuries? No, of course not because its not true. So, they have to resort to mindless video such as this one which has nothing to do with anything. The buying public seems to be very malleable, if not completely gullible.

Caveman wrote:

Completely absurd. What does this have to do with buying any Nike product? Did Nike ever claim anywhere that their equipment will make you faster or prevent injuries? No, of course not because its not true. So, they have to resort to mindless video such as this one which has nothing to do with anything. The buying public seems to be very malleable, if not completely gullible.

Sand in your vag ehhh?

Wearing Nike cure's cancer

wccelder wrote:

Wearing Nike cure's cancer

Only an imbecile would come to that conclusion!

Caveman wrote:

Completely absurd. What does this have to do with buying any Nike product? Did Nike ever claim anywhere that their equipment will make you faster or prevent injuries? No, of course not because its not true. So, they have to resort to mindless video such as this one which has nothing to do with anything. The buying public seems to be very malleable, if not completely gullible.

So what? What do CGI frogs have to do with buying beer? Nothing! But that doesn't stop Budweiser, does it?

Actually wrote:

Yawn.

The most pompous remark EVER on a message board. It basically says that your life is so much more thrilling and you want everyone to know it.

Yeah, you've overcome cancer that spread throughout your body and won world cross country 7 times in a row. Get over yourself.

It dumb because it is a lie. Armstrong is on the bike for one reason- himself. And by himself, I mean his media image.

Unfortunately, Cancer hasn’t given lance enough perspective to NOT be a douchebag.

Wearing Nike stuff does not cure cancer, and Nike has never claimed that. Proceeds from the LIVESTRONG merchandise does go to cancer research. Research that one day might find a cure for a disease that touches more lives than you could imagine.

Wearing Nike stuff does not cure cancer, and Nike has never claimed that. Proceeds from the LIVESTRONG merchandise does go to cancer research. Research that one day might find a cure for a disease that touches more lives than you could imagine.

800 Champ wrote:

It dumb because it is a lie. Armstrong is on the bike for one reason- himself. And by himself, I mean his media image.

Unfortunately, Cancer hasn’t given lance enough perspective to NOT be a douchebag.

Perhaps, but you don't know that. You think this guy is not a competitor? He'd be a fool not to make money doing what he loves. What is he supposed to be 58 and working for some corporation if he doesn't have to? Dude has the right to make as much money as he can while he can and enjoy the rest of his life afterwards.

He's going out and making hit happen, which you can't do, which is likely why you want to call him a douchebag. But the 2 seconds of contrived satisfaction you just had won't carry you through life.

Don't forget the drugs that helped him get there. A filthy sport it may be, but he was king of the filth.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863

The REAL frednorris wrote:

Once again, Nike makes another great commercial

re⋅dun⋅dant

  /rɪˈdʌndənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-duhn-duhnt] Show IPA

Use redundant in a Sentence

–adjective

1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix: a redundant style.

2. being in excess; exceeding what is usual or natural: a redundant part.

3. having some unusual or extra part or feature.

4. characterized by superabundance or superfluity: lush, redundant vegetation.

5. Engineering.

a. (of a structural member) not necessary for resisting statically determined stresses.

b. (of a structure) having members designed to resist other than statically determined stresses; hyperstatic.

c. noting a complete truss having additional members for resisting eccentric loads. Compare complete (def. 8), incomplete (def. 3).

d. (of a device, circuit, computer system, etc.) having excess or duplicate parts that can continue to perform in the event of malfunction of some of the parts.

6. Linguistics. characterized by redundancy; predictable.

7. Computers. containing more bits or characters than are required, as a parity bit inserted for checking purposes.

8. Chiefly British. removed or laid off from a job.

get inspired wrote:

800 Champ wrote:

It dumb because it is a lie. Armstrong is on the bike for one reason- himself. And by himself, I mean his media image.

Unfortunately, Cancer hasn’t given lance enough perspective to NOT be a douchebag.

Perhaps, but you don't know that. You think this guy is not a competitor? He'd be a fool not to make money doing what he loves. What is he supposed to be 58 and working for some corporation if he doesn't have to? Dude has the right to make as much money as he can while he can and enjoy the rest of his life afterwards.

He's going out and making hit happen, which you can't do, which is likely why you want to call him a douchebag. But the 2 seconds of contrived satisfaction you just had won't carry you through life.

Spot on post!

get inspired wrote:

Perhaps, but you don't know that. You think this guy is not a competitor? He'd be a fool not to make money doing what he loves. What is he supposed to be 58 and working for some corporation if he doesn't have to? Dude has the right to make as much money as he can while he can and enjoy the rest of his life afterwards.

He's going out and making hit happen, which you can't do, which is likely why you want to call him a douchebag. But the 2 seconds of contrived satisfaction you just had won't carry you through life.

Here come the DOLs (Defenders of Lance). You are right at that "dude" has the right to make money but he/nike/DOLs can't possibly expect any person with half a brain to swallow this BS.

I do know that. Clearly, Lance is addicted to fame. He won't even matter at the Tour.

p.s. You take Me to task for Not knowing and then assume all kinds of things about me....a true dip

filief wrote:

Don't forget the drugs that helped him get there. A filthy sport it may be, but he was king of the filth.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863

Well that is not exactly proof. I'm not saying he didn't cheat, because like you said with that sport it's pretty evident that cheating (is it cheating at that point?) is previlent. However, you provided allegations and not proof.

Personally I think it's more than a 80% chance that he cheated, and in doing so dominated a bunch of cheaters. If the playing field is level, he's still the man.

Does that make him worthy of admiration then? Should we cry our little eyes out just because he came back from cancer, made up a bunch of lies about his incredible natural talent, huge lungs, muscles that apparently don't produce lactic acid, vo2 of something astronomical even though his only reliable test is distinctly average. The guy is a cheat, yes the sport was riddled, but it's not a level playing field for the guys down in 20th place or so, wherever the first clean rider finishes. Whoever he is, he's been cheated of glory by Lance, everyone's been demoted a place by Lance, a culture of doping has been accepted with cycling's white knight being very much the leader and role model. If the best guy does it, the guy with the power, the guy who will sue your ass til it's broke if you accuse him of anything, it's something of a filter-down process thereafter. Makes me sick too to see chris carmichael, who is lance's coach only on paper while dr michele ferrari (the italian doc convicted of giving cyclists epo) REALLY sets out his training, dosages and whatnot. And then Carmichael publicising his fancy training programmes, hmmm, how about the systematic doping you encouraged and helped implement for the us cycling team in the 1984 olympics Chris, is that part of the training system?

Admire him if you like, no doubt much of Lance's charity work is commendable, but please don't fool yourself into thinking he is anything less than a fraud, a lier, and a man who has made millions through a career of well-planned

cheating.

If you're still in doubt, and again it's not proof, just persuasion, read this:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

L.A. Confidentiel also provides an account of an August 2001 telephone conversation between Armstrong and three-time Tour winner Greg LeMond, who had been publicly critical of Armstrong's ties to Ferrari. The alleged conversation was recounted by LeMond's wife, Kathy, who, according to Walsh, wrote down her memory of the exchange immediately after the call.

The book describes how the LeMonds were getting into their car when an agitated Armstrong called Greg to complain about his comments. Kathy says she overheard Armstrong challenge her husband to say that he had never taken EPO during his professional career.

"What makes you say I've taken EPO?" Greg replied.

According to the book, Kathy's memory of Armstrong's response was "Go on, everyone takes EPO."

http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200512/lance-armstrong-5.html