Is Armstrong a fraud and bully?



Originally Posted by ken browne .

how do you know - from listening to other people -[ remember any of the allegations have been all thrown out of court, have not been proven & all hearsay - time has not changed people - burn him at the stake because the media & some other losers said he cheated - what was to be gained - he did alot of good for people with cancer but forget the good that people have done - the treatment of Armstrong is appalling & disgusts me - i am ashamed to be associated with the human race - people that have responded negatively to Lance Armstrong are on a mindless trek through Life, you fail to see the big picture - yes it is wrong to cheat, yes it is wrong to take drugs - but he did not test positive Joachim who was a rider on the postal team disputed Tylers information & said there was no culture in that team pushing drugs - it was up the riders - 2nd fact the top 20 were all on drugs EPO etc - if you want to win under those circumstances - u retire or do the same - ance is a victim of a failed organization the UCI failed again by throwing Armstrong to the wolves while the American people turned their back on Lance Armstrong for the 2nd time - i guess he must be used to it as his father turned his back on him when he was young. I am sure it hurts when your friends hang you out in the wind to die ...but i am sure he is tired of defending - i wouldnt bother either - its expensive & life is too short - USADA ----coffee was on the ban list a few years ago now its allowed - people change their minds often fickleness - nothing is sacred ,,..i just cant believe how LIVESTRONG was attacked when it has done so much - if u log on to it - it offers assistance in training, diet, living etc ...never done before & the information is free ,,,excellent ...people are foolish ...i rarely login these days as i am too busy ...
You said it! /img/vbsmilies/smilies/icon14.gif/img/vbsmilies/smilies/icon14.gif
 
ken browne said:
how do you know - from listening to other people  -[ remember any of the allegations have been all thrown out of court, have not been proven & all hearsay - time has not changed people - burn him at the stake because the media & some other losers said he cheated - what was to be gained - he did alot of good for people with cancer but forget the good that people have done  - the treatment of Armstrong is appalling & disgusts me - i am ashamed to be associated with the human race - people that have responded negatively to Lance Armstrong are on a mindless trek through Life, you fail to see the big picture - yes it is wrong to cheat, yes it is wrong to take drugs - but he did not test positive Joachim who was a rider on the postal team disputed Tylers information & said there was no culture in that team pushing drugs - it was up the riders  - 2nd fact the top 20 were all on drugs EPO etc  - if you want to win under those circumstances - u retire or do the same - ance is a victim of a failed organization the UCI failed again by throwing Armstrong to the wolves while the American people turned their back on Lance Armstrong for the 2nd time - i guess he must be used to it as his father turned his back on him when he was young. I am sure it hurts when your friends hang you out in the wind to die ...but i am sure he is tired of defending - i wouldnt bother either - its expensive & life is too short  - USADA ----coffee was on the ban list a few years ago now its allowed - people change their minds often fickleness - nothing is sacred ,,..i just cant believe how LIVESTRONG was attacked when it has done so much  - if u log on to it - it offers assistance in training, diet, living etc  ...never done before & the information is free ,,,excellent  ...people are foolish ...i rarely login these days as i am too busy ...  
Wow. I'm sure Amstrong will write to you, thanking you for the apologies you've present on his behalf. While Livestrong providing information resources for cancer patients might be ok, it would be much greater if they took the massive amount of money they make and used it to fund research, something they rarely if ever do. Let's recap a fact: over 20 witnesses testified against Armstrong. That is one way that conspiracies are typically broken. Fact number two: doping because others dope does not level the field. Doping actually increases the disparity in the field because, first, there are actually honest riders who are being cheated because of liars and cheaters like Armstrong. Second doping is not some universal constant, with which you become equal to everyone else. More money buys better doping products, better doping regimes, and better methods for avoiding being caught. US Postal had the best of at all. They were the dopers non plus ultra. The fact is that US Postal and Armstrong bought their victories, and there is absolutely no way to objectively say, "Well, golly, if no one was doping in the peloton, Armstrong would have still won." Saying as much is a ridiculous claim supported by absolutely nothing. Even worse is that's very likely that Armstrong has used his time with cancer and his "work" with Livestrong to burnish his reputation and inoculate himself against accusations of doping, and that's what makes him the biggest scumbag of all. He wasn't lifted to great heights because of Livestrong. He climbed on the backs of cancer patients to the summit of self glorification. Scumbag through and through he is. In the process he bought the support of many people through their willful ignorance. "Surely such an ardent cancer fighter wouldn't do such a thing." Honest people wouldn't do a such a thing, but if you just modify that statement a bit, you get what fits Armstrong like his own skin: "Surely such an odious person, would propose to fight cancer to gain the support of people through their own willful ignorance."
 
  • Like
Reactions: limerickman
Originally Posted by alienator .


Wow. I'm sure Amstrong will write to you, thanking you for the apologies you've present on his behalf. While Livestrong providing information resources for cancer patients might be ok, it would be much greater if they took the massive amount of money they make and used it to fund research, something they rarely if ever do.
Let's recap a fact: over 20 witnesses testified against Armstrong. That is one way that conspiracies are typically broken. Fact number two: doping because others dope does not level the field. Doping actually increases the disparity in the field because, first, there are actually honest riders who are being cheated because of liars and cheaters like Armstrong. Second doping is not some universal constant, with which you become equal to everyone else. More money buys better doping products, better doping regimes, and better methods for avoiding being caught. US Postal had the best of at all. They were the dopers non plus ultra. The fact is that US Postal and Armstrong bought their victories, and there is absolutely no way to objectively say, "Well, golly, if no one was doping in the peloton, Armstrong would have still won." Saying as much is a ridiculous claim supported by absolutely nothing.
Even worse is that's very likely that Armstrong has used his time with cancer and his "work" with Livestrong to burnish his reputation and inoculate himself against accusations of doping, and that's what makes him the biggest scumbag of all. He wasn't lifted to great heights because of Livestrong. He climbed on the backs of cancer patients to the summit of self glorification. Scumbag through and through he is. In the process he bought the support of many people through their willful ignorance. "Surely such an ardent cancer fighter wouldn't do such a thing." Honest people wouldn't do a such a thing, but if you just modify that statement a bit, you get what fits Armstrong like his own skin: "Surely such an odious person, would propose to fight cancer to gain the support of people through their own willful ignorance."
hear! hear!
 
Originally Posted by alienator .


Wow. I'm sure Amstrong will write to you, thanking you for the apologies you've present on his behalf. While Livestrong providing information resources for cancer patients might be ok, it would be much greater if they took the massive amount of money they make and used it to fund research, something they rarely if ever do.
Let's recap a fact: over 20 witnesses testified against Armstrong. That is one way that conspiracies are typically broken. Fact number two: doping because others dope does not level the field. Doping actually increases the disparity in the field because, first, there are actually honest riders who are being cheated because of liars and cheaters like Armstrong. Second doping is not some universal constant, with which you become equal to everyone else. More money buys better doping products, better doping regimes, and better methods for avoiding being caught. US Postal had the best of at all. They were the dopers non plus ultra. The fact is that US Postal and Armstrong bought their victories, and there is absolutely no way to objectively say, "Well, golly, if no one was doping in the peloton, Armstrong would have still won." Saying as much is a ridiculous claim supported by absolutely nothing.
Even worse is that's very likely that Armstrong has used his time with cancer and his "work" with Livestrong to burnish his reputation and inoculate himself against accusations of doping, and that's what makes him the biggest scumbag of all. He wasn't lifted to great heights because of Livestrong. He climbed on the backs of cancer patients to the summit of self glorification. Scumbag through and through he is. In the process he bought the support of many people through their willful ignorance. "Surely such an ardent cancer fighter wouldn't do such a thing." Honest people wouldn't do a such a thing, but if you just modify that statement a bit, you get what fits Armstrong like his own skin: "Surely such an odious person, would propose to fight cancer to gain the support of people through their own willful ignorance."
Super post.

You have succinctly crystallised the issue.
The Naked Cheat has lied throughout.
The fact that The Naked Cheat lied to vulnerable and desperate people suffering from cancer should not be a surprise to anyone.
 
Originally Posted by alienator .


Wow. I'm sure Amstrong will write to you, thanking you for the apologies you've present on his behalf. While Livestrong providing information resources for cancer patients might be ok, it would be much greater if they took the massive amount of money they make and used it to fund research, something they rarely if ever do.
Let's recap a fact: over 20 witnesses testified against Armstrong. That is one way that conspiracies are typically broken. Fact number two: doping because others dope does not level the field. Doping actually increases the disparity in the field because, first, there are actually honest riders who are being cheated because of liars and cheaters like Armstrong. Second doping is not some universal constant, with which you become equal to everyone else. More money buys better doping products, better doping regimes, and better methods for avoiding being caught. US Postal had the best of at all. They were the dopers non plus ultra. The fact is that US Postal and Armstrong bought their victories, and there is absolutely no way to objectively say, "Well, golly, if no one was doping in the peloton, Armstrong would have still won." Saying as much is a ridiculous claim supported by absolutely nothing. This fails for several reasons so your claims are also supported by nothing. Lance was dominate in 99, granted he was doping but so was Pantani. Lance had no more money than any other team and probably a lot less than the big teams at the time. Second Lance was a youngest world champion ever at 22 by handing Indurain his ass and winning ten titles that year. This was presumably before doping.
It may be true that Lance was effected more positively by the drugs but it is also true that it could be less, we will never know. What we have seen is that if one is on the juice they all have to be to compete. It doesn't make it level but if your not on it your out. How Lance would have finished after Cancer if all had been clean,? There is no way to know one way or another but he was almost 20 lbs lighter and that makes massive difference, training and diet were different and yes drugs and doping had their part. My opinion, if the field would have been clean, he would have been in it.

Even worse is that's very likely that Armstrong has used his time with cancer and his "work" with Livestrong to burnish his reputation and inoculate himself against accusations of doping, and that's what makes him the biggest scumbag of all. He wasn't lifted to great heights because of Livestrong. He climbed on the backs of cancer patients to the summit of self glorification. Scumbag through and through he is. In the process he bought the support of many people through their willful ignorance. "Surely such an ardent cancer fighter wouldn't do such a thing." Honest people wouldn't do a such a thing, but if you just modify that statement a bit, you get what fits Armstrong like his own skin: "Surely such an odious person, would propose to fight cancer to gain the support of people through their own willful ignorance."
Mr Self Righteous speaks again. The only difference between you and Amstrong is immense talent. Thank God you have very little because with this attitude we may be reading your headlines!
 
part one: the "two wrongs equal a right" argument. as for the world champion argument, your hat has been handed to you on that point often enough to make it ludicrous for you to raise it again. it's never a good tactic to use "presumably" in your argument. are you, therefore, unsure that he was clean then?

part two: the red herring. lance doped. doping is against the rules. lance was caught. lance is declared a doper/cheater. as for the others, bring evidence against them or stfu.

part three: **** pound saw it. as the conversation swing to armstrong's doping, the charity work is brought forward. he has used it. he still uses it. he will always use his charity work to insulate himself against these charges. try separating the two. if he is a dirty rider, admit it. if he is a charity saint, admit it. these two are not mutually exclusive. i feel, however, that armstrong uses the charity work to insulate himself against the deeds he committed as a rider.
 
Originally Posted by slovakguy .

part one: the "two wrongs equal a right" argument. as for the world champion argument, your hat has been handed to you on that point often enough to make it ludicrous for you to raise it again. it's never a good tactic to use "presumably" in your argument. are you, therefore, unsure that he was clean then?

LOL - Your off point, not me.

The argument was regarding Lances effectiveness on drugs vs someone else's, not the either were right. Pantani an he were neck and neck up Vontoux and he nearly blew number 5 to Ulrich. It is not like he is finishing 45 minutes ahead of these guys. There is no way of telling how much of any of these riders success is based on talent, desire, competitiveness or drugs. This concept that you and Ali share that LA was a no talent dope fiend is your emotions run away with you.

Which is another thing I don't understand this guy did nothing to you what are you so bent out of shape about dude!

part two: the red herring. lance doped. doping is against the rules. lance was caught. lance is declared a doper/cheater. as for the others, bring evidence against them or stfu.

Just sit back and relax Slovy, you blood pressure is rising again and you look as if you are about to pass out. Breath deep and slow it will pass. You and Ali are so amped up that if anyone says anything positive about Lance you lose it. Calm down and read and take your blood pressure medicine.

part three: **** pound saw it. as the conversation swing to armstrong's doping, the charity work is brought forward. he has used it. he still uses it. he will always use his charity work to insulate himself against these charges. try separating the two. if he is a dirty rider, admit it. if he is a charity saint, admit it. these two are not mutually exclusive. i feel, however, that armstrong uses the charity work to insulate himself against the deeds he committed as a rider.

I think covering up his doping actions is a very small part of it. What is more accurate I believe is that Lance used the cancer fighting to glorify himself. Winning the tour did not get you lunch with Bono. It is the fact that he had cancer and went on a mission to help people. Does Lance have compassion for these people, I suspect so. Does his passion for self glory over ride this, obsolutely.

The fact is he is good an bad and so are you and I. My belief is that we are all mostly self serving and not so good with some shining moments. Your looking at that on a grand scale in the LA story. It is plain to see for any man with some depth.

You and Alienator cant display the low grade hate mongering you display here and them turn around and claim that you would have not done anything different. You demonstrate the some level of hypocrisy with your pseudo intellectualism and self righteousness indignation on this site that you claim to despise in Lance. Lance cant see it laying on the couch with his jersey adorned above him, but neither can you!
 
^^This what we get because you don't know how to operate the "quote"function on a board. As for your spiel. Armstrong had it all, including the huge connection to Ferrari; the ability and manpower to cover up what they were doing; the manpower and ability to avoid testing......it's all been outed. The he beat Pantani is proof of nothing, other than he beat Pantani. The same for the WC or Indurain or titles. Where is the proof that Armstrong wasn't doping "at 22"? Simple, it's not there. Nothing can be said about those years. Your opinion of what outcomes might have been had the entire peloton been clean is nothing, especially how you've got a hard-on to make apologies for the guy. Your last part.....uhm, not. I wouldn't dope. What's so hard for you to get that, eh? Just because you're so unsure about yourself doesn't mean that you should project your weakness on everyone else.
 
^^This what we get because you don't know how to operate the "quote"function on a board. As for your spiel. [COLOR= #0000ff] Thanks will check it out[/COLOR]

Armstrong had it all, including the huge connection to Ferrari; the ability and manpower to cover up what they were doing; the manpower and ability to avoid testing......it's all been outed. Iunderstand but the idea that he was winning cause he was a better doper I am not buying it. Does he win 7 probably not is he in the hunt for 3 or 4 I am betting so.

The he beat Pantani is proof of nothing, other than he beat Pantani. The same for the WC or Indurain or titles. Where is the proof that Armstrong wasn't doping "at 22"? Simple, it's not there. Nothing can be said about those year. [COLOR= #0000cd] You need to clam down, I dont think anybody is saying he wasnt doping, but the notion that he is a no talent rider that one 7 straight only through better chemistry is laughable.[/COLOR]

[COLOR= #0000ff]I agree that there is no proof that he was not doping at 22 but the concept that he had more money at age 22 and therefore was able to do a better job at doping does not wash. There was no Ferrari at that time either. The argument of he had more money to do a better job at doping is circling the drain.[/COLOR]

Your opinion of what outcomes might have been had the entire peloton been clean is nothing, especially how you've got a hard-on to make apologies for the guy.

Your last part.....uhm, not. I wouldn't dope. What's so hard for you to get that, eh? Just because you're so unsure about yourself doesn't mean that you should project your weakness on everyone else

[COLOR= #0000ff]I find nothing in your comments here on this forum that you are made of the moral or ethical fiber to make anyone believe such a statement that you wuld not have done the same thing.[/COLOR]
 
hpearson said:
Thanks  will check it out
The "quote" tool is really simple. Almost everyone learns to use it without difficulty.
]You need to clam down, I dont think anybody is saying he wasnt doping, but the notion that he is a no talent rider that one 7 straight only through better chemistry is laughable.
I'm plenty calm. You should should give up on trying to guess someone's calmness via words typed on a screen. Moreover, I don't think anyone or many have said that Armstrong was a "no talent rider." How good he really was can't be determined because of the degree to which he doped. There's no certainty pro cycling ever saw Armstrong clean.
I agree that there is no proof that he was not doping at 22 but the concept that he had more money at age 22 and therefore was able to do a better job at doping does not wash.  There was no Ferrari at that time either.  The argument of he had more money to do a better job at doping is circling the drain.
Maybe at 22, but it's entirely possible he did dope and had access to EPO which could have very well distorted his performances. As for the rest of his career and US Postal, their huge doping apparatus was the doping apparatus extraordinaire. It was what made the blue train so train like. That idea is certainly not circling the drain, and you've certainly pointed nothing out that dismisses it whatsoever.
I find nothing in your comments here on this forum that you are made of the moral or ethical fiber to make anyone believe such a statement that you wuld not have done the same thing.
Well that means nothing at all. You're hardly a moral judge or an adept at judging character. You certainly don't have any position or knowledge from which to dispute what someone would or wouldn't do.
 

Similar threads