# Lance Armstrong in Purgatory



## oily666

After a great fall, what do we remember? 

Lance in Purgatory: The After-Life - Esquire


----------



## Lindy B.

What I remember is reading Lance's book It's Not About The Bike while my son was lying in a hospital bed after major surgery following a thyroid cancer diagnosis when he was only 13 years old. Lance's story saved my sanity and gave me hope that it's possible that everything would be okay.


----------



## Winn

That was an interesting read. I have never liked the guy ever. Still the man has been punished enough. Also he has been punished more than any doper ever. Turns out maybe he's just a man after all.


----------



## velodog

Winn said:


> Turns out maybe he's just a man after all.


So was Idi Amin.


----------



## AZ.MTNS

Winn said:


> Turns out maybe he's just a man after all.




Someone should tell him.


----------



## Winn

For the young ones


Years of service
1946–1962 (UK)
1962–1979 (Uganda) 
Rank
Lieutenant (UK)
Field Marshal 
Unit
King's African Rifles 
Commands
Commander-in-Chief of the Forces 
Battles/wars
Mau Mau Uprising
1971 Ugandan coup d'état
Uganda-Tanzania War 
Idi Amin Dada (c. 1925 – 16 August 2003) was the third President of Uganda from 1971 to 1979. Amin joined the British colonial regiment, the King's African Rifles in 1946, serving in Somalia, Kenya and Uganda. Eventually, Amin held the rank of major general in the post-colonial Ugandan Army and became its commander before seizing power in the military coup of January 1971, deposing Milton Obote. He later promoted himself to field marshal while he was the head of state.
Amin's rule was characterized by human rights abuse, political repression, ethnic persecution, extrajudicial killings, nepotism, corruption, and gross economic mismanagement. The number of people killed as a result of his regime is estimated by international observers and human rights groups to range from 100,000[1] to 500,000.[2]

Sorry dude your comparison isn't even remotely valid. I think you know that. Idi Amin was a monster not a man. Armstrong never systematically killed 100,000 people he just cheated in a bike race and lied about it. I'm sure you are marked for saint hood and have never cheated or lied.


----------



## Tschai

Winn said:


> he just cheated in a bike race and lied about it.


He did a few more things, like hid behind his foundation, destroyed peoples' careers and/or businesses, sued people or companies he knew were not at fault, bullied countless and generally acted like a pr!ck, among other things. The other dopers just cheated and lied about it.


----------



## Winn

Yeah the article mentions all that. He also in person apologized to all those people wherever they were he went to see them. I'm not defending the guy really I just think his punishment has been sufficient. Even with all that you mentioned he's still not on the same level as Idi Amin.

Also somewhere in his tiny, stony heart I think he has real compassion for cancer patients. 

I still don't like the guy btw, apparently though there are more than a couple of cyclists out there who are pretty big jerks...


----------



## jmorgan

Tschai said:


> He did a few more things, like hid behind his foundation, destroyed peoples' careers and/or businesses, sued people or companies he knew were not at fault, bullied countless and generally acted like a pr!ck, among other things. The other dopers just cheated and lied about it.


He also made peoples careers, every rider back then doped at one time or another, period, if you think otherwise you are stupid. He gave lots of people hope with his foundation. He never destroyed anyones business (SCA had it the worst but that was their fault and essentially a bet), everyone made money on him. Sure he was an ass and perpetuated the culture but he also didn't start the culture. No one likes to talk about all of the other riders that doped and have yet to come forth and probably never will. Lance wasn't unbeatable, just no one prepared as well as he did for the tour at that time. Had the entire peloton (who knew what was going on) had an issue with him for cheating, anyone could have very easily taken him out of a race with a crash, if what he was doing was so horrible. We all got good entertainment out of it, everyone was making money off of him.


----------



## MoonHowl

Lindy B. said:


> What I remember is reading Lance's book It's Not About The Bike while my son was lying in a hospital bed after major surgery following a thyroid cancer diagnosis when he was only 13 years old. Lance's story saved my sanity and gave me hope that it's possible that everything would be okay.


I had a very similar experience but it was my wife going through chemo. It certainly helped my sanity seeing Lance "win" the tour after going through chemo also; something I will never forget.


----------



## Lallement

I recently read Cycle of Lies

Cycle of Lies: The Fall of Lance Armstrong: Juliet Macur: 9780062277220: Amazon.com: Books

It is an interesting read which has a good play by play of the whole saga. It does not pull any punches about Lance as a person. Certainly Lance is a fierce competitor and seems to approach most situations like a junkyard dog. 

The media and sports love the win at all costs mentality and the great drama of the story. They love to create superheroes. It creates fans and viewers and ultimately brings in money. 

The signs of doping have been present in sports for years. It is not just by smarter training that we are creating a new species of humans. The governing organizations, sponsors, etc have been aware, but turn a blind eye. Then once the story is made public, there is public shock and surprise. It reminds me of this classic movie scene-


----------



## Bluenote

His purgatory is largely self made. 

A lot of people would be happy with millions in the bank, a loving partner, 5 healthy kids. They'd focus on what they had - friends who stood by them, their health, etc...

But Armstrong cares a ton about his public popularity, it seems. He keeps doing article after article about how content he is - protesting too much? 

Well Armstrong, I'm really sorry you no longer have millions of people celebrity worshipping you. That's really rough. Maybe you can join a support group with McCauley Kulkin, Lindsay Lohan, Danny Bonaduchi and Carrot Top. Miley Cirrus will be joining you soon. 

Armstrong keeps trying to spin the narrative that he is a victim here. Ironic, as much of the damage is self made (lying so vehemently, hiding behind his foundation / cancer, suing people, underestimating Floyd, the comeback, trying to bully the USADA, the Oprah interview...)

Yes Armstrong, you are a victim - of your own mistakes and misjudgments.


----------



## nsfbr

I think Miley Cirrus is in the clouds.


----------



## jspharmd

Controversial figures are always popular. Some love them, some love to hate them. Lance is one of these people. I remember reading It's Not About the Bike. I remember thinking that he dumped his loving partner as soon as he was better and found a hot blonde! To me this demonstrated his character. I always assumed he was a total jerk (based on the book and reports of his behavior), and this was confirmed by a friend who tells a story about being at a party with Lance, who started a fight that night. 

Regarding his cancer battle, I admire his tenacity. The fact that he survived and flourished after is truly inspiring. I'm glad that his book inspired/inspires cancer patients and their families. His foundation is a completely different story. They use a play on words to trick the average person into donating money. Very little goes to cancer "research" most goes to cancer "awareness". This means they publicize cancer. Don't get me wrong, this is an important part of dealing with cancer, I just think they could advertise their foundation in a more honest fashion.

All in all, I take Lance for the good and the bad. I guess never really believing him helped my indifference to his success and eventual fall.


----------



## asgelle

jmorgan said:


> He also made peoples careers, every rider back then doped at one time or another, period, if you think otherwise you are stupid.


Will Frischkorn Perspectives on Doping in Pro Cycling ? 3: Will Frischkorn | The Outer Line
Another well informed poster.


----------



## asgelle

jmorgan said:


> He never destroyed anyones business (SCA had it the worst but that was their fault and essentially a bet), ...


Lemond Bicycles? 

I get it now, this is a continuation of fiction writing starting from the mention of "It's Not about the Bike." No point bothering with fact checking fantasy.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> Well Armstrong, I'm really sorry you no longer have millions of people celebrity worshipping you. That's really rough. Maybe you can join a support group with McCauley Kulkin, Lindsay Lohan, Danny Bonaduchi and Carrot Top. Miley Cirrus will be joining you soon.
> ...
> Yes Armstrong, you are a victim - of your own mistakes and misjudgments.


How important would you feel if you were to learn that Armstrong actually read your rants against him?


----------



## Local Hero

Still a millionaire, still in a nice house, still comfortable. So after all this, why isn't Armstrong happy with what he has? 

To understand this is to understand what drove him to success in the first place.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> How important would you feel if you were to learn that Armstrong actually read your rants against him?


Aww, the "haters" narrative. So cute, so quit being effective about the 100th time it got used.

So, can you actually refute anything I wrote? Or is it just more of the same attack-the-source stuff? (Did you learn that from watching Armstrong, btw? That's his bread and butter.)


----------



## Local Hero

Was there anything substantive to refute? Were you a source for any actual information? Sorry if I missed it. 

I just pointed out how bizarre it is to write a post directed to Armstrong on this message board. He's probably not reading what you write. To direct posts at Armstrong is just weird. 

LOL


----------



## 32and3cross

jmorgan said:


> He also made peoples careers, every rider back then doped at one time or another, period, if you think otherwise you are stupid.


Not ture, Bassons for one.



jmorgan said:


> He gave lots of people hope with his foundation.


Give you that



jmorgan said:


> He never destroyed anyones business


Ask Mike Anderson and Frankie about that



jmorgan said:


> everyone made money on him.


Also Bullshit



jmorgan said:


> Sure he was an ass and perpetuated the culture but he also didn't start the culture. No one likes to talk about all of the other riders that doped and have yet to come forth and probably never will.


Actually they get talked about at least some of them however being and ass makes him a much easier target.



jmorgan said:


> Lance wasn't unbeatable, just no one prepared as well as he did for the tour at that time.


Bullshit without the dope Lance dosen't win one tour.



jmorgan said:


> Had the entire peloton (who knew what was going on) had an issue with him for cheating, anyone could have very easily taken him out of a race with a crash, if what he was doing was so horrible. We all got good entertainment out of it, everyone was making money off of him.


Not all of use were entertained and that BS about everyone making money off him is just that bullshit. Also anyone who tried to speak up was hounded out of the sport with Lance pushing for them being pushed out.

Nice to see the Lance fanboys like you are still around to poke fun at tho.


----------



## CliffordK

The higher the pedestal, the further there is to fall.

Most sports druggies become little more than a footnote in history. Lance Armstrong put himself on front page news around the world. The charismatic philanthropist cancer survivor with multiple back to back TDF wins. For the average American, he is the only bike racer than they know by name.

Then, comes out the truth. He is stripped of all his TDF titles. 

Undoubtedly he was a strong rider, but perhaps only made it to the top with all the drugs. Nobody would have known about him, or cared if he had been #2.


----------



## spade2you

32and3cross said:


> Not ture, Bassons for one.


Bassons......and?


----------



## Local Hero

Bassons got a bad shake. Armstrong was a prick to him but that moment was a perfect moment for the peloton to posse up and out Armstrong. They could have stood by Bassons. There were countless dirty riders who collected their paychecks. Yeah, Armstrong was the biggest prick and I would not be surprised if there were others similar to Bassons, but without the omerta and tacit consent of 95% of pro cycling, Armstrong would not have gotten away with that. The blame for Bassons cannot fall on Armstrong alone.


----------



## asgelle

spade2you said:


> Bassons......and?


Off the top of my head, from the last day or so: Frischkorn, Pate, Creed. The list is really long if you're willing to look.


----------



## spade2you

32and3cross said:


> Why does it take more than one? Whats the acceptable cut off for the cheating to be ok?


Zero is ideal. It's seeming like ~90% was probably the going rate. It was around before him, after him, and still "probably" going on.


----------



## 32and3cross

spade2you said:


> Bassons......and?


Why does it take more than one? Whats the acceptable cut off for the cheating to be ok?


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Was there anything substantive to refute? Were you a source for any actual information? Sorry if I missed it.
> 
> I just pointed out how bizarre it is to write a post directed to Armstrong on this message board. He's probably not reading what you write. To direct posts at Armstrong is just weird.
> 
> LOL


More personal attacks? I'm shocked!! 

Riiiight... Because I must be really weird to not buy Armstrong's image rehab attempts. 

Cheer up, maybe Miley'll teach Armstrong to twerk!


----------



## Local Hero

asgelle said:


> Off the top of my head, from the last day or so: Frischkorn, Pate, Creed. The list is really long if you're willing to look.


Yes, there are plenty of guys who took the high road and had their cycling careers cut short. Having read this Frischkorn interview: Perspectives on doping in pro cycling: Will Frischkorn - VeloNews.com 

I see that the guy had a lot of potential but refused to dope. He decided against US Postal: 

_At the end of the 2000 season, the U.S. Postal Service team came knocking on Frischkorn’s door. Carmichael, by then working closely with the Lance Armstrong camp, told director Johan Bruyneel “here is a young American kid you should talk to.” Will talked with both Armstrong and Bruyneel, and thought it carefully over with his family and friends, but ultimately decided to turn down the offer. Will made that decision because he truly thought that Mercury would be a better place for a young and developing rider, who was working for the longer term success. “I thought of myself as sort of a long term project” he says, fearing that he might get a bit lost in the powerful Postal Service machine. And in hindsight, it was probably a good decision, as he ended up being injured much of the following season. But after he turned them down, neither Bruyneel nor Armstrong would ever speak with him again. “You didn’t do that to Bruyneel in those years – nobody said no,” he says. That final spot on the Postal team was later taken by Dave Zabriskie._

Did Armstrong do something to him personally? I agree that Armstrong was a prick and did some nasty stuff but we can't really blame him for all things doping.


----------



## spade2you

Bluenote said:


> More personal attacks? I'm shocked!!


Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## 32and3cross

spade2you said:


> Zero is ideal. It's seeming like ~90% was probably the going rate. It was around before him, after him, and still "probably" going on.


Yeah and so? I was using Bassons as an example that the whole "everyone was doping" argument was bullshit because everyone wasn't doping.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> More personal attacks? I'm shocked!!
> 
> Riiiight... Because I must be really weird to not buy Armstrong's image rehab attempts.
> 
> Cheer up, maybe Miley'll teach Armstrong to twerk!


OK, I'm not even sure how to respond to your posts or why you're bringing up Miley Cirus. It's just too bizarre.

LOL


----------



## Bluenote

32and3cross said:


> Yeah and so? I was using Bassons as an example that the whole "everyone was doping" argument was bullshit because everyone wasn't doping.


Everyone wasn't also allegedly paying the UCI to make positives go away.


----------



## Bluenote

Interestingly, I guess LiveStrong doesn't actually want him back after all, according to a statement from the board of directors. 

Livestrong's CEO and Chairman Are Fighting Over the Return of Lance Armstrong - Esquire


----------



## Local Hero

32and3cross said:


> Yeah and so? I was using Bassons as an example that the whole "everyone was doping" argument was bullshit because everyone wasn't doping.


That's exactly right. 

But we can't just gloss over the subtle shift from "Armstrong ruined careers" to "doping ruined careers" because doping was happening prior to Armstrong. I know you're not trying to blame Armstrong for all things doping. You were responding to a post that "everyone was doing it" -- which isn't true. That said, Armstrong enforced the omerta and was guilty of many things. But he didn't invent doping and it's not like Armstrong forced out Lemond between 1991-1994, when the change in the peloton took place.


----------



## 32and3cross

Local Hero said:


> That's exactly right.
> 
> But we can't just gloss over the subtle shift from "Armstrong ruined careers" to "doping ruined careers" because doping was happening prior to Armstrong. I know you're not trying to blame Armstrong for all things doping. You were responding to a post that "everyone was doing it" -- which isn't true. That said, Armstrong enforced the omerta and was guilty of many things. But he didn't invent doping and it's not like Armstrong forced out Lemond between 1991-1994, when the change in the peloton took place.



Its true he did not invent it but he worked really hard at making it worse, and he did work hard a screwing people that he felt were a threat as examples to others. He pressured people to shun Bassons, he pressured people to shun Simeoni and lots of others. I have first hand experience with some of the stuff he did, it's not "career ruining" but its not like he was just "doing what everyone else did and it was just a level playing field.

I can give a quick example of a personal experience with it: I joined a facebook group that was supporting getting Simeoni in the Giro after he won his national championships, during that time I was friends with a director/manager of a Pro team and I think I either sent him the link or he saw it when I joined, he sent me a private message stating that he would love to support that but that if he did something like that publicly Lance would go to USA cycling and others (ASO etc) in the sport and make it harder for his team to get into stuff, that was he said pretty much the kind of stuff the Armstrong did all the time to keep people in line.


----------



## Winn

Bluenote said:


> Cheer up, maybe Miley'll teach Armstrong to twerk!


Rumor has it Miley's dad paid Armstrong big money to teach her to twerk...


----------



## spade2you

32and3cross said:


> Yeah and so? I was using Bassons as an example that the whole "everyone was doping" argument was bullshit because everyone wasn't doping.


Oh yeah, forgot about Eskartin. Yeah, not every rider was doping.


----------



## 32and3cross

spade2you said:


> Oh yeah, forgot about Eskartin. Yeah, not every rider was doping.


I think you meant Escartín. but you point is no more valid now than it was then.


----------



## spade2you

32and3cross said:


> I think you meant Escartín. but you point is no more valid now than it was then.


If you're going to correct my spelling, it's also YOUR point.  

..and I wasn't even remotely serious about 'ol Fernando being clean. Although, I could be. I mean, he said he didn't.


----------



## asgelle

Local Hero said:


> Did Armstrong do something to him personally? I agree that Armstrong was a prick and did some nasty stuff but we can't really blame him for all things doping.


As usual the old bob and weave. The question was whether there were any clean cyclists during the period and the answer is yes, and plenty of them. Don't try to change the subject.


----------



## spade2you

asgelle said:


> As usual the old bob and weave. The question was whether there were any clean cyclists during the period and the answer is yes, and plenty of them. Don't try to change the subject.


What percentage of the GC riders in the top 20 of any Grand Tour a few years before, during, and after? Plenty of clean riders would seem a little optimistic.


----------



## obed

truth is, Lance was good for the sport...as has been said, folks who are not into cycling knew who he was.. and to most folks who do not ride, doping is not a big deal, they have seen it in all sports....baseball, football, you name it.... most folks just figure if everybody else is doing it, and you make your living in that sport you have to do it yourself in order to stay competitive... and most folks figure the ruling agenies knew about it, but liked the attention and money it brought to the sport, so did nothing about it until the beans were spilled to public attention and brought scrutinity to the sport and then the agencies got on the clean up the sport band wagon...
the home run derbies of the steroids era brought fans back to baseball... lance made the states united aware of cycling....tiger woods made golf popular..the overall effect of Lance may leave a bad taste in the mouth of cycling purists, but he was still good for the sport here in the states united.


----------



## asgelle

spade2you said:


> What percentage of the GC riders in the top 20 of any Grand Tour a few years before, during, and after? Plenty of clean riders would seem a little optimistic.


Again, you're missing the point. There were plenty of clean riders. They just never got the chance to race at that level because they were displaced by the riders who cheated. That doesn't mean those clean riders didn't exist.


----------



## jmorgan

asgelle said:


> Again, you're missing the point. There were plenty of clean riders. They just never got the chance to race at that level because they were displaced by the riders who cheated. That doesn't mean those clean riders didn't exist.


So they were all dirty is what you are saying.


----------



## Local Hero

asgelle said:


> As usual the old bob and weave. The question was whether there were any clean cyclists during the period and the answer is yes, and plenty of them. Don't try to change the subject.


I acknowledge that in post #35. Some of what I wrote was not an attempt to bob and weave but responding to what you said without much context. My mistake. And some of the posts may have crossed like ships in the night. 


asgelle said:


> Again, you're missing the point. There were plenty of clean riders. They just never got the chance to race at that level because they were displaced by the riders who cheated. That doesn't mean those clean riders didn't exist.


That's right. We can name a handful of clean pros during the doping era. And even if we could not name a single clean rider in the pro ranks there would still be countless amateurs who never made it pro as they were displaced by dopers. One could argue that Lemond was forced out by doping. And that was before Armstrong's first tour! It was a dirty, dirty time for cycling. 

All that said, there seems to be some lumping of all the sins of doping on Armstrong. Or cycling would have clean after Festina if not for Armstrong (riiight!). That's not to say you're doing this lumping together or blaming Armstrong for all things doping.


----------



## obed

not every rider was doping, just the competitive ones.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> That's exactly right.
> 
> But we can't just gloss over the subtle shift from "Armstrong ruined careers" to "doping ruined careers" because doping was happening prior to Armstrong. I know you're not trying to blame Armstrong for all things doping. You were responding to a post that "everyone was doing it" -- which isn't true. That said, Armstrong enforced the omerta and was guilty of many things. But he didn't invent doping and it's not like Armstrong forced out Lemond between 1991-1994, when the change in the peloton took place.


I think Armstrong severely damaged Mike Anderson's career. That guy had to move to NZ to get away from the fallout. Frankie Andreu feels as though he lost a lot of oppurtunities because Armstrong pressured people to blackball him. He did his level best to trash LeMond's business. Etc...

That wasn't unintended consequences, those was intentional actions by Armstrong. 

I don't think anyone is arguing 'Armstrong invented doping,' so I don't see how that is relevant.


----------



## Local Hero

32and3cross said:


> I can give a quick example of a personal experience with it: I joined a facebook group that was supporting getting Simeoni in the Giro after he won his national championships, during that time I was friends with a director/manager of a Pro team and I think I either sent him the link or he saw it when I joined, he sent me a private message stating that he would love to support that but that if he did something like that publicly Lance would go to USA cycling and others (ASO etc) in the sport and make it harder for his team to get into stuff, that was he said pretty much the kind of stuff the Armstrong did all the time to keep people in line.



Too bad your friend and others in his position didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what was right. And too bad USAC and ASO would similarly kowtow to Armstrong. I'm sure it was hard, as the few who stood up to Armstrong got steamrolled. But looking back it may have been better if everyone took a stand together.

Sounds like a raw deal for Simeoni, especially after getting caught for doping himself and ridiculed by so many other riders in the peloton. Maybe if he had never doped or come forward prior to getting caught things would have been different.


----------



## asgelle

jmorgan said:


> So they were all dirty is what you are saying.


Are you being deliberately obtuse?


----------



## asgelle

Local Hero said:


> All that said, there seems to be some lumping of all the sins of doping on Armstrong. Or cycling would have clean after Festina if not for Armstrong (riiight!). That's not to say you're doing this lumping together or blaming Armstrong for all things doping.


Actually, the only people I see doing this are the Armstrong apologists who first create this strawman just so they can then knock it down.


----------



## Bluenote

asgelle said:


> Actually, the only people I see doing this are the Armstrong apologists who first create this strawman just so they can then knock it down.


Pretty much this. 

Also, apoligists don't aknowledge that part of Armstrong's downfall is selfmade - the Oprah interview, etc...


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> I think Armstrong severely damaged Mike Anderson's career. That guy had to move to NZ to get away from the fallout. Frankie Andreu feels as though he lost a lot of oppurtunities because Armstrong pressured people to blackball him. He did his level best to trash LeMond's business. Etc...


Frankie Andreu is the DS of 5 hour energy. I know his racers (I've raced against his guys) and ran into him at Sea Otter Classic. He seems OK to me, still making a career off of cycling. 

Similarly, a buddy let me warm up on his $400 Lemond trainer at Sea Otter. 

I don't know much about Mike Anderson, save for he and Armstrong had a business relationship that went south. I also know that due to Armstrong's influence, Mike Anderson is currently serving a life sentence in a third world nation, suffering horribly from dysentery, and lost his foot due to an infection that could have been treated by a simple course of antibiotics, which Armstrong personally withheld.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Frankie Andreu is the DS of 5 hour energy. I know his racers (I've raced against his guys) and ran into him at Sea Otter Classic. He seems OK to me, still making a career off of cycling.
> 
> Similarly, a buddy let me warm up on his $400 Lemond trainer at Sea Otter.
> 
> I don't know much about Mike Anderson, save for he and Armstrong had a business relationship that went south. I also know that due to Armstrong's influence, Mike Anderson is currently serving a life sentence in a third world nation, suffering horribly from dysentery, and lost his foot due to an infection that could have been treated by a simple course of antibiotics, which Armstrong personally withheld.


Frankie seems to have a different opinion then you.
As does Lemond. 

I'm glad you admit to know pretty much nothing about Anderson, yet felt it relevant to post an absurd strawman argument.


----------



## Fireform

The fighters in the butthurt militia are tireless in their efforts to excuse their venal hero and insert him into every thread they post in, however unrelated it may be.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> Frankie seems to have a different opinion then you.
> As does Lemond.


Which of these two is making less money than me? 


> I'm glad you admit to know pretty much nothing about Anderson, yet felt it relevant to post an absurd strawman argument.


LOL

Exactly what was Anderson's career and how did Armstrong derail it? 

Where was he going when he met Armstrong? How was that trajectory altered?


----------



## Local Hero

Fireform said:


> The fighters in the butthurt militia are tireless in their efforts to excuse their venal hero and insert him into every thread they post in, however unrelated it may be.


I know Armstrong sued some people and hurt some feelings, but it's not exactly fair to call Lemond, Simeoni, Andreu, and Mike Anderson the "butthurt militia."


----------



## the_rouleur

Local Hero said:


> I know Armstrong sued some people and hurt some feelings, but it's not exactly fair to call Lemond, Simeoni, Andreu, and Mike Anderson the "butthurt militia."


Both Andreus' even. I would probably leave Simeoni out though, I don't think he's part of any organised campaign.


----------



## asgelle

Local Hero said:


> Frankie Andreu is the DS of 5 hour energy. I know his racers (I've raced against his guys) and ran into him at Sea Otter Classic. He seems OK to me, still making a career off of cycling.


5 Hour Energy is not Toyota United. You seem to be making the argument that because Armstrong wasn't successful at driving Andreu and Lemond entirely out of cycling forever that he had no effect whatsoever. I think most people can see through that.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Which of these two is making less money than me?
> LOL
> 
> Exactly what was Anderson's career and how did Armstrong derail it?
> 
> Where was he going when he met Armstrong? How was that trajectory altered?


How is your salary relevant to damage Frankie and Lemond claim to have suffered? Where do we set the bar? A lawyer's salary? A middle manager? A fry cook? Salary is the only measure? Not personal satisfaction, career security or one's good name? 

Sorry you lost your bike business and were publically bashed as a bitter old man, but you make more than a waiteress, so it doesn't count. 

Perhaps take some time to educate yourself about Anderson before posting about him? 
Just a thought. 

You're claiming Armstrong didn't directly, intentionally harm anyone. But you don't seem to be able to back that up with relevant points.


----------



## Local Hero

asgelle said:


> 5 Hour Energy is not Toyota United. You seem to be making the argument that because Armstrong wasn't successful at driving Andreu and Lemond entirely out of cycling forever that he had no effect whatsoever. I think most people can see through that.


Armstrong definitely took some swings at people. Armstrong targeted both Lemond and Andreu. No doubt about that. It's fair to point out that two people who are most often cited as Armstrong's victims still have post-retirement, cycling-related careers and are doing fairly well.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> You're claiming Armstrong didn't directly, intentionally harm anyone.


lol, I'm not sure if you actually read anything I've posted in this thread.


----------



## Bluenote

asgelle said:


> 5 Hour Energy is not Toyota United. You seem to be making the argument that because Armstrong wasn't successful at driving Andreu and Lemond entirely out of cycling forever that he had no effect whatsoever. I think most people can see through that.


Part of the Armstrong apoligist talking points is to ascribe passitivity to Armstrong. 
It wasn't him, it was the doping culture.
Everyone was doing it (I just went along)
We sued so many...etc...

Pointing out where Armstrong was an instigator - like how he treated Lemond - dispels that mirage of passitivity.


----------



## Winn

I wonder after all the passionate opinions expressed if anyone can say what needs to happen to Lance for it to be ok? I think he is certainly guilty of everything mentioned here and likely things we don't know about. The question is when has he been punished enough? Me personally, I'm good. He has had his career destroyed, he is banned from all sports forever, lots of folks hate him now who liked him before, he had to have the "hey son your dad is a scumbag" chat, his dreams of ever being anything but a has been are gone, he has been fined millions, he will likely lose most of the million dollar lawsuits outstanding, and to top it all off he can't even join road bike review because he would have to endure the daily cursing of his name. My initial point never excused anything he did I just said looks like he's been fairly punished. Will we not relent until we see him and his kids in rags on the street? The people whose businesses or careers where harmed by him can sue him (wait they are) and recover some of their losses so how do we still stand indignant and hateful? We should use all that energy to pedal a bike or something... The guy is a jerk, always has been but he never hurt me in anyway. What did he do to the rest of you? Should we just demand he kill himself?


----------



## Bluenote

Winn said:


> I wonder after all the passionate opinions expressed if anyone can say what needs to happen to Lance for it to be ok? I think he is certainly guilty of everything mentioned here and likely things we don't know about. The question is when has he been punished enough? Me personally, I'm good. He has had his career destroyed, he is banned from all sports forever, lots of folks hate him now who liked him before, he had to have the "hey son your dad is a scumbag" chat, his dreams of ever being anything but a has been are gone, he has been fined millions, he will likely lose most of the million dollar lawsuits outstanding, and to top it all off he can't even join road bike review because he would have to endure the daily cursing of his name. My initial point never excused anything he did I just said looks like he's been fairly punished. Will we not relent until we see him and his kids in rags on the street? The people whose businesses or careers where harmed by him can sue him (wait they are) and recover some of their losses so how do we still stand indignant and hateful? We should use all that energy to pedal a bike or something... The guy is a jerk, always has been but he never hurt me in anyway. What did he do to the rest of you? Should we just demand he kill himself?


So being skeptical of the Armstrong rehabilitation tour equals wanting him dead? An extreme variant on the haters strawman, I guess.


----------



## Winn

Bluenote said:


> So being skeptical of the Armstrong rehabilitation tour equals wanting him dead? An extreme variant on the haters strawman, I guess.


Wow that's all you got there? The question (I'll state it simply for you) is what is enough? And I'm curious why do you care if he's rehabilitated? He's been punished. I don't care if he never sees the light.


----------



## Local Hero

Winn said:


> Wow that's all you got there? The question (I'll state it simply for you) is what is enough? And I'm curious why do you care if he's rehabilitated? He's been punished. I don't care if he never sees the light.


That's a good question. 

When is enough enough? 

Of course it's not over. Some lawsuits need to settle but for the most part I'm OK with his punishment too. If there are others out there who still need him to make amends, maybe he should apologize face-to-face. 

What will satisfy those who are still angry with Armstrong? I'm talking about the casual fans who never raced bikes and were never directly or indirectly harmed. Many of them are still very upset. Do they need everyone to get just as outraged as them? (Are we supposed to think those who are most morally outraged are the most moral among us? Sometimes I wonder that about the moral high horse people.)


----------



## Tschai

spade2you said:


> Bassons......and?


And probably 100's of riders that could have, but never made it to the highest level because they refused to dope.


----------



## Bluenote

Winn said:


> Wow that's all you got there? The question (I'll state it simply for you) is what is enough? And I'm curious why do you care if he's rehabilitated? He's been punished. I don't care if he never sees the light.


Well, like I said above, I think a lot of his troubles are self made. He could just relax, enjoy his mansion, his millions and his kids? 

So what part of that observation triggered your rant about wanting Armstrong dead, how much do I want to see Armstrong suffer, etc...?


----------



## AJL

oily666 said:


> After a great fall, what do we remember?
> 
> Lance in Purgatory: The After-Life - Esquire


Thanks, good read.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

Armstrong screwed up......He should have had Floyd eliminated.........and Greg.
.
(at least that's what I woulda done)
.
.
If Armstrong had gotten a pass, there'd be racers snorting things, right in the middle of races....Thank god, we don't see things like that.
.


----------



## asgelle

Local Hero said:


> Armstrong definitely took some swings at people. Armstrong targeted both Lemond and Andreu. No doubt about that. It's fair to point out that two people who are most often cited as Armstrong's victims still have post-retirement, cycling-related careers and are doing fairly well.


So you'd have no problem with me breaking your arms and legs. Sure, it might be unpleasant at the time, and you might have some inconvenience, but in a year or two, you'll be good as new. At least come up with better bait.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> Well, like I said above, I think a lot of his troubles are self made. He could just relax, enjoy his mansion, his millions and his kids?
> 
> So what part of that observation triggered your rant about wanting Armstrong dead, how much do I want to see Armstrong suffer, etc...?


If your problem is Armstrong making statements to the press, doing interviews, and generally being in the public eye, why do you pay so much attention to Armstrong? 



MR_GRUMPY said:


> If Armstrong had gotten a pass, there'd be racers snorting things, right in the middle of races....Thank god, we don't see things like that.


----------



## velodog

obed said:


> truth is, Lance was good for the sport...as has been said, folks who are not into cycling knew who he was.. and to most folks who do not ride, doping is not a big deal, they have seen it in all sports....baseball, football, you name it.... most folks just figure if everybody else is doing it, and you make your living in that sport you have to do it yourself in order to stay competitive... and most folks figure the ruling agenies knew about it, but liked the attention and money it brought to the sport, so did nothing about it until the beans were spilled to public attention and brought scrutinity to the sport and then the agencies got on the clean up the sport band wagon...
> the home run derbies of the steroids era brought fans back to baseball... lance made the states united aware of cycling....tiger woods made golf popular..the overall effect of Lance may leave a bad taste in the mouth of cycling purists, but he was still good for the sport here in the states united.


I think that it was the sport that was good for Armstrong. He didn't do anything for the sport.


----------



## Local Hero

asgelle said:


> So you'd have no problem with me breaking your arms and legs. Sure, it might be unpleasant at the time, and you might have some inconvenience, but in a year or two, you'll be good as new. At least come up with better bait.


I'm sorry, I know you're trying but that analogy doesn't make sense.


----------



## asgelle

Local Hero said:


> I'm sorry, I know you're trying but that analogy doesn't make sense.


Really? Try harder.


----------



## Local Hero

velodog said:


> I think that it was the sport that was good for Armstrong. He didn't do anything for the sport.


How would you define doing something for the sport? 

Many would argue that Armstrong popularized cycling in the US, that he sold bikes for Trek, etc.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> If your problem is Armstrong making statements to the press, doing interviews, and generally being in the public eye, why do you pay so much attention to Armstrong?
> 
> 
> ]


Ahh, the obsessed strawman. 

So which is it? Am I obsessed? Or a hater? Or an obsessed hater? 

Its hard to keep track of the smear the source accusations. 

If Armstrong returns to Livestrong, will we see an influx of paid Armstrong shills?


----------



## velodog

Local Hero said:


> How would you define doing something for the sport?
> 
> Many would argue that Armstrong popularized cycling in the US, that he sold bikes for Trek, etc.


The guy is a self centered, ego driven bastard. He swindled cancer victims, their loved ones and their families while lining his pockets with millions for speaking engagements, spreading "cancer awareness".

He didn't popularize cycling, he popularized beating the Europeans at their own game, and then made cycling the center of attention for being rife with drug cheats. All the while these Americans, who you say he drew to the sport of cycling, turn a blind eye to the drug cheats playing baseball, basketball and even professional wrestling.

He sold bicycles for Trek, Big Freaking Deal! They took their money and moved most of their production to China.

Oh, and if he popularized cycling in the United States, why are so many motorists still trying to run my ass over?


----------



## Local Hero

velodog said:


> The guy is a self centered, ego driven bastard. He swindled cancer victims, their loved ones and their families while lining his pockets with millions for speaking engagements, spreading "cancer awareness".
> 
> He didn't popularize cycling, he popularized beating the Europeans at their own game, and then made cycling the center of attention for being rife with drug cheats. All the while these Americans, who you say he drew to the sport of cycling, turn a blind eye to the drug cheats playing baseball, basketball and even professional wrestling.
> 
> He sold bicycles for Trek, Big Freaking Deal! They took their money and moved most of their production to China.
> 
> Oh, and if he popularized cycling in the United States, why are so many motorists still trying to run my ass over?


How would you define doing something for the sport? 



Bluenote said:


> Ahh, the obsessed strawman.
> 
> So which is it? Am I obsessed? Or a hater? Or an obsessed hater?
> 
> Its hard to keep track of the smear the source accusations.
> 
> If Armstrong returns to Livestrong, will we see an influx of paid Armstrong shills?


Weird.


----------



## Opus51569

As a recovering Lance apologist, I'm glad he's taken up golf. Now the folks on the golf doping forums can take over for a while.


----------



## velodog

Local Hero said:


> How would you define doing something for the sport?


Get the children interested and promote fair play.


----------



## Local Hero

velodog said:


> Get the children interested and promote fair play.


OK, cool. 

Who has done those things?

Does a development team count?


----------



## love4himies

Tschai said:


> He did a few more things, like hid behind his foundation, destroyed peoples' careers and/or businesses, sued people or companies he knew were not at fault, bullied countless and generally acted like a pr!ck, among other things. The other dopers just cheated and lied about it.


Aren't those daily occurrences in the world of business? Specialized comes to mind.


----------



## love4himies

Winn said:


> Yeah the article mentions all that. He also in person apologized to all those people wherever they were he went to see them. I'm not defending the guy really I just think his punishment has been sufficient. Even with all that you mentioned he's still not on the same level as Idi Amin.
> 
> Also somewhere in his tiny, stony heart I think he has real compassion for cancer patients.
> 
> I still don't like the guy btw, apparently though there are more than a couple of cyclists out there who are pretty big jerks...


I agree, and I think he truly cares about his foundation and he didn't start it to hide behind it.


----------



## love4himies

jspharmd said:


> Very little goes to cancer "research" most goes to cancer "awareness". This means they publicize cancer. Don't get me wrong, this is an important part of dealing with cancer, I just think they could advertise their foundation in a more honest fashion.


Is that how they are advertising their foundation as doing? I wasn't under the impression that his foundation was just for research, but to assist the poor to get funding for treatment and to help them deal the insurance companies. To offer support and education to the families and cancer victims. To fund national cancer programs, etc., etc.


----------



## Cannondaleman

I am neutral about lance, but I would like to ask 2 questions. This is just food for thought. First, if Lance hadn't been directly affected by cancer, would he have cared about it and started the foundation, raised money, etc? I think probably not. Also, could his doping have possibly helped cause his cancer? Whatever anyone thinks about him, he is truly a living miracle having survived the cancer. Just a fellow cyclist's opinion.


----------



## velodog

love4himies said:


> Aren't those daily occurrences in the world of business? Specialized comes to mind.


So, are you saying that it's acceptable behavior?


----------



## Local Hero

Cannondaleman said:


> I am neutral about lance, but I would like to ask 2 questions. This is just food for thought. First, if Lance hadn't been directly affected by cancer, would he have cared about it and started the foundation, raised money, etc? I think probably not. Also, could his doping have possibly helped cause his cancer? Whatever anyone thinks about him, he is truly a living miracle having survived the cancer. Just a fellow cyclist's opinion.


I don't think he would have cared about cancer had he not been sick. I also think that his drug use may have exacerbated his cancer (and he used drugs to beat cancer too, what a cheat!). 




velodog said:


> So, are you saying that it's acceptable behavior?


That's funny. 

Because people used to hate on Armstrong because he took drugs. Come to find out that most prominent cyclists of his era took drugs. So the drugs alone are an insufficient reason to get after the guy. 

The *real* justification is that he was a ruthless jerk, especially in business. But we already know that there are countless ruthless jerks in the business world. People sue people every day. Specialized crushes little shops over obscure trademark violations, etc. 


So the two mean reasons to get mad at Armstrong are that he doped and that he was ruthless. Yet most prominent riders of his era doped and there are countless ruthless business men. None of that makes it OK. But it all plays into the idea that Armstrong is being punished beyond the norm. And some of his detractors--even people who have never met him and who are entirely unaffected by anything he has ever done--are entirely hardout with ridiculous outrage. 

Weird.


----------



## oily666

Cannondaleman said:


> could his doping have possibly helped cause his cancer?


Short answer is yes. If Lance had a BRCA1 mutation he was already at twice the normal risk for testicular cancer.........still relatively low compared to female breast cancer rates. Taking steroids would have been a very bad idea. Just listen to all the warnings for those "low T" treatments.


----------



## BikeLayne

I figure he made some wrong decisions and got busted for it back in the day. I got over it years ago. Maybe he should learn how to play golf real well and start competing in that. Maybe he might enjoy it. Or is he kicked out of golf also?


----------



## n2deep

What I find extremely fascinating and sad is that so many of you are emotionally invested in this person or any person that you do not really know.. 


Lance has proven that he is deceptive and 99.999% of all people and acquaintances did not really know who this person is, even team mates. Yes he won the tour 7 times, he did a few good things and a few bad things, like most of us.. So what? 


Do we emotionally invest in people we don’t know because it’s easier than having a real life?


----------



## love4himies

velodog said:


> So, are you saying that it's acceptable behavior?


No, just that it seems to be the way of doing business for many companies to protect what they feel is a threat to them. Lance did what he had to do to protect his "business", which was pro cycling.


----------



## love4himies

Local Hero said:


> I don't think he would have cared about cancer had he not been sick. I also think that his drug use may have exacerbated his cancer (and he used drugs to beat cancer too, what a cheat!).
> 
> 
> That's funny.
> 
> Because people used to hate on Armstrong because he took drugs. Come to find out that most prominent cyclists of his era took drugs. So the drugs alone are an insufficient reason to get after the guy.
> 
> The *real* justification is that he was a ruthless jerk, especially in business. But we already know that there are countless ruthless jerks in the business world. People sue people every day. Specialized crushes little shops over obscure trademark violations, etc.
> 
> 
> So the two mean reasons to get mad at Armstrong are that he doped and that he was ruthless. Yet most prominent riders of his era doped and there are countless ruthless business men. None of that makes it OK. But it all plays into the idea that Armstrong is being punished beyond the norm. And some of his detractors--even people who have never met him and who are entirely unaffected by anything he has ever done--are entirely hardout with ridiculous outrage.
> 
> Weird.


I agree. If he hadn't gotten cancer I don't think he would have the empathy (and yes, I truly believe he can feel empathy) for cancer victims. For many people, they need to experience something to understand how it feels. 

I don't think too many businesses have been able to grow by being "Mr. Nice Guy". chances are those who make it to the top had to step on toes to get there and have probably ruined some lives for firing without cause, or buying up the competition and dismantling that business. It's done everyday.


----------



## Local Hero

BikeLayne said:


> I figure he made some wrong decisions and got busted for it back in the day. I got over it years ago. Maybe he should learn how to play golf real well and start competing in that. Maybe he might enjoy it. Or is he kicked out of golf also?


He talks about golf in the article. The author also makes it sound like he's on the verge of alcoholism. 




love4himies said:


> I agree. If he hadn't gotten cancer I don't think he would have the empathy (and yes, I truly believe he can feel empathy) for cancer victims. For many people, they need to experience something to understand how it feels.


Another example of this is Christopher Reeve. 

Would he have started a paralysis and spinal cord injury foundation had he not fallen off that horse? Does the fact that he fell off a horse and broke his neck take away from the good he did? 

Or Michael J Fox and his Parkinson's Foundation -- do we think he would care about Parkinson's if he didn't have Parkinson's? 

Or countless others who had to suffer tragedy in order to make positive changes in the world. 


> I don't think too many businesses have been able to grow by being "Mr. Nice Guy". chances are those who make it to the top had to step on toes to get there and have probably ruined some lives for firing without cause, or buying up the competition and dismantling that business. It's done everyday.


Yes. And it's not to say it is all right or that everyone is doing it so it's OK. It's that the punishment Armstrong has received seems disproportionate to his wrongs.


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> Yes. And it's not to say it is all right or that everyone is doing it so it's OK. It's that the punishment Armstrong has received seems disproportionate to his wrongs.


Enjoyment of his disproportionate punishment is also disproportionate.


----------



## svrider

What's funny about the Lance situation isn't the cheating or his punishment.

It's that he was a complete prick and treated people like sh!t. Now he's complaining that people are being pricks and treating him like sh!t.

It's just too funny.


----------



## Fireform

Poor Lance. He's like a modern-day Job.


----------



## 32and3cross

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance created Lance fans, not cycling fans. He poisoned the publics' perception of the sport for decades to come.
> 
> He may have entertained some groupies and put money in his pocket but he damaged the sport greatly


This!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> How would you define doing something for the sport?
> 
> Many would argue that Armstrong popularized cycling in the US, that he sold bikes for Trek, etc.


He sold bikes for Trek......but road bike sales dropped during his fraud. As soon as he left ratings dropped. 

Lance created Lance fans, not cycling fans. He poisoned the publics' perception of the sport for decades to come. 

He may have entertained some groupies and put money in his pocket but he damaged the sport greatly


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> I agree. If he hadn't gotten cancer I don't think he would have the empathy (and yes, I truly believe he can feel empathy) for cancer victims. For many people, they need to experience something to understand how it feels.


Empathy? More like money. 

Think of the hundreds of millions of dollars Livestrong wasted on $6,000,000 parties, promoting lance, lobbying to defund USADA, selling T-Shirts. 

Couldn't that have been put to better use.....like actually helping people with Cancer?


----------



## velodog

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He sold bikes for Trek......but road bike sales dropped during his fraud. As soon as he left ratings dropped.
> 
> Lance created Lance fans, not cycling fans. He poisoned the publics' perception of the sport for decades to come.
> 
> He may have entertained some groupies and put money in his pocket but he damaged the sport greatly


This says it pretty clear.


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Empathy? More like money.
> 
> Think of the hundreds of millions of dollars Livestrong wasted on $6,000,000 parties, promoting lance, lobbying to defund USADA, selling T-Shirts.
> 
> Couldn't that have been put to better use.....like actually helping people with Cancer?


Do you live in some fantasy world where executives of high profile companies scrimp on every penny they spend? Do you think that schmoozing with high Gov't officials and other rich to try to get policy changes and funding for programs can be done at McDonalds?


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He sold bikes for Trek......but road bike sales dropped during his fraud. As soon as he left ratings dropped.
> 
> Lance created Lance fans, not cycling fans. He poisoned the publics' perception of the sport for decades to come.
> 
> He may have entertained some groupies and put money in his pocket but he damaged the sport greatly


Yeah, well Trek sure enjoyed the sales while it lasted. They had no problem while Lance was in the public good books.

*He* didn't damage the sport alone, by the way, it was the executives in the UCI, it was the team owners/managers, it was the cyclists themselves who "damaged" the sport. Geesh, you would think that Lance was some type of God who had control over everybody's actions.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Do you live in some fantasy world where executives of high profile companies scrimp on every penny they spend? Do you think that schmoozing with high Gov't officials and other rich to try to get policy changes and funding for programs can be done at McDonalds?


Is it a fantasy to expect donations meant to help people with cancer actually be used to help people with cancer and not wasted promoting a fraud? 

You claim that "Everyone is doing it"....really? The 2009 travel expenses for Livestrong total almost $2 million ($1,922,995). This is very high for a charity the size of Livestrong. For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition, with 5 times as much money raised, only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses. Livestrong does many events, great. Look at the travel costs of a cancer charity that also does many events, Susan G Koman. They had travel costs that were about 2 times that of Livestrong ($4,260,354) but their revenue was 10 times as much ($298,685,007)

Keep spewing the talking points. Lance needs to rebuild the base of suckers who will give him money


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Yeah, well Trek sure enjoyed the sales while it lasted. They had no problem while Lance was in the public good books.
> 
> *He* didn't damage the sport alone, by the way, it was the executives in the UCI, it was the team owners/managers, it was the cyclists themselves who "damaged" the sport. Geesh, you would think that Lance was some type of God who had control over everybody's actions.


You should read what I actually wrote.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance created Lance fans, not cycling fans. He poisoned the publics' perception of the sport for decades to come.


This is a selective interpretation. 

If Armstrong had been the only doper he would not have damaged the sport's reputation. Seeing how most of the riders from his era were doped, there's plenty of blame to go around. Had it been just Armstrong we could say, "Cycling is clean except for that one jerk." As it stands, cycling's rep would be tarnished even if Armstrong had never been born. 

I understand that a lot of people really hate the guy but we cannot pretend that Armstrong alone poisoned public perception of cycling. 

So you claim that Armstrong created Armstrong fans (not cycling fans) and that Armstrong poisoned the public's perception of cycling as a whole. You want to give him the most blame and the least amount of credit. Why can't it be argued that Armstrong created cycling fans but poisoned the public perception of Armstrong? We can give him the most credit and least blame. 

I suppose there are no facts on either side of this and the truth is closer to the middle. But you're entitled to your _opinion_.


----------



## Winn

I forget what we're arguing about...

Lance gets interviewed and seems to sit on the edge of depression and alcoholism and that's good, bad, indifferent. It's a scam? a lie? The journalist is not just after a story he's on the payroll? I truly am confused. Why is this an argument? No one here doubts he did bad things. No one cares about Lance but this is 5 pages long? Strawmen everywhere is the strawman accuser actually the strawman implementer by accusing the other of the tactic?? So confusing. Lance sucks. The world of business and politics sucks. Cheating sucks. Who knows any more? Any one want to bet on how many pages this ridiculousness continues (I say 7...)


----------



## jaggrin

I don't find fault with any of the guys that made a decision to take PED's back then. It is easy to sit around and say I would never have done that and they are the anti-Christ for doing so. Too bad our talents weren't good enough to put us in the position of having to make that choice. I know that everyone points to the few that didn't and says look at them, well okay they are the better people for making their choice but it seems only a few were. The problem with Armstrong is he took it to such a personal, vindictive level in his quest to silence everyone rather than just shutting up which would never have landed him where he is today. Fame, fortune and celebrity are what took him down and he deserves what he is getting because of his actions towards others not because he took EPO. Anyhow that is my opinion.


----------



## asgelle

Local Hero said:


> Seeing how most of the riders from his era were doped, there's plenty of blame to go around.


We've already gone around and around on this. The only reason you believe most of the riders from that era were doped is you limit your consideration to those who performed at the top of the most elite level, which was impossible to achieve otherwise. In other words, by only looking at doped riders, you conclude all riders doped.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> This is a selective interpretation.


Nope, it is facts backed up by figures. 

I suggest you read the thread, the comment was focused Armstrong's effect on cycling in America. Ullrich damaged cycling greatly in Germany. The broadcast dropped the tour, races folded, it is just know recovering. You should start a thread on that strawman


----------



## spade2you

To be fair, the US are fair weather sports fans all around. See soccer as a recent example. We start winning the Tour a few times and they might start paying attention. Giro and Vuelta don't count. One day races don't count. Single stages of the TdF don't count.


----------



## Local Hero

asgelle said:


> We've already gone around and around on this. The only reason you believe most of the riders from that era were doped is you limit your consideration to those who performed at the top of the most elite level, which was impossible to achieve otherwise. In other words, by only looking at doped riders, you conclude all riders doped.


You're right. While the average speeds of the TdF were much higher and guys like Lemond were getting dropped by middling pro racers, it is important to point out that not *all* riders were doped. 

When I said, "most of the riders from his era were doped" I wasn't referring to commuters.


----------



## Local Hero

Winn said:


> I forget what we're arguing about...
> 
> Lance gets interviewed and seems to sit on the edge of depression and alcoholism and that's good, bad, indifferent. It's a scam? a lie? The journalist is not just after a story he's on the payroll? I truly am confused. Why is this an argument? No one here doubts he did bad things. No one cares about Lance but this is 5 pages long? Strawmen everywhere is the strawman accuser actually the strawman implementer by accusing the other of the tactic?? So confusing. Lance sucks. The world of business and politics sucks. Cheating sucks. Who knows any more? Any one want to bet on how many pages this ridiculousness continues (I say 7...)


I like your post, especially the strawman's strawman. But I don't want this to be an entirely wasted day so I'm going to try to be helpful here and point out that it's easy enough to adjust your forum display options. Right now I am set to 100 posts per page; while you're clicking through to page 5 I'm only on page 2. 











yeah it says 50 but I am actually set to 100, (default?)


----------



## Local Hero

velodog said:


> This says it pretty clear.


You know who else said things clearly? 

Idi Amin.


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> You know who else said things clearly?
> 
> Idi Amin.


Is Idi Amin still married to Paul Simon?


----------



## CliffordK

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He sold bikes for Trek......but road bike sales dropped during his fraud. As soon as he left ratings dropped.
> 
> Lance created Lance fans, not cycling fans. He poisoned the publics' perception of the sport for decades to come.
> 
> He may have entertained some groupies and put money in his pocket but he damaged the sport greatly


I think it would be a stretch to blame Lance for Trek's falling market share. Is it truly waning?

There is a lot of competition in the bike world. If everyone is riding Trek, then there will be people who will want to choose something different, just to be unique.

Personally, I believe it hurts the brand in general by re-badging Chinese Steel Monstrosities as "Trek". It gets the name out there as more and more people see bikes with "Trek" badges on them. But, it doesn't make people equate Trek with Quality.

And, if one subcontracts with a company overseas to churn out low quality bikes, and charges exorbitant licensing fees, there is nothing stopping the overseas companies from building better bikes, dropping the licensing fees and marketing them directly.


----------



## asgelle

Local Hero said:


> When I said, "most of the riders from his era were doped" I wasn't referring to commuters.


Redctio ad absurdum. There's plenty of room between commuters and the pro's who chose not to cheat. You continue to lump them all into one great bin of "riders whose name I don't know."


----------



## velodog

spade2you said:


> To be fair, the US are fair weather sports fans all around. See soccer as a recent example. We start winning the Tour a few times and they might start paying attention. Giro and Vuelta don't count. One day races don't count. Single stages of the TdF don't count.


This is probably the truest post in this thread.


----------



## Winn

velodog said:


> This is probably the truest post in this thread.


I'm not certain we can be sure of anything but I certainly agree with this.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> To be fair, the US are fair weather sports fans all around. See soccer as a recent example. We start winning the Tour a few times and they might start paying attention. Giro and Vuelta don't count. One day races don't count. Single stages of the TdF don't count.


Huh? The World cup perfectly disproves your point. 

World cup ratings are up significant over last tournament, even though the US team did not do any better. MLS attendance continues to grow, up 100% in 6 years. Ratings for Champions League and EPL continue to grow. 

When Lance retired the first time ratings dropped to 30% of what they were as Lance groupies went back to roller blading, golf, and whatever other nonsense groupies do.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> When Lance retired the first time ratings dropped to 30% of what they were as Lance groupies went back to roller blading, golf, and whatever other nonsense groupies do.


Down to 30%?

Dang I knew Armstrong had swing but I didn't think his fans represented 70% of US cycling's fan base. And to think that 70% of the people watching a sport were merely "nonsense groupies" -- fans of a single individual. Incredible!


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You should read what I actually wrote.


Wow, my first neg rep. You sure have some anger issues with people who don't see Lance as the almighty evil devil. 

I'm not a clueless Lance apologist. I just look at the reality of the world and what he did is so minor as to what others have done to people. People are having their lives ruined everyday by bosses who fire willy nilly because their employees don't follow their ways. I also don't blame Lance for what others have done, such as blackballing riders from the sport because they "tattled". Each person makes their own choices and must own them. If the sport back in Lance's day was so good, with the exception of Lance and maybe a few others, then the sport would have spit out Lance. But it wasn't. It was dirty before and it was dirty after.

I really don't give 2 $hits what happens to the man. I don't know him and I have no desire to meet him. He is not the type of person I admire, in fact, he is the type of person I despise. However, I am not naive enough to think that all people are good, there are some evil ones and that is the reality. It's the reality of the world that I'm posting about. 

BUT, I do admire his Livestrong Foundation. Without Lance, it wouldn't exist and it HAS helped thousands of people. Nobody was forced to give donations, that was done on their own accord. I stand by my words that I believe he does have empathy for those who are suffering from cancer. 

I just can't believe people would waste precious energy hating somebody they don't know. Life is too short.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> I'm not a clueless Lance apologist. I just look at the reality of the world...


you mean looking at stem?


----------



## Local Hero

asgelle said:


> Redctio ad absurdum. There's plenty of room between commuters and the pro's who chose not to cheat. You continue to lump them all into one great bin of "riders whose name I don't know."


Not sure why you're still on about this when I clearly addressed it in post #46. I know it was a while ago so I'll link you to it here. 


den bakker said:


> you mean looking at stem?


What's this got to do with Froome?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> Wow, my first neg rep. You sure have some anger issues with people who don't see Lance as the almighty evil devil.
> 
> I'm not a clueless Lance apologist. I just look at the reality of the world and what he did is so minor as to what others have done to people. People are having their lives ruined everyday by bosses who fire willy nilly because their employees don't follow their ways. I also don't blame Lance for what others have done, such as blackballing riders from the sport because they "tattled". Each person makes their own choices and must own them. If the sport back in Lance's day was so good, with the exception of Lance and maybe a few others, then the sport would have spit out Lance. But it wasn't. It was dirty before and it was dirty after.
> 
> I really don't give 2 $hits what happens to the man. I don't know him and I have no desire to meet him. He is not the type of person I admire, in fact, he is the type of person I despise. However, I am not naive enough to think that all people are good, there are some evil ones and that is the reality. It's the reality of the world that I'm posting about.
> 
> BUT, I do admire his Livestrong Foundation. Without Lance, it wouldn't exist and it HAS helped thousands of people. Nobody was forced to give donations, that was done on their own accord. I stand by my words that I believe he does have empathy for those who are suffering from cancer.
> 
> I just can't believe people would waste precious energy hating somebody they don't know. Life is too short.


I do not think Lance is the devil but excusing his actions because lots of people behave bad is ridiculous. 

Livestrong wasted hundreds of millions of dollars of money that was donated by people who were mislead into thinking it would go to helping people with cancer and instead went to promoting a myth, parties and selling t-shirts. You may be OK with that kind of deception but most are not.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I do not think Lance is the devil but excusing his actions because lots of people behave bad is ridiculous.
> 
> Livestrong wasted hundreds of millions of dollars of money that was donated by people who were mislead into thinking it would go to helping people with cancer and instead went to promoting a myth, parties and selling t-shirts. You may be OK with that kind of deception but most are not.


Tell us more about the parties. Are we talking $300/plate fundraiser parties or straight up orgies? 

And what happened to the t-shirts sale proceeds, were they squandered on more t-shirts?


----------



## Bluenote

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Huh? The World cup perfectly disproves your point.
> 
> World cup ratings are up significant over last tournament, even though the US team did not do any better. MLS attendance continues to grow, up 100% in 6 years. Ratings for Champions League and EPL continue to grow.
> 
> When Lance retired the first time ratings dropped to 30% of what they were as Lance groupies went back to roller blading, golf, and whatever other nonsense groupies do.


Cycling was smaller in US before Lance. I'm not sure bigger is better. 

My objection to doping comes from health concerns and not moral concerns. I don't want people getting sick from doping. I don't want to have to pay medical costs (higher premiums, etc...) for people who hurt themselves doping. (I feel the same about alcoholics, drug addicts, smokers). 

I think athletes who dope make it harder for other athletes to compete clean. My niece is very athletic; I hope she never gets pressured to take stuff by a coach. I hope she would make the right choice. 

There's always people who will try and turn this into moral relativism. But medicine isn't beholden to morality. If you fry your liver on steroids, it doesn't really matter if 'everyone else is doing it.' That argument doesn't bring your liver back. 

Exhibit A, Tammy Thompson. 

People had to make [email protected] choices - dope, or give up the sport. Ramping up oxygen vector doping just made it worse. Now they say ACAR is out there and thats not good.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Lance Armstrong considers starting new cancer foundation

Lance knows there is a sucker born every minute.


----------



## Winn

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance Armstrong considers starting new cancer foundation
> 
> Lance knows there is a sucker born every minute.


He should call it "Cheating Cancer"


----------



## cmdrpiffle

Winn said:


> For the young ones
> 
> 
> Years of service
> 1946–1962 (UK)
> 1962–1979 (Uganda)
> Rank
> Lieutenant (UK)
> Field Marshal
> Unit
> King's African Rifles
> Commands
> Commander-in-Chief of the Forces
> Battles/wars
> Mau Mau Uprising
> 1971 Ugandan coup d'état
> Uganda-Tanzania War
> Idi Amin Dada (c. 1925 – 16 August 2003) was the third President of Uganda from 1971 to 1979. Amin joined the British colonial regiment, the King's African Rifles in 1946, serving in Somalia, Kenya and Uganda. Eventually, Amin held the rank of major general in the post-colonial Ugandan Army and became its commander before seizing power in the military coup of January 1971, deposing Milton Obote. He later promoted himself to field marshal while he was the head of state.
> Amin's rule was characterized by human rights abuse, political repression, ethnic persecution, extrajudicial killings, nepotism, corruption, and gross economic mismanagement. The number of people killed as a result of his regime is estimated by international observers and human rights groups to range from 100,000[1] to 500,000.[2]
> 
> Sorry dude your comparison isn't even remotely valid. I think you know that. Idi Amin was a monster not a man. Armstrong never systematically killed 100,000 people he just cheated in a bike race and lied about it. I'm sure you are marked for saint hood and have never cheated or lied.


And Kudos to you for putting that filth into perspective. To utter Amin's name as if he was a member of the Human Race is misguided at best. Lot's of folks here didn't live thru the 60's and 70's.

Cheers,
Mike in Santa Cruz


----------



## BuenosAires

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I do not think Lance is the devil but excusing his actions because lots of people behave bad is ridiculous.
> 
> Livestrong wasted hundreds of millions of dollars of money that was donated by people who were mislead into thinking it would go to helping people with cancer and instead went to promoting a myth, parties and selling t-shirts. You may be OK with that kind of deception but most are not.


Livestrong wasted hundreds of millions of dollars? They've only raised around 500 million since it was started.


----------



## Local Hero

BuenosAires said:


> Livestrong wasted hundreds of millions of dollars? They've only raised around 500 million since it was started.


For every dollar they raised they wasted $5. 

Armstrong really was that bad.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

BuenosAires said:


> Livestrong wasted hundreds of millions of dollars? They've only raised around 500 million since it was started.


Yup. Parties cost $$$$

They only have $90 million left, the rest is gone.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yup. Parties cost $$$$
> 
> They only have $90 million left, the rest is gone.


Fact is, Livestrong was just a big money pit. All the money went to parties and lobbying. There was no support, no education on treatment options, no grants, no help navigating the health care system, nothign helpful at all. 

Livestrong was not able to improve the life of even one single person affected by cancer.

Right?!


----------



## myhui

Local Hero said:


> Fact is, Livestrong was just a big money pit. All the money went to parties


That's because the rich housewives who make the decision on these types of donations love to party. It "gets them out of the (huge) house" and parrrrrrty!


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Fact is, Livestrong was just a big money pit. All the money went to parties and lobbying. There was no support, no education on treatment options, no grants, no help navigating the health care system, nothign helpful at all.
> 
> Livestrong was not able to improve the life of even one single person affected by cancer.
> 
> Right?!


Quite the strawman you've built there. Livestrong never helped anyone, ever!!!

I don't agree with Dr. Falsetti's 100s of millions wasted claim. But I'm not swayed by your strawman, either. 

The truth is more likely in the middle - if you want the most bang for your $$s in research or programs for cancer survivors - Livestrong might not be the charity for you. 

Livestrong has come under scrutiny since Armstrong's fall. They've failed to be forthcoming about direct questions - how much do they spend on "awareness" and how much on services to survivors? What percentage of merch sales go to Livestrong and how much went to Nike? How much did Armstrong keep in appearance fees, travel, accommodations? 

Failing to answer these questions creates the impression that they have something to hide. 

Hi Reddit ? this is LIVESTRONG CEO Doug Ulman. AMA! : IAmA

Lance Armstrong and Livestrong | Lance Armstrong | OutsideOnline.com

Is The IRS Investigating Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation? - Forbes

It's fair to look at a charity and say "how efficient is it?" As in, how much money goes to services and how much goes to overhead, advertising, etc... If a charity isn't very efficient, consumers are probably better off donating to a more streamlined organization. Likewise, some fund raising drives are more efficient than others. If a drive is inefficent, consumers are probably better off giving their money elsewhere. 

In the Reddit AMA above, Doug Ulman refused to answer direct questions - 'how much goes to awareness versus services, how much money from merch went to Livestrong, what kind of fees did Armstrong get?'

Why did Ulman fail to answer these questions? If consumers don't know how much of their donation goes to Livestrong (versus Nike, etc...) should they donate? If consumers don't know how much of that donation goes to 'awareness' and 'conferences,' should they donate? 

Can you tell us how much money Livestrong spent on services for survivors? Do you think people should donate to Livestrong without knowing this? Do you donate to Livestrong?


----------



## Winn

I can proudly say I never gave nickel to to Livestrong. I have always disliked Lance too much. It was hard to boycott them too as I used to ride a yellow on black Colnago and all their gear matched perfectly


----------



## Local Hero

Winn said:


> I can proudly say I never gave nickel to to Livestrong. I have always disliked Lance too much. It was hard to boycott them too as I used to ride a yellow on black Colnago and all their gear matched perfectly


Brave heroism noted. We salute you.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Brave heroism noted. We salute you.


So you'll be letting us know how much Livestrong spent on services for survivors and how much they spent on 'awareness?'


----------



## Chaz955i

Bluenote said:


> So you'll be letting us know how much Livestrong spent on services for survivors and how much they spent on 'awareness?'


I'm just impressed you managed to post without using the word strawman. What does one do when that well runs dry?

Lance is an evil weenie. I feel better now.


----------



## Winn

Local Hero said:


> Brave heroism noted. We salute you.



I was hoping for some sort of a medal. Do I get a medal? A certificate? A tiny tin foil star? Anything.


----------



## Local Hero

Winn said:


> I was hoping for some sort of a medal. Do I get a medal? A certificate? A tiny tin foil star? Anything.


----------



## Winn

Sweet medal, how much does it weigh though??


----------



## Bluenote

Winn said:


> Sweet medal, how much does it weigh though??


Its 90% awareness and 10% medal, Toto.


----------



## Winn

Bluenote said:


> Its 90% awareness and 10% medal, Toto.


That means its light, meaningless, and generally doesn't fight cancer right? I hope so it sounds perfect.


----------



## Bluenote

Winn said:


> That means its light, meaningless, and generally doesn't fight cancer right? I hope so it sounds perfect.


_Hater!!_ *grabs torch*


----------



## velodog

Winn said:


> I was hoping for some sort of a medal. Do I get a medal? A certificate? A tiny tin foil star? Anything.


You got it.


----------



## sir duke

Local Hero said:


> Fact is, Livestrong was just a big money pit. All the money went to parties and lobbying. There was no support, no education on treatment options, no grants, no help navigating the health care system, nothign helpful at all.
> 
> Livestrong was not able to improve the life of even one single person affected by cancer.
> 
> Right?!


I've recently learned my Dad has cancer. I haven't the heart to tell him I threw my Livestrong bracelet away years ago. I guess there's no hope for him..


----------



## Bluenote

sir duke said:


> I've recently learned my Dad has cancer. I haven't the heart to tell him I threw my Livestrong bracelet away years ago. I guess there's no hope for him..


Sorry about your dad. Wishing him a speedy recovery.


----------



## Local Hero

sir duke said:


> I've recently learned my Dad has cancer. I haven't the heart to tell him I threw my Livestrong bracelet away years ago. I guess there's no hope for him..


Why are you sharing this? Do you want sympathy? Do you want us to pitch in and get you a new bracelet? 

Before my dad died he had cancer and a few other illnesses. I took care of all of his healthcare decisions and had to fight pretty hard on his behalf. If I had known about Livestrong I would have definitely reached out to them. Unfortunately nobody helped me -- I didn't know where to look for help -- but I do have some special skills that allowed me to be a good advocate for him and get us the support we needed. I can imagine how someone with less training would struggle through the system. 

If Livestrong offers support for those affected by cancer, such as navigating the health care system and treatment options (things that could make life better for you and your dad), why wouldn't you take it?

Because if you're withholding the best care based on your grudge against Armstrong, there's something wrong. Also, you didn't mention the type of cancer. I hope it is mild. If it is mild and if you're looking for sympathy because your dad has prostate cancer or skin cancer, get real. On a long enough timeline all men will get prostate cancer.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> *Why are you sharing this? Do you want sympathy? Do you want us to pitch in and get you a new bracelet?*
> 
> Before my dad died he had cancer and a few other illnesses. I took care of all of his healthcare decisions and had to fight pretty hard on his behalf. If I had known about Livestrong I would have definitely reached out to them. Unfortunately nobody helped me -- I didn't know where to look for help -- but I do have some special skills that allowed me to be a good advocate for him and get us the support we needed. I can imagine how someone with less training would struggle through the system.
> 
> If Livestrong offers support for those affected by cancer, such as navigating the health care system and treatment options (things that could make life better for you and your dad), why wouldn't you take it?
> 
> *Because if you're withholding the best care based on your grudge against Armstrong, there's something wrong. *Also, you didn't mention the type of cancer. I hope it is mild. If it is mild and if you're looking for sympathy because your dad has prostate cancer or skin cancer, get real. On a long enough timeline all men will get prostate cancer.


Wow. Just wow. 

Accusing some guy - you don't know - of withholding the best treatment for his dad - when you know nothing about his dad's cancer - or about the level of support they have - because of some imagined an anti- Armstrong grudge. 

That is a whole lot of unknows and what ifs to invent, to generate a 'haters against Armstrong' conspiracy theory. 

Just wow.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> Accusing some guy - you don't know - of withholding the best treatment for his dad - when you know nothing about his dad's cancer - or about the level of support they have - because of some imagined an anti- Armstrong grudge.
> 
> That is a whole lot of unknows and what ifs to invent, to generate a 'haters against Armstrong' conspiracy theory.
> 
> Just wow.


weird


----------



## Fireform

Bluenote said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> Accusing some guy - you don't know - of withholding the best treatment for his dad - when you know nothing about his dad's cancer - or about the level of support they have - because of some imagined an anti- Armstrong grudge.
> 
> That is a whole lot of unknows and what ifs to invent, to generate a 'haters against Armstrong' conspiracy theory.
> 
> Just wow.


Since I put him on ignore, LH only comes to my attention when someone quotes him. I thought this kind of bizarro fanboi personal attack, coming from a guy who has kittens every time he perceives himself to be in any way personally attacked, was beneath him. 

Evidently I was wrong.


----------



## Local Hero

Fireform said:


> Since I put him on ignore, LH only comes to my attention when someone quotes him. I thought this kind of bizarro fanboi personal attack, coming from a guy who has kittens every time he perceives himself to be in any way personally attacked, was beneath him.
> 
> Evidently I was wrong.


There seem to be several of you guys who ignore me but still manage to get deeply offended by what I write. Then you do this passive-aggressive thing where you insult me by talking about me, rather than doing it to me directly. 

Weird!


----------



## Local Hero

Just reread my _accusatory_ post:

"If Livestrong offers support for those affected by cancer[...]why wouldn't you take it? ... Because if you're withholding the best care based on your grudge against Armstrong, there's something wrong." 

lol @ getting wounded by that. 

(I don't want anyone else to get their feelings hurt so please don't quote this message.)


----------



## sir duke

Bluenote said:


> Sorry about your dad. Wishing him a speedy recovery.


Thanks for your concern. I've just got back from visiting him in England, he's in very good spirits and upbeat about his future. It's early stage prostate cancer, his brother died from the same illness so hearing this brought home a sense of foreboding.


----------



## sir duke

Local Hero said:


> Why are you sharing this? Do you want sympathy? Do you want us to pitch in and get you a new bracelet?
> 
> Before my dad died he had cancer and a few other illnesses. I took care of all of his healthcare decisions and had to fight pretty hard on his behalf. If I had known about Livestrong I would have definitely reached out to them. Unfortunately nobody helped me -- I didn't know where to look for help -- but I do have some special skills that allowed me to be a good advocate for him and get us the support we needed. I can imagine how someone with less training would struggle through the system.
> 
> If Livestrong offers support for those affected by cancer, such as navigating the health care system and treatment options (things that could make life better for you and your dad), why wouldn't you take it?
> 
> Because if you're withholding the best care based on your grudge against Armstrong, there's something wrong. Also, you didn't mention the type of cancer. I hope it is mild. If it is mild and if you're looking for sympathy because your dad has prostate cancer or skin cancer, get real. On a long enough timeline all men will get prostate cancer.


Seems like putting you on ignore was the right decision. My Dad had prostate cancer, my uncle died of it. My sister-in-law is in hospital with a brain tumour. 


Stay classy.


----------



## Winn

Local Hero said:


> Why are you sharing this? Do you want sympathy? Do you want us to pitch in and get you a new bracelet?
> 
> Before my dad died he had cancer and a few other illnesses. I took care of all of his healthcare decisions and had to fight pretty hard on his behalf. If I had known about Livestrong I would have definitely reached out to them. Unfortunately nobody helped me -- I didn't know where to look for help -- but I do have some special skills that allowed me to be a good advocate for him and get us the support we needed. I can imagine how someone with less training would struggle through the system.
> 
> If Livestrong offers support for those affected by cancer, such as navigating the health care system and treatment options (things that could make life better for you and your dad), why wouldn't you take it?
> 
> Because if you're withholding the best care based on your grudge against Armstrong, there's something wrong. Also, you didn't mention the type of cancer. I hope it is mild. If it is mild and if you're looking for sympathy because your dad has prostate cancer or skin cancer, get real. On a long enough timeline all men will get prostate cancer.


I have to agree this is too far you make occasional good points but this is beneath you isn't it? There is a delete button...


----------



## Local Hero

sir duke said:


> Seems like putting you on ignore was the right decision. My Dad had prostate cancer, my uncle died of it. My sister-in-law is in hospital with a brain tumour.


OK, seeing how this is probably just a fake ignore like the last time and you'll feel compelled to respond to me, I'm going to go ahead and ask: When you tell an internet forum full of strangers that people close to you have died or are sick, exactly what reaction do you want? What's your endgame? 

And what's this nonsense about not having the heart to tell someone you threw away a bracelet? Death is an inescapable fact of life. My dad had terminal cancer and I didn't feel the need to sugar coat anything. Grow up.


----------



## Local Hero

Winn said:


> I have to agree this is too far you make occasional good points but this is beneath you isn't it? There is a delete button...


Sorry, no. I question motives when someone interjects their personal tragedy into a debate.


----------



## Bluenote

sir duke said:


> Thanks for your concern. I've just got back from visiting him in England, he's in very good spirits and upbeat about his future. It's early stage prostate cancer, his brother died from the same illness so hearing this brought home a sense of foreboding.


Yeah, my Grandfather died of prostate cancer. He wasn't able to have surgery because he had a heart condition (he was quite eldery at the time). 

That being said, its usually very treatable, particularly early stage. So hopefully your Dad will make a full recovery.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Just reread my _accusatory_ post:
> 
> "If Livestrong offers support for those affected by cancer[...]why wouldn't you take it? ... Because if you're withholding the best care based on your grudge against Armstrong, there's something wrong."
> 
> lol @ getting wounded by that.
> 
> (I don't want anyone else to get their feelings hurt so please don't quote this message.)


Except that isn't what you wrote. Or more precisely, it isn't _all_ of what you wrote. 

So why selectively quote yourself? Why omit the parts where you were accusatory "do you want sympathy?" Or the parts where you were dismissive 'prostate cancer? Get real...'

And why paper over the fact that you made a - serious - leading accusation 'If you're witholding care because of a grudge...', without any indication that care is being witheld. 

I think your OPost speaks for itself, in spite of your attempts to rewrite the exchange. 



Local Hero said:


> *Why are you sharing this? Do you want sympathy? Do you want us to pitch in and get you a new bracelet?*
> 
> Before my dad died he had cancer and a few other illnesses. I took care of all of his healthcare decisions and had to fight pretty hard on his behalf. If I had known about Livestrong I would have definitely reached out to them. Unfortunately nobody helped me -- I didn't know where to look for help -- but I do have some special skills that allowed me to be a good advocate for him and get us the support we needed. I can imagine how someone with less training would struggle through the system.
> 
> If Livestrong offers support for those affected by cancer, such as navigating the health care system and treatment options (things that could make life better for you and your dad), why wouldn't you take it?
> 
> *Because if you're withholding the best care based on your grudge against Armstrong, there's something wrong. Also, you didn't mention the type of cancer. I hope it is mild. If it is mild and if you're looking for sympathy because your dad has prostate cancer or skin cancer, get real.* On a long enough timeline all men will get prostate cancer.


----------



## sir duke

Local Hero said:


> OK, seeing how this is probably just a fake ignore like the last time and you'll feel compelled to respond to me, I'm going to go ahead and ask: When you tell an internet forum full of strangers that people close to you have died or are sick, exactly what reaction do you want? What's your endgame?
> 
> And what's this nonsense about not having the heart to tell someone you threw away a bracelet? Death is an inescapable fact of life. My dad had terminal cancer and I didn't feel the need to sugar coat anything. Grow up.


If someone quotes you in a thread, I'm gonna see it. Sometimes I'm gonna react to what I see whether I choose to ignore you or not. If you are a parent you will know that you can't ignore even the most obnoxious child forever.

For someone who microdoses on sarcasm you really are clueless when others use it. I don't give a fvck about Lance's little yellow bracelet, and I'm not asking for sympathy from you or anyone else. My Dad doesn't need to read uplifting stories from some phony bastard who got lucky and survived his cancer. 
Many of us have a cancer story. That's my point, 'so fvcking what'? I don't want a reaction. My Dad, your Dad, someone's Dad. What the hell does it have to do with any special pleading for a sports cheat? If Livestrong are useful, then great. All that jetting around and hob-nobbing with presidents and Hollywood types bore fruit. For every dollar spent on cancer awareness, a dollar ended up being spent on Lance awareness. If the people who run that charity can't give an honest answer about how much finds it's way into grass roots support then that doesn't weigh too well in the court of credibility.

I mistakenly thought this was a forum to exchange views, opinions and information on _doping_. It seems, in this thread at least, to be the same old bullshit about giving Armstrong a free pass because his charity or vanity publishing helped millions, hundreds of millions or billions of cancer sufferers throughout the world. It's time you and others grew up and saw it for what it really is, i.e. a foolproof way to keep one egomaniac in the public eye, help some people feel warm and fluffy about doing good and saving lives whilst simultaneously keeping at bay honest questions about doping. Maybe that's why Lance feels the need to get back on the charity/image re-hab bandwagon. 

I suppose you forget who used the cancer ploy as part of his mock outrage when Paul Kimmage wanted to ask questions at his press conference. Maybe that's all our father's suffering means to him, a convenient way to dodge a bullet. That was a cynical and cowardly abuse of the goodwill of all cancer sufferers. If you want to go looking for endgames, start with Lance.


----------



## sir duke

Double post, deleted.


----------



## Bluenote

sir duke said:


> If someone quotes you in a thread, I'm gonna see it. Sometimes I'm gonna react to what I see whether I choose to ignore you or not. If you are a parent you will know that you can't ignore even the most obnoxious child forever.
> 
> For someone who microdoses on sarcasm you really are clueless when others use it. I don't give a fvck about Lance's little yellow bracelet, and I'm not asking for sympathy from you or anyone else. My Dad doesn't need to read uplifting stories from some phony bastard who got lucky and survived his cancer.
> Many of us have a cancer story. That's my point, 'so fvcking what'? I don't want a reaction. My Dad, your Dad, someone's Dad. What the hell does it have to do with any special pleading for a sports cheat? If Livestrong are useful, then great. All that jetting around and hob-nobbing with presidents and Hollywood types bore fruit. For every dollar spent on cancer awareness, a dollar ended up being spent on Lance awareness. If the people who run that charity can't give an honest answer about how much finds it's way into grass roots support then that doesn't weigh too well in the court of credibility.
> 
> I mistakenly thought this was a forum to exchange views, opinions and information on _doping_. It seems, in this thread at least, to be the same old bullshit about giving Armstrong a free pass because his charity or vanity publishing helped millions, hundreds of millions or billions of cancer sufferers throughout the world. It's time you and others grew up and saw it for what it really is, i.e. a foolproof way to keep one egomaniac in the public eye, help some people feel warm and fluffy about doing good and saving lives whilst simultaneously keeping at bay honest questions about doping. Maybe that's why Lance feels the need to get back on the charity/image re-hab bandwagon.
> 
> I suppose you forget who used the cancer ploy as part of his mock outrage when Paul Kimmage wanted to ask questions at his press conference. Maybe that's all our father's suffering means to him, a convenient way to dodge a bullet. That was a cynical and cowardly abuse of the goodwill of all cancer sufferers. If you want to go looking for endgames, start with Lance.


A refresher of a few Armstrong quotes:

“If you consider my situation: a guy who comes back from arguably, you know, a death sentence, why would I then enter into a sport and dope myself up and risk my life again? That's crazy. I would never do that. No. No way.”
_Responding to L’Equipe’s accusations that he used EPO during the 1999 Tour on the Larry King Show in August 2005_

“I’m here to fight this disease. You are not worth the chair that you’re sitting on with a statement like that with a disease that touches everybody around the world.”
_To Paul Kimmage at a press conference at the Tour of California in 2009 after The Sunday Times reporter had called Armstrong “the cancer in this sport” during a radio interview_

I need to run for one office, the presidency of the Cancer Fighters’ Union of the World.”
_Sports Illustrated interview in 2006_


"In 1996, Mr. Armstrong founded a public charity, the Mr. Armstrong Foundation....The Mr. Armstrong Foundation is a leader in the global movement on behalf of 28 million people living with cancer today."
_In his court filing, asking the court to dismiss the USADA's case against Armstrong._
Lance Armstrong's lawsuit against USADA - The Washington Post

(The judge quickly tossed the case, saying that the filing read like a press release designed to increase publicity).
Lance Armstrong?s suit against USADA dismissed - The Washington Post

(The same charity allegedly had lobbyists go to Washington and lobby against the USADA. 
Report: Livestrong lobbyist questions fairness of USADA case with Congressman | Cyclingnews.com)

"I am happy to announce that after talking with my children, my family and my closest friends, I have decided to return to professional cycling in order to raise awareness of the global cancer burden," 
_from press release for his comeback_

“I am essentially racing for free. No salary. No bonus. Nothing on the line.… This one’s on the house."
_To Vanity Fair, about his comeback_
(Then he calmly pocketed 7 figure appearance fees for the Tour Down Under)

Read more: Armstrong?s spokesman says 2009 Astana salary was donated to his foundation

Lance Down Under: Are Armstrong's seven-figure appearance fees worth every dollar? - VeloNews.com

"There comes a point in every man’s life when he has to say, “Enough is enough.” For me, that time is now....Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart’s unconstitutional witch hunt. 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."
_On refusing to further fight the USADA's doping charges_
Read more at Full text of Armstrong statement regarding USADA arbitration - VeloNews.com

"And then the ultimate crime is the betrayal of these people who support me and believed in me and they got lied to."
_To Oprah_


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> Yeah, my Grandfather died of prostate cancer. He wasn't able to have surgery because he had a heart condition (he was quite eldery at the time).


Surgery isn't always the best option. Some doctors cut, some treat with chemical castration (Lupron), some do nothing. It really depends on the urologist and the patient.


----------



## Local Hero

sir duke said:


> If someone quotes you in a thread, I'm gonna see it. Sometimes I'm gonna react to what I see whether I choose to ignore you or not. If you are a parent you will know that you can't ignore even the most obnoxious child forever.


Oh ok so why even claim to put me on ignore if you're going to repeatedly not ignore me? Why make empty claims?


> For someone who microdoses on sarcasm you really are clueless when others use it. I don't give a fvck about Lance's little yellow bracelet, and I'm not asking for sympathy from you or anyone else. My Dad doesn't need to read uplifting stories from some phony bastard who got lucky and survived his cancer.
> Many of us have a cancer story. That's my point, 'so fvcking what'? I don't want a reaction. My Dad, your Dad, someone's Dad. What the hell does it have to do with any special pleading for a sports cheat?


That's pretty much what I was saying when you told your story. Why tell it and what does it have to do with anything? 

Unfortunately (fortunately?) I hurt lots of feelings with my post 



> If Livestrong are useful, then great.


 I'm not really trying to defend Livestrong, but many have benefitted from the *free* services. 


> All that jetting around and hob-nobbing with presidents and Hollywood types bore fruit. For every dollar spent on cancer awareness, a dollar ended up being spent on Lance awareness. If the people who run that charity can't give an honest answer about how much finds it's way into grass roots support then that doesn't weigh too well in the court of credibility.


 I checked their website once in the past and it appears as though there's some breakdown of budget. 

OK, just checked again. 
Where the Money Goes | Our Approach | What We Do | LIVESTRONG.org
I'm not sure how long that has been up. It may be an response to complaints or perhaps it is still too broad for some critics. I'm not sure, nor do I really care. 



> I suppose you forget who used the cancer ploy as part of his mock outrage when Paul Kimmage wanted to ask questions at his press conference. Maybe that's all our father's suffering means to him, a convenient way to dodge a bullet. That was a cynical and cowardly abuse of the goodwill of all cancer sufferers.


I think we should feel free to call people out when they play the cancer card. I did it with you.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Oh ok so why even claim to put me on ignore if you're going to repeatedly not ignore me? Why make empty claims?
> That's pretty much what I was saying when you told your story. Why tell it and what does it have to do with anything?
> 
> Unfortunately (fortunately?) I hurt lots of feelings with my post
> 
> *I'm not really trying to defend Livestrong, but many have benefitted from the *free* services.
> I checked their website once in the past and it appears as though there's some breakdown of budget.
> 
> OK, just checked again.
> Where the Money Goes | Our Approach | What We Do | LIVESTRONG.org
> I'm not sure how long that has been up. It may be an response to complaints or perhaps it is still too broad for some critics. I'm not sure, nor do I really care. *
> 
> I think we should feel free to call people out when they play the cancer card. I did it with you.


Except that Livestrong defines awareness as a "program."

Between 2009 and 2012, Livestrong spent roughly 56 million dollars on "programs." How much was spent on "awareness programs" and how much was sent on programs that provide direct services to survivors?

In that same period of time, Livestrong spent about 27 million dollars on administration and fund raising. Of those administration and fundraising costs, how many went to travel costs or appearance fees for Armstrong?

The link you posted does nothing to adress the (repeated) criticism that Livestrong is opaque about how much went to direct services for survivors and how much directly benefited Armstrong (fees, travel) or indirectly benefited Armstrong (awareness publicity).

Do you think Livestrong should get a pass? Do you think it is legit for (celebrity) charities to define "awareness" as a program? Do you think it is legit for them to lump "awareness program" expenditures in with direct services program expenditures? Do you think its OK for charities to engage in political lobbying on behalf of its celebrity founder? 

Do you give (have you given) money to Livestrong? 

Do you think its Ok for celebrities to use their charitable work to defend against accusations in other parts of their life (particularly when they're guilty?) Do you think its OK for celebrities to use their charity work as a bully pulpit against critics?


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> Except that Livestrong defines awareness as a "program."
> 
> Between 2009 and 2012, Livestrong spent roughly 56 million dollars on "programs." How much was spent on "awareness programs" and how much was sent on programs that provide direct services to survivors?
> 
> In that same period of time, Livestrong spent about 27 million dollars on administration and fund raising. Of those administration and fundraising costs, how many went to travel costs or appearance fees for Armstrong?
> 
> The link you posted does nothing to adress the (repeated) criticism that Livestrong is opaque about how much went to direct services for survivors and how much directly benefited Armstrong (fees, travel) or indirectly benefited Armstrong (awareness publicity).
> 
> Do you think Livestrong should get a pass? Do you think it is legit for (celebrity) charities to define "awareness" as a program? Do you think it is legit for them to lump "awareness program" expenditures in with direct services program expenditures? Do you think its OK for charities to engage in political lobbying on behalf of its celebrity founder?
> 
> Do you give (have you given) money to Livestrong?
> 
> Do you think its Ok for celebrities to use their charitable work to defend against accusations in other parts of their life (particularly when they're guilty?) Do you think its OK for celebrities to use their charity work as a bully pulpit against critics?


Sorry, I had to stop reading after a few sentences. I know you spend a good chunk of your day on this forum, typing responses and debating. But I'm not even remotely interested in responding to any of what your just hammered out, especially after I said I don't have a strong interest in defending livestrong. I just can't be bothered.


----------



## love4himies

Here is a good read on what the foundation does:

http://www.livestrong.org/pdfs/4-0/2011-and-2012-Audited-Combined-Financial-Statement

People can say whatever they like about Lance and his foundation, but the bottom line is that NOBODY was forced to donate funds to them, so they did it with their own free will AND that it does help thousands of people. 



Bluenote said:


> Except that Livestrong defines awareness as a "program."
> 
> Between 2009 and 2012, Livestrong spent roughly 56 million dollars on "programs." How much was spent on "awareness programs" and how much was sent on programs that provide direct services to survivors?


One would think that awareness is a type of educational program as it indicates it is informing one about something and if that something is cancer related, one would think that would be a good fit with the foundation.


----------



## Local Hero

I think it's misleading to repeatedly characterize Livestrong's awareness program as simply drawing awareness to the fact that cancer exists. 

My understanding is that it is more than just saying, "Were you aware that there is cancer in the world?" 

It's a little deeper than that. I just googled livestrong awareness and one of this first hits is this blog: LIVESTRONG Blog

I'm sure this would fall under awareness: 


•Men’s health issues in general need any and all help they can get. From knowing what your personal risks are, to getting regular check ups, to taking action when warranted – it’s part and parcel of where we are lacking and what we need to highlight. Learn more about these issues at our partners, Movember.com.

•While it’s fortunate that most young people do not get cancer, TC is the #1 cancer in young men in the US with nearly 9,000 cases diagnosed annually. And like all cancers, the earlier you are diagnosed the better the chance for a successful and less toxic treatment program. Learn how to do a TC self exam.

•There are issues in and around the TC experience that need attention, too. From fertility concerns, to financial and employment ramifications, to psychosocial and emotional issues – this is the whole person component we’re talking about in patient-centered care. Learn more about what LIVESTRONG is doing to address these issues.


----------



## love4himies

Here is a good read (no details) but a summary on celebrity foundations:

Celebrity Charities: Good For Image, But What About Good Works? - Forbes



> A charity created by Rosie O’Donnell, the For All Kids Foundation, doled out $2.9 million in grants last year. But it spent another $1.9 million on overhead, or 64 cents for every dollar of grants, among the highest overhead we found. Why so high? We didn’t get an explanation from the charity. But in its tax filing, it reported $340,000 in fundraising expenses, loan payments on a debt and hundreds of thousands of dollars on unspecified “management” fees.


And he made it in the top 30 of the most generous celebrities:

The 30 Most Generous Celebrities - Forbes



> 23. Cyclist and seven-time winner of the Tour de France, Lance Armstrong – $700,648
> 
> To The LiveStrong Foundation, which he founded to improve the lives of people with cancer.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Sorry, I had to stop reading after a few sentences. I know you spend a good chunk of your day on this forum, typing responses and debating. But I'm not even remotely interested in responding to any of what your just hammered out, especially after I said I don't have a strong interest in defending livestrong. I just can't be bothered.


So accusing other posters of playing the cancer card = on the approved list
But questioning Livestrong = on the don't have time list

And mocking Dr. F for his criticism of Livestrong = on the approved list
But engaging in meaningful, informed discussion of Livestrong = on the don't have time list

Perhaps if you don't have enough time to really understand the issues surrounding Livestrong, you shouldn't call out other poster's for their opinions on the matter?


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> I think it's misleading to repeatedly characterize Livestrong's awareness program as simply drawing awareness to the fact that cancer exists.
> 
> My understanding is that it is more than just saying, "Were you aware that there is cancer in the world?"
> 
> It's a little deeper than that. I just googled livestrong awareness and one of this first hits is this blog: LIVESTRONG Blog
> 
> I'm sure this would fall under awareness:
> 
> 
> •Men’s health issues in general need any and all help they can get. From knowing what your personal risks are, to getting regular check ups, to taking action when warranted – it’s part and parcel of where we are lacking and what we need to highlight. Learn more about these issues at our partners, Movember.com.
> 
> •While it’s fortunate that most young people do not get cancer, TC is the #1 cancer in young men in the US with nearly 9,000 cases diagnosed annually. And like all cancers, the earlier you are diagnosed the better the chance for a successful and less toxic treatment program. Learn how to do a TC self exam.
> 
> •There are issues in and around the TC experience that need attention, too. From fertility concerns, to financial and employment ramifications, to psychosocial and emotional issues – this is the whole person component we’re talking about in patient-centered care. Learn more about what LIVESTRONG is doing to address these issues.


Hey, I thought you didn't have time to defend Livestrong?


----------



## spade2you

love4himies said:


> Here is a good read (no details) but a summary on celebrity foundations:
> 
> Celebrity Charities: Good For Image, But What About Good Works? - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> And he made it in the top 30 of the most generous celebrities:
> 
> The 30 Most Generous Celebrities - Forbes


Yes, but his results have been removed from the ranking and everyone below him moves up a place.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> So accusing other posters of playing the cancer card = on the approved list
> But questioning Livestrong = on the don't have time list
> 
> And mocking Dr. F for his criticism of Livestrong = on the approved list
> But engaging in meaningful, informed discussion of Livestrong = on the don't have time list
> 
> Perhaps if you don't have enough time to really understand the issues surrounding Livestrong, you shouldn't call out other poster's for their opinions on the matter?





Bluenote said:


> Hey, I thought you didn't have time to defend Livestrong?


Your posts are just so weird.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Your posts are just so weird.


Weird, for a guy who doesn't have time to post, you sure post a lot...


----------



## love4himies

spade2you said:


> Yes, but his results have been removed from the ranking and everyone below him moves up a place.


:lol::lol:


----------



## spade2you

Bluenote said:


> Weird, for a guy who doesn't have time to post, you sure post a lot...


Maybe he's riding or racing his bike. Some people here still do that.


----------

