# What a $#[email protected]%? hypocrite...........



## billium v2.0 (Oct 22, 2012)

How is it that someone can be so sanctimonious regarding Mr. Armstrong's behavior and yet let so much slide with other riders? 

I've had a soft spot for Marco Pantani for most of his later career. His foibles and eccentricities were endearing IMO. No one needed to use the term "juiced" when speaking about him, I was aware of his history and it made not a bit of difference. I still smile when a picture of him pops up in a magazine or his name shows up in an article.

Mr. Armstrong is an entirely different story.

The best I can figure it's because of Pantani's tragic character vs. Armstrong's "win regardless" personality. 

But Deep Thinking is above my paygrade. Anyone care to take a stab at why I selectively apply moral rules to some while waiving them for others?

What a $#[email protected]%? hypocrite..........


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)




----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

The difference between Armstrong and every other doper (er ... rider) in the peloton is the "Story" that Armstrong had. He sold hope to the world, people can have cancer and still come back and be a world class athlete.

People had/have an emotional attachment to him because of his story, unlike any other rider in the peloton past or present. This increases the love/hate relationship with him compared to other riders and why people want to see him destroyed.

What's funny is he's not lying when he says he didn't do anything that other riders were not doing ... it was sport wide and every team had their own "System" ... some were better than others, but they were all doing it. People still want to believe that there were clean riders of the time, but the more you dig the smaller that reality becomes.

Such is life ... the question is this: Were you entertained during his wins? If so,l who cares? If not, who cares? It's entertainment, nothing more nothing less ... always has been and always will be.


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

In my opinion it is the way Lance went about hiding the doping. Like everyone else he lied and denied doping. But he went further and tried to discredit people who were telling the truth. He about trying to discredit people in a ruthless way. At least for me that is the problem/difference. All of these dopers have a suspect moral character but Lance took it to a new level.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Beck said:


> In my opinion it is the way Lance went about hiding the doping. Like everyone else he lied and denied doping. But he went further and tried to discredit people who were telling the truth. He about trying to discredit people in a ruthless way. At least for me that is the problem/difference. All of these dopers have a suspect moral character but Lance took it to a new level.


The only problem I have with this is we don't know to what lengths other riders in other countries went to hide their doping. For all we know it was pretty common overall for the top riders ... hence the strength of "Omerta".

The difference would be Lance's stuff made it to the media because his persona transcended cycling compared to others in the world. It's rare for any athlete to get so big that they are a "Name Brand" and you can ask almost anybody who they are and they will know. If you ask somebody who Andrew Luck is those that follow football will know who he is, but it's unlikely others will have a clue who he is ... but if you said Lance Armstrong, peoples grandmothers knew who he was/is.

So anything he did went to the news cycles: Internet, TV, Magazines ... you name it. With others, you may never have heard of it. 

Ask yourself this ... Has your opinion of Cipollini changed now that he's threatening to sue others for saying he doped? That's what he's doing now. So if your opinion of him hasn't changed, why would it be different for Lance?


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

The main answer is in paragraph 2.
My Verdict On The Lance Armstrong Interview - Business Insider


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

Wookie makes a good point. I am an attorney and I am not surprised that Lance lied under oath during his deposition. You may be surprised how many people think they can get away with lying and for much less than the millions that were at stake for Lance. I would include anyone who acts like Lance with the bullying tactics in the same group of scum. In my experience, when someone resorts to bullying tactics it raises a red flag and there is usually something more to the story. I think the truth about the extent of doping needs to be flushed out and then move forward. Without the truth there will always be a stain and questions. Maybe we have gotten to the point that there will always be questions no matter how clean the sport becomes.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Well, it's really for you to say. But I'll put on the blindfold and throw some darts. 

Option 1 - object constancy.
This is a fancy way of saying that we tend to see people in constant ways. We'll size someone up and say they are a nice girl, a bad guy, a good friend, etc..

Then we tend to think of their actions based on our overall impression of them. We're quick to forgive if a good friend gets in a fight, wrecks their car, etc.. Because we know they are a good person who just made a stupid mistake. 

If you think of Pantani as a decent person who screwed up big time, but Armstrong as a narcissistic jerk, you'll judge their behaviors differently. 

Option 2 - Armstrong is worse
One could argue that Armstrong did do things that were worse than Pantani.
His donation to the UCI
Escalating the doping arms race, making it harder to ride clean or clean up the sport
Harassing clean / anti-doping riders - Basson, Simonei
Suing and smearing people
Using his cancer charity / status as a survivor as a shield 'I would never dope after having nearly died...'
Abusing the court system - suing the Times, lying under oath, etc... 
Dating an Olsen Twin

Option 3 - A just world order
Mostly, we are raised with a certain view of life. Hard work will be rewarded, crime doesn't pay, honesty matters, lying and stealing are bad, etc...

In reality, some people work very hard then die suddenly of awful diseases. And many people get away with lying, cheating, bullying. 

Pantani didn't profit much from his cheating - rather it consumed him.

Armstrong, on the other hand, profited handsomely. He'll likely never face any jail time for all that fraud. He might be able to fend off lawsuits and keep a lot of money. It's understandable to be angry at the injustice of that.


----------



## Frankinnj (Feb 8, 2009)

Wookiebiker said:


> The difference between Armstrong and every other doper (er ... rider) in the peloton is the "Story" that Armstrong had. He sold hope to the world, people can have cancer and still come back and be a world class athlete.
> 
> People had/have an emotional attachment to him because of his story, unlike any other rider in the peloton past or present. This increases the love/hate relationship with him compared to other riders and why people want to see him destroyed.
> 
> ...



well said


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> Pantani didn't profit much from his cheating - rather it consumed him.


That was more the cocaine and unstable personality than EPO.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> That was more the cocaine and unstable personality than EPO.


I didn't say anything about EPO. Not sure where that came from.

I guess I was thinking more the psychology, not the actual drug. Like, nothing was good enough - winning, fame, money, drugs. He just seemed to need more. 

I don't think cycling caused his issues. 

But all this is an aside to the OPs question - why view Pantani differently from Armstrong?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Of course Pantani profited from taking PEDs. Cocaine doesn't pay for itself.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Of course Pantani profited from taking PEDs. Cocaine doesn't pay for itself.


Short term he made money. Long term it seems to have fed his insecurities and addictive personality. He didn't live long enough to ride off into the sunset with ill gotten gains. 

Again, this is an aside to the OPs question - why does he judge Pantani differently from Armstrong?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> Short term he made money.


AKA "profit"



> Long term it seems to have fed his insecurities and addictive personality. He didn't live long enough to ride off into the sunset with ill gotten gains.


And Armstrong gets off scot-free?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> AKA "profit"
> 
> And Armstrong gets off scot-free?


I stand by my initial conjecture - one might (note - might) judge Pantani differently given his tragic end. 

I don't see any benefit in getting into forest for trees arguments about exactly what happened to Pantani, or hair splitting about the various meanings of 'profit.' Doesn't change the big picture.

I agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## billium v2.0 (Oct 22, 2012)

*To expand a bit more...........................*

Why more contempt for Landis than Armstrong? Why does Mr. Voigt gets a free pass regardless and Contador is held in such low esteem regardless? And Hincapie didn't move an inch on the esteem scale even after PED use revealed. These are all IMO, obviously.

Opinions of the personalities involved with the regulatory bodies could fill pages (although only on degrees of culpability, no one there gets a free pass).

_Hyprocrisy_, it's what's for dinner at my house.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

billium v2.0 said:


> _Hyprocrisy_, it's what's for dinner at my house.


We had enchiladas.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> People still want to believe that there were clean riders of the time, but the more you dig the smaller that reality becomes.


 Brad McGee and David Moncoutié are still real, you know.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

billium v2.0 said:


> Why more contempt for Landis than Armstrong? Why does Mr. Voigt gets a free pass regardless and Contador is held in such low esteem regardless? And Hincapie didn't move an inch on the esteem scale even after PED use revealed. These are all IMO, obviously.
> 
> Opinions of the personalities involved with the regulatory bodies could fill pages (although only on degrees of culpability, no one there gets a free pass).
> 
> _Hyprocrisy_, it's what's for dinner at my house.


Personally, my opinion of the dopers relates to what they've done. I don't feel 'angry' or 'let down' - I just think the punishment or remedy needs to fit their actions. 

So Landis doped = title stripped. He misled people with the fairness fund = needs to pay people back (or face jail?) Lied for years = little credibility now.

Hamilton doped multiple times = effectively a career ending ban. Lied and misled = no credibility.

Millar, doped = ban. Lied = damaged credibility. Seems to have been clean since = rebuilt some credibility, but still not totally trustworthy in my book. 

Pro athletes are smart enough to cultivate an image for the press. Hamilton played up the 'nice guy next door' image. But he still deserves his ban and virtual exile from the sport. Contador is pretty unlikable to me. But until some kind if fair process shows a second strike of doping, he gets to keep racing.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

kbwh said:


> Brad McGee and David Moncoutié are still real, you know.


Perhaps the few riders with wins under their belt during that era who were clean. I estimate that there may have been another 3-4 tops. 


Bluenote said:


> Contador is pretty unlikable to me.


Why? It seems that everyone in the US hates his guts. Language barriers aside, I can't figure out how/why he angers everyone. His nasal tone seems to come off as a little whiny.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

Ashenden tried to show CAS evidence of Contador blood doping in their hearing of the clen case. But apart from seemingly being covered in teflon he seems ok to me. 

David Millar is to me a hero.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Contador just always seemed bland to me. 

In the end, he could be a very different person than he seems in public.


----------



## billium v2.0 (Oct 22, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Why (_is Contador unlikeable_)? It seems that everyone in the US hates his guts. Language barriers aside, I can't figure out how/why he angers everyone. His nasal tone seems to come off as a little whiny.


As far as my view of Mr. Contador, one incident specifically cast the die for me. Pre-incident he was a scrappy rider in contention, neither liked nor disliked him.

Post incident he was a weasel, the Eddie Haskell type (for those not old enough to appreciate the reference - go here: Eddie Haskell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). "Gee Mrs. Cleaver, I didn't notice your chain had slipped off when I passed you on the slope, I just thought I made one heck of a jump, honest."

Racing is racing. If he'd simply said something to that effect when interviewed I'd have understood. But he was wishy washy at the stage finish, took the position that he had no idea AS dropped his chain, then (allegedly) "gifted" a stage win to AS a day or two later, which gave the appearance that he felt some reason to make a gift to AS.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

billium v2.0 said:


> As far as my view of Mr. Contador, one incident specifically cast the die for me. Pre-incident he was a scrappy rider in contention, neither liked nor disliked him.
> 
> Post incident he was a weasel, the Eddie Haskell type (for those not old enough to appreciate the reference - go here: Eddie Haskell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). "Gee Mrs. Cleaver, I didn't notice your chain had slipped off when I passed you on the slope, I just thought I made one heck of a jump, honest."
> 
> Racing is racing. If he'd simply said something to that effect when interviewed I'd have understood. But he was wishy washy at the stage finish, took the position that he had no idea AS dropped his chain, then (allegedly) "gifted" a stage win to AS a day or two later, which gave the appearance that he felt some reason to make a gift to AS.


If you respond to an attack in a race and notice that guy is no longer on your wheel, do you stop and see what happened? At that point Menchov and Sanchez already responded, yet nobody is upset that they didn't wait, either. Regardless, Chaingate was the result of cross chaining and Schleck's own fault. He managed to do that in the Tour de Suisse time trial right in front of the camera the following year. 

Nobody was upset when Cadel had that untimely mechanical in the '09 Vuelta, which legitimately hurt him winning that race. This was a legitimate mechanical and Valverde shouldn't have been allowed to participate due to Puerto, but Spain miraculously allowed him to race and keep the win. This is by far a greater injustice than someone who doesn't know that cross chaining can mean you drop your chain.


----------



## bayAreaDude (Apr 13, 2012)

My guess is because cheating is only about 5% of what makes LA a cad. The other 95% is all the no holds barred vindictive attacks meant to destroy others lives, most of which he's still denying (doesn't remember suing Emaa - blatant lie).


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Was this a Sunday group ride where he didn't stop and wait or a race? That's a reason to hate the guy?


----------



## billium v2.0 (Oct 22, 2012)

spade2you said:


> If you respond to an attack in a race and notice that guy is no longer on your wheel, do you stop and see what happened? At that point Menchov and Sanchez already responded, yet nobody is upset that they didn't wait, either. Regardless, Chaingate was the result of cross chaining and Schleck's own fault. He managed to do that in the Tour de Suisse time trial right in front of the camera the following year.
> 
> Nobody was upset when Cadel had that untimely mechanical in the '09 Vuelta, which legitimately hurt him winning that race. This was a legitimate mechanical and Valverde shouldn't have been allowed to participate due to Puerto, but Spain miraculously allowed him to race and keep the win. This is by far a greater injustice than someone who doesn't know that cross chaining can mean you drop your chain.


spade:

You missed the point. My opinion wasn't formed by Mr. Contador exploiting the situation. As I wrote, "racing is racing". Opportunities arise, you take advantage of them. No harm no foul in my book. Who's fault is it that AS can't shift/his mechanic can't adjust front deraileur? Certainly not Mr. Contador's. 

No, what formed my opinion was his explanation of the event and follow-up behavior thereafter. If he had no knowledge, as he asserted, then why all the drama with AS in follow-up stages?


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

I don't have much respect for any of these cheaters. It is interesting that some of these cheaters are not as hated as others. What I don't understand is why does George H. seem to get a pass. Doesn't everyone else think he was very much involved with Lance? I think I remember Phil saying during a TdF that George was Lance's faithful lieutenant. Maybe the authorities need to ask George some more questions.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Beck said:


> I don't have much respect for any of these cheaters. It is interesting that some of these cheaters are not as hated as others. What I don't understand is why does George H. seem to get a pass. Doesn't everyone else think he was very much involved with Lance? I think I remember Phil saying during a TdF that George was Lance's faithful lieutenant. Maybe the authorities need to ask George some more questions.


I think it's because he was a quiet guy who didn't make any waves ... just did his job and did it pretty well. So people like the "Everyday Workman" persona he has.

With that said ... I do agree with you, chances are he had a lot to do with the cover up and knew everything that was going on. He probably put some pressure on others to keep the "Omerta" in place since he was basically 2nd in charge and rode every Tour with Lance.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

billium v2.0 said:


> spade:
> 
> You missed the point. My opinion wasn't formed by Mr. Contador exploiting the situation. As I wrote, "racing is racing". Opportunities arise, you take advantage of them. No harm no foul in my book. Who's fault is it that AS can't shift/his mechanic can't adjust front deraileur? Certainly not Mr. Contador's.
> 
> No, what formed my opinion was his explanation of the event and follow-up behavior thereafter. If he had no knowledge, as he asserted, then why all the drama with AS in follow-up stages?


Exactly! It wasn't the incident itself (although I admit I was angry at the time), but mainly it was 'Bert's weird/guilty actions afterwards that really sealed it for me. Now I want to puke when I see that [email protected] "finger bang". 
I also admit to a bias now when it comes to Spanish riders- the efforts they go to protect their own are impressive as they are execrable. Don't even get me started on Valverde...

Or maybe I'm just a sucker for Bruyneel's PR stunts from the "comeback".


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

He probably gifted Andy a stage because he was tired of all the crying. Even Clenbutador has a heart.


----------



## billium v2.0 (Oct 22, 2012)

spade2you said:


> He probably gifted Andy a stage because he was tired of all the crying. Even Clenbutador has a heart.


I thought he had two, which started all the questions.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

billium v2.0 said:


> How is it that someone can be so sanctimonious regarding Mr. Armstrong's behavior and yet let so much slide with other riders?
> 
> I've had a soft spot for Marco Pantani for most of his later career. His foibles and eccentricities were endearing IMO. No one needed to use the term "juiced" when speaking about him, I was aware of his history and it made not a bit of difference. I still smile when a picture of him pops up in a magazine or his name shows up in an article.
> 
> ...


My two cents:

I look at Eddy Merckx just like you look at Mr. Pantani in regards to Pharmstrong.

However, Merckx and Pantani lack a character traits that Pharmstrong possess': An absolute utter, complete lack of empathy; complete lack of shame; the epitome of selfish; IMHO, a narcissist sense of entitlement; complete lack of guilt; mixed in with a bare minimal amount of conscience. 

Right after Pharmstrong won WC in '93, Pharmstrong's mom asked Greg LeMond and his wife for advice with the money he won and direction of his career. After Greg gave her some advice she then asked them, "How do you make it so he's not such an a$$hole? He just doesn't care about anyone." That, right there, told me Pharmstrong has some genuine, serious character flaws. 

IMHO; Most people have the option to be or not to be an a$$hole. I genuinely believe Pharmstrong doesn't have that option because of he lacks. This may sound silly, but just like the tongue-roll gene, if someone genuinely lacks empathy, shame, and guilt they can't and won't show any signs of said trait. Can you imagine sharing close quarters with them for months on in? 

His interview with Oprah was very telling. 

A reasonably healthy/normal person could not commit Pharmstrong-Scorched-Earth like Lance did. 


I was a huge Pharmstrong fanboi from when he first won the TDF right up until Oct. 2012. When the USADA released their report on Pharmstrong, my Pharmstrong world came tumbling down fast.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

RRRoubaix said:


> I also admit to a bias now when it comes to Spanish riders- the efforts they go to protect their own are impressive as they are execrable. Don't even get me started on Valverde...


Try easing up with Freire and the late Xavier Tondo.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

I don't think Hincape got off so easy on this forum. My fav is when he gets called Armstrong's lapdog. 

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/whats-hincapies-legacy-295866.html


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

cda 455 said:


> IMHO; Most people have the option to be or not to be an a$$hole. I genuinely believe Pharmstrong doesn't have that option because of he lacks. This may sound silly, but just like the tongue-roll gene, if someone genuinely lacks empathy, shame, and guilt they can't and won't show any signs of said trait. Can you imagine sharing close quarters with them for months on in?


Studies have shown Sociopaths brains are different from others. Certain areas light up under a PET scan compared to others and it's pretty easy to see the difference. They can't change the way they think ... they are what they are. 

With that said, the way they are brought up does make a difference on whether they can be functional in society or become serial killers. Most are just a bit "Off" in that they don't show emotion or don't care. The funny part is approximately 25% of those in high level business positions have this brain chemistry. People look down on Armstrong, but don't bat an eye at a guy that cuts 10,000 jobs to boost their stocks by $1.00 per share.

It's highly unlikely anything could change Armstrong's attitude and behaviors ... upbringing, therapy, medications, etc.




> A reasonably healthy/normal person could not commit Pharmstrong-Scorched-Earth like Lance did.


Actually ... History tells a very different picture. Do you think every Nazi soldier that worked in a concentration camp thought the same way? Many do things because they are told ... and those actions are horrific. 

For more evidence look at the The Milgram Obedience Experiment. When given orders (though not the same case as Armstrong) 65% of those will do unspeakable things.

So it's great to think that a reasonable person wouldn't do the same thing ... when you go down a path, sometimes it's hard to get off and normal people do unspeakable things. When you have a personality such as Armstrong's it makes it that much easier.

Things are never as simple as people want them to be because people look at how "They" think and feel and have a hard time understanding why everybody else doesn't feel/think the same way ... hence the divide in thinking in the U.S. with politics, religion, economy, education ... you name it. In general people have a lack of ability to understand how others think or feel and only see things from "Their Perspective".


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

spade2you said:


> He probably gifted Andy a stage because he was tired of all the crying. Even Clenbutador has a heart.


It's a big heart, especially the left ventricle.


----------



## Beck (Jun 8, 2011)

I still think it comes down to how Lance treated people outside of racing. It would be somewhat easier to forgive and forget if Lance only tried to bury his cycling competitors. He went beyond that and tried to bury people who were not racing. That is when it passed the line of just someone who is driven in the sport to be the best.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Didn't Cipo just threaten legal action against those who claimed he doped?


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Didn't Cipo just threaten legal action against those who claimed he doped?


Lots of people threaten to sue. Make a fancy statement at the press conference and all that. But few actually file the suits. And fewer still file the suits, knowing they are in the wrong, then lie like crazy under oath. 

My opinion - I see this stuff more like a mafia model. I have a bigger problem with organized (team) doping than individual doping. And I think 'ringleaders' should get a longer sentence (ban) than 'little fish.' 

It's less about morality and more about practicality. If you want to really clean up cycling, you need to change the culture. To change the culture, you need to get the directors, team Doctors and team Captains who push the doping mentality. 

I don't think cycling will ever be 100% clean, but I think it doesn't stand a chance to be clean with doping culture and omertà in place.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Bluenote said:


> Lots of people threaten to sue.


I don't know his intent or how powerful of a legal team he has in place. Seems he could potentially be bullying those who are attempting to expose the truth.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Maybe not where you're from. But in the U.S. people are sue crazy and file some of the most frivolous suits and counter suits. I'd say it's a lot more common than you think.



Bluenote said:


> Lots of people threaten to sue. Make a fancy statement at the press conference and all that. But few actually file the suits. And fewer still file the suits, knowing they are in the wrong, then lie like crazy under oath.
> 
> My opinion - I see this stuff more like a mafia model. I have a bigger problem with organized (team) doping than individual doping. And I think 'ringleaders' should get a longer sentence (ban) than 'little fish.'
> 
> ...


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Robert1 said:


> Maybe not where you're from. But in the U.S. people are sue crazy and file some of the most frivolous suits and counter suits. I'd say it's a lot more common than you think.


In the US it's pretty hard to win slander / libel suits. Harder still if its a public figure. And hardest to prove that the slander caused some direct monetary damage. 

If Chipo actually files a suit, I'll be grumpy with him.


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

spade2you said:


> I don't know his intent or how powerful of a legal team he has in place. Seems he could potentially be bullying those who are attempting to expose the truth.





spade2you said:


> Didn't Cipo just threaten legal action against those who claimed he doped?


If Cipo actually sues, and he is a doper, than yes - it would be bullying. 

Personally, I'll wait and see what he actually does. You drive yourself crazy in life thinking about what people potentially might do. 

My opinion - I think the worst thing Armstrong did was pushing others into doping and having those who refused fired and blackballed. Doesn't excuse those who did dope, but it still sucks. 

I think that is worse than suing people. Not that suing is trivial or anything.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

Well Donald Trump is suing Bill Mahr for $5mil because Bill said the donald just may be the son of an orangutan [with how orange he's looking these days]. So when it comes to suits...it seems like anything goes. Personally cipo is way more likable than the donald no matter what he does, and way better hair.



Bluenote said:


> In the US it's pretty hard to win slander / libel suits. Harder still if its a public figure. And hardest to prove that the slander caused some direct monetary damage.
> 
> If Chipo actually files a suit, I'll be grumpy with him.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Bluenote said:


> If Cipo actually sues, and he is a doper, than yes - it would be bullying.
> 
> Personally, I'll wait and see what he actually does. You drive yourself crazy in life thinking about what people potentially might do.
> 
> ...


Cipo attempting Pharmstrong v2.0  ? 



Improved bullying edition? With free future upgrades?


----------

