To those that still believe Lance was clean, listen to this:
Comments
-
aurelio wrote:
You don`t seem to have taken on board what Stapleton actually said at all! To repeat, Stapleton said that, in his view, if the case went to court were `everybody's gonna testify` this `could blow the whole sport`.leguape wrote:from a plaintiff's point of view, Stapleton had a pretty good point. All he pointed out is that, on the balance of things, the case wasn't worth fighting as the French system offers far more support to the defendant than the plaintiff.
How on earth could people being called to testify `blow the whole sport` unless such testimony led to not only the `alleged` doping of Armstrong but the degree of doping within the sport in general becoming public? Against this the likelihood of winning a libel case in a French court is almost an irrelevance, and indeed Stapleton does not directly address this particular point at all, despite what you claim. Stapleton instead explicitly and exclusively focuses on the desirability of preventing evidence coming to court that was so explosive that it `could blow the whole sport`.
The French court, as far as I understand it, puts no emphasis on a witness giving testimony to declare that what they are saying is truthful, rather that it is made in good faith or firmly held belief. All Walsh and Ballester would have needed to show is that statements were made to them in good faith, not that they had chased down the veracity of such claims.
I'm glad this dialogue is moving on beyond simply Armstrong to admit that there is a wider history. It confirmed it's not entirely tunnel vision about Armstrong
I'd be keen to find out more about what Mondenard has to say on the topic of doping as I have a feeling as if it's a buried gem on the subject. I guess it's because he insists on writing in French/being French that we're not more familiar with his work.
As for my views on whether Armstrong doped I remain "open" to a verdict as yet. I feel that there is a degree of inconsistency the evidence in favour of him having doped which I should continue to question before I can decide whether to condemn him.0 -
dennisn wrote:You guys have got to let this thing go. What possible difference will it make in YOUR
life if Lance is eventually found guilty or innocent of anything? What possible impact
will any of this have on you? Unless, unless you have been foolish enough to put these people on a altar as gods and heros and now you're finding out tthat they are mere
mortals. It's a sad day when the people you worship at the feet of are revealed as
actual human beings with all the faults that come along with being a member of the
human race.
Dennis Noward
Crazy, to put it mildly. I'm still waiting for any kind of an answer to my above post. Or
maybe a better way to phrase my question would be "What happens when you find out(if you ever do) that Lance(or anyone else) did or didn't take this or that drug? What will
you "do" with this "information"? Will you be happier that you finally "know"? Or will you be completely devastated? I suppose it depends on what you wish upon these people
that you either slander or defend so strongly. Or are you just wanting to know so you can say "I told you so", if , of course, it's comes out in your favor? As a last thing I would
say to all the people who are quoting all of the books written about all of this. These
books were written for "the money", not for the truth. It's kind of sad but I'm willing to bet that the truth is too boring to sell a book. Most people don't want the truth, they just want a good story and that's what you're getting.
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisn wrote:dennisn wrote:You guys have got to let this thing go. What possible difference will it make in YOUR
life if Lance is eventually found guilty or innocent of anything? What possible impact
will any of this have on you? Unless, unless you have been foolish enough to put these people on a altar as gods and heros and now you're finding out tthat they are mere
mortals. It's a sad day when the people you worship at the feet of are revealed as
actual human beings with all the faults that come along with being a member of the
human race.
Dennis Noward
Crazy, to put it mildly. I'm still waiting for any kind of an answer to my above post. Or
maybe a better way to phrase my question would be "What happens when you find out(if you ever do) that Lance(or anyone else) did or didn't take this or that drug? What will
you "do" with this "information"? Will you be happier that you finally "know"? Or will you be completely devastated? I suppose it depends on what you wish upon these people
that you either slander or defend so strongly. Or are you just wanting to know so you can say "I told you so", if , of course, it's comes out in your favor? As a last thing I would
say to all the people who are quoting all of the books written about all of this. These
books were written for "the money", not for the truth. It's kind of sad but I'm willing to bet that the truth is too boring to sell a book. Most people don't want the truth, they just want a good story and that's what you're getting.
Dennis Noward
In my life it makes absolutely no difference either way. I don't care either way. I'd like to believe he hasn't, but I'm a grown-up so don't believe in fairy tales, politicians promises, or what my boss tells me at my annual review (now 4 months overdue).
It will be a shame though if he is eventually found to have doped, like the wolf-boy making up stories the level of trust will hit rock bottom. I'd say that in the end that will just be bad for cycling as a sport, but I think it is probably already, at a professional level at least, too late for that.
Maybe the hope for the future of the sport is in extending it at amateur level?'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....0 -
If he did dope to win, why would he make a comeback?
All the "proof" aurelio and micron have provived are just hearsay, or very questionable test results, but nothing concrete, yet they refuse to understand that some of us go by the "innocent until proven guilty"..........0 -
aurelio wrote:(When tested retrospectively six of his samples from the 1999 Tour showed positive for Epo and he also tested positive for corticoids during the 1999 Tour, but that`s another story).
Why don't you tell everybody about the fact that the levels found did not come close to representing a positive test for performance enhancing drugs. They were consistent with the amount you'd find in sombebody using the saddle cream.
The EPO positive is just not at all reliable; would you you be happy with the guys who hate you and want you kicked out of their race/name destroyed more than anything else in the world, taking ownership of a sample and holding it for however many years. They could have manipulated the sample in any way they desired. So on those two fronts you haven't got anything constituting evidence and the rest is just hearsay.
Aurelio, why don't you just admit it's just your hunch that he was on drugs? If you've got any REAL evidence, I am as interested as the next guy. I just know that if I was in Lance's position and you were throwing around baseless accusations about me, I would not be particularly happy about it. Especially when a lot of people really do believe everything they read.0 -
Patrick1.0 wrote:aurelio wrote:
If you've got any REAL evidence, I am as interested as the next guy. I just know that if I was in Lance's position and you were throwing around baseless accusations about me, I would not be particularly happy about it. Especially when a lot of people really do believe everything they read.
Well, what more evidence do you need?. "aurellio" said so. He's just baiting and the rest of you are sucking it up. As far as your "I am as interesred as the next guy" goes, that
really shows your "colors". You're worse than "aurellio". He's just full of it and having fun. You on the other hand seem like some Lance obcessed nut case. Seek help.
Dennis Noward0 -
The sample was held in a WADA-accredited lab, it did not leave there and was only monitored by a research programme within the lab which was keen to use urine samples to validate a new EPO test procedure. The urine wasn't held in some journalist's fridge!Patrick1.0 wrote:would you you be happy with the guys who hate you and want you kicked out of their race/name destroyed more than anything else in the world, taking ownership of a sample and holding it for however many years0 -
Lance mistanenly believes that if he won the tour with the long list of drugs that he confessed to using in the hospital, and that almost certainly all of his rivals were on as well, then he can also win it clean now that most of the peleton has cleaned up it's act.
However, as most informed people know, EPO doesn't work like that. If you were a champion on it, in a drugs culture, it doesn't follow that off of it, in a cleaner culture, you'll still win.0 -
dennisn wrote:Patrick1.0 wrote:aurelio wrote:
If you've got any REAL evidence, I am as interested as the next guy. I just know that if I was in Lance's position and you were throwing around baseless accusations about me, I would not be particularly happy about it. Especially when a lot of people really do believe everything they read.
Well, what more evidence do you need?. "aurellio" said so. He's just baiting and the rest of you are sucking it up. As far as your "I am as interesred as the next guy" goes, that
really shows your "colors". You're worse than "aurellio". He's just full of it and having fun. You on the other hand seem like some Lance obcessed nut case. Seek help.
Dennis Noward
You're right, but I can spell. :roll:0 -
I don’t know if this is the sort of thing which you mean, but … Mondenard claims there are about 20 doping products which are still undetectable and used by cyclists, despite the heralded improvements in catching dopers. What Mondenard says matches what the Mexican dope dealer who supplied Marion Jones and other US athletes also said about undetectable doping products, so the same info comes from both sides of the fence.leguape wrote:I'd be keen to find out more about what Mondenard has to say on the topic of doping as I have a feeling as if it's a buried gem on the subject. I guess it's because he insists on writing in French/being French that we're not more familiar with his work.
With respect to Armstrong, in the past Mondenard cast suspicion on the US Postal team using Actovegin (which supposedly increases oxygen in the blood without increasing haemtocrit levels) and on LA using Synacthen (a synthetic drug which promotes the body to create steroids). I think these two products are still undetectable.0 -
knedlicky wrote:
I don’t know if this is the sort of thing which you mean, but … Mondenard claims there are about 20 doping products which are still undetectable and used by cyclists, despite the heralded improvements in catching dopers. What Mondenard says matches what the Mexican dope dealer who supplied Marion Jones and other US athletes also said about undetectable doping products, so the same info comes from both sides of the fence.leguape wrote:I'd be keen to find out more about what Mondenard has to say on the topic of doping as I have a feeling as if it's a buried gem on the subject. I guess it's because he insists on writing in French/being French that we're not more familiar with his work.
With respect to Armstrong, in the past Mondenard cast suspicion on the US Postal team using Actovegin (which supposedly increases oxygen in the blood without increasing haemtocrit levels) and on LA using Synacthen (a synthetic drug which promotes the body to create steroids). I think these two products are still undetectable.
Yes those are the sort of things I'm interested in finding out more about.
Having briefly looked up Actovegin I wonder if it didn't fall out of favour once blood screening improved given its base being bovine plasma. Somewhat worrying that it was still being used/debated for TUE use as late as 2005 by UKA's own doctors.0 -
leguape wrote:knedlicky wrote:
I don’t know if this is the sort of thing which you mean, but … Mondenard claims there are about 20 doping products which are still undetectable and used by cyclists, despite the heralded improvements in catching dopers. What Mondenard says matches what the Mexican dope dealer who supplied Marion Jones and other US athletes also said about undetectable doping products, so the same info comes from both sides of the fence.leguape wrote:I'd be keen to find out more about what Mondenard has to say on the topic of doping as I have a feeling as if it's a buried gem on the subject. I guess it's because he insists on writing in French/being French that we're not more familiar with his work.
With respect to Armstrong, in the past Mondenard cast suspicion on the US Postal team using Actovegin (which supposedly increases oxygen in the blood without increasing haemtocrit levels) and on LA using Synacthen (a synthetic drug which promotes the body to create steroids). I think these two products are still undetectable.
Yes those are the sort of things I'm interested in finding out more about.
Why?
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisn wrote:leguape wrote:knedlicky wrote:
I don’t know if this is the sort of thing which you mean, but … Mondenard claims there are about 20 doping products which are still undetectable and used by cyclists, despite the heralded improvements in catching dopers. What Mondenard says matches what the Mexican dope dealer who supplied Marion Jones and other US athletes also said about undetectable doping products, so the same info comes from both sides of the fence.leguape wrote:I'd be keen to find out more about what Mondenard has to say on the topic of doping as I have a feeling as if it's a buried gem on the subject. I guess it's because he insists on writing in French/being French that we're not more familiar with his work.
With respect to Armstrong, in the past Mondenard cast suspicion on the US Postal team using Actovegin (which supposedly increases oxygen in the blood without increasing haemtocrit levels) and on LA using Synacthen (a synthetic drug which promotes the body to create steroids). I think these two products are still undetectable.
Yes those are the sort of things I'm interested in finding out more about.
Why?
Dennis Noward
Because I'd like to be able to hold an informed view. Is that too much to ask?0 -
leguape wrote:dennisn wrote:leguape wrote:knedlicky wrote:
I don’t know if this is the sort of thing which you mean, but … Mondenard claims there are about 20 doping products which are still undetectable and used by cyclists, despite the heralded improvements in catching dopers. What Mondenard says matches what the Mexican dope dealer who supplied Marion Jones and other US athletes also said about undetectable doping products, so the same info comes from both sides of the fence.leguape wrote:I'd be keen to find out more about what Mondenard has to say on the topic of doping as I have a feeling as if it's a buried gem on the subject. I guess it's because he insists on writing in French/being French that we're not more familiar with his work.
With respect to Armstrong, in the past Mondenard cast suspicion on the US Postal team using Actovegin (which supposedly increases oxygen in the blood without increasing haemtocrit levels) and on LA using Synacthen (a synthetic drug which promotes the body to create steroids). I think these two products are still undetectable.
Yes those are the sort of things I'm interested in finding out more about.
Why?
Dennis Noward
Because I'd like to be able to hold an informed view. Is that too much to ask?
I doubt very seriously that you will ever be "informed" about any of this. You are dealing in pure speculation. Just a bunch of what ifs and could be's. You will probably find out about this drug or that drug, if, if you can sort out the bullsh*t from actual reality(if
there is such a thing as reality in all this). Maybe, eventually, Lance will want to "confess"(if he actually did anything worth confessing to). And then what? I don't
believe you or any of the people posting about this really want to know. That would ruin
everything.
Dennis Noward0 -
Dennis.
If you are not interested in the question of whether Armstrong did or did not dope, why are you reading, let alone posting on this thread? :?0 -
ellieb wrote:Dennis.
If you are not interested in the question of whether Armstrong did or did not dope, why are you reading, let alone posting on this thread? :?
Well, you're right. I don't have any interest in Armstrong. My real interest lies in human nature and why people just can't get enough of "scandals", so to speak. No one
has even attempted to answer that. Is all this about "hero" worship(i.e. some people can't get enough of movie stars)?. Do you defend him because he's your "hero"? Or do you
slam him because he was your "hero" and he devastated you by (supposedly) doing
drugs? Is this what it's all about?
Dennis Noward0 -
if lance is actually brought down, somehow, the only people that will suffer, other than Lance would be just about anyone that his dollars for cancer research will help, or has in the past.
so I'd say, that could be just about everyone. There's no denying that his pursuit/war on cancer is admirable. I hope it (livestrong) contiinues to grow and even strikes oncological gold.0 -
The Lance Armstrong Foundation is not, at least primarily, involved in the funding of research. The funds it does provide to research is truly pitiful, amounting to just 19.1 million US dollars since 1998! (See the LAF site itself). Such a figure would make practically no impression in the billion dollar world of cancer research. Armstrong`s own income is vastly greater, being quoted at 28 million dollars for 2005 alone! I wonder how much of that he donated to the LAF?jhamlin38 wrote:if lance is actually brought down, somehow, the only people that will suffer, other than Lance would be just about anyone that his dollars for cancer research will help, or has in the past. so I'd say, that could be just about everyone.
The LAF website states that it`s primary aim is to `empower the cancer community` saying it will:
`help you understand what to expect, teach you what questions to ask and give you one-on-one support along the way. We help you learn about your treatment options.`
It`s support does not appear to extend to actually paying for cancer treatment and we all know how the privatised US `healthcare system` leaves tens of millions of people without any access to health care. (With many having health insurance also been denied treatment when they need it the most). I also find it ironic that those most responsible for the privatised hell that is the American `health care system` are Armstrong`s corporate and Republican buddies...
As to being a `global` campaign. Short of emphasising the fact that lots of people have cancer around the world, something which is already well understood, I can`t really see what the LAF will do on a global basis. So far the only beneficiaries of its `support` appear to be those living in the USA.
What the Lance Armstrong Foundation does do very effectively is to provide a shield to Armstrong, deflecting criticism as to how he `won` his 7 Tours. Many see this as being a supremely cynical and distasteful ploy. For example listen to what Stephanie McIlvain says about Armstrong`s use of his cancer to deflect criticism during the following talk with Greg Lemond.
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3
Anyhow, there is an interesting story today on the Science of Sport site where it is now being asked whether the Ed Coyle study of Armstrong (Coyle being one of those paid by Armstrong to defend him at the SCA hearing) should be called a `hoax`.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09 ... rrors.html0 -
Actually, he draws a salary from the fund. The foundation exceeds the recommended guidelines in the USA because it spends a very significant amount of funds raised on admin and non-charity related expenses, upto 45% of every dollar raised:aurelio wrote:I wonder how much of that he donated to the LAF?
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.htmlLAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin. While LAF had difficulty raising contributions efficiently, it did prove to be a savvy merchandise marketer. LAF sold over $24 million in merchandise, including the ubiquitous yellow “LIVESTRONG” wristband, as well as clothing, sports gear and even dog leashes. Yet after spending $10 million in solicitation costs, the group brought in only $22 million in contributions, according to AIP’s analysis of LAF’s 2005 financial statements.0 -
Even I am a little stunned by that!Kléber wrote:
Actually, he draws a salary from the fund. The foundation exceeds the recommended guidelines in the USA because it spends a very significant amount of funds raised on admin and non-charity related expenses, upto 45% of every dollar raised:aurelio wrote:I wonder how much of that he donated to the LAF?
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.htmlLAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin. While LAF had difficulty raising contributions efficiently, it did prove to be a savvy merchandise marketer. LAF sold over $24 million in merchandise, including the ubiquitous yellow “LIVESTRONG” wristband, as well as clothing, sports gear and even dog leashes. Yet after spending $10 million in solicitation costs, the group brought in only $22 million in contributions, according to AIP’s analysis of LAF’s 2005 financial statements.
One thing is for sure, the LAF offers great value as PR exercise designed to help protect `The Armstrong Myth`. It has supposely raised 270 million dollars since it was set up, so it seems likely that over 120 million dollars of that has been spent on promoting the LAF and, of course, Armstrong himself. I am so glad I was never, ever tempted to buy one of those dumb wristbands...
From today`s cyclingfansanonymous:
Unfortunately for us, we will hear more about the Second Coming on September 24th, when a certain unnamed rider is rumored to use the bully pulpit provided him by the Clinton Global Initiative conference to provide further details about his comeback plans, which apparently include arrogantly winning bike races as a surefire method to cure cancer the world over (you figure it out). All that other stuff, like trying to whitewash his past, prove he is clean (too late), destroy anyone who says otherwise, and, oh yes, undermine the entire shift toward clean cycling and destroy all the clean teams, well, all that is surely purely secondary....right? Or not. At least one person is happy about the Second Coming. And it gives journalists something to talk about.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Even I am a little stunned by that!Kléber wrote:
Actually, he draws a salary from the fund. The foundation exceeds the recommended guidelines in the USA because it spends a very significant amount of funds raised on admin and non-charity related expenses, upto 45% of every dollar raised:aurelio wrote:I wonder how much of that he donated to the LAF?
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.htmlLAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin. While LAF had difficulty raising contributions efficiently, it did prove to be a savvy merchandise marketer. LAF sold over $24 million in merchandise, including the ubiquitous yellow “LIVESTRONG” wristband, as well as clothing, sports gear and even dog leashes. Yet after spending $10 million in solicitation costs, the group brought in only $22 million in contributions, according to AIP’s analysis of LAF’s 2005 financial statements.
One thing is for sure, the LAF offers great value as PR exercise designed to help protect `The Armstrong Myth`. It has supposely raised 270 million dollars since it was set up, so it seems likely that over 120 million dollars of that has been spent on promoting the LAF and, of course, Armstrong himself. I am so glad I was never, ever tempted to buy one of those dumb wristbands...
From today`s cyclingfansanonymous:
Unfortunately for us, we will hear more about the Second Coming on September 24th, when a certain unnamed rider is rumored to use the bully pulpit provided him by the Clinton Global Initiative conference to provide further details about his comeback plans, which apparently include arrogantly winning bike races as a surefire method to cure cancer the world over (you figure it out). All that other stuff, like trying to whitewash his past, prove he is clean (too late), destroy anyone who says otherwise, and, oh yes, undermine the entire shift toward clean cycling and destroy all the clean teams, well, all that is surely purely secondary....right? Or not. At least one person is happy about the Second Coming. And it gives journalists something to talk about.
A lot of hatred and jealousy here. Odd how some people turn their own inabilities into
rants against people who actually can do what they could never do or tried and failed to do. Case in point, the above quote. I seriously doubt that the above poster ever
accomplished much of anything in the cycling world and probably hates just about
everything. I'm also betting that he lives one hell of a lonely life. Sounds like he would be a real joy to be around. Of course, it all depends if it's his actual feelings or he's just
baiting. Loser in any case.
Dennis Noward0 -
So please explain:
If all his direct competitors were doped up and he beat them by upwards of 8 mins and the next group who we are to asume were clean by some 15 mins why were they even in the pro peleton. Clearly they were all usless or didnt train OR was it that he had access to the best chemists in the world ?
Also explain why:
Almost every one of his team mates, especialy those designated as his "right hand men", Landis, Hamilton, Beloki et al have now all tested positive? And those without the access to the medical chest these days have all failed to perform ?
its no fluk that all the notable recent dopers have been American and had associations with his teams.0 -
bantam_1954 wrote:So please explain:
If all his direct competitors were doped up and he beat them by upwards of 8 mins and the next group who we are to asume were clean by some 15 mins why were they even in the pro peloton. Clearly they were all usless or didnt train OR was it that he had access to the best chemists in the world ?
Also explain why:
Almost every one of his team mates, especialy those designated as his "right hand men", Landis, Hamilton, Beloki et al have now all tested positive? And those without the access to the medical chest these days have all failed to perform ?
its no fluk that all the notable recent dopers have been American and had associations with his teams.
So, you have "proven" it to yourself. Now what? A world wide crusade to convince all of mankind or are you "happy" just knowing that you now know the "truth". I share in your joy of finally finding this disgusting example of a human being guilty of the most heinous crimes imaginable. And your deductive reasoning was a sound a a dollar.
Dennis Noward0 -
Dennis
maybe, just maybe people are interested in whether her doped because they enjoy watching the sport of cycle racing. Explicit in any sport is that there is a set of rules which everyone agrees to abide by. If they don't then the sport becomes meaningless and people have wasted their time and emotional involvement. Something they have enjoyed supporting turns out to have been a sham.
LA's doping or otherwise is relevant to them especially because he seems to be returning but would have been relevant anyway because a major sporting event derives much of its significance from its history & tradition.
In addition if Lance did win his 7 Tdf by doping while saying that he hasn't & agreeing to a set of rules in which he shouldn't then he has effectively committed a fraud & made a lot of money from the suckers who supported him..... Why shouldn't this upset people?
I''m agnostic when it comes to Armstrong's doping, but I really find your attitude rather bemusing.0 -
dennisn wrote:ellieb wrote:Dennis.
If you are not interested in the question of whether Armstrong did or did not dope, why are you reading, let alone posting on this thread? :?
Well, you're right. I don't have any interest in Armstrong. My real interest lies in human nature and why people just can't get enough of "scandals", so to speak. No one
has even attempted to answer that. Is all this about "hero" worship(i.e. some people can't get enough of movie stars)?. Do you defend him because he's your "hero"? Or do you
slam him because he was your "hero" and he devastated you by (supposedly) doing
drugs? Is this what it's all about?
Dennis Noward
So you why did you attack the cycling fans anonymous quote? Why do you feel the need to defend Lance/attack the author.
"Sounds like he would be a real joy to be around. Of course, it all depends if it's his actual feelings or he's just baiting. Loser in any case."
Wow, that's a pretty strong response to a few lines of text.
Cycling has had many years of Lance's actions to note, digest and comment on. Furthermore, we have possibly a CENTURY of doping in one form of another to comment on. Cycling fans find it interesting as it is part of their sport. From a few lines, you conclude that this guy would be horrible company why do you slam him? Is it because you are a closet Lance fanboy? Is it because you are secretly Lance Armstrong?
If you really wanted to find out more about human nature you'd be at your local library reading. Or do you view this topic as some sort of zoo?You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
A lot of hatred and jealousy here. Odd how some people turn their own inabilities into
rants against people who actually can do what they could never do or tried and failed to do. Case in point, the above quote. I seriously doubt that the above poster ever
accomplished much of anything in the cycling world and probably hates just about
everything. I'm also betting that he lives one hell of a lonely life. Sounds like he would be a real joy to be around. Of course, it all depends if it's his actual feelings or he's just
baiting. Loser in any case.
Dennis Noward
Dennis: less of the personal attacks please. It makes it very unpalatable to read this forum if you have to wade through such vitriol.0 -
Jez mon wrote:dennisn wrote:ellieb wrote:Dennis.
If you are not interested in the question of whether Armstrong did or did not dope, why are you reading, let alone posting on this thread? :?
Well, you're right. I don't have any interest in Armstrong. My real interest lies in human nature and why people just can't get enough of "scandals", so to speak. No one
has even attempted to answer that. Is all this about "hero" worship(i.e. some people can't get enough of movie stars)?. Do you defend him because he's your "hero"? Or do you
slam him because he was your "hero" and he devastated you by (supposedly) doing
drugs? Is this what it's all about?
Dennis Noward
So you why did you attack the cycling fans anonymous quote? Why do you feel the need to defend Lance/attack the author.
"Sounds like he would be a real joy to be around. Of course, it all depends if it's his actual feelings or he's just baiting. Loser in any case."
Wow, that's a pretty strong response to a few lines of text.
Cycling has had many years of Lance's actions to note, digest and comment on. Furthermore, we have possibly a CENTURY of doping in one form of another to comment on. Cycling fans find it interesting as it is part of their sport. From a few lines, you conclude that this guy would be horrible company why do you slam him? Is it because you are a closet Lance fanboy? Is it because you are secretly Lance Armstrong?
If you really wanted to find out more about human nature you'd be at your local library reading. Or do you view this topic as some sort of zoo?
All I have really been asking all along is why do people seem to have this great hatred
or almost godlike admiration of a person they have never met and likely have never seen?
It amazes me that people have either put him on an altar and bow down to him or have
condemned him to the gates of hell. Is it hatred born out of jealousy because they know that they will never do anything like he did and it just gnaws at them day and night? Or
has he become a "God" to some simply because he's a cyclist and has performed great
deeds that need to be praised? There are many from both camps and they use whatever they find, true or false, to advance there theory and none of them know a damn thing.
What will you do if you ever find out the "truth"? Too bad - soap opera over and you'll have to find another to watch and someone else to hate / love.
Dennis Noward0 -
Dennis, no worries; I can understand the point. When it comes to Armstrong people do either love him or loathe him and you're right, it is pointless. I am presuming very few have met the guy, as I have said before somewhere else on this forum. I think, and I could be totally wrong, that people choose to dislike him, with no knowledge of his character, other than what we see on TV or read about, simply because the guy's American and a bit too sure of himself. I mean, who has won a single Tour De France being unsure of their own ability? Nobody.
I am a fan because he's won the Tour seven times and he was, regardless of what you believe regarding drugs, an amazing athlete during the period. Anybody who can ride the way he did and win the Tour like he did year after year is going to be a hero for a lot of people. Nothing wrong with that as a measured dose. Nothing wrong with a bit of scepticism either. Aurelio goes way beyond sceptical, by the way. You're talking about irrational hatred to inspire the crusade he's on. Maybe he likes to read L'Equipe a lot? I don't know on that one either.0 -
Kléber wrote:
Actually, he draws a salary from the fund. The foundation exceeds the recommended guidelines in the USA because it spends a very significant amount of funds raised on admin and non-charity related expenses, upto 45% of every dollar raised:aurelio wrote:I wonder how much of that he donated to the LAF?
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.htmlLAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin. While LAF had difficulty raising contributions efficiently, it did prove to be a savvy merchandise marketer. LAF sold over $24 million in merchandise, including the ubiquitous yellow “LIVESTRONG” wristband, as well as clothing, sports gear and even dog leashes. Yet after spending $10 million in solicitation costs, the group brought in only $22 million in contributions, according to AIP’s analysis of LAF’s 2005 financial statements.
Fair enough, the charity isn't particularly well administered but it's hardly Oxfam spending 80% on admin (as they were in the not so distant past). That report seems to be into direct funding/contributions while my understanding was that LAF was as much about lobbying as direct fundraising, for example engaging in the drive to get Proposition 15 passed in Texas:
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/091008 ... 2165.shtml
Added to whic Armstrong's only really been throwing himself at the LAF stuff since retiring... in 2005.0 -
leguape wrote:Fair enough, the charity isn't particularly well administered but it's hardly Oxfam spending 80% on admin (as they were in the not so distant past).
You are being particularly stupid and dangerous perpetuating this myth. Oxfam's administration and fund raising costs have never exceeded 20%.
Slag of or praise the LAF as much as you want but plesae do not damage the reputation of a charity that does excellent work addressing and resolving issues (- not just "raising awareness") by making such stupid comments. As lazy people will belive you and repeat the statement in the future as a truth.0
