NY Times - Cyclists are said to back claims Armstrong doped

lucybears

jerry3571 wrote:

If one person is saved or helped from cancer then I say that I don't care whether he cheated, to me, it was worth it.

-Jerry

SAVED ?

Our Actions
We find new ways to raise awareness, increase outreach and facilitate collaboration in an effort to improve the cancer experience.
http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do
mmm...
nothing to do with research or anything that could actually SAVE a person from cancer

2009
In 2009 we had functional expenses totaling $37,147, 929, and 81 percent of every dollar raised went directly to fund programmatic expenses
http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do/Ou ... Money-Goes
did 81 percent of his appearance fee from the TdU go to fund those programmatic expenses ?
was he riding, as he claims, to promote Livestrong, or was he riding to enrich Armstrong ?

cajun_cyclist

The org vs. com question is fascinating and a valid one and would effect the way I would like to see the outcome.

Originally though, I viewed this that they might catch Lance but it might well be some misdemeanour, a minor offence. And if that were to happen, then I'm not sure if the damage to his reputation would be that great if his punishment is perceived as a slap on the wrist. He's a pretty slippery character, he might then be able to just push on.

TheYorkshireMan

lucybears wrote:

In 2009 we had functional expenses totaling $37,147, 929, and 81 percent of every dollar raised went directly to fund programmatic expenses

Wow, so this thread is still going!

Anyone know what these expenses were? Paying for lawyers or for Armstrong to jet around the world, or maybe paying for the promotion of the foundation?

dennisn

lucybears wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

If one person is saved or helped from cancer then I say that I don't care whether he cheated, to me, it was worth it.

-Jerry

SAVED ?

Our Actions
We find new ways to raise awareness, increase outreach and facilitate collaboration in an effort to improve the cancer experience.
http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do
mmm...
nothing to do with research or anything that could actually SAVE a person from cancer

2009
In 2009 we had functional expenses totaling $37,147, 929, and 81 percent of every dollar raised went directly to fund programmatic expenses
http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do/Ou ... Money-Goes
did 81 percent of his appearance fee from the TdU go to fund those programmatic expenses ?
was he riding, as he claims, to promote Livestrong, or was he riding to enrich Armstrong ?

I don't seem to recall anyone twisting your arm and forcing you to contribute to this or any charity, for that matter. If you think it's all a load of crap, then don't work yourself up over it and keep your money. Can't be much simpler than that. :roll: :roll:

moray_gub

lucybears wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

If one person is saved or helped from cancer then I say that I don't care whether he cheated, to me, it was worth it.





was he riding, as he claims, to promote Livestrong, or was he riding to enrich Armstrong ?

mmm...
nothing to do with research or anything that could actually SAVE a person from cancer

He also said helped maybe you misssed that bit.



Every time LA rides these days or indeed these last few years he promotes Livestrong irrespective of whether he is getting appearance money or not . Move on folks nothing to see here.......

jerry3571

Thanks Moray Gub for that explanation.
I think we're all talking a little bit out of our depth here on the validation of a Charity.
I'm sure that all Charities are under some type of critisism on their spending policy and we must honestly say that most of us here haven't got any idea of whether Livestrong .org/.com is a fantastic charity or not. You can get in to a myriad of arguements of whether a Charity is a worthy cause or not with the example of Donkey Charities generating £20 million annually. I like Donkey's but I also like endangered De Brazza's monkeys. I personally think £20 million is a bit high for helping donkeys and I think that the money should be shared with the Monkeys.
But that is only my uninformed opinion.

I have recently found that the Livestrong website seems to be up there for all kinds of medical assistance when I try to Google stuff. It is a website which provides information which can help people who have the need.
I do find it a bit sad for amateurs, as most of us are, to try to sink something which seems to be trying to do some good.

Lance is now gone and we need to get over it.

-Jerry

moray_gub

jerry3571 wrote:

I do find it a bit sad for amateurs, as most of us are, to try to sink something which seems to be trying to do some good.

Lance is now gone and we need to get over it.

-Jerry

Well said Irrespective of whether you like him or not only the most bitter of people can say his charity is not doing some sort of good.

+1 to your last bit.

iainf72

jerry3571 wrote:

I have recently found that the Livestrong website seems to be up there for all kinds of medical assistance when I try to Google stuff. It is a website which provides information which can help people who have the need.

That's the .com site, no?

Livestrong the charity is a strong brand. The Demand Media for profit site used the Livestrong name to get recognition and traffic. They're floating publically and Armstrong is set to make a lot of money off it (multi-millions)

I don't really care - Using a charity name for a for-profit business is not unusual in the US.

lucybears

dennisn wrote:

I don't seem to recall anyone twisting your arm and forcing you to contribute to this or any charity, for that matter. If you think it's all a load of crap, then don't work yourself up over it and keep your money. Can't be much simpler than that. :roll: :roll:

Can't be much simpler than that

then why do most of the people I talk to who have donated to Livestrong think it funds cancer research ?

dennisn

lucybears wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I don't seem to recall anyone twisting your arm and forcing you to contribute to this or any charity, for that matter. If you think it's all a load of crap, then don't work yourself up over it and keep your money. Can't be much simpler than that. :roll: :roll:

Can't be much simpler than that

then why do most of the people I talk to who have donated to Livestrong think it funds cancer research ?

Don't ask me. You're the one who's all involved in this LA thing. Not me. If you don't like it don't contribute. If people you know want to give, let them. What business is it of yours
who they give or don't give to? :roll: :roll:

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

Don't ask me. You're the one who's all involved in this LA thing. Not me. If you don't like it don't contribute. If people you know want to give, let them. What business is it of yours
who they give or don't give to? :roll: :roll:

All he's saying, Scooter, is if people think they're donating to RESEARCH they're wrong. So if someone throws 100 bucks at a charity thinking it goes towards finding a cure, they'd be wrong and if that's what they wanted perhaps their dollar bills would be better used by another charity.

inkyfingers

At the end of the day you shouldn't hand over any money to anyone without doing your due diligence on them first, whether it's a charity or a building company.

cajun_cyclist

Don't ask me. You're the one who's all involved in this LA thing. Not me. If you don't like it don't contribute. If people you know want to give, let them. What business is it of yours
who they give or don't give to?

Oh come on now, this is just being rude, nearly everyone is concerned with where there donations to charitable contributions go.

I have seen one person uses the "Lance Armstrong Foundation" logo as their avatar and I believe I commented about 2 weeks ago how there seem to be "Liverstrong" cycling clubs or groups out there and Lance went to one of the Dakotas to plug the charity and in fact, his charity was making some contribution there and many cyclists showed up. The Dakotas are about as remote and rural of a place that can be if Lance is living high on the hog, going to Sioux City South Dakota I think would not reflect this. All we are doing is discussing the issue.

Note, LAF, Lance Armstrong Foundation gets good Charity Reviews from BBB, Better Business Bureau:

Conclusion:

Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF) meets the 20 Standards for Charity Accountability.

http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/nati ... in-tx-3996

So there is more to this equation than what we are discussing and like anything there is much to find on the net.

A lot on the page above including financial statements.

---

How these Livestrong websites connect up, I have no idea and have not spent a lot of time reading them but have seen them in regards to providing answers about all kinds of subjects, at least healthwise. But perhaps if one is donating monies, LAF is the way to go and there website is "livestrong.org."

---

And after all this squawking, we see in fact, the Charity and Lance's work seems to be largely earnest.

I will say again, something to study up again on, I read some foul stories on what happened in Tyler Hamilton's charity with him but that is a whole different scenario and one can research that different matter for themselves.

---

250K for the President/CEO, perhaps he's worth it, still seems to be a lot but hey, he's a CEO of a big organisation.

7% administration expenses of total has to be very good too.

dennisn

cajun_cyclist wrote:

Don't ask me. You're the one who's all involved in this LA thing. Not me. If you don't like it don't contribute. If people you know want to give, let them. What business is it of yours
who they give or don't give to?

Oh come on now, this is just being rude, nearly everyone is concerned with where there donations to charitable contributions go.

I have no problem with LA's cancer charity / foundation. I don't contribute to, I do "my own thing", but I don't see any problem with it. Lucybears was the one saying it was
not all on the up and up. Not me. While I will admit to being rude at times I was simply telling Lucyb that if he / she thinks it's a bad thing then avoid it. And let his / her friends do what they choose.

lucybears

dennisn wrote:

Lucybears was the one saying it was
not all on the up and up.

fair enough that you admit to being rude, but can you substantiate your assertion above ? At no time did I say 'it was
not all on the up and up.'
Livestrong may not make it very clear to its donors that none of the funds it raises goes to cancer research, but even Livestrong does not actually lie !

dennisn

lucybears wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Lucybears was the one saying it was
not all on the up and up.

fair enough that you admit to being rude, but can you substantiate your assertion above ? At no time did I say 'it was
not all on the up and up.'
Livestrong may not make it very clear to its donors that none of the funds it raises goes to cancer research, but even Livestrong does not actually lie !

I re-read your post and it still sounds like you were saying that you don't trust Livestrong,
i.e. "not on the up and up". If I don't trust someone my feelings toward them are, well, they are "not on the up and up". No big deal to me if you trust them or don't.

cajun_cyclist

So Lance is doing the TDU, now it seems he is going to do a Triathlon in New Zealand in January in other news.

If Lance Armstrong goes to South Dakota http://www.ksfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=13414256 to give a grant (?) or monies to a cancer centre for their patients to aid in artistic pursuits. Also, surely the LAF gives money to cancer cure researchers, wouldn't you think?

http://www.socaltech.com/livestrong_com ... 32364.html

Kind of gimmicky to me this but perhaps it can be practical.

This story tells that although a program is from livestrong.COM , the monies go to the LAF (Lance Armstrong Foundation).

cajun_cyclist

It's easy to google "Lance Armstrong grants cancer research" to see if such funds do go to research.

Is the below research?? Or just helping Cancer survivors?? That would still be important work.

Building a Foundation for Health for Women of Color will help cancer survivors by providing education, support and assistance in developing strategies to integrate physical activity and healthy eating into their daily lives

M. Tish Knobf, PhD, RN, FAAN, AOCN, American Cancer Society Professor at Yale University School of Nursing and a member of Yale Cancer Center, is the Principal Investigator for a recently received $100,000 grant from the Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF) to support Building a Foundation for Health for Women of Color. YSN was one of 20 community non-profit organizations across the country to receive LAF grants to support cancer research and survivorship initiatives.

http://nursing.yale.edu/News/Features/18/

How about this:

Since awarding its first cancer research grant in 1998 the Lance Armstrong …Pleural mesothelioma is an asbestos-related pulmonary cancer most commonly found in the outer lining of the lungs called the mesothelium. Often mesothelioma patients suffer from pleural effusions, or an accumulation of fluid between the lining of the lung and the chest cavity that can seriously restrict the lung’s ability to expand, even collapsing its supportive tissues, resulting in pain and shortness of breath. Prior to receiving treatment for mesothelioma, patients must have the excess fluid build-up associated with pleural effusions drained and managed.

http://mmc-news.com/2010/11/03/since-aw ... armstrong/

Looks like they in fact, do this, awarding breast cancer research money I saw in one story, look like they do things like this as one of their major aims, different kinds of cancer.

http://livestrongblog.org/2010/01/21/ma ... -in-texas/

The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) took a giant step forward in the fight against cancer Wednesday, awarding its first round of cancer research grants to academic institutions and private companies throughout Texas. The CPRIT oversight committee approved more than $61 million in funding, including the award of 53 individual investigator grants and 13 high impact/ high risk research grants.

Comments on that page are a bit moving.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not here to defend him. In fact, if he cheated in the Tours to win 7 yellow jerseys, it's wrong no matter how much charity work he is doing. We will see.

lucybears

dennisn wrote:

lucybears wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Lucybears was the one saying it was
not all on the up and up.

fair enough that you admit to being rude, but can you substantiate your assertion above ? At no time did I say 'it was
not all on the up and up.'
Livestrong may not make it very clear to its donors that none of the funds it raises goes to cancer research, but even Livestrong does not actually lie !

I re-read your post and it still sounds like you were saying that you don't trust Livestrong,
i.e. "not on the up and up". If I don't trust someone my feelings toward them are, well, they are "not on the up and up". No big deal to me if you trust them or don't.

Then re-read again. as iainf72 pointed out,

All he's saying, Scooter, is if people think they're donating to RESEARCH they're wrong. So if someone throws 100 bucks at a charity thinking it goes towards finding a cure, they'd be wrong and if that's what they wanted perhaps their dollar bills would be better used by another charity.

whiteboytrash

dennisn wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

WisePranker wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

Absolute Poetry!

-Jerry

.

I BELIEVE BUT DON"T REALLY KNOW FOR SURE there is a mountain of evidence against him. There, fixed that for you.

What shocks me in all of this is that people don’t trust their own eyes. Evidence they ask? Evidence is there in front of you. Watch the 1999 Tour and the stage to Seiestre. Do you really think that was possible what Armstrong did? At the time it beggared belief after everything we saw in 1998 that a person coming from nowhere could ride up a mountain so fast that he had to break going around the corners! Rewatch the 2003 Tour up d’Huez. The footage looks like its going at twice the speed. I think all of us know regardless of what our opinion on Armstrong is that he doped along with his team. You don’t need evidence of dope tests or secret files released from Floyd. I think we all know in our heart of hearts that ProCycling from 1999-2006 was a doped up affair. To think Armstrong was the only rider including members of his team that didn’t dope during that period is really cheating yourself. Be honest.

dennisn

whiteboytrash wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

WisePranker wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

Absolute Poetry!

-Jerry

.

I BELIEVE BUT DON"T REALLY KNOW FOR SURE there is a mountain of evidence against him. There, fixed that for you.

What shocks me in all of this is that people don’t trust their own eyes. Evidence they ask? Evidence is there in front of you. Watch the 1999 Tour and the stage to Seiestre. Do you really think that was possible what Armstrong did? At the time it beggared belief after everything we saw in 1998 that a person coming from nowhere could ride up a mountain so fast that he had to break going around the corners! Rewatch the 2003 Tour up d’Huez. The footage looks like its going at twice the speed. I think all of us know regardless of what our opinion on Armstrong is that he doped along with his team. You don’t need evidence of dope tests or secret files released from Floyd. I think we all know in our heart of hearts that ProCycling from 1999-2006 was a doped up affair. To think Armstrong was the only rider including members of his team that didn’t dope during that period is really cheating yourself. Be honest.

Once again, if you have all this evidence then bring it to the proper authorities. You're opinions are not the judge, jury, and executioner in this case. Nothing will happen to LA, or any other rider, because YOU think it should. You're nothing in this whole affair. You don't have any, and I mean any, evidence of anything that would convict anyone of anything. If you do please share it with us. Were you on that famous bus ride? Do you know all these things because you rode with the team for years? NO. The only thing you know is what you've read on the internet and from the sounds of it you will believe just about anything, as long as it's anti LA. Sounds like you've got a problem. Jealousy, envy?
Lance makes you feel like a loser? Well, you did ask for honesty.

whiteboytrash

dennisn wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

WisePranker wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

Absolute Poetry!

-Jerry

.

I BELIEVE BUT DON"T REALLY KNOW FOR SURE there is a mountain of evidence against him. There, fixed that for you.

What shocks me in all of this is that people don’t trust their own eyes. Evidence they ask? Evidence is there in front of you. Watch the 1999 Tour and the stage to Seiestre. Do you really think that was possible what Armstrong did? At the time it beggared belief after everything we saw in 1998 that a person coming from nowhere could ride up a mountain so fast that he had to break going around the corners! Rewatch the 2003 Tour up d’Huez. The footage looks like its going at twice the speed. I think all of us know regardless of what our opinion on Armstrong is that he doped along with his team. You don’t need evidence of dope tests or secret files released from Floyd. I think we all know in our heart of hearts that ProCycling from 1999-2006 was a doped up affair. To think Armstrong was the only rider including members of his team that didn’t dope during that period is really cheating yourself. Be honest.

Once again, if you have all this evidence then bring it to the proper authorities. You're opinions are not the judge, jury, and executioner in this case. Nothing will happen to LA, or any other rider, because YOU think it should. You're nothing in this whole affair. You don't have any, and I mean any, evidence of anything that would convict anyone of anything. If you do please share it with us. Were you on that famous bus ride? Do you know all these things because you rode with the team for years? NO. The only thing you know is what you've read on the internet and from the sounds of it you will believe just about anything, as long as it's anti LA. Sounds like you've got a problem. Jealousy, envy?
Lance makes you feel like a loser? Well, you did ask for honesty.

Oh dear. I've touched raw nerve. Sorry to offend. Who said anything about a bus?

Perhaps the effort you put into judging me and my history (you assume a lot) you could look inward and ask what you believe from what you've seen?

I'd actually like to hear what you think of the performance you've seen and witnessed. Were they clean?

Maybe do a test? Think you can ride up a 20km mountain fast enough to need to break around the hairpins?

josame

dennisn wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

WisePranker wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

Absolute Poetry!

-Jerry

.

I BELIEVE BUT DON"T REALLY KNOW FOR SURE there is a mountain of evidence against him. There, fixed that for you.

What shocks me in all of this is that people don’t trust their own eyes. Evidence they ask? Evidence is there in front of you. Watch the 1999 Tour and the stage to Seiestre. Do you really think that was possible what Armstrong did? At the time it beggared belief after everything we saw in 1998 that a person coming from nowhere could ride up a mountain so fast that he had to break going around the corners! Rewatch the 2003 Tour up d’Huez. The footage looks like its going at twice the speed. I think all of us know regardless of what our opinion on Armstrong is that he doped along with his team. You don’t need evidence of dope tests or secret files released from Floyd. I think we all know in our heart of hearts that ProCycling from 1999-2006 was a doped up affair. To think Armstrong was the only rider including members of his team that didn’t dope during that period is really cheating yourself. Be honest.

Once again, if you have all this evidence then bring it to the proper authorities. You're opinions are not the judge, jury, and executioner in this case. Nothing will happen to LA, or any other rider, because YOU think it should. You're nothing in this whole affair. You don't have any, and I mean any, evidence of anything that would convict anyone of anything. If you do please share it with us. Were you on that famous bus ride? Do you know all these things because you rode with the team for years? NO. The only thing you know is what you've read on the internet and from the sounds of it you will believe just about anything, as long as it's anti LA. Sounds like you've got a problem. Jealousy, envy?
Lance makes you feel like a loser? Well, you did ask for honesty.

Hey Dennis just wait one wee moment there.... thanks

We do have a nice bit of evidence from Mr Landis and a few other pure 'cold light of day' eye witnesses to LA doping - not to mention the Anderson article which in paraphrase indicates 'he doped in 99'

I thank you.

cajun_cyclist

Speculation is a big part of sports and that is one of its attractive qualities. By the rules which many would find flawed, a rider may win a tour but there is room for speculation.

Just like this past world cup had some horrible officiating decisions which while I think the South Africans were great hosts, the poor refereeing still left a taint. I'll even pick a team none of us are probably really connected to, the way Uruguay defeated Ghana with that handball block of a sure goal by Ghana, yes, Uruguay won by the rules of the game, I'm probably even glad they did but it is a very "iffy" win, France got to the world cup by benefit of a hand ball assisted goal, rather gutting to Republic of Ireland fans, it wasn't right but that is how it happens. France won that 2 game series but it's difficult to really call them winners in that instance.

Insults or deroggatory remarks don't help either but who knows where it all started from so I don't care to get into that.

It's a lot of speculation, there is some cyclist out there who rode with Indurain and does accuse him of using performance enhancers. So it goes.

No_Ta_Doctor

whiteboytrash wrote:

dennisn wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

WisePranker wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

Absolute Poetry!

-Jerry

.

I BELIEVE BUT DON"T REALLY KNOW FOR SURE there is a mountain of evidence against him. There, fixed that for you.

What shocks me in all of this is that people don’t trust their own eyes. Evidence they ask? Evidence is there in front of you. Watch the 1999 Tour and the stage to Seiestre. Do you really think that was possible what Armstrong did? At the time it beggared belief after everything we saw in 1998 that a person coming from nowhere could ride up a mountain so fast that he had to break going around the corners! Rewatch the 2003 Tour up d’Huez. The footage looks like its going at twice the speed. I think all of us know regardless of what our opinion on Armstrong is that he doped along with his team. You don’t need evidence of dope tests or secret files released from Floyd. I think we all know in our heart of hearts that ProCycling from 1999-2006 was a doped up affair. To think Armstrong was the only rider including members of his team that didn’t dope during that period is really cheating yourself. Be honest.

Once again, if you have all this evidence then bring it to the proper authorities. You're opinions are not the judge, jury, and executioner in this case. Nothing will happen to LA, or any other rider, because YOU think it should. You're nothing in this whole affair. You don't have any, and I mean any, evidence of anything that would convict anyone of anything. If you do please share it with us. Were you on that famous bus ride? Do you know all these things because you rode with the team for years? NO. The only thing you know is what you've read on the internet and from the sounds of it you will believe just about anything, as long as it's anti LA. Sounds like you've got a problem. Jealousy, envy?
Lance makes you feel like a loser? Well, you did ask for honesty.

Oh dear. I've touched raw nerve. Sorry to offend.

Someone else put this better:

senoj wrote:

I believe this situation has arisen before.

[/quote]

moray_gub

lucybears wrote:

[

All he's saying, Scooter, is if people think they're donating to RESEARCH they're wrong. So if someone throws 100 bucks at a charity thinking it goes towards finding a cure, they'd be wrong and if that's what they wanted perhaps their dollar bills would be better used by another charity.

Many people know exactly what the LAF does and still choose to donate to the charity is that still acceptable to you in this weird charity heirachy you got going ?

dennisn

josame wrote:

dennisn wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

WisePranker wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

Absolute Poetry!

-Jerry

.

I BELIEVE BUT DON"T REALLY KNOW FOR SURE there is a mountain of evidence against him. There, fixed that for you.

What shocks me in all of this is that people don’t trust their own eyes. Evidence they ask? Evidence is there in front of you. Watch the 1999 Tour and the stage to Seiestre. Do you really think that was possible what Armstrong did? At the time it beggared belief after everything we saw in 1998 that a person coming from nowhere could ride up a mountain so fast that he had to break going around the corners! Rewatch the 2003 Tour up d’Huez. The footage looks like its going at twice the speed. I think all of us know regardless of what our opinion on Armstrong is that he doped along with his team. You don’t need evidence of dope tests or secret files released from Floyd. I think we all know in our heart of hearts that ProCycling from 1999-2006 was a doped up affair. To think Armstrong was the only rider including members of his team that didn’t dope during that period is really cheating yourself. Be honest.

Once again, if you have all this evidence then bring it to the proper authorities. You're opinions are not the judge, jury, and executioner in this case. Nothing will happen to LA, or any other rider, because YOU think it should. You're nothing in this whole affair. You don't have any, and I mean any, evidence of anything that would convict anyone of anything. If you do please share it with us. Were you on that famous bus ride? Do you know all these things because you rode with the team for years? NO. The only thing you know is what you've read on the internet and from the sounds of it you will believe just about anything, as long as it's anti LA. Sounds like you've got a problem. Jealousy, envy?
Lance makes you feel like a loser? Well, you did ask for honesty.

Hey Dennis just wait one wee moment there.... thanks

We do have a nice bit of evidence from Mr Landis and a few other pure 'cold light of day' eye witnesses to LA doping - not to mention the Anderson article which in paraphrase indicates 'he doped in 99'

I thank you.

Don't tell me that you have all this evidence. First thing is - you don't have anything. If you did you would be telling us all about being interviewed by "the feds". Have they gotten in touch with you yet? Not yet you say? Hard to believe, seeing as you have all this evidence. Next time simply say that you THINK he's guilty, not that you know. It's not up to you to decide.

finchy

Coming back to this cancer charity - does anyone have any proof that the LAF actually tried to mislead people? I've only ever seen one advert by them, which was by people supported by Livestrong, and that one made no reference to research.

I don't think we should be saying whether or not it is a worthy charity - only the people who are unlucky enough to need its services can answer that one.

jpb08

Good point John, but the "legend" that is LA is based around surviving and beating cancer, and using training, willpower and determination alone in the face of adversity to win 7 tours....Cleanly.....The problem I have is the massive lie that "could" have been told by LA....

No_Ta_Doctor

dennisn wrote:

Don't tell me that you have all this evidence. First thing is - you don't have anything. If you did you would be telling us all about being interviewed by "the feds". Have they gotten in touch with you yet? Not yet you say? Hard to believe, seeing as you have all this evidence. Next time simply say that you THINK he's guilty, not that you know. It's not up to you to decide.

Right, I'm only going to do this once, and I know I shouldn't as its apparently utterly futile, but here goes....

There is lots of evidence that is in the public realm, through eyewitness testimony, investigative journalism, leaked lab test results etc. There is a background of knowledge that doping was absolutely rife at the time LA was winning his tours, and there is the fact that his performances in them were at times literally superhuman. LA even provided some of it himself - does anyone really want to see that graph again?

We all have the ability to access this evidence, so none of us is likely to be approached by the feds, I'm sure they can use google and then talk to the people who originally provided the evidence, which seems to be pretty much what they are doing.

We can all look at this evidence and weigh up the balance of probability, in fact very many of us have done. We have almost universally come to the conclusion that there's no way he could have been clean.

None of us has the power to prosecute LA or ban him, those are judicial powers, but we can all make up our minds.

Over and out.