Tyler sinks the Lance

Tusher

Marie Curie

MacMillan

Cancer Research

et al



And not forgetting our wonderful, much maligned NHS



I'm not knocking Livestrong, but I agree- there are many other cancer charities out there

StanwaySteve62

EKIMIKE wrote:

StanwaySteve62 wrote:

... or is it the people who would be fickle enough to not donate upon LA's possible downfall who lack moral fibre?

Do remember that it's probably 75% plus of Americans that generate that fund so yes the fickle element would concern me

StanwaySteve62

My quote went wrong above

EKIMIKE

So maybe we should be questioning their actions rather than the actions of a right and proper Justice system....

Just sayin...

StanwaySteve62

Tusher wrote:

Marie Curie

MacMillan

Cancer Research

et al



And not forgetting our wonderful, much maligned NHS



I'm not knocking Livestrong, but I agree- there are many other cancer charities out
there

Of course this is true but not quite the point

StanwaySteve62

CyclingBantam wrote:

So because some people would be hurt someone else should go unpunished for their crimes? That seems a strange viewpoint to me.

Also, there is debate if Lance was as bad or worse than the others. With great power, which he clearly had, comes great responsibility. Corny cliche I know, but valid.

Of course, however at this point he is not guilty, just be sad to see innocent people suffer in the name of the "truth"

knedlicky

Why does giving to charity require a figurehead? Giving to get a yellow band has a poser aspect.
There are lots of cancer charities one can contribute to, some with celebrities as figurehead if one needs an identification figure, like that of Jose Carreras.
Maybe even the Livestrong organisation could continue even after LA's personal downfall (if one believes in its value, and if it actually has value).

No_Ta_Doctor

StanwaySteve62 wrote:

Tusher wrote:

Marie Curie

MacMillan

Cancer Research

et al



And not forgetting our wonderful, much maligned NHS



I'm not knocking Livestrong, but I agree- there are many other cancer charities out
there

Of course this is true but not quite the point

Well perhaps Lance should have thought of that before he set himself up as a such a flawed figurehead? It's a bit late now though, he's on his way down and I can't see anything to break his fall. It's happening. Be pleased that there are so many other charities out there doing good work without being spearheaded by a charismatic drugs cheat.

CyclingBantam

StanwaySteve62 wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

So because some people would be hurt someone else should go unpunished for their crimes? That seems a strange viewpoint to me.

Also, there is debate if Lance was as bad or worse than the others. With great power, which he clearly had, comes great responsibility. Corny cliche I know, but valid.

Of course, however at this point he is not guilty, just be sad to see innocent people suffer in the name of the "truth"

We all know he is currently 'innocent' however he is being investigated and therefore may be proven guilty?

If you say "of course", I don't know which point you are refering to but you seem to be implying you agree with me but then you imply he shouldn't be persued?

I am also reading from your comments that this will badly affect people. Do you not think that is patronising? It is implying to me that you think the story of Lance is the only thing that keeps them going. Dissapointed, sure, destroyed, no way.

EKIMIKE

StanwaySteve62 wrote:

Of course, however at this point he is not guilty, just be sad to see innocent people suffer in the name of the "truth"

Now you're missing the point. It's not "truth", it's truth. Proper, real, truth. LA has as much to gain as he does to lose such is the nature of the adversarial system.

The question is simple, did he and his team commit sporting fraud?

Essentially you're arguing that if the donations dry up then the Justice system is to blame. In reality if the donations dry up then it is those who choose to not donate that are to blame. Far more people would suffer without a fair Justice system than would suffer without a cancer charity. It's not PC but it's true. It's also particularly valid considering many other cancer charities exist.

It is you who is missing the point. That point is Justice under the Rule of Law.

StanwaySteve62

knedlicky wrote:

Why does giving to charity require a figurehead?

Maybe not In the UK, but I could be wrong but have always considered the LAF American. Hence their need of a figurehead, it's not as if he got behind a charity, he did kick it off.

StanwaySteve62

I'm off to bed, my head hurts

No_Ta_Doctor

StanwaySteve62 wrote:

Maybe not In the UK, but I could be wrong but have always considered the LAF American. Hence their need of a figurehead, it's not as if he got behind a charity, he did kick it off.

There were cancer charities in America before him, there will be cancer charities in America after him.

Some of them might even be better off when he's gone... There's only so much money to go round in the charity world.

StanwaySteve62

No tA Doctor wrote:

StanwaySteve62 wrote:

Maybe not In the UK, but I could be wrong but have always considered the LAF American. Hence their need of a figurehead, it's not as if he got behind a charity, he did kick it off.

There were cancer charities in America before him, there will be cancer charities in America after him.

Some of them might even be better off when he's gone... There's only so much money to go round in the charity world.

Point taken, I'm really off to bed mow

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

Do you like apples?

Do you?

I do.

Especially Them Apples.

:?:

CyclingBantam

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Do you like apples?

Do you?

I do.

Especially Them Apples.

:?:

I think he's getting at the news that 'Big George' has testified against Armstrong.

Pokerface

SO - if the story IS true and Big George has rolled on Lance, is that enough credibility? I can see people wanting to doubt Tyler and Landis, but certainly not George.

CyclingBantam

I'm not sure I can see a point where Lance stops denying it. Not sure how he would refer to Hincapie testifying, maybe just ignore or deny it. I gues we will never officially know what ayone has said. Can't see Hincapie confirming what he said.

No_Ta_Doctor

CyclingBantam wrote:

I'm not sure I can see a point where Lance stops denying it. Not sure how he would refer to Hincapie testifying, maybe just ignore or deny it. I gues we will never officially know what ayone has said. Can't see Hincapie confirming what he said.

IF It's true then a trial looks a lot more likely.

What way can LA go other than to carry on denying, even if he gets convicted?

CyclingBantam

Well, he could tell the truth but I guess that is a bit far out!

I agree that he will continue to deny but he can do anything he chooses. It is only him that is stopping himself telling the truth... (erm... not that I'm sure he isn't already... )

Snorebens

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/ ... rue_174876

Bring it all down - is anyone left FFS

Time for JV to speak

CyclingBantam

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13481408

The more widespread this goes the more credibility it will be viewd with. Is this all about to blow up?

Bakunin

Pokerface wrote:

SO - if the story IS true and Big George has rolled on Lance, is that enough credibility? I can see people wanting to doubt Tyler and Landis, but certainly not George.

Yes, Hincapie has not been caught in lies like Tyler and Landis. But does Hincapie have credibility? For the feds, sure. But for the majority of people who would be critical of LA over the years, many would also be critical of Hincapie.

Compared to other dopers, Hincapie has had an easy ride. The fact that he is considered a nice guy has allowed him to dodge tough questions. I see Hancapie, the Hog and LA as the unholy trinity, not much difference between the three.

It is good when teammates talk, and it appears that Lance finally may be cooked, but today is a good day because we finally get to boo and heckle Hincapie. He -- like Ricco, DiLuca, Contador, Vino, Basso, Valverde (and the other cheats) -- deserves it.

The sooner he goes away the better.

cajun_cyclist

This article is much like the BBC article mentioned above. I guess both of these stories were only filed in the last few hours.

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/ind ... 62387123f0

A report by "60 Minutes" says George Hincapie, a longtime member of Lance Armstrong's inner circle, has told federal authorities he saw the seven-time Tour de France winner use performance-enhancing drugs.

George, yes, I'd see he came out with a line of cycling gear as well. I guess the Feds are cracking down, little room to "take the 5th" as they say, meaning you will not testify as that it could incriminate oneself. I guess these people would only get in trouble if they refused to answer questions. Contempt of court.

Teddy Westside

Guilty or innocent, it's loking increasingly gloomy for Armstrong's reputation. I really want him to be innocent of any doping, if only because I want to watch a clean sport one day, but if he's a drugs cheat, I want it out in the open as soon as possible so we can move on.

Lance is always quoted as saying "Hundreds of tests, never a positive" or similar, but has he ever actually said, "I have never taken a banned substance"?

P_Tucker

CyclingBantam wrote:

So because some people would be hurt someone else should go unpunished for their crimes? That seems a strange viewpoint to me.

Agreed. No-one with a child would ever get sent to prison using that logic.

P_Tucker

No tA Doctor wrote:

StanwaySteve62 wrote:

Maybe not In the UK, but I could be wrong but have always considered the LAF American. Hence their need of a figurehead, it's not as if he got behind a charity, he did kick it off.

There were cancer charities in America before him, there will be cancer charities in America after him.

Some of them might even be better off when he's gone... There's only so much money to go round in the charity world.

Do you really think it's a zero sum game? I don't know, but if I had to guess I'd say it wasn't - people are fickle - and Stanway has a reasonable point. Not that I think that should shield him from justice.

VerwoodAsh

Frankly, if they are all coming out now to bring down one high profile player - I hope that everyone else connected with cycling where they also can't prove to have a whiter than white background also suffers too.

Yes Armstring should go down - if Livestrong goes with it, then that's a casulty of WAR!.

So to should the Hinchacpe clothing brand, I mean George is admitting he's been a big cheat so should suffer.

What other brands are associated with dopers? Eddy Mercrx Bikes, Pantannin Bikes, Fastio Copi Bikes, LeMond Bikes (Yes I believe he was a doper too), M Cippolini Bikes (he was riding when everyone was doping - so he MUST have been too), and the list goes on.

Justice should be served to one & all - no special cases or people made to look worse than the others.

Hopefully this may bring down a fair few big names - but it will also destroy the UCI. We need cyclign to be abandonded completely and only then from those ashes and a new federation be formed, We may have to go through a few barren years to get there - but at least we are all happy about that.

mooro

Tusher wrote:

I'm not knocking Livestrong, but I agree- there are many other cancer charities out there

...... who actually give a far greater portion of monies raised towards their cause

inkyfingers

Mooro wrote:

Tusher wrote:

I'm not knocking Livestrong, but I agree- there are many other cancer charities out there

...... who actually give a far greater portion of monies raised towards their cause

The people I feel sorry for are those that give their time and energy in good faith to support Livestrong.