Lance Armstrong's confession to doping... What do you think? (3 Viewers)

[ando08182]

Has your perception of him changed? Does his contribution to tackling Cancer with his foundation outweigh what he has done wrong? Give me your 2 cents!

 

[tywebb]

Watch them first:

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of_V4LmlML0

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSfGJA-lwcg

 

[eshay lad 69]

all of them dope he just got caught. it takes nothing away from what he achieved.

cancer research> trophies

realtalk.

 

[asadass]

He's a manipulative cheat who sued people that tried to spread the truth.

Get ready for a tonne of law suits, Lance.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

all of them dope he just got caught. it takes nothing away from what he achieved.

cancer research> trophies

realtalk.

m8.

It's a disgrace to sport.

Yes, his cancer research foundation makes up for it kinda but in terms of keeping his achievements, most likely not.

I heard for the 2005 French Open for tennis, according to Hewitt:

Some guy doped all the way to the final but luckily Nadal won it and gave the kunt a beating so there was a worthy winner.

If someone like Federer used drugs, I don't think you can say ''it takes nothing away from what he achieved''

just my 2 cents

 

[planino]

If someone like Federer used drugs

Reading that gave me the chills!

 

[eshay lad 69]

m8.

It's a disgrace to sport.

Yes, his cancer research foundation makes up for it kinda but in terms of keeping his achievements, most likely not.

I heard for the 2005 French Open for tennis, according to Hewitt:

Some guy doped all the way to the final but luckily Nadal won it and gave the kunt a beating so there was a worthy winner.

If someone like Federer used drugs, I don't think you can say ''it takes nothing away from what he achieved''

just my 2 cents

I suppose if you are naive enough to think he is the only person doping you might think he's a disgrace, however someone who has come from having cancer to landing on the moon and then onto winning 7 tour de Frances is incredible.

Fun fact

"20 of the 21 podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit (a blood test to discover EPO use) threshold".

At the end of the day cycling is just a sport. He has contributed massively to cancer research and any of his actions within the sport take nothing away from what he has helped in the research.

If someone like Federer used drugs (provided a relatively low percentage of other players didnt) then it would definitely take away from what he achieved, however in using drugs lance was put on a level playing field with the other competitors so its hardly a fair analogy.

 

[asadass]

I suppose if you are naive enough to think he is the only person doping you might think he's a disgrace, however someone who has come from having cancer to landing on the moon and then onto winning 7 tour de Frances is incredible.

What are you on about?

Fun fact

"20 of the 21 podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit (a blood test to discover EPO use) threshold".

And Armstrong is just another one (if not the leader) of these people discrediting the sport.

At the end of the day cycling is just a sport. He has contributed massively to cancer research and any of his actions within the sport take nothing away from what he has helped in the research.

Considering he literally made millions of the back of his false titles (estimated worth of 125 million) i'd say this is a bit more than "just a sport." He defrauded millions of dollars in winnings, let alone endorsements.

And how about all the kids who looked up to armstrong as a sporting hero? After supporting the muppet for over a decade they find out that he's a fraud. He's definitely disapointed millions of kids.

If someone like Federer used drugs (provided a relatively low percentage of other players didnt) then it would definitely take away from what he achieved, however in using drugs lance was put on a level playing field with the other competitors so its hardly a fair analogy.

The guy probably took far more than his competitors, seeing as he won the tour de france 7 times in a row, and after coming back from cancer. If he wanted a level playing field, he could have ratted out his friends/competitors. Instead, he decided to take advantage of the system and even coerced the rest of his team to do drugs with him. His only achievement is manipulating all people he comes into contact with.

Lets just remember how his foundation was successful in the first place: a cancer surviver who became a sporting hero. If he mentioned he was also a drug cheat, maybe the millions in donations would have gone to a more reputable charity.

 

[eshay lad 69]

And Armstrong is just another one (if not the leader) of these people discrediting the sport.

im struggling to see the point you are trying to make here.

The guy probably took far more than his competitors, seeing as he won the tour de france 7 times in a row, and after coming back from cancer. If he wanted a level playing field, he could have ratted out his friends/competitors. Instead, he decided to take advantage of the system and even coerced the rest of his team to do drugs with him. His only achievement is manipulating all people he comes into contact with.

1. Strong assumption and knowledge of steriods. Instead of blaming the drugs why not look at his endurance and fortitude that got him there.
2. LOL! you actually think if a competitor got 'ratted out' they would just accept it and quit cycling? No chance. They would take him and everyone else with him.

Lets just remember how his foundation was successful in the first place: a cancer surviver who became a sporting hero. If he mentioned he was also a drug cheat, maybe the millions in donations would have gone to a more reputable charity.

You think if he was open about drug use he could run his charity, let alone cycle competitively? Get real. If people feel miffed about having donated money to a charity purely because of this incident they need to re-asses their life (or at least the reason why they donated money in the first place whether it be because lance was the pretty head of it or because the money went to cancer research).

 

[asadass]

im struggling to see the point you are trying to make here.

You're trying to justify his actions by saying "everyone else was cheating, why shouldn't I?" Therefore, he is only contributing to that statistic rather than trying clean up his sport. What about the kid that's been training all his life for the tour de france and ends up missing out on the podium because cheating scum like Armstrong are taking up all the top spots?

1. Strong assumption and knowledge of steriods. Instead of blaming the drugs why not look at his endurance and fortitude that got him there.
2. LOL! you actually think if a competitor got 'ratted out' they would just accept it and quit cycling? No chance. They would take him and everyone else with him.

1. Do you know what performance enhancing drugs do, mate? As the name suggests the ENHANCE YOUR PERFORMANCE. His endurance was far below that of a 'clean' competitor, and his fortitude was non-existent. He lost his fortitude by taking the easy way out and cheating the sport (and himself).

2. So taking out the rest of the drug cheats would be a problem to you? If he had nothing to hide then he should have taken the opportunity to clean up the sport. Perhaps he was never a 'clean' cyclist, and thus, could never accuse others of drug use since he was always the leader of the pack in that respect.

You think if he was open about drug use he could run his charity, let alone cycle competitively? Get real. If people feel miffed about having donated money to a charity purely because of this incident they need to re-asses their life (or at least the reason why they donated money in the first place whether it be because lance was the pretty head of it or because the money went to cancer research).

Of course not, hence he should not have started an organisation which rose to fame all due to the actions of a drugged up, cheating 'athlete.' Considering he started the Livestrong foundation in 1997, he was either cheating before this point (see previous sentence), or chose to put his foundation's reputation on the line by taking drugs in order to further his OWN success.

The donators should feel miffed. They were lied to for over a decade by this idiot ("i am not a drug cheat" etc, and my personal favourites, suing those who accused him of cheating). I doubt an organisation that was essentially formed on a lie will be able to survive. Considering there are over 1.3 million charities in the USA alone, i would feel pretty annoyed and betrayed to have given to the one that was run by a manipulative lyer.

 

[TheGreatest99.95]

there are cheats in every sport! why are you allowed cortisone injections (which is a steroid) to keep on playing with pain but not use anabolic steroids or EPO?
why can tiger woods have laser eye surgery to have 20/15 vision? this is better than prefect vision for a human; especially in a game that would benefit him a lot.

some cheating is frowned upon whilst other forms are allowed. itll always be in sport

 

[jamesischool]

I suppose if you are naive enough to think he is the only person doping you might think he's a disgrace, however someone who has come from having cancer to landing on the moon and then onto winning 7 tour de Frances is incredible.

Fun fact

"20 of the 21 podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit (a blood test to discover EPO use) threshold".

At the end of the day cycling is just a sport. He has contributed massively to cancer research and any of his actions within the sport take nothing away from what he has helped in the research.

If someone like Federer used drugs (provided a relatively low percentage of other players didnt) then it would definitely take away from what he achieved, however in using drugs lance was put on a level playing field with the other competitors so its hardly a fair analogy.

-ultimate facepalm-


in my opinion the his cycling and contributions to cancer are completely separate. i have no respect for him or anyone else who not only cheat but lie and are then exposed for what they are.
on the other hand his contributions to cancer research have been beneficial to society but they in no way alter the shit he has helped to land the sport of cycling in

 

[barbernator]

I have won as many tour de frances as Lance Armstrong

 

[RealiseNothing]

I suppose if you are naive enough to think he is the only person doping you might think he's a disgrace, however someone who has come from having cancer to landing on the moon and then onto winning 7 tour de Frances is incredible.

:')

A True Hero.

 

[barbernator]

there are cheats in every sport! why are you allowed cortisone injections (which is a steroid) to keep on playing with pain but not use anabolic steroids or EPO?
why can tiger woods have laser eye surgery to have 20/15 vision? this is better than prefect vision for a human; especially in a game that would benefit him a lot.

some cheating is frowned upon whilst other forms are allowed. itll always be in sport

have you ever played golf? you don't need good vision to play haha.

 

[AAEldar]

have you ever played golf? you don't need good vision to play haha.

You're joking right? You need a *very* keen eye for golf.

As for Lance - we'll see what the public backlash is like.

 

[TheGreatest99.95]

have you ever played golf? you don't need good vision to play haha.

yes i have and even got a hole in one. i can tell you that good eye sight plays a major role. it would help greatly in putting; as they say: drive for show, putt for dough

 

[barbernator]

You're joking right? You need a *very* keen eye for golf.

As for Lance - we'll see what the public backlash is like.

No I'm actually not joking. With caddies, GPS, practice rounds, drawn up greens etc. etc. I don't think that "better than perfect" eyesight would make a difference.

Edit: when I said "good eyesight" I am just saying normal eyesight as opposed to perfect eyesight would make extremely minimal difference.

yes i have and even got a hole in one. i can tell you that good eye sight plays a major role. it would help greatly in putting; as they say: drive for show, putt for dough

what do u play off?

 

[RivalryofTroll]

17:55 to 20:20

 

[TheGreatest99.95]

No I'm actually not joking. With caddies, GPS, practice rounds, drawn up greens etc. etc. I don't think that "better than perfect" eyesight would make a difference.

Edit: when I said "good eyesight" I am just saying normal eyesight as opposed to perfect eyesight would make extremely minimal difference.



what do u play off?

i stopped when the hsc started i went from a handicap of 27 to 13 in 6 months. wish i kept playing