July 13, 2020, 09:39:06 AM

Author Topic: Lance Armstrong  (Read 5701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2012, 06:33:16 PM »
but in the grand scheme of things nobody really care about cycling

Bakes, the French did. They did not mind an outsider winning one or two Tours, but for "un Americain" to dominate their national pastime "est sacre bleu". It use to drive them crazy. Some of the fans used to scream "...dupee, dupee..." when he passing by.

Elan is talking about domestic coverage of the scandal...

Offline elan

  • Go On ......Get In There!!!!!!!!
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 11620
  • WaRRioR fOr LiFe!!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #31 on: October 18, 2012, 10:22:05 PM »
It's amazing how the media just keep glossing over this. Where's ESPN with all the updates and analysis, and indepth look at how such an event unfolded.

Tiger dominated the air for week without cease, so to did Michael Vick, Bonds. Why no uproar?

Shouldn't Livestrong be renamed, since it was built on Liestrong?

Sometimes I feel you have ah inferiority complex yes fella. 

1) Both Tiger and Bonds were still active at the times of their investigation, Armstrong retire 2-3 years ago. 
2) Bonds eventually retired before the investigation wrapped up, but his were criminal charges.  Armstrong hasn't been charged with a crime... yet.
3) Back then people were already tuning out doping cases... the public kinda over it now, not really that 'news' worthy now.
4) Both Baseball and Golf are bigger than cycling... Armstrong is a big name because he American and because he dominated the sport, but in the grand scheme of things nobody really care about cycling (who was the last person to win the Tour befor Armstrong won his 7 straight?  Who won after he did... can you answer those without Googling?).

Yeah, sometimes I post bias.

I was more looking at it from the angle of the Livestrong foundation. I know cycling not on many radar, but the publicity and financial gains in developing the Livestrong foundation and brand through Armstrong achievements and accomplishments must be looked at. Or does it not matter?
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4</a>

Offline Daft Trini

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3822
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2012, 11:49:36 PM »
Really disappointed in Lance, heard that he was one of the only athletes that could compete with Becks in the beep test. I was skeptical that a man with one testicle was so fit and so athletic.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2012, 11:50:16 PM »
Yeah, sometimes I post bias.

I was more looking at it from the angle of the Livestrong foundation. I know cycling not on many radar, but the publicity and financial gains in developing the Livestrong foundation and brand through Armstrong achievements and accomplishments must be looked at. Or does it not matter?

I think it's fair to shine a spotlight on Livestrong, but that was as much a success because of Armstrong as it was because of Nike.  Armstrong was the face, but the financial muscle came in large part from Nike (sponsoring and then pushing Livestrong merchandise).  I imagine much of their finances came from donations tied to Armstrong's promotion as well, no denying that, but speaking for myself I saw it very much a Nike vehicle as it was Armstrong's.  By that I don't mean that Nike used it to make money... but Nike was the brand on the foundation's gear.  All that to say that I have no issue separating Armstrong's scandal from the Foundation itself... and I wouldn't be surprised if others did as well. 

All that said, the news of him stepping down from the board, and of Nike dropping him (while still supporting Livestrong) was front page news on the NYT, Washington Post and lead off ESPN's SportsCenter coverage.  I don't watch a whole lot of local news, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was covered there as well.

Offline Conquering Lion

  • Tell me how can a man who doh know his roots form his own ideology?
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 674
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #34 on: October 19, 2012, 02:47:01 AM »
Really disappointed in Lance, heard that he was one of the only athletes that could compete with Becks in the beep test. I was skeptical that a man with one testicle was so fit and so athletic.
Really disappointed in Lance, heard that he was one of the only athletes that could compete with Becks in the beep test. I was skeptical that a man with one testicle was so fit and so athletic.

U forget Dwight York?
We fire de old set ah managers we had wukkin..and iz ah new group we went and we bring in. And if the goods we require de new managers not supplying, when election time come back round iz new ones we bringin. For iz one ting about my people I can guarantee..They will never ever vote party b4 country

Offline Peong

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 7092
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #35 on: October 22, 2012, 08:33:49 AM »
All that ridin for nutting.  He got stripped of the 7 Tour de France titles.

Offline D.H.W

  • Forever Man Utd
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 17936
  • "Luck Favours The Prepared"
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2012, 09:09:03 AM »
Yankee love to dope boy.
"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid."
Youtube Channel


Offline Jumbie

  • ~~~ JUMBIE ~~~
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4269
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #37 on: October 22, 2012, 09:11:36 AM »
Was never a fan of Lance, but respected what he did. Real disappointed that it was drug induced.

Offline soccerman

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #38 on: October 22, 2012, 10:45:43 AM »
All that ridin for nutting.  He got stripped of the 7 Tour de France titles.
And banned for life.

Offline davyjenny1

  • duaneoconnor-tt.com
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 1874
    • View Profile
    • http://www.duaneoconnor-tt.com
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #39 on: October 22, 2012, 11:21:47 AM »
Madame Curie ingested radium in her research.  She should be stripped of her Nobel Prize.

 Honestly - who cares.  It's a bicycle race around France for god's sake.
The difference between the possible and
the impossible lies in a person determination.

Your Knowledge is directly related to your potential income.
 http://www.duaneoconnor-tt.com

Offline D.H.W

  • Forever Man Utd
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 17936
  • "Luck Favours The Prepared"
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #40 on: October 22, 2012, 11:46:58 AM »
 ???
"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid."
Youtube Channel


Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #41 on: October 22, 2012, 11:51:18 AM »
More front page news today... in fact I have the NYT app on my phone and dai'z de only news item they 'push' to me this morning.

Offline Dutty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9578
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #42 on: October 22, 2012, 12:43:41 PM »
All that ridin for nutting.  He got stripped of the 7 Tour de France titles.

Titles schmitles...de man get to keep he million$ and he one ball....he eh end up scruntin like marion jones
Little known fact: The online transportation medium called Uber was pioneered in Trinidad & Tobago in the 1960's. It was originally called pullin bull.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #43 on: October 22, 2012, 01:34:03 PM »
All that ridin for nutting.  He got stripped of the 7 Tour de France titles.

Titles schmitles...de man get to keep he million$ and he one ball....he eh end up scruntin like marion jones

Not so fast...

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #44 on: October 22, 2012, 04:09:46 PM »
Hear what///Lance was de best rider still, afterall almost the entire field doping anyway...yuh feel de people who finish second through 300 eh dopers too?

Steups..like Palos saying for de past 8 years...let everybody dope and level de playing field...stop testing lol

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21979
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #45 on: October 22, 2012, 05:33:19 PM »
Hear what///Lance was de best rider still, afterall almost the entire field doping anyway...yuh feel de people who finish second through 300 eh dopers too?

Steups..like Palos saying for de past 8 years...let everybody dope and level de playing field...stop testing lol

All that does is:

a) Ensure that the richest team (who could afford de best doctors and drugs) will win;
b) Send a message to kids (and most importantly, young riders) that the only way to win is to 'cheat', or put in the context you describe... to get the best drugs to help you win.

I'm sure you being facetious, but in the even you're not... neither of these is an ideal solution.  Quite the opposite, I think the fact that the biggest name (perhaps ever) in all of cycling, it's most decorated rider (again, maybe of all time... certainly of the modern age), it's richest star... has been brought low and shamed within the sport.  Riders don't race to become rich... they hope to, but tha that's not why they take up the sport.  If they want to be rich there might be easier paths to riches in other sports.  Instead they ride because they love the sport... and therefore their reputation in the sport matters to them... they don't want to be shamed within the cycling community and certainly don't want to be ostracized as he has.  Armstrong will have his money, though how much of that he'll keep is currently in dispute.  He'll never again ride competitively, and never again be received warmly within the international fraternity.

Offline Tallman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 22708
    • View Profile
Lance Armstrong’s fall: A case for allowing performance enhancement
« Reply #46 on: October 26, 2012, 01:04:57 PM »
Lance Armstrong’s fall: A case for allowing performance enhancement
By Brad Allenby (Washington Post)


In the past month, cyclist Lance Armstrong has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. His commercial sponsors, including Nike, have fled. He has resigned as chairman of Livestrong, the anti-cancer charity he founded. Why? Because the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and the International Cycling Union say he artificially enhanced his performance in ways not approved by his sport and helped others on his team do the same.

This may seem like justice, but that’s an illusion. Whether Armstrong cheated is not the core consideration. Rather, his case shows that enhancement is here to stay. If everyone’s enhancing, it’s a reality that we should embrace.

Look at any sport. People are running, swimming and biking faster and farther; linemen are bulkier than ever; sluggers have bigger muscles and hit more home runs. This might be due to better nutrition. Perhaps it is a result of legally prescribed drugs. Heck, it might simply be because of better training. But illegal enhancement has never been more evident or more popular.

Moreover, enhancement science — pharmacology, nanotechnology, biotechnology and genetics — is more sophisticated. A recent Nature article, for example, discusses oxygen-carrying particles that could be inserted in athletes’ blood and DNA therapies that could enhance muscle performance.

In an earlier time, rules limiting the use of such technology may have been a brave attempt to prevent cheating. Now, they are increasingly ineffectual. Humans are becoming a design space. That athletes are on the cutting edge of this engineering domain is neither a prediction nor a threat. It is the status quo.

Get over it.

Professional athletes didn’t always make big bucks, so when enhancement techniques were primitive, the payoff wasn’t necessarily worth the health risks. And with less demand, there were fewer nerds in fewer laboratories creating enhancement technologies. Anabolic steroids, for example, weren’t developed until the 1930s. Can you imagine Babe Ruth using a low-oxygen chamber that simulated a high-altitude environment to increase his red-blood-cell count and improve his respiratory system’s efficiency? That’s just one new way a player can get an edge.

Today, the gap between superstar athletes and almost-stars is rapidly growing. The benefits of being at the top of your game — money, sponsors, cars, houses, movie careers, book deals and groupies — have never been clearer. After all, how many lucrative marketing contracts go to bronze medalists?

To perform consistently, 21st-century athletes enhance legally with better gear, specialized diets, physical trainers, vitamin B, and energy drinks and gels. Why not add drugs and other technologies to the list of legal enhancements, especially when most of us are enhancing our workplace concentration with a morning coffee or energy shot?

In my engineering and sustainability classes, I ask my students how many have played sports in high school or college. Usually, at least half raise their hands. Then I ask how many know people who enhanced illegally. The hands stay up, even if I limit the question to high school athletes. Enhancement — legal or illegal, according to confused, arbitrary and contradictory criteria — is pervasive. Indeed, surveys show that significant numbers of non-athletes, especially in high school and college, use steroids to try to improve their appearance rather than to augment their play on the field. This should not be surprising, given the popularity of other cosmetic-enhancement techniques such as discretionary plastic surgery, even among young people.

Armstrong’s alleged doping in the Tour de France is just more evidence that human excellence is increasingly a product of enhancement.

Mischaracterizing a fundamental change in sports as merely individual violations of the rules has serious consequences. For example, this thinking has led to inadequate research on the risks of enhancement technologies, especially new ones. Why research something that can’t be used? My anecdotal class surveys show that students have significant skepticism about the reported side effects of such treatments and drugs, as well as perceptions of bias among regulators against enhancement. As a result of such attitudes, there’s a tendency to play down the risks of some technologies. Call it the “Reefer Madness” response — ignoring real risks because you think the danger is exaggerated. This is ignorance born of prohibition.

What should be done? Past a certain age, athletes should be allowed to use whatever enhancements they think appropriate based on objective data. Providing reliable information about the full range of technologies should become the new mission of a (renamed) Anti-Doping Agency, one not driven by an anti-enhancement agenda. It wouldn’t have to be a free-for-all: Age limits and other appropriate regulations could limit dangerous enhancements for non-professionals; those that are too risky could be restricted or, yes, banned.

How? Perhaps the Food and Drug Administration could take over these duties from the Anti-Doping Agency, using its own calculus. Is the proposed enhancement technology effective? Does it hurt more than it helps? It’s doubtful that a genetic enhancement, for example, would be allowed. The field is too new. However, some supplements such as creatine, alphalipoic acid and at least some currently banned steroids would probably be acceptable.

In professional sports, normal people do not compete normally. We watch athletes who are enhanced — through top-notch training, equipment and sometimes illegal substances — compete for our amusement. And, despite our sanctimonious claims that this is wrong, we like it that way. So we do athletes a deep disservice by clinging to our whimsical illusion of reality at the cost of their livelihood. If we allow football players to take violent hits and suffer concussions so that we might be entertained, why not allow them to use substances that might cause them health problems? It’s their decision.

If you yearn to watch “purer” athletes, check out a Division III football game. Visit the minor league ballpark near you. Set up an amateur league. Better yet, train for a marathon au naturel.

But don’t force the Tour de France to cling to outdated ideas of how athletes pedaling for their professional lives should behave. Cyclists have enhanced, are enhancing now and will continue to enhance. In his stubborn refusal to admit guilt in the face of the evidence, maybe this is what Armstrong is trying to tell us.
The Conquering Lion of Judah shall break every chain.

Offline Deeks

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 17438
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #47 on: October 26, 2012, 04:25:26 PM »
If they ever allow performance enhancement drugs, they might as well give back Ben Johnson his medal.

Offline asylumseeker

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 16074
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #48 on: January 09, 2013, 04:46:16 PM »
All now Oprah plotting how yuh make Armstrong cry.
"It is not possible to make successful policy in a state of ignorance or indifference to what goes on in the real world." --- Martin Daly.

giggsy11

  • Guest
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #49 on: January 09, 2013, 07:19:40 PM »
All now Oprah plotting how yuh make Armstrong cry.

They are both phonies. Oprah also probably plotting how, and when she will turn on the tears during the interview. Mark my words, there will be time when she wells up with emotion.

AirMan

  • Guest
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #50 on: January 18, 2013, 08:02:44 AM »
This writer took some sharp hits at Lance Armstrong..

Quote
The fact he has chosen to bare all on Oprah, demonstrates just how far he has fallen – after all many losers have pleaded their case when, frankly it is probably too late and they are clutching at straws and their performance fee. Armstrong texted that he had put his whole story on the table and that is was up to the public to come to their own conclusions once the show went to air.
 
‘He answered the questions as if he had prepared’, says Oprah. Yet were they necessarily the truth, or a well-rehearsed version? Certainly a former team mate, Frank Andreu was a little sceptical when interviewed and said, ‘this admission was a long time coming’ and he went on to say it was a real pity people were not prepared to listen earlier. After all, he said ’there were signs’ and it would have prevented he and his wife from being torn to shreds when they first suggested doping was in the frame.

http://myvoicetv.net/lance-armstrong-in-oprahs-dock-tonight/

Offline pecan

  • Steups ...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6855
  • Billy Goats Gruff
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #51 on: January 18, 2013, 10:03:50 AM »
All now Oprah plotting how yuh make Armstrong cry.

They are both phonies. Oprah also probably plotting how, and when she will turn on the tears during the interview. Mark my words, there will be time when she wells up with emotion.

While I refused to watch the interview, I did read the reports in today's papers.  The notion of "Armstrong comes clean" has no relevance in his admissions. He is a cheat and liar.  Period.
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Offline soccerman

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #52 on: January 18, 2013, 04:50:36 PM »
Do you think Lance's reputation will take a hit and he he'll fall from grace as much as Tiger did? Or will people be willing to give Armstrong a break seeing all he did with cancer? Tiger's infidelity pretty much ruined his image and repuation in the public eye but I find with Armstrong like most peole don't seem to care, maybe the Manti Te'o's imaginary girlfriend overshadowed Armstrong's confession.

Offline D.H.W

  • Forever Man Utd
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 17936
  • "Luck Favours The Prepared"
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #53 on: January 18, 2013, 05:07:34 PM »
Lance ain't coming out of this. Tiger is nothing compared to this
"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid."
Youtube Channel


Offline soccerman

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #54 on: January 18, 2013, 05:57:17 PM »
Lance ain't coming out of this. Tiger is nothing compared to this
Let's hope so because in the grand scheme of things, people's feelings towards Tiger changes drastically due to a dmoestic matter, the guy still can't even catch a break to this day. I'm not seeing the same public perception for Lance as much, eventhough he admitted to cheating all seven years with little or no remorse. I feel because he did a lot for cancer research through his foundadtion people may not judge him the same.

Offline D.H.W

  • Forever Man Utd
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 17936
  • "Luck Favours The Prepared"
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #55 on: January 18, 2013, 06:06:25 PM »
Maybe in America, some people think that way. Internationally especially in France and England people hate him. Believe me he let down alot of people. Don't expect the celebrities to hang around him anymore. I don't see much support for him other than the odd comment online. He still has alot to explain still so it ain't over yet.

Maybe Michael Phelps will get caught someday. (i suspect he was one drugs too)
"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid."
Youtube Channel


Offline D.H.W

  • Forever Man Utd
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 17936
  • "Luck Favours The Prepared"
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #56 on: January 18, 2013, 08:28:20 PM »
Lance Armstrong & Oprah Winfrey: I am disgraced & humbled

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21087593#TWEET535111
"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid."
Youtube Channel


Offline Jumbie

  • ~~~ JUMBIE ~~~
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4269
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #57 on: January 20, 2013, 10:42:54 PM »
Armstrong's books now fiction?

Offline Observer

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5428
  • The best gift for a footballer is Intelligence ---
    • View Profile
Re: Lance Armstrong
« Reply #58 on: January 23, 2013, 05:59:25 PM »
Concerning Lance a friend of mine put it best "most don't even finish 7 Tours much less win 7." people just dam gullible. Any time I would say "one day day the mark would buss," man use to jump down my throat.

On another note: The doctor involved was Spanish. I very interested to know which other athletes outside of Cycling he was working with.

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead
                                              Thomas Paine