ForumGarden

Armstrong: I don't deserve life ban - Others - More Sports - The Independent



Can't believe it is even being suggested he be allowed to compete again. It would be endorsing cheating - all you need to do is say you're sorry and you're back. He says he thought he was just levelling the playing field no he wasn't he was cheating and deprived better cyclists of a chance to win. If you're caught cheating then it's out for life otherwise the whole thing is farcical.

What about the people he sued for defamation and all those who played a part in his cheating. His sense of right and wrong is a bit off to put it mildly. It's OK if you don't get caught and if you do just apologise and it's all OK. wasn't my fault you didnt catch me at it. :-5

gmc;1417186 wrote: Armstrong: I don't deserve life ban - Others - More Sports - The Independent



Can't believe it is even being suggested he be allowed to compete again. It would be endorsing cheating - all you need to do is say you're sorry and you're back. He says he thought he was just levelling the playing field no he wasn't he was cheating and deprived better cyclists of a chance to win. If you're caught cheating then it's out for life otherwise the whole thing is farcical.

What about the people he sued for defamation and all those who played a part in his cheating. His sense of right and wrong is a bit off to put it mildly. It's OK if you don't get caught and if you do just apologise and it's all OK.:-5


Too true - he's admitted to lying and cheating throughout his career and then says he deserves to be allowed back into the sport! Why Sir, you are a liar and a cheat and the sport has no place for you.

He's become an extremely wealthy man as a result of his lying and cheating. As a sponsor I would be demanding my money back. He owes too many people and not just money

I knew he had an ulterior motive for confessing. He should be charged with fraud and anything else his sponsors can think of.

Lance Armstrong turns emotional in second part of interview - News | FOX Sports on MSN

I am impressed by how long he tried to bluff his way through.

LarsMac;1417205 wrote: I am impressed by how long he tried to bluff his way through."Hey, he took a shot" - "nice shot, son!"

SnoozeAgain;1417193 wrote: I knew he had an ulterior motive for confessing. He should be charged with fraud and anything else his sponsors can think of.I doubt anyone does anything without reason of believing [s]he will benefit from...whateveritis.

Snowfire;1417188 wrote: He's become an extremely wealthy man as a result of his lying and cheating. As a sponsor I would be demanding my money back. He owes too many people and not just moneyThat's a good point, though, what if a sponsor gains any of it's assets through lying and cheating?

I am fairly disgusted with the guy.

He should just go away, now.

Ahso!;1417207 wrote: "Hey, he took a shot" - "nice shot, son!"

Lying and cheating sadly are how things work nowadays. Has it been any different in the past? Think about it. IMO this mans whole profession is a joke, they all cheat in some form or another at some time or another. I think this includes all sports. There are things being done in the world of sports these days that humans in their natural state are not capable of.

Should he be allowed to compete again? Why not? As I said, they're all cheaters. I hope he is left with no choice, I hope that he is stripped bare and what I really want to hear about is how long and loud he squeals as he goes down. The drama will be entertaining. I saw a lawyer for some group he got awards from, millions of dollars. That lawyer had the scent of dollars in his nose and fire in his eyes. He's just one of many.

LarsMac;1417212 wrote: I am fairly disgusted with the guy.

He should just go away, now.Change the channel.

Ahso!;1417208 wrote: I doubt anyone does anything without reason of believing [s]he will benefit from...whateveritis.


That's very cynical even for you.

SnoozeAgain;1417276 wrote: That's very cynical even for you.Cynical? Really? How so?

Can anyone justify his actions without having a serious "values" problem? People would rather believe a lie....

halfway;1417289 wrote: Can anyone justify his actions without having a serious "values" problem? People would rather believe a lie....Some people simply don't give a sh!t what drama occurs within the rat race of sports do-gooders and medicine.

Values are subjective for the most part. Thank goodness.

How fitting.

Armstrong books to be moved to Fiction section:

BBC News - Australia library in Armstrong pledge prank

His actions directly impacted others that were competing fairly.

Sick.

gmc;1417186 wrote:

Can't believe it is even being suggested he be allowed to compete again. It would be endorsing cheating - all you need to do is say you're sorry and you're back. He says he thought he was just levelling the playing field no he wasn't he was cheating and deprived better cyclists of a chance to win. If you're caught cheating then it's out for life otherwise the whole thing is farcical.




I'm with you. Banned for life. I think of all the young people that looked up to him as a role model. The damage he's done is not only irreparable, but probably can't even be measured. I feel the same way about Tiger Woods. You want to be a celebrity, star, or role model? Fine, be one. Just realize that it carries responsibility and if you forget that....you should be done.

Lance Armstrong survived a kind of cancer far more pernicious than mine, and the physicians who treated him and the pharmaceutical companies that developed his medicines deserve most of the credit. Once cured, Armstrong did the hard labor of rebuilding himself into a world-class athlete. But for him, and for us, it was not enough for him to survive, not enough for him to get back on the bike, it had to be about always winning, about being the best. So he took the illegal substances he took and we complicitly looked the other way and sent in money so we could have our Livestrong bracelet.

That bracelet is a fetish, a religious object, the emblem of our doctrine that cancer can be willed away. Lance Armstrong is the false god of that mistaken belief system. And if there is a crisis of faith now, the fault belongs as much to the congregation as it does to the preacher.




We enabled Lance - Salon.com

Ahso!;1417493 wrote: So he took the illegal substances he took and we complicitly looked the other way and sent in money so we could have our Livestrong bracelet.


Personally, I had no idea he was taking illegal drugs. I was supporting someone I thought was a hero. He wasn't, he was a fraud, and I am in no way an accomplice to that.

LarsMac;1417405 wrote: How fitting.

Armstrong books to be moved to Fiction section:



BBC News - Australia library in Armstrong pledge prank


I like this idea.



The notion that there were true sportsmen out there competing and losing while clean, irritates the hell out of me. All that work and effort completely overlooked and unrewarded while a pumped up lying jackass took all the fame and glory for effort that wasn't really his own...



Wow, I guess sports really has become a big business.

Lance was engaged to singer "Sheryl Crow"

Do you think she knew of the doping?

Could that have been the reason for the break up?

Just curious..? wondering if any one has asked her.?

Patsy

LOL



"I woke up today and realized I had as many Tour De France wins as Lance Armstrong and twice as many testicles". - Anonymous



:wah:

I wonder if doping is the real cause of higher testicular cancer stories about biking, rather than the seat pressure..

Saint_;1417499 wrote: Personally, I had no idea he was taking illegal drugs. I was supporting someone I thought was a hero. He wasn't, he was a fraud, and I am in no way an accomplice to that.For anyone not to think what Armstrong had accomplished was anything other than remarkable and not be a little suspicious is technically complicit. That nobody went about ensuring what was being communicated was reliable and accurate and nobody was asking for it makes the article credible. That's what we get for valuing hero-worshiping.

flopstock;1417506 wrote: I wonder if doping is the real cause of higher testicular cancer stories about biking, rather than the seat pressure..It very well might be, at least a contributing factor. Aren't steroids known to compromise the immune system?

This goes back to - if something is too good to be true - guess what ..? it is..!

I believe the steroids contibuted to the cancer developing - didn't stop him from using.

I justed noticed some one did interview Sheryl Crow.? ad for a show.?

Lance and Manti T'ao - who can we trust?

disappointing

Patsy

Patsy Warnick;1417517 wrote:

Lance and Manti T'ao - who can we trust?




Don't even get me started about Manti T'eo!

Ahso!;1417493 wrote: We enabled Lance - Salon.com


That quote might have been valid if he had not taken drugs in order to win tours before developing cancer as well as after. The fact he was taking drugs all the way through his career makes it all spin.

Good lord - he's still nibbling away to get back in. Why's he even being interviewed?

Armstrong was equally forthright on what should happen to his Tour titles, which have not been reallocated, such was the extent of cycling's doping problem at the time.

"I think there has to be a winner, I'm just saying that as a fan," he said.

"There's a huge block in World War One with no winners, and there's another block in World War Two, and then it seems like there's another world war."

Armstrong was third in the 2009 Tour de France, and 23rd 12 months later

"I don't think history is stupid, history rectifies a lot of things. If you ask me what happens in 50 years, I don't think it sits empty... I feel like I won those Tours."

BBC Sport - Lance Armstrong: I'd change the man, not decision to cheat



Shun the unbeliever.

He's the Sarah Palin of the Biking World.

AnneBoleyn;1472868 wrote: He's the Sarah Palin of the Biking World.


We really need to get 'like' buttons....lol

And think of all of the people who came in "second" during races where he "won." Think of all the potential endorsements, ads or commercials, the potential earnings, that someone else - or others - lost out on because they were robbed of the chance of being the victor due to his cheating. He makes me sick and he should never be allowed back in. Just my two cents.

Beagle;1472926 wrote: And think of all of the people who came in "second" during races where he "won." Think of all the potential endorsements, ads or commercials, the potential earnings, that someone else - or others - lost out on because they were robbed of the chance of being the victor due to his cheating. He makes me sick and he should never be allowed back in. Just my two cents.Assuming, of course, that none of the others were undetected cheaters.

gmc;1417186 wrote: Armstrong: I don't deserve life ban - Others - More Sports - The Independent



Can't believe it is even being suggested he be allowed to compete again. It would be endorsing cheating - all you need to do is say you're sorry and you're back. He says he thought he was just levelling the playing field no he wasn't he was cheating and deprived better cyclists of a chance to win. If you're caught cheating then it's out for life otherwise the whole thing is farcical.

What about the people he sued for defamation and all those who played a part in his cheating. His sense of right and wrong is a bit off to put it mildly. It's OK if you don't get caught and if you do just apologise and it's all OK. wasn't my fault you didnt catch me at it. :-5


Jesus! You read my mind in each and every sentence. If there exists a list of athlete "DON'T DO”'s ..... I reckon he's broken every one of them. Good riddance to him! :yh_wave

Ahso!;1417215 wrote: Change the channel.


Yeah. Just press the "ignore" button. Is Armstrong a member of FG?

High Threshold;1472950 wrote: Yeah. Just press the "ignore" button. Is Armstrong a member of FG?Sheesh, you're putting me on ignore already? We haven't even gotten dirty together yet.

Ahso!;1472952 wrote: Sheesh, you're putting me on ignore already? We haven't even gotten dirty together yet.


Well, if you reallly are Armstrong then you can sod off.

High Threshold;1472956 wrote: Well, if you reallly are Armstrong then you can sod off.I was in fact arm-strong in my younger days. Does that count?

Even after all these years interacting on the net I'm still surprise by Brits' interest in petty sports competition because I have this mindset that you all have evolved beyond it culturally.

Ahso!;1472958 wrote: I was in fact arm-strong in my younger days. Does that count?


Only if it's been lanced.

Ahso!;1472960 wrote: Even after all these years interacting on the net I'm still surprise by Brits' interest in petty sports competition because I have this mindset that you all have evolved beyond it culturally.


Us?

What was it Lance Armstrong's quoted as saying in this week's interview? Sales at his bicycle supplier Trek Bicycles went from $100m (£66.5m) to $1bn and his charity foundation went from "raising no money to raising $500m, serving three million people".

Who, exactly, is interested in petty sports competition?

spot;1472962 wrote: Us?

What was it Lance Armstrong's quoted as saying in this week's interview? sales at his bicycle supplier Trek Bicycles went from $100m (£66.5m) to $1bn and his charity foundation went from "raising no money to raising $500m, serving three million people".

Who, exactly, is interested in petty sports competition?No! No! I wasn't picking on you guys. America is awash in the "petty sporting competition" mindset. I was only stating how weird it appears to me to see Brits interest in it in any sense other than the one you articulated above.

Ahso!;1472963 wrote: I was only stating how weird it appears to me to see Brits interest in it in any sense other than the one you articulated above.


We have, I concede, sold our league teams to foreign gangsters and allowed them to be managed by Italians, Germans, Spaniards and in at least one case a gentleman from Wales. The interest continues worldwide though - practically the only English words spoken by the majority of the residents of Bangkok are "Stanley Matthews", "Bobby Moore" and "Chelsea". The last of those could, I admit, be more of a Clinton reference.

Are any of your league teams managed by a woman, or does sexism still rule?

We've gotten so much further than that. We've managed to organize completely separate leagues based on gender and the marketing is coming along. Our females are finally developing the male psyche (with breasts) our older male audience has always craved. Young men with female genitals; does it get any better than that? The oddity of it all though is that the moms appear to be enjoying it too.

Why should teams be mono-gender?

FourPart;1473022 wrote: Why should teams be mono-gender?


Simple. For some sports, one gender has a particular advantage, as a rule, over the other.

Plus, as a rule, boys egos cannot handle being beat by a 'girl'

LarsMac;1473026 wrote: Simple. For some sports, one gender has a particular advantage, as a rule, over the other.

Plus, as a rule, boys egos cannot handle being beat by a 'girl'


I'm not sure either reason is an excuse for refusing to pick anyone regardless of gender if they have the ability to compete at that level. The fact that, if few can, then few can, shouldn't excuse the forcible exclusion of any who are actually able. If there's a good female footballer or cricketer, for example, the current league rules exclude her from competing in what is by the rule-book an all-male team even though she might add to its performance. It's an outmoded bias.