# Lance Armstrong finally to come clean?



## Pedalfast (Nov 4, 2005)

I just read a news release announcing that Lance has agreed to an exclusive interview with Oprah Winfrey to discuss his use of drugs. This is scheduled to air 1-17-13. I think he is going to fess up. What do you think?

I'll try to post the link to the article.

Lance Armstrong to Speak With Oprah Winfrey on Doping Scandal - ABC News


----------



## Lenny7 (Sep 1, 2008)

I hate it when I'm forced to watch Oprah.


----------



## B-Mac (Oct 2, 2008)

Drazil's possibly right, but I'm not sure when he was deposed last and what the statute of limitations for perjury is.


----------



## Wishful Tomcat (Mar 6, 2009)

Forget Oprah, Barbara Walters would get the truth out.


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

you think off camera he'll snap one of those yellow wristbands in his eye to induce a tear for effect when the camera turns to him? I mean this is a sad sympathy/money grab for both from both. 

wtf? seriously, who at this point would watch this crap? nevermind. i know the answer to that.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

From what I've heard/seen he's been working on a deal with USADA on confessing. USADA obviously promised him something in return for the public confession. Whether he get's his Tour titles back or can compete in triathalons remains to be seen.


----------



## gsomtb (Jul 18, 2007)

The best part of this is it will be on Oprah.

If he totally comes clean, future generations will read cycling anthologies full of stories about Merkx and his attacks, Hinnault and his tenacity, Moser and the hour record and LA's confession on Oprah, lol....


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

There have been several analysis' of the affect this would have since the story was first floated last week. The consensus seems to be that Lance would open himself to less than 20 million in paybacks and costs (so all in, and maybe as lil as 10) but no jail time (and maybe no criminal charges) as the SOL has run on almost everything. These aren't my conclusions, so I can't vouch for any of it. To me, the more interesting question is what will this do to his legacy/brand. 

And of course he might just hold fast with the 'no, no, no it wasn't me' story.


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

Trail6 said:


> Forget Oprah, Barbara Walters would get the truth out.


good call, Trail. she could make the money shot happen. she makes everybody cry!


----------



## elrollo (Aug 7, 2009)

He should confess to Howard Stern instead...lol


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

CS2 said:


> From what I've heard/seen he's been working on a deal with USADA on confessing. USADA obviously promised him something in return for the public confession. Whether he get's his Tour titles back or can compete in triathalons remains to be seen.


I've never seen LA as that pragmatic. He seems more like a blood thirsty wolf than a wily old fox. He may be mellowing, or I have my head up my arse.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

Forget USADA ... If he confesses, he'll be paying off costs and fines from a multitude of civil court decisions that will be rendered against hm.

I see no value in this, and I will not watch Dopra ... I'll wait for the results of the interview to appear, elsewhere.


----------



## jkirkpatri (Sep 16, 2008)

Subscribed for the guaranteed entertainment that this thread will become after the interview is aired.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

53119 said:


> good call, Trail. she could make the money shot happen. she makes everybody cry!


Stand him up in front of Judge Judy and at least you'd get the pleasure of watching her brow-beat him while he stonewalls.


----------



## Fix the Spade (Aug 4, 2008)

Clean eh? The only way that man could ever be clean inside is if he started drinking bleach.

I'm expecting a big sob story about victimisation and character assassination with little old Lance as the victim. 
He knows that if he admits to anything he will have a couple dozen people calling lawyers to give instructions briefly described as _nail that f##ker to the wall_.


----------



## Lenny7 (Sep 1, 2008)

It's weird to see people get so upset over someone they don't know.


----------



## ArmySlowRdr (Dec 19, 2003)

And I surmise that Oprah will pay every penny of it for the exclusive. And why not. Her empire is worth billions. Even more incentive for Lance if he can save not being legally convicted, can save at least one or two of his titles and eventually be allowed to compete again.



Fiskare said:


> There have been several analysis' of the affect this would have since the story was first floated last week. The consensus seems to be that Lance would open himself to less than 20 million in paybacks and costs (so all in, and maybe as lil as 10) but no jail time (and maybe no criminal charges) as the SOL has run on almost everything. These aren't my conclusions, so I can't vouch for any of it. To me, the more interesting question is what will this do to his legacy/brand.
> 
> And of course he might just hold fast with the 'no, no, no it wasn't me' story.


----------



## Highlander1 (Jan 4, 2013)

Lenny7 said:


> I hate it when I'm forced to watch Oprah.


No one is forcing you to watch it !!


----------



## Spastook (Dec 19, 2007)

Even before all the drug crap came out. I always regarded Greg LeMond as America's greatest cyclist. Armstrong was good but much of his success (not including the drugs) was due to the teams that surrounded him. LeMond likely could have won 5 or maybe even 6 tours if he didn't have Bernard Hilnault for a team mate then suffer a collapsed lung from a hunting accident.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

Hmmm... interesting. I posted this topic a couple of days ago and got neg rep'd, then it got moved to General.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

Coming "clean" would be Armstrong just telling the truth for its own sake. Fess up, period. What this is Armstrong trying to finagle something for himself. He regards the truth as something to denied, revealed or twisted to his own advantage.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

Just remember that there is not too much difference between the worst of us and the best of us.
Did the "old time" cyclists cheat?? Probably so. Who knows how the others would have fared with our 24 hour news "cycle"??
As far as the others who turned evidence against Armstrong, in my opinion they are no better than him. They all cheated and took away opportunities from those who even though talented, refused to cheat and would not even get a chance to compete.
Really it matters little what he has to say. The evidence against him is out there and damaging. I admit to enjoying his run over the years. A story that good generally has it's dark side.
Our society is set up to adore or crucify with little in between. There isn't much in life that money hasn't screwed up.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

richwolf said:


> Just remember that there is not too much difference between the worst of us and the best of us.
> Did the "old time" cyclists cheat?? Probably so. Who knows how the others would have fared with our 24 hour news "cycle"??
> As far as the others who turned evidence against Armstrong, in my opinion they are no better than him. They all cheated and took away opportunities from those who even though talented, refused to cheat and would not even get a chance to compete.
> Really it matters little what he has to say. The evidence against him is out there and damaging. I admit to enjoying his run over the years. A story that good generally has it's dark side.
> Our society is set up to adore or crucify with little in between. There isn't much in life that money hasn't screwed up.


I agree, and don't mean to crucify him. There is greatness in what he did, and great deceit as well. The giant has feet of clay. But sadly, it seems he cheated on a grand scale for many years, and now that he's been outed, still regards the truth with contempt.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

wv_bob said:


> Stand him up in front of Judge Judy and at least you'd get the pleasure of watching her brow-beat him while he stonewalls.


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

Anybody watch the Travis Tygart interview on 60 Minutes Sports last night? I missed it.


----------



## eyejustamazeyall (Jan 10, 2013)

shouldve gone with bryant gumble!


----------



## Wishful Tomcat (Mar 6, 2009)

June Bug said:


> Anybody watch the Travis Tygart interview on 60 Minutes Sports last night? I missed it.


Had to do with this:

Lausanne Laboratory Gave Armstrong Key To Beating EPO Test, Says Tygart | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

Trail6 said:


> Had to do with this:
> Lausanne Laboratory Gave Armstrong Key To Beating EPO Test, Says Tygart | Cyclingnews.com


That's a bombshell. 
"Most tested athlete in the world," indeed.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

wv_bob said:


> Stand him up in front of Judge Judy and at least you'd get the pleasure of watching her brow-beat him while he stonewalls.


Hahahaha great call, judge judy lol....

Oprah and Lance are already great mates, it will be nothing more that a well planned load of garbage.

Lance is a sociopath, and this Winfey interview will only prove it even more.

Dont expect anything more than more self serving lies from lance, its the only way he knows.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

richwolf said:


> Just remember that there is not too much difference between the worst of us and the best of us.
> Did the "old time" cyclists cheat?? Probably so. Who knows how the others would have fared with our 24 hour news "cycle"??
> As far as the others who turned evidence against Armstrong, in my opinion they are no better than him. They all cheated and took away opportunities from those who even though talented, refused to cheat and would not even get a chance to compete.
> Really it matters little what he has to say. The evidence against him is out there and damaging. I admit to enjoying his run over the years. A story that good generally has it's dark side.
> Our society is set up to adore or crucify with little in between. There isn't much in life that money hasn't screwed up.


Sorry wolf, i dont buy into this one iota...


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Did he cheat? 
Probably, I dunno.

But really who gives a fvck?
After all, he did beat the other dopers.:thumbsup:


----------



## Millfox (Jun 22, 2012)

Doper or not. I feel sorry for the man.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

From TheOnion store:


----------



## markymark (Oct 30, 2004)

this is my body and i can do whatever i want to it... :skep: This ad was made at the height of his drug cheating...


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Tone's said:


> Sorry wolf, i dont buy into this one iota...


You should at least a bit since there was loads of cheating on cocaine, amphetamines, and whatever happened to be around at the time since the beginning of the tour.


----------



## floydlippencott (Sep 4, 2010)

Lance tried to destroy people. That is a few notches above doping, so anyone who suggests that "its okay because everyone was doing it" really needs to have a long look at themselves.


----------



## DirtyHank (Jul 2, 2012)

Like he's used to doing, I think he'll just spin...Blame it on his trainers, say something like everybody was doing it and say it was the fault of industry.

Hank :skep:


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

Let's see?...

...the Oprah book club, Hum? Lance will be penning a few new books really soon!

They will both make lots of money!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Join the book club!


----------



## fishwrinkle (Jul 11, 2012)

markymark said:


> this is my body and i can do whatever i want to it... :skep: This ad was made at the height of his drug cheating...


oh he was tweakin' it. ppl need to stop caring about pro athletes. who gives a rats ass if they cheat, maybe thats why he had a nut chopped off. my nuts would want to abandon ship too, if i was spinning for 6 hrs a day and spiking **** into my body. go out and have fun and when it stops being fun then find something else. i'm so sick of hearing about oprah and lance i might chop my nuts off


----------



## Fishbucket (Dec 4, 2012)

53119 said:


> you think off camera he'll snap one of those yellow wristbands in his eye .


:lol:



Fix the Spade said:


> Clean eh? The only way that man could ever be clean inside is if he started drinking bleach..


:lol:



Gasp4Air said:


> From TheOnion store:


:lol: :lol:



fishwrinkle said:


> , maybe thats why he had a nut chopped off..... i might chop my nuts off


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

floydlippencott said:


> Lance tried to destroy people. That is a few notches above doping, so anyone who suggests that "its okay because everyone was doing it" really needs to have a long look at themselves.


yup. :thumbsup:


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

sxotty said:


> You should at least a bit since there was loads of cheating on cocaine, amphetamines, and whatever happened to be around at the time since the beginning of the tour.


substance bans weren't implemented until 1963, so for the first 60 years of the tour using PEDs wasn't cheating.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

kjlued said:


> Did he cheat?
> Probably, I dunno.
> 
> But really who gives a fvck?
> After all, he did beat the other dopers.:thumbsup:


you can bet the first clean, non-doping rider across the line gives more than just one.


----------



## jerry68 (Aug 23, 2007)

monogod said:


> you can bet the first clean, non-doping rider across the line gives more than just one.


I am betting you'd be hard pressed to find one at that level.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

> I am betting you'd be hard pressed to find one at that level.


And that's a shame. I'd rather see what men can do than what drugs can do. Even if that is a lot slower.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

alphazz said:


> And that's a shame. I'd rather see what men can do than what drugs can do. Even if that is a lot slower.


Sure, we all would. 
I mean lets face it, even the TDF on dope isn't "exciting" to watch. 
As far as excitement goes, the few more minutes it would take wouldn't make a difference.

Does the fact that everyone doped at that level make it "ok"?
No

However, the fact that everyone at that level doped made it necessary to win.

I would bet money that lance not doping would have beaten every non doper. 
Lance not doping probably would have also beaten several of the dopers.

So, what do you do if you busted your ass your whole life to win only to find out you won't win and nobody will know who you are because all the top people are doping. 
It is easy for all of us to say we will fight the good fight and not sully the results because we are not in that position. However, I would bet the majority of us that say we would never do what Lance did would do exactly what Lance did if presented the opportunity.

If Lance would not have doped up, nobody would know his name at all. 
Instead the name of the next doper would be on our tongues.

BTW, just out of curiosity who here could name the 2nd place winner of every year from 1999 to 2005? Unless you are seriously in to watching cycling I bet most people couldn't name the five 2nd place guys. I would even bet the majority of people could not name the guy that got 2nd place 3x's in those years even though he doped too.
Yet, Lance Armstrongs name would still be the first to come to mind of the majority of people in the world when it comes to cycling.

nuff said


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

kjlued said:


> Sure, we all would.
> I mean lets face it, even the TDF on dope isn't "exciting" to watch.
> As far as excitement goes, the few more minutes it would take wouldn't make a difference.
> 
> ...


he wouldnt have beaten Cadel Evens, ''id bet money had lance had not doped he would have beaten every other non doper''


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

jerry68 said:


> I am betting you'd be hard pressed to find one at that level.


CADEL EVENS, universally seen by his pears, insiders and fellow riders as a clean skin AND WINNER AND NUMEROUS TIMES PLACE GETTER OF THE TOUR.......
Enough said...


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Tone's said:


> he wouldnt have beaten Cadel Evens, ''id bet money had lance had not doped he would have beaten every other non doper''


Speculation and we will never really know.



Tone's said:


> CADEL EVENS, universally seen by his pears, insiders and fellow riders as a clean skin AND WINNER AND NUMEROUS TIMES PLACE GETTER OF THE TOUR.......
> Enough said...


Not second place any of the years Lance won

Also "seen as clean" just like Lance was PROVEN as clean until new evidence comes out.

ENOUGH SAID!!!!!


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

kjlued said:


> Speculation and we will never really know.
> 
> Not second place any of the years Lance won
> 
> ...


Lance was never proven clean, he rorted the system and plenty knew about it.
There was a mountain of talk about him being a drug cheat, and this is during his career, 
and now its been proven....


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Tone's said:


> Lance was never proven clean, he rorted the system and plenty knew about it.
> There was a mountain of talk about him being a drug cheat, and this is during his career,
> and now its been proven....


Well, nothing has really been proven.

However, I have a feeling that will change after the Opera interview.


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

[QUOTEBTW, just out of curiosity who here could name the 2nd place winner of every year from 1999 to 2005?][/QUOTE]

This is such a red herring. Who cares ? Lance cheated and ****ed people over. The guy does meet the criteria for sociopath. 
He seemed like such a great gift for cycling. Miracle one ball cancer man! However once you unwrap that wrapping paper and delve a bit furthur you realize how bad he is.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

kjlued said:


> Well, nothing has really been proven.


yeah, you pretty much got us there....

after all, LA's dirty drugs tests have proven nothing.

his documented perjury have proven nothing.

his documented blackmailing, extortion, retaliation, and pay-offs has proven nothing.

his documented association with a known drug doctor and the money trail of over $1,000,000 leading from LA to ferarri.

the sworn testimony of 30+ people proves nothing either.

the fact that he willing accepted having his wins stripped and banned for life rather than face the evidence/testimony in an open hearing proves nothing.

the fact that he's considering coming clean now that he sees that in his benefit proves nothing.

my guess is that for LA's minions in his peanut gallery it will prove nothing even if he admits everything.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

petersbike said:


> [QUOTEBTW, just out of curiosity who here could name the 2nd place winner of every year from 1999 to 2005?]


This is such a red herring. Who cares ? Lance cheated and ****ed people over. The guy does meet the criteria for sociopath. 
He seemed like such a great gift for cycling. Miracle one ball cancer man! However once you unwrap that wrapping paper and delve a bit furthur you realize how bad he is.[/QUOTE]

I like this whole "red herring" claim people are taking.

I have no answer, so I will claim red herring.

BTW, your second part of your response is what you would call a red herring. Just saying.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

monogod said:


> yeah, you pretty much got us there....
> 
> after all, LA's dirty drugs tests have proven nothing.
> 
> ...


You are mistaking "PROOF" for what we know to be probably true.
What we see as probably true though is nothing more than a matter of opinion.

Would hate to see you on a jury.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

kjlued said:


> I would bet money that lance not doping would have beaten every non doper.
> Lance not doping probably would have also beaten several of the dopers.


yeah, as a clean rider he really handed everyone their ass by being nothing more than a pack filler who couldn't finish a tour.



kjuled said:


> However, I would bet the majority of us that say we would never do what Lance did would do exactly what Lance did if presented the opportunity.


speak for yourself. i'd rather never be a contender than win like LA did. it's called personal integrity. read up on it some time, your pro-cheating position suggests you have little if any first hand knowledge.



kjuled said:


> If Lance would not have doped up, nobody would know his name at all.


'nuff said. :thumbsup:


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

monogod said:


> yup. :thumbsup:


Double yup. Doping is the least of Lance's problems.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

kjlued said:


> You are mistaking "PROOF" for what we know to be probably true.
> What we see as probably true though is nothing more than a matter of opinion.
> 
> Would hate to see you on a jury.


aw geez... you just pwned us again.

and here all this time we mistakenly believed documented perjury, documented failed drug tests, and documented money trails of cover-ups, bribes, and money funneled to a known drug doctor he swore to have no contact consisted of proof when the whole time they were nothing but a matter of opinion.

good thing you set us straight. :thumbsup:


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

monogod said:


> speak for yourself. i'd rather never be a contender than win like LA did. it's called personal integrity. read up on it some time, your pro-cheating position suggests you have little if any first hand knowledge.


So easily said when you are not even a contender. 
I also love how you assume what my position is just because I have an understanding of the other guys reasons and don't turn my back on him.

Walk a mile in a mans shoes before you judge him. 
If you busted your ass all your life to do things the right way only to fall short because the guys ahead of you were breaking the rules, I would bet money your "integrity" would fall short. Now, we could go round and round and you could claim whatever you want and I could claim whatever I want but when it comes right down to it, we will never know because neither of us are even contenders.

Desperation will make most men do what they otherwise would claim they never would do.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

monogod said:


> aw geez... you just pwned us again.
> 
> and here all this time we mistakenly believed documented perjury, documented failed drug tests, and documented money trails of cover-ups, bribes, and money funneled to a known drug doctor he swore to have no contact consisted of proof when the whole time they were nothing but a matter of opinion.
> 
> good thing you set us straight. :thumbsup:


Awe geez, I am sawy, I feel so pwned now.

Lets throw out a whole thread of sarcasm and insults since we can't prove our point.

FYI, I believe he did dope. 
However unless you were there to see it first hand, it is opinion.

The difference is, I can separate factual proof from my opinion or belief. 
Not that I care, I believe he did do it.
However, there still is no concrete proof that he did.

I believe he will eventually fess up and then we have that proof, but guess what, I still won't care.:thumbsup:


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

kjlued said:


> So easily said when you are not even a contender.
> I also love how you assume what my position is


you post what your position is. i have assumed nothing.



kjuled said:


> If you busted your ass all your life to do things the right way only to fall short because the guys ahead of you were breaking the rules, I would bet money your "integrity" would fall short.


my guess is you are not a professional gambler. you like to throw "i would bet" around but the last few times you've done it here you've been on the losing end.

i could give you several very specific instances that would prove your last wager to be a losing one, but this isn't about me. nor will any amount of your floundering around wildly throwing red herring make it be.

btw... quite the contradiction you've introduced by admonishing me to "_never judge a man.._." but then turning around and doing that very thing by saying "_i would bet your "integrity" would fall short"_.

which is it? don't judge a man or judge him? you can't have it both ways.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

kjlued said:


> Well, nothing has really been proven.
> 
> However, I have a feeling that will change after the Opera interview.


Yes it has, have you been living under a rock the past year?
Seriously, you want proof? 
There is a mountain of evidence, why are you so arrogant?


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

I suppose we could just keep going round and round but I need to get up early to go biking. Now that they are busting all the dopers, I think I could be a contender.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

kjlued said:


> Awe geez, I am sawy, I feel so pwned now.
> 
> Lets throw out a whole thread of sarcasm and insults since we can't prove our point.
> 
> ...


The USADA has a mountain of proof, some of it like phone records, doctors and first hand witnesses, paper trails, this is concrete proof, so much so that Lance would not face the proof on the big day...
Lance is 100% guilty as charged, 100% there is no doubt in any rational persons mind..


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

kjlued said:


> However unless you were there to see it first hand, it is opinion.


those who disbelieve and/or disregard anything of which they lack first hand knowledge live in very tiny worlds.

using this logic history books are filled with mere opinion. the holocost? meh... mere opinion. space flight? unsubstantiated personal belief by kooks. some moron was on the news yesterday with an opinion there was a shooting in a california school. i guess we shouldn't believe it since we weren't there to see it first hand.



kjuled said:


> The difference is, I can separate factual proof from my opinion or belief.


actually you cannot. when provided with factual proof you dismissed it as unsubstantiated opinion.



kjuled said:


> However, there still is no concrete proof that he did.


your refusal to acknowledge concrete proof does not negate it.



kjuled said:


> I believe he will eventually fess up and then we have that proof


hmmmm. by your own logic it would stand to reason that since we weren't there to see it first hand we'll be bound to dismiss any confession from LA as nothing more than mere opinion.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

kjlued said:


> Well, I lied and will post one more time before I go to bed. lol
> 
> I can separate proof from reality just fine.
> If the proof is presented in front of me, I will accept it.
> ...


Are you high?
Let me see if i got this right. Just because you peronsally have not seen the mountain of evidence against him, you are trying to argue the fact that there is no proof?
Really, grow up.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

No, are you?


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

kjlued said:


> Well, I lied and will post one more time before I go to bed. lol
> 
> I can separate proof from reality just fine.
> If the proof is presented in front of me, I will accept it.
> ...


LOL, If 100 people on this forum have seen your penis and say that it is very small, then it is a fact, unless it is one big conspiracy to make it look like you have a small penis.

Many people that have nothing to gain or lose say they saw lance dope, eye witnesses, not second hand accounts.
Theres no way in hell its a conspiracy against him, its as good as a fact...


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Damn this insomnia

Yes, many people have very little to nothing to gain or lose.

I have nothing to gain or lose to inform everyone of monogods small penis.

However, now that the cat is out of the bag, lets discuss that because it has more relevance to then LA's doping.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

kjlued said:


> Damn this insomnia
> 
> Yes, many people have very little to nothing to gain or lose.
> 
> ...


TRANSLATION: "my mom's letting stay up especially late cuz it's the weekend so i'm going to sit in her basement on the interwebs and talk about my most favoritest thing in the whole wide world... penises."


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

kjlued said:


> I suppose we could just keep going round and round but I need to get up early to go biking. Now that they are busting all the dopers, I think I could be a contender.


Hold on I cannot defend my opinions anymore, I have got to go biking.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

monogod said:


> TRANSLATION: "my mom's letting stay up especially late cuz it's the weekend so i'm going to sit in her basement on the interwebs and talk about my most favoritest thing in the whole wide world... penises."


Close, but it wouldn't be plural as my most favorite thing in the world is not penises, just my penis.

Funny, that is also your moms most favorite thing in the world....my penis.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

petersbike said:


> Hold on I cannot defend my opinions anymore, I have got to go biking.


That ploy would have worked if I didn't post several times due to not actually going to sleep after I made that statement.

Sorry, but try again later.


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

Really ? You have just been posting about Penises since then.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

kjlued said:


> Funny, that is also your moms most favorite thing in the world....my penis.


You kind of farked up majorly here.
Do not, I repeat, Do not sit behind your keyboard saying stuff you normally won't say to someones face in real life, there is one simple reason why...you know why and if you don't theres no point me telling you why. 
Maybe you should lay off the computer for today.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

monogod said:


> my mom's letting stay up especially late cuz it's the weekend so i'm going to sit in her basement on the interwebs and talk about my most favoritest thing in the whole wide world... penises."
> 
> 
> kjlued said:
> ...


hmmmm... so by your own admission you live in your mom's basement, she lets you stay up late on the weekend, and you're fascinated by your own own penis.

i am jack's complete lack of surprise.

the two options:

1. you're a prepubescent boy who has not yet discovered how awesome girls are; or

2. you're a grown man living in your mom's basement who either still has no idea how awesome girls are or is shunned by them.

which is it?


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

SV11 said:


> You kind of farked up majorly here.
> Do not, I repeat, Do not sit behind your keyboard saying stuff you normally won't say to someones face in real life, there is one simple reason why...you know why and if you don't theres no point me telling you why.
> Maybe you should lay off the computer for today.


LOL, C'mon , it was pretty funny, even mono probably thought it was funny haha:thumbsup:


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Tones, it's funny up to a point. I'm ok with mum jokes and whatnot in a comical environment, but when it comes up out of the blue in debate/arguement, then generally it's used to antagonise, and that I'm not ok with.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

in regards to the tone and direction of this thread, which i have been reading with amusement:

in organized team sports, a good team will often play down to the level of a bad opponent, which at times will allow said bad opponent to beat the superior team.

my two cents...


----------



## mazspeed (Oct 17, 2004)

monogod said:


> yeah, you pretty much got us there....
> 
> after all, LA's dirty drugs tests have proven nothing.
> 
> ...


Well said. Lance is the ultimate scumbag, its funny that he wanted to come clean now only to get something in return. Unbelievable. Its not even that he cheated, a lot of them did, it was the way he bullied, lied and cheated the entire way through. Now he's a national disgrace. He earned that last distinction. The media is not giving this man a pass for admitting anything at this,point. It's not that he cheated, its how he did it and the way he went about it. He deserves nothing in return for admitting to be a lying cheating dirtbag. Sorry guys, i know some of you like him, but I have no respect for this man.


----------



## mazspeed (Oct 17, 2004)

Delete


----------



## Sandrenseren (Dec 29, 2011)

floydlippencott said:


> Lance tried to destroy people. That is a few notches above doping, so anyone who suggests that "its okay because everyone was doing it" really needs to have a long look at themselves.


How exactly did Lance destroy people? Did he plant false evidence on someone, then call the cops? Did he verbally abuse people, grinding them into misery? Or is the "destroying" you speak of just the commentators saying stuff like "Lance absolutely destroys Vinokourov!!" when in fact all he was doing was to ride his bike slightly faster?


----------



## Sandrenseren (Dec 29, 2011)

alphazz said:


> And that's a shame. I'd rather see what men can do than what drugs can do. Even if that is a lot slower.


Watch some amateur bike racing, it's mostly clean as there is no real money in that.

The trouble is, if they started televising amateur races it would attract advertising, big money and suddenly it's no longer just about the glory, riders will make it a living and need to win more often rather than just once in a while, some will start cheating and we're back at the "cheat or be poor and forgotten"-dilemma.

If you want to watch clean sport, no matter what kind, you have to get out there and watch the grassroots live. As soon as a sport gets televised, the big money enters and people start cheating to stay ahead and get the wins.


----------



## MNRon (Sep 30, 2011)

Emma O'Reilly. Greg LeMond. Betsy and Frankie Andrue. David Walsh. Five names of people that were highly affected by LA's attempt to destroy them. Many more are out there.


----------



## Sandrenseren (Dec 29, 2011)

MNRon said:


> Emma O'Reilly. Greg LeMond. Betsy and Frankie Andrue. David Walsh. Five names of people that were highly affected by LA's attempt to destroy them. Many more are out there.


Again, how did he try to destroy them?

Just picking one, Emma O'Reilly was signed to the team as a handyman, doing laundry, preparing meals, massaging sore legs, stuff like that. I haven't seen her contract, but I think it's safe to bet that there was some sort of clause about discretion in there. Despite that she chooses to spill her guts in a book. She gets sued by the team for doing so and the team tried to discredit her statements by telling nasty stories about her. How is that destroying someone? Is she now destroyed?

If I speak ill of my employer I'll probably end up being fired. If there was a discretion clause in my contract I might end up being sued. Does that mean that my employer is evil and trying to destroy me? Or are they merely doing what every corporation would do to protect their name and setting an example to other employees about honoring the discretion clause?


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

SV11 said:


> You kind of farked up majorly here.
> Do not, I repeat, Do not sit behind your keyboard saying stuff you normally won't say to someones face in real life, there is one simple reason why...you know why and if you don't theres no point me telling you why.
> Maybe you should lay off the computer for today.


Actually, there is a lot of things I would say in person that would surprise you. 
But if a joke gets to you that bad there the must be some truth to it.

It obviously did't bother mono as much because either I am prepubescent or an adult living in my moms basement and he doesn't take me seriously. Also he knows it to not be true. However, it seems to bother you, I wonder why?



monogod said:


> hmmmm... so by your own admission you live in your mom's basement, she lets you stay up late on the weekend, and you're fascinated by your own own penis.
> 
> i am jack's complete lack of surprise.
> 
> ...


Yup, that is what it is... you chose, I will go with either one. :thumbsup:



mazspeed said:


> Well said. Lance is the ultimate scumbag,


Oh, c'mon. 
Ultimate scumbag? Really?

So you think he is low than murderers, rapists and pedophiles? 
Or is he just equally as low?


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Sandrenseren said:


> Watch some amateur bike racing, it's mostly clean as there is no real money in that.
> 
> The trouble is, if they started televising amateur races it would attract advertising, big money and suddenly it's no longer just about the glory, riders will make it a living and need to win more often rather than just once in a while, some will start cheating and we're back at the "cheat or be poor and forgotten"-dilemma.
> 
> If you want to watch clean sport, no matter what kind, you have to get out there and watch the grassroots live. As soon as a sport gets televised, the big money enters and people start cheating to stay ahead and get the wins.


Well said.

I don't think anyone is saying it is ok because everyone is doing it. 
We are just saying we understand the nature of the beast.

It is real easy to point fingers and call somebody a scumbag and say you would never do something but when millions of dollars are waved in your face, I am sure a lot of those attitudes will change.

Say you won't and believe you won't if it makes you feel better but in reality everyone has a price they would be willing to pay to be on top.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

kjlued said:


> It obviously did't bother mono as much because either I am prepubescent or an adult living in my moms basement and he doesn't take me seriously. Also he knows it to not be true. However, it seems to bother you, I wonder why?


I haven't read anything by mono saying he didn't mind that statement, and I challenge you to find me where he did say he didn't mind. Dont tell me how you think mono feels.
Even if he didn't mind, that does not make it ok.
Bringing a mom into a debate/arguement to me indicates a complete lack of respect and intelligence, why the fark would you even go there?
Thats all I have to say on the subject.


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

It's starting to look like he is gonna admit doping. Now, will he ever give Landis a nickle?


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

SV11 said:


> I haven't read anything by mono saying he didn't mind that statement, and I challenge you to find me where he did say he didn't mind. Dont tell me how you think mono feels.
> Even if he didn't mind, that does not make it ok.
> Bringing a mom into a debate/arguement to me indicates a complete lack of respect and intelligence, why the fark would you even go there?
> Thats all I have to say on the subject.


I challenge you to find where I said he didn't mind.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

MNRon said:


> Emma O'Reilly. Greg LeMond. Betsy and Frankie Andrue. David Walsh. Five names of people that were highly affected by LA's attempt to destroy them. Many more are out there.


No doubt about it, Lance is a low life of the highest order.

Even people like, David Berkowitz (son of sam), Richard Remirez, Ted Bundy have been honest after they where caught.

But Lance remains in the class of the John Wayne Gacy's of this world and has never had the balls to come clean, and has continued to throw others under the bus to cover his own ass.......:thumbsup:


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

kjlued said:


> I challenge you to find where I said he didn't mind.


Post #87
I even quoted you....are you blind?


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

SV11 said:


> Post #87
> I even quoted you....are you blind?


No, but I know basic reading comprehension.

I said it didn't bother him AS MUCH.

No where did I say he didn't mind or that it didn't bother him at all. 
There is a difference.

You would think that since you even quoted it, you would be able to at least comprehend it.


----------



## DirtyHank (Jul 2, 2012)

Tone's said:


> and has continued to throw others under the bus to cover his own ass.......:thumbsup:


Maybe he'll throw Oprah under the bus.

Hank


----------



## MNRon (Sep 30, 2011)

Sandrenseren said:


> Again, how did he try to destroy them?
> 
> Just picking one, Emma O'Reilly was signed to the team as a handyman, doing laundry, preparing meals, massaging sore legs, stuff like that. I haven't seen her contract, but I think it's safe to bet that there was some sort of clause about discretion in there. Despite that she chooses to spill her guts in a book. She gets sued by the team for doing so and the team tried to discredit her statements by telling nasty stories about her. How is that destroying someone? Is she now destroyed?
> 
> If I speak ill of my employer I'll probably end up being fired. If there was a discretion clause in my contract I might end up being sued. Does that mean that my employer is evil and trying to destroy me? Or are they merely doing what every corporation would do to protect their name and setting an example to other employees about honoring the discretion clause?


How about LeMond and Trek? Documented that LA used his influence to get Trek to drop The LeMond line.

As far as an employer handling itself after firing someone, they don't libel someone in the press while in a lawsuit with them.


----------



## bhc (Sep 27, 2005)

So will Lemond be in the audience on the Oprah show?


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

DirtyHank said:


> Maybe he'll throw Oprah under the bus.


That's no way to treat a bus.


----------



## Berm (Nov 2, 2006)

Not only did he cheat, but he crucified all those who dare challenged him. He does not deserve a pass.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

kjlued said:


> No, but I know basic reading comprehension.
> 
> I said it didn't bother him AS MUCH.
> 
> ...


Are you thick?
How the hell do you know that "it didn't bother him AS MUCH"?
It means the same thing, you are assuming on how he feels.
Quit whle you're behind.


----------



## Fishbucket (Dec 4, 2012)

kjlued said:


> No, but I know basic reading comprehension.
> 
> I said it didn't bother him AS MUCH.
> 
> ...


I'll jump into this....

The affect you were looking for was to belittle his mother and make the argument personal... Most likely because you were not being heard or agreed with. ( 'llI go with the latter)

It's a deflection tactic to amp up the other person, and then when they blow-up, you use that as a chance to chop them down. to make proof, they are the irrational one.


----------



## Fishbucket (Dec 4, 2012)

So what part in this will the Fed. Government have ?? they were handing out the money for the team to win... No?


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

Berm said:


> Not only did he cheat, but he crucified all those who dare challenged him. He does not deserve a pass.


He's not gonna get a pass. It's just business now. Image management. Do you think he will cry?


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)

I understand this is a forums and we all can debate and say what we want , but seriously some of you guys need to get your washed up heads out of your ass and go ride . There is no point of being on an internet trying to prove this and that when the case has nothing to do with any of you , your not the jury nor the judge so stfu already . There is doping in all sports , it has been around and will be around , this is not the first nor the last case , GET USED to it . You can say he was a scumbag , a cool guy , whatever you want , but in the end he is just another guy that got busted big deal .

I will give him credit tho for starting the Livestrong foundation , havent seen many other dopers do something of this caliber , im not saying it makes him a better person but at least hes not a full cup of **** right ? Whatever happens happens , but whatever the outcome is it will not affect ANY of you guys on here so relax you dr phil's .

Point being , there are bigger pictures in your life im sure you should worry about and focus on then something thats on the news :thumbsup:

Regarding KJlueds comment , cmon really ? Are you guys that butt hurt and sensitive to words typed over the INTERNET ? lol wow might as well throw on the high heels and lipstick at that rate . Who gives a fuk :madman:


----------



## Fishbucket (Dec 4, 2012)

Fiskare said:


> He's not gonna get a pass. It's just business now. Image management. Do you think he will cry?


Thats a tough one to answer... Has he shown remorse....... yet?


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

I have to agree this is getting ridiculous. And saying Lance is worse than a serial killer for cheating at a bike race or being mean to those that also cheated and then tried to deflect their own problems by blaming him? Wow you really need some perspective. :lol:


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

sxotty said:


> I have to agree this is getting ridiculous. And saying Lance is worse than a serial killer for cheating at a bike race or being mean to those that also cheated and then tried to deflect their own problems by blaming him? Wow you really need some perspective. :lol:


Bwahahaha hook line and sinker, i knew that comparison would get a bite lol and bang his on...

But seriously he is a worse liar than Richard Ramirez, Ted Bundy and David Berkowitz ( the son of sam), thats a fact, as they all come clean after they were caught and didnt try to throw others under the bus, i didnt say he was a worse person than them, just a bigger liar, and infact Lance is a bigger sociopath than all of them,.

Lance is in the John Wayne Gacy class of liar, both of then living in denial, both self serving, both sociopaths, and both try and throw others under the bus to cover their own asses.

I studied forensics for years at night at uni for a hobby, serial killers is a very interesting topic to me thats why im referring to their traits, there are actually a lot of similarities between lances sociopathic nature and a few of them, seeings many sociopaths are serial killers......:thumbsup:


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

Tone's said:


> Lance is in the John Wayne Gacy class of liar, both of then living in denial, both self serving, both sociopaths, and both try and throw others under the bus to cover their own asses.


Let's crank it up another level ... someday LA will be a political player on the national level. He doesn't seem to care about anything but winning, the perfect attitude for a career in DC.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Tone's said:


> But seriously he is a worse liar than Richard Ramirez, Ted Bundy and David Berkowitz ( the son of sam), thats a fact, as they all come clean after they were caught and didnt try to throw others under the bus, i didnt say he was a worse person than them, just a bigger liar, and infact Lance is a bigger sociopath than all of them,.


We already went over this he is sort of a stellar liar. Terrible liars are rarely sociopaths because they feel guilty and give away that they are lying. Sociopaths make much better liars.


----------



## jkirkpatri (Sep 16, 2008)

Armstrong threads always start slow, then build up momentum, until hilariousness ensues. Great thread. 

I haven't seen this possibility thrown out there, and I don't profess enough knowledge to validate my thoughts, but what if...

...Lance comes out, admits to doping, et al, but spins it to this: the reason why he doped was to ensure that we won the TdF and he knew that he needed to not only win one TdF, but to string enough wins together to immortalize him so that the Livestrong Foundation would have enough brand recognition to generate real tangible assets and money to provide cancer support to the extent that it does.

Maybe his spin will be that he did all of this not for himself, but to ensure that the Livestrong Foundation would solidify its presence to last on its own regardless of whatever outcomes Armstrong the individual would ensue. Give the Foundation a kick start, emboss it in the general public for now and forever, and accept whatever personal risks come out of it. Given his cancer, he possibly thought that his time was limited, so he used his celebrity status to create a lasting testament to the Foundation that would survive his life and give back to those that had gone through cancer such as himself. After all, if you survived cancer, what have you got to lose? You've already faced a life threatening event, I'm sure everything else pales in comparison.

He could have thought that maybe he'd only have ten years to live, so why not cheat, get the Foundation its starting mark, and be damned with the personal consequences. Do you think he really cares what happens to him personally when he's been given a second chance at life anyways? Possibly he thinks his time was up when he got cancer and his life since has just been "extra" and he's using it to do something meaningful (for the Foundation).

Yeah, he'd have to deny all doping accusations to ensure that the Foundation was well established. Couldn't have the Foundation come under scrutiny in the midst of his TdF wins. Years after the TdF wins, the Foundation will live on regardless of what happens to Lance. I haven't yet seen somebody blast the Foundation, only Lance the individual, so in that sense, I think he succeeded.

Just a thought. I'm not defending him, but possibly his mindset earlier was to setup the Foundation based on his TdF wins, and arrogance, et al came later when his second chance at life went longer than he originally thought.

Just a theory, guess we'll see later on.

_  Disclaimer: please don't quote me and challenge me to a dual. I've already confessed that I'm not entirely fluent with all aspects of Armstrong the individual and Armstrong the Foundation. Please don't attempt to rile me up with grammar or spelling errors I may have made, or attempt to present me with evidence to the contrary as I'm not presenting a end-all argument or thesis here.

Yes, I have a mom, and no, I don't have first experience with kangaroos, so hopefully those aspects won't present themselves along with quotations of my post later on.

I have no fear of negative rep, so flame away, although I am more partial to green chiclets than red. _


----------



## Fishbucket (Dec 4, 2012)

jkirkpatri said:


> _ Disclaimer: please don't quote me and challenge me to a dual. I've already confessed that I'm not entirely fluent with all aspects of Armstrong the individual and Armstrong the Foundation. Please don't attempt to rile me up with grammar or spelling errors I may have made, or attempt to present me with evidence to the contrary as I'm not presenting a end-all argument or thesis here._


That's got 'Signature line' ... written all over it.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

aedubber said:


> ...... There is doping in all sports ,... GET USED to it


I expect there is cheating of some sort in many sports, but I don't think I'll GET USED to it. I believe in winning fair. Call me a hopeless idealist.

To make it fair, you'd have to explicitly allow drug usage to enhance performance. Then, you'd have people trashing their lives to win, which happens already in some sports. Winners would be those most willing to trade their futures for some short term glory. In my view, that's not what sport should be about.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

In many cases even when people don't dope that is still what happens.

People lose the joint mobility to sports on a pretty regular basis. Contact sports are worse on the body, but many sports end up with a price.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

sxotty said:


> In many cases even when people don't dope that is still what happens.
> 
> People lose the joint mobility to sports on a pretty regular basis. Contact sports are worse on the body, but many sports end up with a price.


True enough. But I still don't like the idea of using drugs for competitive advantage.


----------



## J-Dubya61 (Jan 10, 2013)

It's clearly a PR move, he and his multimillion dollar PR and lawyer team will control the stagecraft. I think there is little to no chance anything new will be disclosed, and he will dodge and deflect the USADA allegations. If this were a sincere heartfelt mea culpa, he would sack-up and go through the official channels. I speculate that he will play the cancer card. He will say that he only did it, because he would do anything to help find the cure to cancer. He will not rest until he has found the cure...it is his life's work and his legacy and it makes no sense to stop him from working on cancer and giving people hope and motivation.

Oprah should include Dr Phil to call BULLturd, and bring out the people who he defamed, and the careers he has destroyed. Better yet, Lance should confess on Springer, or Maury -- That might be worth watching.
jW


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

I can't even tell what's sincere and who is being a joker in these threads anymore.


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

aedubber said:


> I understand this is a forums and we all can debate and say what we want , but seriously some of you guys need to get your washed up heads out of your ass and go ride . There is no point of being on an internet trying to prove this and that when the case has nothing to do with any of you , your not the jury nor the judge so stfu already . There is doping in all sports , it has been around and will be around , this is not the first nor the last case , GET USED to it . You can say he was a scumbag , a cool guy , whatever you want , but in the end he is just another guy that got busted big deal .
> 
> I will give him credit tho for starting the Livestrong foundation , havent seen many other dopers do something of this caliber , im not saying it makes him a better person but at least hes not a full cup of **** right ? Whatever happens happens , but whatever the outcome is it will not affect ANY of you guys on here so relax you dr phil's .
> 
> ...


Seems like you should make some time to ride. 1600 posts since 2011?

The case has nothing to do with any of you so stfu already, but I will add my two cents. ???


----------



## bgfthntr (May 18, 2009)

I've lost respect for him for sure....


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)

petersbike said:


> Seems like you should make some time to ride. 1600 posts since 2011?


I'm sorry I own a cell phone and browse the forums with it while I'm at work or the fact that I had an injury that cost me almost 6 months of not doing anything. I'm glad that post count is what you worry about lol loser. I see you must be part of the butt hurt group :thumbsup:

Ya cuz you guys *****ing like you raced against him and acting like this is going to end the world.Not here to argue so suck it up or be a little sissy and not like my post.


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

aedubber said:


> I'm sorry I own a cell phone and browse the forums with it while I'm at work or the fact that I had an injury that cost me almost 6 months of not doing anything. I'm glad that post count is what you worry about lol loser. I see you must be part of the butt hurt group :thumbsup:
> 
> Ya cuz you guys *****ing like you raced against him and acting like this is going to end the world.Not here to argue so suck it up or be a little sissy and not like my post.


Stop making excuses and own up to the fact that you are a hypocrite.


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)

Okay you win ! But yes a type 3 separated r AC and 3 fractures to my scapula put me out for months, nice try . I'm done with you and this silly thread, peace out tool .


----------



## brigadier (Oct 1, 2012)

He is definitely an insult to bicycle sport, his foundation was just a way to make him look more clean and human.

He was doping only for money, not to win or be the best. That is what makes guys like Hinault or Pantani "forgivable" riders.

He made his own laws of terror inside the peloton. One man faced him and had been banned for this, Christophe Bassons.

He was only there for money


----------



## chombers (Jan 12, 2013)

They all were doping. He just so happened to be the Best one doping. The guy is still and always will be a legend to millions of people. He has raised billions of dollars for cancer and cycling industry/associations all over the world. In my opinion, this man does not deserve to be dragged through the mud.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

SV11 said:


> Are you thick?
> How the hell do you know that "it didn't bother him AS MUCH"?
> It means the same thing, you are assuming on how he feels.
> Quit whle you're behind.


Are you thick?

You obviously care more about it then what he does because you just won't let it go.

Maybe you should quit while you are behind. :thumbsup:

But ok, if it will help you let it go

Mono, I am sorry I talked about your mamma.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Fishbucket said:


> I'll jump into this....
> 
> The affect you were looking for was to belittle his mother and make the argument personal... Most likely because you were not being heard or agreed with. ( 'llI go with the latter)
> 
> It's a deflection tactic to amp up the other person, and then when they blow-up, you use that as a chance to chop them down. to make proof, they are the irrational one.


I will agree and disagree.

Maybe it was a deflection tactic but really it was just because this whole thing has gone round and round and is going nowhere. I mean seriously he has been lowered below murders, rapists, and pedophiles by some. Other completely belittle what he has done for cancer research and the other good he has done.

So what if he doped?
If he didn't, the second place doper would have won.

Does this make it right? 
No

However, it is really sad how so many people can be so self righteous and turn their back on him and cast him away like yesterdays trash. 
Like I have stated before, I would bet that the majority of those who have discarded him would do the exact same thing he did if presented the chance.


----------



## floydlippencott (Sep 4, 2010)

chombers said:


> They all were doping. He just so happened to be the Best one doping. The guy is still and always will be a legend to millions of people. He has raised billions of dollars for cancer and cycling industry/associations all over the world. In my opinion, this man does not deserve to be dragged through the mud.


Jebus, where to start on this one? There is not one factual sentence in this post. :skep:


----------



## chopsuk (Dec 23, 2012)

surely the great good which his foundation has done mitigates some of the wrong?


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

floydlippencott said:


> Jebus, where to start on this one? There is not one factual sentence in this post. :skep:


Well, I am sure not every TDF rider was doping but I would guess he was referring to the top guys when he said "ALL". 
So I guess if you want to take it for the word all, we go with you are right, that is not factual.

I am sure many still view him as a legend. 
I would say this is factual

He didn't raise billions but he did raise almost half a billion. 
Ok, so not factual but he did raise a lot of money for cancer.

And he he stated that it was his opinion that Lance didn't deserve to get his name dragged through the mud. 
Well, it is factual that his opinion is that.

So half his post is factual and if we want to get technical the other half is not.

Just saying:thumbsup:


----------



## chombers (Jan 12, 2013)

floydlippencott said:


> Jebus, where to start on this one? There is not one factual sentence in this post. :skep:


How so? Sure they "all" weren't doping, but the top ones that were next in line to win were. So he didn't raise billions for cancer, his sponsors, the races he took part in, the sport of cycling as a whole? Go find facts that don't support these statements. Then come back with your fictitious character Jebus and actually back up your claims.


----------



## Fishbucket (Dec 4, 2012)

Does a thief get a break because, he helped an old lady across the street? 
Depends on what was stolen?

What if it was you he stole from?


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

chopsuk said:


> surely the great good which his foundation has done mitigates some of the wrong?


That is actually a great question. 
Some will say yes, and others will say no. 
It really comes down to opinion.

Personally, doing good doesn't excuse the wrong. 
However, it does help to make penance.

It certainly proves though that the guy is not the lowest form of scum considering something that low would have never cared about anyone else other than himself.


----------



## Fishbucket (Dec 4, 2012)

My opinion,

If the theif owned up to the crime and returned the goods... directly after walking the old lady across the street.

.... not years later.


.


----------



## jkirkpatri (Sep 16, 2008)

Fishbucket said:


> Does a thief get a break because, he helped an old lady across the street?
> Depends on what was stolen?
> 
> What if it was you he stole from?


No, but what if the thief helped millions across the street by using his stolen proceeds to hire an official old lady walker for that said intersection?

Not trying to be difficult, but I think my example is more relevant to this situation.

I'm not defending either example, I'm just expanding on your example. :thumbsup:


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

kjlued said:


> Are you thick?
> 
> You obviously care more about it then what he does because you just won't let it go.
> 
> ...


Neither will you, you keep coming back for more, I really don't understand what the fark is going thru your head...you tell someone that their mom likes your penis and you are trying to make excuses to why its ok? Are you a farkn moron or just retarded?


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

SV11 said:


> Are you thick?
> How the hell do you know that "it didn't bother him AS MUCH"?
> It means the same thing, you are assuming on how he feels.
> Quit whle you're behind.
> ...


so your apology was not because you think you actually did something wrong, but rather is a political move made for your own benefit? little wonder you relate so well to lance.

now it really makes sense why you're so bent on creating sympathy/compassion for him and are on a quest to rationalize/minimize/justify his actions. birds of a feather, and all that...


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

to everyone suggesting that LA should get a pass due to the Livestrong Foundation (LF), are you aware that it contributes virtually NOTHING to cancer research? no funding. no support. no nothing.

neither LA nor LF has furthered cancer research. the purpose of the LF is cancer awareness and to line the pockets of LA with cash. the IRS has recently become very interested in the LF as well for this very reason.

i'm pretty sure everyone knew cancer sucked before the LF came into existence, so nothing groundbreaking there.

just sayin'....


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

SV11 said:


> Neither will you, you keep coming back for more, I really don't understand what the fark is going thru your head...you tell someone that their mom likes your penis and you are trying to make excuses to why its ok? Are you a farkn moron or just retarded?


That's good complain about my insults by tossing out insults.:thumbsup:

Oh wait, I guys because my included a mom reference, it was the ultimate low blow. ok



monogod said:


> so your apology was not because you think you actually did something wrong, but rather is a political move made for your own benefit? little wonder you relate so well to lance.
> 
> now it really makes sense why you're so bent on creating sympathy/compassion for him and are on a quest to rationalize/minimize/justify his actions. birds of a feather, and all that...


LOL, political move, you got me. :thumbsup:

I suppose if it really did upset you then I will really apologize and it won't be a "political" move.

BTW, I don't think Lance deserves any sypathy and I don't really think he cares if he gets it. I just don't think he needs to apologize to the world for his actions.
I also don't think people need to be so upset over what is done just like I don't think SV needs to be so upset over my childish mom joke that wasn't even directed towards him.


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

kjlued said:


> BTW, I don't think Lance deserves any sypathy and I don't really think he cares if he gets it. I just don't think he needs to apologize to the world for his actions.
> I also don't think people need to be so upset over what is done just like I don't think SV needs to be so upset over my childish mom joke that wasn't even directed towards him.


Why don't you stop worring about what people should or should not be upset about . Instead worry about what you are trying to convey. Have some conviction and stand up for what you write. Apologize or do not but do not attempt to do both. Doing so gives you no credibility.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Sorry if this is mentioned elsewhere, but I just heard the statute of limitations for perjury has run out and that's why he's willing to talk to Oprah. Didn't she have this same conversation with the author of A Million Pieces or what ever it was called?


----------



## Gabe3 (Mar 13, 2009)

i don't see the reason he should admit. hes got a ton of money in the bank, a good family. if he doped, you can bet others did too, and he finished those races with the fastest time at the end of the day.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

kjlued said:


> Did he cheat?
> Probably, I dunno.
> 
> But really who gives a fvck?
> After all, he did beat the other dopers.:thumbsup:


Yeah, that's what's odd here to me. He was better than the other dopers that he was riding against. Yet, we still hear little about that.

So, the "playing field" was level and he still won.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

Gabe3 said:


> i don't see the reason he should admit. hes got a ton of money in the bank, a good family. if he doped, you can bet others did too, and he finished those races with the fastest time at the end of the day.


What do you mean "bet"??? I'm thinking they all had to because everyone else was and they knew it.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Lance Armstrong is the Robert Pickton of the bike world....


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Actually he is the Ed Gein of the bike world


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)




----------



## J-Dubya61 (Jan 10, 2013)

chombers said:


> They all were doping. He just so happened to be the Best one doping. The guy is still and always will be a legend to millions of people. He has raised billions of dollars for cancer and cycling industry/associations all over the world. In my opinion, this man does not deserve to be dragged through the mud.


You are the type of person he and his PR team will be playing to.

BAMN (by any means necessary)? Does the end justify the means?
jW


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

ziscwg said:


> Yeah, that's what's odd here to me. He was better than the other dopers that he was riding against. Yet, we still hear little about that.
> 
> So, the "playing field" was level and he still won.


this question has been answered many times in many threads on here, you obviously have not done much reading. i'll spoon feed you the short version...

you hear little about it because others didn't engage in the additional behaviors LA did: bribery, extortion, retaliation, lawsuits, intimidation, perjury, etc. and so forth. LA created the whirlwind he's now reaping while others never created a whirlwind in the first place.

"the playing field was level", you say? um... no. it was not even level among the dopers, as those who could afford the better doctors/substances/etc got more of a performance increase than those who could not.

moreover, do you think the clean riders would agree with you that LA, or doping in general, created a "level playing field"?


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Gabe3 said:


> i don't see the reason he should admit.


those 8 little words speak VOLUMES about your character.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

monogod said:


> this question has been answered many times in many threads on here, you obviously have not done much reading. i'll spoon feed you the short version...
> 
> you hear little about it because others didn't engage in the additional behaviors LA did: bribery, extortion, retaliation, lawsuits, intimidation, perjury, etc. and so forth. LA created the whirlwind he's now reaping while others never created a whirlwind in the first place.
> 
> ...


your words are every bit the truth, monogod BUT...where are you? i'll show you where:


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

shekky said:


> your words are every bit the truth, monogod BUT...where are you? i'll show you where:


kinda feels more like here sometimes...


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

monogod said:


> kinda feels more like here sometimes...


one of my old riding buddies is firmly in the hard-headed camp no matter what i show him...

still, i love the old *&[email protected]#$ like a brother...


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

kjlued said:


> You are mistaking "PROOF" for what we know to be probably true.
> What we see as probably true though is nothing more than a matter of opinion.
> 
> Would hate to see you on a jury.


facepalm...

you have not read USADA evidence - have you?


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

SV11 said:


> Tones, it's funny up to a point. I'm ok with mum jokes and whatnot in a comical environment, but when it comes up out of the blue in debate/arguement, then generally it's used to antagonise, and that I'm not ok with.


i don't think all this crap with penises is funny at all. particularly when mothers are involved as well. there should be some respect. i am disappointed that mods did not clean this up.

can we not discuss this in civilized manner?


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

wmac said:


> Sorry if this is mentioned elsewhere, but I just heard the statute of limitations for perjury has run out and that's why he's willing to talk to Oprah. Didn't she have this same conversation with the author of A Million Pieces or what ever it was called?


ah now it makes a whole lot more sense...

why not make a ton of cash off of Oprah?

really, why not... he'll need them for all the lawsuits that are coming....


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

ziscwg said:


> Yeah, that's what's odd here to me. He was better than the other dopers that he was riding against. Yet, we still hear little about that.
> 
> So, the "playing field" was level and he still won.


Yup

I would be curious to know if people here that are pissed at Lance really searched their soul deep down inside and were honest with themselves what they would do if were in something like the TDF riding it clean but knowing you were the best but could not win because all the people above you were doping.

1) Do you fight the good fight and ride clean knowing you will never win, you will never make the big bucks, get the sponsorships, and will fade away in the books like all the others who have never won.

or

2) Do you break the rules like all the other guys beating you and do what they do and hope not to get caught?

I mean honestly all of us would like to think we would pick #1. I know I would like to think it.
However, I can be honest with myself and I know I would choose #2. Just as I am sure that most the haters here would chose to do what he did if presented the opportunity.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

kjlued said:


> Yup
> 
> I would be curious to know if people here that are pissed at Lance really searched their soul deep down inside and were honest with themselves what they would do if were in something like the TDF riding it clean but knowing you were the best but could not win because all the people above you were doping.
> 
> ...


you've made it abundantly clear you would absolutely and without question or remorse lie, cheat, disregard rules, use whatever unscrupulous/nefarious/underhanded tactics, and stoop to the most base and immoral levels of soul and character bankruptcy to get what you want.

there's no need to keep repeating yourself. we get it.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

monogod said:


> you've made it abundantly clear you would absolutely and without question or remorse lie, cheat, disregard rules, use whatever unscrupulous/nefarious/underhanded tactics, and stoop to the most base and immoral levels of soul and character bankruptcy to get what you want.
> 
> there's no need to keep repeating yourself. we get it.


Yup, you got me. 

So, you have never nor will never do anything dishonest in your life again?

If you can honestly say that, then you win.
Otherwise you are just standing on a soapbox of judgement. :thumbsup:


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

kjlued said:


> Yup, you got me.
> 
> So, you have never nor will never do anything dishonest in your life again?
> 
> ...


I dont think its the issue of ever having done anything wrong, its a matter if you are willing to throw others under the bus, bully, really try to take others down.
Its not the way average people act.
Your trying to make out that lances deeds are things anybody could have done, i dont think so, not everybody is a sociopath, not everybody goes to the extent that he has gone to, even in pro biking circles, the way he has acted is nothing but a disgrace.
Its certainly not in my make up to carry on the way lance has acted.
Lance is a grub, end of story.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Tone's said:


> I dont think its the issue of ever having done anything wrong, its a matter if you are willing to throw others under the bus, bully, really try to take others down.
> Its not the way average people act.
> Your trying to make out that lances deeds are things anybody could have done, i dont think so, not everybody is a sociopath, not everybody goes to the extent that he has gone to, even in pro biking circles, the way he has acted is nothing but a disgrace.
> Its certainly not in my make up to carry on the way lance has acted.
> Lance is a grub, end of story.


So Lance bullied grown adults of pretty much the same physical conditions?

Maybe he was a jerk to people around him but a bully?
It isn't like he was snatching the lollipops out of little kids mouths.

So if acting like a jerk makes somebody a grub then read back through this thread and you can come up with a list of about half the people that posted (and before somebody else says it, myself included).


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

kjlued said:


> Yup
> 
> I would be curious to know if people here that are pissed at Lance really searched their soul deep down inside and were honest with themselves what they would do if were in something like the TDF riding it clean but knowing you were the best but could not win because all the people above you were doping.
> 
> ...


Speak for yourself. Not everyone here is so rotten.

Simeoni did the right thing and stood up to Lance.

Lance destroyed Simeoni's career for that.

Not just Simeoni's.

That is why I don't have any simphaty for the cheat.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

osokolo said:


> Speak for yourself. Not everyone here is so rotten.
> 
> Simeoni did the right thing and stood up to Lance.
> 
> ...


So you are mad at a doper for ruining another dopers career?

Seriously, how did Lance ruin Simeoni's career? 
Because he was better at playing the game?

Either way, you support my claim since Simeoni doped too.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Sorry, I don't intend to waste my time proving to you that the water is wet. I would fail anyway. I submitted my opinion and have nothing else to add FOR YOU at this time. 

My comment was directed at other participants of the thread who at least have some substance to offer. 

I am glad that despite your disapproval - Armstrong got what he deserved and regardless of your outcry, a great majority of posters see Lance for what he really is - a cheating sociopath.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

osokolo said:


> Sorry, I don't intend to waste my time proving to you that the water is wet. I would fail anyway. I submitted my opinion and have nothing else to add FOR YOU at this time.
> 
> My comment was directed at other participants of the thread who at least have some substance to offer.
> 
> I am glad that despite your disapproval - Armstrong got what he deserved and regardless of your outcry, a great majority of posters see Lance for what he really is - a cheating sociopath.


Agreed....


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

This first article is a summary of some (by no means all) who have experienced the wrath of Armstrong. This is all old news now, but bears a review. Keep in mind also that there was tremendous wealth to fuel the LA public relations/legal machine that provided the muscle to retain power and control -- *this is all about manipulating public perception to protect the image and the brand*. So many of the posts to this and many, many other threads speak to the brutal effectiveness of this campaign (and I use campaign in the military, not political, sense).

*The wrath of Lance Armstrong: USADA outlines witness intimidation*

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency sketched a chilling portrait of a vindictive and ruthless Lance Armstrong in its files Wednesday, painting the seven-time Tour de France winner as a peloton bully, capable of intimidating rivals both on the bike and at the bar.

The USADA report details confrontations or issues with Filippo Simeoni, Tyler Hamilton, Levi Leipheimer, Betsy and Frankie Andreau and Jonathan Vaughters, among others. The Armstrong character drawn isn't a kind illustration of the disgraced champion, instead conveying the Texan as someone determined to keep those who would shed light on doping in cycling subdued.

At the 2004 Tour de France, Armstrong famously chased down Simeoni when he was in a breakaway group. Simeoni had testified against Dr. Michele Ferrari, who was Armstrong's trainer.

"You made a mistake when you testified against Ferrari&#8230; I can destroy you," Simeoni says Armstrong told him. Armstrong forced Simeoni back to the peloton, with a sinister "zip the lips gesture" that was replayed constantly on television, though at the time commentators claimed to have no idea what it really meant.

One journalist recalled Simeoni's face - it was wet with both his tears and the spit of the peloton.

"Mr. Armstrong's statement to Mr. Simeoni in which he referred directly to Mr. Simeoni's testimony in a legal proceeding and said 'I can destroy you,' and Mr. Armstrong's actions in connection with his threatening statement, constitute acts of attempted witness intimidation," the USADA report reads.

Full text here.

I think the key to thinking about this is there is a very long and consistent pattern of the behavior that speaks to the man's character and this does not even begin to touch intimidation through lawsuits.

Article from Daily News UK (scroll down to about half way through the article).

If you're finding it difficult to sympathize with those - including many reporters - who cowed before the threats of Armstrong's army of white-shoe lawyers and high-end agents and publicists,* consider that Armstrong was probably the most litigious athlete in the history of sports.*

He set a precedent for other athletes who would go on to use *guerilla tactics to attempt to intimidate the media or silence accusers.
*
As the Daily News wrote in 2008, Armstrong unleashed a shotgun blast of litigation at virtually everyone involved with "L.A. Confidential: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong." Just as the book was hitting shelves in Europe, Armstrong sued the authors, the publisher, the sources (including Emma O'Reilly), a magazine that ran an excerpt, and the Sunday Times of London, the British newspaper that ran a preview of the book. Armstrong announced the suit at a splashy Maryland press conference on June 15, 2004, then quietly dropped it in 2005, withdrawing his claims before a trial could begin, a tactic similar to the ones athletes Roger Clemens and Shane Mosley would later use against their own accusers.

*"In France, we say it had l'effet d'annonce," Paris attorney Thibault de Montbrial, who defended the book's publisher and authors, told The News. "He makes the announcement, but when the emotion goes away, no one realizes that he didn't go to court."*

Armstrong's message was heard: his army of lawyers effectively scared away American publishers from translating the French-language book.

"In a sense, it was an effective play," Walsh said then. "The American publishers were frightened. Why would you take on a book that you knew was being sued in France?"

Armstrong had also filed a bevy of suits in France and even initiated a special emergency hearing with a French court in Paris, where he tried to get a disclaimer inserted into the book calling its allegations defamatory. The judge sided with the publishers, hitting Armstrong with a small fine for abusing the French legal system.

"Our lawyer told the judge it would be the death of investigative journalism," Walsh said. "It would have been very convenient for all the rogues of the world to ignore uncomfortable questions and then just silence their accusers afterwards."

Armstrong withdrew all of his French defamation cases shortly before they were to go to trial in the fall of 2005.

Full text here.

Ironically (but not incidentally), *Radio Shack *was running a large ad in the side bar of this article and I kept accidentally triggering the pop up window. Kinda funny that Radio Shack has found a way to keep getting their money's worth from LA -- no publicity is bad publicity.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

osokolo said:


> Sorry, I don't intend to waste my time proving to you that the water is wet. I would fail anyway. I submitted my opinion and have nothing else to add FOR YOU at this time.
> 
> My comment was directed at other participants of the thread who at least have some substance to offer.
> 
> I am glad that despite your disapproval - Armstrong got what he deserved and regardless of your outcry, a great majority of posters see Lance for what he really is - a cheating sociopath.


What, you said Armstrong ruined Simeoni's career. 
Simeoni doped during his career which is a proven fact.

My statement to you was a result of your statement to me and now that you don't have a defense, you play it this way.

You need to prove to yourself the water is wet because I don't think you believe it.

But whatever.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

June Bug said:


> Ironically (but not incidentally), *Radio Shack *was running a large ad in the side bar of this article and I kept accidentally triggering the pop up window. Kinda funny that Radio Shack has found a way to keep getting their money's worth from LA -- no publicity is bad publicity.


I was in Radio Shack a month ago and employees were still wearing Live Strong stuff but it seemed anything with a Live Strong logo on it was being deeply discounted.

Got some neoprene armbands for the iphone reg price $20 for $2ea lol


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

chopsuk said:


> surely the great good which his foundation has done mitigates some of the wrong?




















"It takes dedication, *deep character flaws* and an awful lot of drugs to achieve what I did during my career", he claimed.

"Not everyone's got the balls to lie to millions of people, or dump their fiance when they find out she's got cancer."


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

Fishbucket said:


> Does a thief get a break because, he helped an old lady across the street?
> Depends on what was stolen?
> 
> What if it was you he stole from?


But your Honor ... What about all the people I didn't kill


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

monogod said:


> to everyone suggesting that LA should get a pass due to the Livestrong Foundation (LF), are you aware that it contributes virtually NOTHING to cancer research? no funding. no support. no nothing.
> 
> neither LA nor LF has furthered cancer research. the purpose of the LF is cancer awareness and to line the pockets of LA with cash. the IRS has recently become very interested in the LF as well for this very reason.
> 
> ...


Thus,possibly, being nothing more than an attention getter for all involved, or suffering.

Not knocking the extra attention, but IMHO those suffering from this disease, would be better served via funding styles of support.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

wmac said:


> Sorry if this is mentioned elsewhere, but I just heard the *statute of limitations for perjury has run out* and that's why he's willing to talk to Oprah. Didn't she have this same conversation with the author of A Million Pieces or what ever it was called?


True, without a lot of lawyer speak within the courts, as it relates to the USADA charges ... But within a civil case, I'm not so sure.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

kjlued said:


> So Lance bullied grown adults of pretty much the same physical conditions?
> 
> Maybe he was a jerk to people around him but a bully?
> It isn't like he was snatching the lollipops out of little kids mouths.
> ...


You do understand that "bullying" does not have to take a physical form ... Don't you ?


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

bikeabuser said:


> You do understand that "bullying" does not have to take a physical form ... Don't you ?


Yeah, but I think the claims of bullying against LA is a little silly.

If he was verbally bullying ] some children or other defenseless people, I see it. 
However, claiming he was verbally bullying people of the same stature as him I think is a little silly. I agree he may have been a jerk but I just don't see bully. But I guess that is all schematics on how you view the difference between a bully and a jerk.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

kjlued said:


> Yeah, but I think the claims of bullying against LA is a little silly.
> 
> If he was verbally bullying ] some children or other defenseless people, I see it.
> However, claiming he was verbally bullying people of the same stature as him I think is a little silly. I agree he may have been a jerk but I just don't see bully. But I guess that is all schematics on how you view the difference between a bully and a jerk.


And I don't thnk you got my meaning 
Throwing money at lawyer's, to get the results LA has gotten, can also be a form of bullying.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

kjlued said:


> Yeah, but I think the claims of bullying against LA is a little silly.
> 
> If he was verbally bullying ] some children or other defenseless people, I see it.
> However, claiming he was verbally bullying people of the same stature as him I think is a little silly. I agree he may have been a jerk but I just don't see bully. But I guess that is all schematics on how you view the difference between a bully and a jerk.


You need to do some research on bullying, Lance weilded a lot of power behind the scenes and was not bullying people of the same stature or power.

The more i read your posts the more i realise that you havnt read the USADA report or really studied this case much, lance was a massive bully in every sense of the word..


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

Cancer can reoccur.
Some people need multiple treatment regimens over the years.
Carboplatin is a chemo drug that also affects the bone marrows ability to produce red blood cells. If your hemoglobin count gets below 8.1 your choice is Procrit(EPO). A big dose of 20-40K units/kg is necessary every week to get your red blood cell and hemo up to avoid infections and continue treatment.. It's likely he had that treatment as part of his initial cancer treatment. Sometimes patients has reoccurrences and need additional treatment regimens.
If he needed more cancer treatments during his career Procrit would likely have been necessary. Fighting cancer shouldn't keep him from riding 
Livestrong is about doing even with cancer


----------



## m schmidt (Oct 16, 2009)

eb1888 said:


> Cancer can reoccur.
> Some people need multiple treatment regimens over the years.
> Carboplatin is a chemo drug that also affects the bone marrows ability to produce red blood cells. If your hemoglobin count gets below 8.1 your choice is Procrit(EPO). A big dose of 20-40K units/kg is necessary every week to get your red blood cell and hemo up to avoid infections and continue treatment.. It's likely he had that treatment as part of his initial cancer treatment. Sometimes patients has reoccurrences and need additional treatment regimens.
> If he needed more cancer treatments during his career Procrit would likely have been necessary. Fighting cancer shouldn't keep him from riding
> Livestrong is about doing even with cancer


Let's hope that cancer hasn't come back.


----------



## cbmtbr (Aug 2, 2004)

ziscwg said:


> Yeah, that's what's odd here to me. He was better than the other dopers that he was riding against. Yet, we still hear little about that.
> 
> So, the "playing field" was level and he still won.


As already mentioned, not everyone had the same access to doping that Lance and his teams did.

Additionally, people have said here and on other sites that a good doping program can make you 3-5% faster. What's 3-5% slower? Well, depending on the year, 3% slower than Lance would put you somewhere around 80th place. So if _just one_ rider in the top 80 was riding on pan y agua, they may have conceivably been faster than Lance, and won the TdF themselves. Yeah, there were a lot of people cheating, but I just can't see every single rider in the top 80 cheating. And that's just at 3%

I for one hope that Lance's reputation isn't rehabbed by this admission.


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

eb1888 said:


> Cancer can reoccur.
> Some people need multiple treatment regimens over the years.
> Carboplatin is a chemo drug that also affects the bone marrows ability to produce red blood cells. If your hemoglobin count gets below 8.1 your choice is Procrit(EPO). A big dose of 20-40K units/kg is necessary every week to get your red blood cell and hemo up to avoid infections and continue treatment.. It's likely he had that treatment as part of his initial cancer treatment. Sometimes patients has reoccurrences and need additional treatment regimens.
> If he needed more cancer treatments during his career Procrit would likely have been necessary. Fighting cancer shouldn't keep him from riding
> Livestrong is about doing even with cancer


LA's PR team probably already knows that. Wouldn't be surprised if that sort of explanation isn't rolled out to Oprah.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Whatever happens there of course they will put a spin on it and people will gripe about that too. 

Then we can start a whole new thread on how he didn't come clean or how his apology wasn't sincere. :thumbsup:


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)

Isn't this a Mountain bike forum? Just saying.. lol you people need to worry about your country and government rather then this bs. This type of stuff goes on daily and happens all the time with bullying, lies, and extortion, and I'm talking about in all aspects not just cycling. Seems like most of you live in a box and act like this is such a crime. Mods should delete this thread as it had nothing to do with Mountain biking review forums.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

m schmidt said:


> Let's hope that cancer hasn't come back.


Yep. Lets hope he doesn't come back into the sport.


----------



## Millfox (Jun 22, 2012)

I think I'll get a LIVESTRONG sticker on my bike just to piss people off.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

aedubber said:


> Isn't this a Mountain bike forum? Just saying..


You're a bright spark, LA mountainbikes as well....so you're point is?



aedubber said:


> Mods should delete this thread as it had nothing to do with Mountain biking review forums.


Ok, while you're at it, tell them to delete the Off Camber section as well...seeing that has nothing to do with mountainbikes as well.



aedubber said:


> ...you people need to worry about your country and government rather then this bs.


Ah, no. Thats what the politicians are for, that's why they get paid the big bucks.


----------



## Millfox (Jun 22, 2012)

SV11 said:


> Ah, no. Thats what the policitians are for, that's why they get paid the big bucks.


And they're doing such a great job aren't they!


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Millfox said:


> And they're doing such a great job aren't they!


Thats beside the point, but yeah they are a bunch of monkies.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

SV11 said:


> aedubber said:
> 
> 
> > Mods should delete this thread as it had nothing to do with Mountain biking review forums.
> ...


Touche :devil:


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)

Lmao.. This thread needs a lot of hugs.

Ya they get paid the big bucks from your pocket unless your a scrub leeching off the system.

There is no passion about this thread? Unless arguing , bickering, and name calling is passion for you guys. Trying to justify who's right or wrong lol .I see a lot of jealous hate against the guy. I'm not saying what he did was right but it's nothing new to me since steroids , synthetics , and enhancers will always be around.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)




----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

bikeabuser said:


>


Yeah, but that is only good with the hipster fixie people. 
There are no hugs in mountain biking.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

kjlued said:


> Yeah, but that is only good with the hipster fixie people.
> There are no hugs in mountain biking.


good one...heh heh heh...


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

kjlued said:


> There are no hugs in mountain biking.


For LA, this is most likely true :lol:


















IMO, this is perfect for a Passion Thread.


----------



## Pedalfast (Nov 4, 2005)

Fiskare said:


> There have been several analysis' of the affect this would have since the story was first floated last week. The consensus seems to be that Lance would open himself to less than 20 million in paybacks and costs (so all in, and maybe as lil as 10) but no jail time (and maybe no criminal charges) as the SOL has run on almost everything. These aren't my conclusions, so I can't vouch for any of it. To me, the more interesting question is what will this do to his legacy/brand.
> 
> And of course he might just hold fast with the 'no, no, no it wasn't me' story.





aedubber said:


> Isn't this a Mountain bike forum? Just saying.. lol you people need to worry about your country and government rather then this bs. This type of stuff goes on daily and happens all the time with bullying, lies, and extortion, and I'm talking about in all aspects not just cycling. Seems like most of you live in a box and act like this is such a crime. Mods should delete this thread as it had nothing to do with Mountain biking review forums.


We are talking about someone who has made somewhat of a mark in mtn biking by winning the "Leadville 100". He has definitely brought all kinds of cycling up on the radar of people that I interact with on my job and other social circles, hopefully it will end up being good exposure in the long run if we as cyclists put a positive touch on it. After all, we are ambassadors of this sport. He has to be one of, if not the most polarizing personalities that has been involved in cycling. Even this thread has revealed a difference of opinions on him and his story. Most of us do want to be associated with winners, albeit legit ones. I remember cheering for him enthusiastically thru the TV during the tours, especially the comeback tour. Yet after weighting all the information being provided by various sources including Tyler Hamilton's book "The Secret Race", it appears that he is not the champion that I and many others had once thought and hoped him to be. Apparently there are a number of us who have an opinion about him who felt like expressing it here. I thought it was kinda appropriate under the "passion category." It is still an option for anyone to chime in, including you and it is obvious that you feel some passion about the topic or we would not have heard from you :thumbsup:


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

Dope free


----------



## curtboroff (Sep 21, 2010)

No one wants the truth, they want the jucy story!!!
I hope he drops his drawers and full moons the world, then flies a bird with a fiew choice phrases.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

curtboroff said:


> No one wants the truth, they want the jucy story!!!
> I hope he drops his drawers and full moons the world, then flies a bird with a fiew choice phrases.


All you want to see is his a$$?


----------



## curtboroff (Sep 21, 2010)

osokolo said:


> All you want to see is his a$$?


Nah. But a good pic of his balls(shriveled?) should clear all this steroid talk up, truth or not.:thumbsup:


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

:lol:


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

curtboroff said:


> Nah. But a good pic of his balls(shriveled?) should clear all this steroid talk up, truth or not.:thumbsup:


Balls?

Can't happen he's got only one left.

Therefore - a ball. Not balls.

If be bad balls he would have owned up to his crap a long time ago.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)




----------



## vizsladog (Mar 15, 2009)

the guy is a piece of ****. lied to cancer fighters saying " i did it so can you"...ruined many peoples lives and carrers,sued the **** out of tons of people, threatned to kill tyler hamilton in resturant and then said he was a liar.....

Fug him.....


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

bikeabuser said:


> For LA, this is most likely true :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

kjlued said:


> bikeabuser said:
> 
> 
> > For LA, this is most likely true :lol:
> ...


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

kjlued said:


> Well, pic one is a hot chic hugging a pro athlete not a huf between mountain bikers.
> 
> Pic 2 is somebody hugging a new frame. I mean seriously, not only do I hug my bike daily, I snuggle up to it at night when I go to bed and if you don't, there is something seriously wrong with you.
> 
> Neither depicts mountain bikers hugging.


Something tells me you'd argue with a fence post, just to argue


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

shekky said:


> kjlued said:
> 
> 
> > how do you know the hot chick is not a pro mountain biker? maybe his team mate?
> ...


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

kjlued said:


> I mean seriously, not only do I hug my bike daily, I snuggle up to it at night when I go to bed and if you don't, there is something seriously wrong with you.


oh, so you're this guy.

that certainly clears a lot of things up around here...


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

bikeabuser said:


> Something tells me you'd argue with a fence post, just to argue


How do I disagree with that without proving your point? lol

But seriously, I consider most the people here I argue with to be slightly more intelligent than a fence post......Just slightly though.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

kjlued said:


> shekky said:
> 
> 
> > Well maybe she is but hugs between the sexes are always acceptable especially if she is hawt.
> ...


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

monogod said:


> oh, so you're this guy.
> 
> that certainly clears a lot of things up around here...


Well, if you consider hugging and snuggling to be sex, then yes.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

wow. we have moved far, far away from anything resembling the "high road" here...


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

shekky said:


> kjlued said:
> 
> 
> > well...maybe if it's your old coach or if your team won the game too, my friend...
> ...


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

Tree Hugger


----------



## curtboroff (Sep 21, 2010)

kjlued said:


> bikeabuser said:
> 
> 
> > For LA, this is most likely true :lol:
> ...


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

curtboroff said:


> Ummm
> That's Gee and Rachel Atherton, brother and sister teammates. Their older brother Dan is on the team as well.
> Just sayin!


Ummm, she is still hawt

Just sayin!

Almost a bro hug between mtn bikers but not quite there.


----------



## curtboroff (Sep 21, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Ummm, she is still hawt
> 
> Just sayin!
> 
> Almost a bro hug between mtn bikers but not quite there.


Nice try. But that's a mountain biker and a kayaker.

And yes. She's really hot.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)




----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Ummm, she is still hawt
> 
> Just sayin!
> 
> Almost a bro hug between mtn bikers but not quite there.


----------



## brigadier (Oct 1, 2012)

Gabe3 said:


> i don't see the reason he should admit. hes got a ton of money in the bank, a good family. if he doped, you can bet others did too, and he finished those races with the fastest time at the end of the day.


he was the fastest on Tour de France during seven years, seven years dude ! He was not the best racer, he just found the magic formula and the perfect mix about chemics and medicins to improve his physical faculties. He was the chief of a criminal network especially made to give him and his team riders those illegal products.

He was not the best, he was the most doped with the best formula.

This guy deserves to be washed in the mud, he still be an insult to one of the most beautiful sport in the world, because he was not only doped, because he acted like a criminal the way he organized his way of doping and the pressure he exercized against other clean riders.

In the US, people love their heroes, and you cannot touch to them. But common', stay objective one moment. He was not the best, he was just doped with the best things, he was a criminal, and the most vomitive thing is he did all of that not to win, but just for money.

Bernard Hinault, Fausto Coppi, Marco Pantani, and many other famous riders were doping, but they did it to win and be the best not for money.


----------



## Jag Brah (May 14, 2012)

brigadier said:


> Bernard Hinault, Fausto Coppi, Marco Pantani, and many other famous riders were doping, but they did it to win and be the best not for money.


and you know this how?

o wait, doping's fine. Everyone's doing it. It's why you dope that matters.


----------



## brigadier (Oct 1, 2012)

they all did not have the wealth and money Armstrong has.

There is still "clean" teams to face what you said. 
AG2R-La Mondiale
Argos-Shimano
FDJ
Garmin-Sharp
Lotto-Belisol
Orica-GreenEDGE
Vacansoleil
Pour les continentales pro : 
Cofidis
Europcar
NetApp-Endura
Sojasun
Colombia
Bardiani-CSF Inox
IAM Cycling
Bretagne-Séché Environnement
La Pomme Marseille
BigMat-Auber 93
OCBC Singapour
Optum-Kelly Benefit Strategies
Plussbank-BMC


----------



## Jag Brah (May 14, 2012)

I'll be the first to admit that I don't follow road cycling events because they're boring (imo), but I highly doubt that any of the top players in the world stage are fully 'clean'. Drugs don't make you a top player. You have to be among the best, clean, to be at the top. The drugs just give you that edge over the others. 

It's a pretty much a level playing field if everyone's doping, but that don't make it right.


----------



## uglyguy2 (Jun 20, 2012)

Armstrong isn't a ****** because he's a doper. He's a ****** because he's from Texas. That's the real issue here.


----------



## uglyguy2 (Jun 20, 2012)

Are you kidding? MTBR bleeps out d0uche? What is this world coming to..


----------



## brigadier (Oct 1, 2012)

@ uglyguy2 :
Why being native from Texas should be bad for you ?


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

curtboroff said:


> Nice try. But that's a mountain biker and a kayaker.


Good call and you are correct sir.

Hmmmm, when it comes to mountain bikers, I see guys hugging girls, girls hugging girls, girls and guys hugging bikes but no bro hugs. Which I guess proves my point. 
And as Spicoli clip says, if it was two dudes, they would probably be gay.

Is he going in for the hug? I dunno.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

brigadier said:


> @ uglyguy2 :
> Why being native from Texas should be bad for you ?


He was just making a joke but it seems to lose a little in translation.


----------



## brigadier (Oct 1, 2012)

Oh well I am sorry, I stopped my english lessons to Brian is in the kitchen and not in Sandy


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

brigadier said:


> Oh well I am sorry, I stopped my english lessons to Brian is in the kitchen and not in Sandy


I hope you didn't think I was making fun of you.

I can't speak multiple langues and am always impressed when people can.:thumbsup:


----------



## brigadier (Oct 1, 2012)

no matter dude, I just forgot a smiley ! arf I still suck in the art of Smileyless

Well after 10 pages of nose eating, I think people here need to be happy. They look sad, and I will teach you all to be happy, I will teach your grandmas to suck an egg

It's the Ren and Stimpy show........Happy happy joy joy, happy happy joy.........wouhou !


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

kjlued said:


> Good call and you are correct sir.
> 
> Hmmmm, when it comes to mountain bikers, I see guys hugging girls, girls hugging girls, girls and guys hugging bikes but no bro hugs. Which I guess proves my point.
> And as Spicoli clip says, if it was two dudes, they would probably be gay.
> ...


what's your take when a guy hugs a guy? are they gay for sure or maybe not?


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

It's not gay until something enters an orifice.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

kjlued said:


> Good call and you are correct sir.
> 
> Hmmmm, when it comes to mountain bikers, I see guys hugging girls, girls hugging girls, girls and guys hugging bikes but no bro hugs. Which I guess proves my point.
> And as Spicoli clip says, if it was two dudes, they would probably be gay.
> ...


You seem kind of hung up on this diversion


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

osokolo said:


> what's your take when a guy hugs a guy? are they gay for sure or maybe not?


I can't say for sure.

But if they were, that would be their thing.



bikeabuser said:


> You seem kind of hung up on this diversion


Yeah, probably because discussing LA at this point is really quite pointless. 
The only thing anyone proved in this thread is that not everyone is going to agree so I suppose it is time to just agree to disagree.

Maybe we should post pics of hot women mountain bikers.










However, I have to say, she should wear a helmet.


----------



## Fishbucket (Dec 4, 2012)

When is the interview going to air ? 




I'm sure I could clean the gutters or shovel out the septic tank when it's on... I'll be smelling the same stench


..


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

AP source: Armstrong tells Oprah he doped

_Lance Armstrong confessed to Oprah Winfrey during an interview Monday that he used performance-enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France, a person familiar with the situation told The Associated Press._

[snipped]
_
Soon afterward, Winfrey tweeted: "Just wrapped with (at)lancearmstrong More than 2 1/2 hours. He came READY!" She was scheduled to appear on "CBS This Morning" on Tuesday to discuss the interview._


----------



## Danke (Sep 19, 2005)

The ice is cracking.

BBC News - US cyclist Lance Armstrong apologises to Livestrong staff


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

That P.S. is probably gonna bite him hard.



> Have you been wronged by LA ?
> Call 1-800-Get-Dope ... The civil court, recovery lawyers, if you believe you have been monetarily injured by LA.


:lol:


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

*Official: Justice considers joining Armstrong lawsuit*

_As Lance Armstrong admits to doping during his famed cycling career, Justice Department officials are recommending that the agency join a federal whistleblower lawsuit against Armstrong, a federal law enforcement official briefed on the matter but not authorized to speak told USA TODAY Sports.

The case was initiated by former cyclist and Armstrong teammate Floyd Landis under the False Claims Act. At issue is whether Armstrong and others defrauded the U.S. Postal Service of around $30 million when it sponsored his team._

Full article

*Source: Lance in talks to return money*

_Lance Armstrong might pay back part of the money he received from the U.S. Postal Service, which sponsored the cyclist and his team while he was winning six of his Tours de France, a source familiar with the situation told CNN Monday night.

The source said Armstrong was in negotiations to repay some of the money.

A spokeswoman for the agency said: "We are not in a position now to discuss any of the legal issues associated with these developments and the prior relationship between the U.S. Postal Service and Mr. Armstrong, but we will do so at an appropriate time."_

Full article


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)

"The most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."


This man will be a LEGEND of a master mind ! LOL ...


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

All i want to know is where are the total muppets, all 10% of them from the do you believe lance is clean thread that voted 'no he never doped', these people take the award for the stupidest human beings on planet earth, you all should be ashamed of yourselves for being so stupid, you let down the human race and should not be allowed to breed, and if you have, i feel sorry for your children......

Carry on....


----------



## Kiwiplague (Jul 22, 2011)

Tone's said:


> All i want to know is where are the total muppets, all 10% of them from the do you believe lance is clean thread that voted 'no he never doped', these people take the award for the stupidest human beings on planet earth, you all should be ashamed of yourselves for being so stupid, you let down the human race and should not be allowed to breed, and if you have, i feel sorry for your children......
> 
> Carry on....


Yeah, I'd like to see exactly how all the true believers will get out of their blind devotion to Lance now.
In my mind, the doping isn't quite as bad as how he systematically (and cynically) tried to destroy, threaten and cajole all those who tried to speak out against him. He may be a driven individual, but boy is he a complete ****** (insert favourite swearword)


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Tone's said:


> All i want to know is where are the total muppets, all 10% of them from the do you believe lance is clean thread that voted 'no he never doped', these people take the award for the stupidest human beings on planet earth, you all should be ashamed of yourselves for being so stupid, you let down the human race and should not be allowed to breed, and if you have, i feel sorry for your children......
> 
> Carry on....


Well, I am sure I am one of those so called muppets lol

I never stated I believed he was clean. In fact I said I believed he did it. 
I am pretty sure most the other "muppets" felt the same but I can't speak for them.
I just wasn't going to throw him under the bus for his actions. 
I also did and still don't believe he owed a public apology.

Now that there is proof, I still stand behind everything I said and understand why he did it, the fact that all the top guys were doing it, and the fact that he still beat all the other dopers. lol


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

kjlued said:


> Well, I am sure I am one of those so called muppets lol
> 
> I never stated I believed he was clean. In fact I said I believed he did it.
> I am pretty sure most the other "muppets" felt the same but I can't speak for them.
> ...


no i realise you have said that you thought he did, but im not going over the 'proof 'thing again, there is mountains of proof, yes proof, read the usada report, it spelt out very simply in there, MOUNTAINS OF PROOF, enough proof to nail 50 people let alone one person, the only reason he is coming clean is because he looks the fool trying to deny the proof.
im not going to again list it, i have in every lance blog on this site.
If you choose to not take it as proof or read between the lines thats up to you, but for the life of me i dont realise how you have gotton to the conclusion there in no proof, go read the debrief of the USADA report, or if you want to see a few of the many eye witness reports go watch the doco 'the world according to lance, there is eye witness acconts in there from not only riders but people who have nothing to gain, and there is much more than eye witness accounts....


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Tone's said:


> but im not going over the 'proof 'thing again


But yet you still did go over it. lol 
So maybe I should explain my idea of proof.

Maybe I should have chosen the word "proven" instead. 
Which up until the point somebody confesses or is convicted, guilt is not proven. 
There could have been multiple reasons he chose not to fight.
Did I believe LA stop fighting in order to avoid conviction? Yes, I did believe so.

Our very fiber of American (I know you are not American) justice is to assume a man is innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Our very fiber of American (I know you are not American) justice is to assume a man is innocent until proven guilty.


Not limited to 'American Justice', same holds for many other places. UK & Oz being 2.

The fact of the matter in all of this is that Lance Armstrong is a cheat and has been for many years. How anyone can try and justify cheating in any way beggars belief and makes me sad that it is acceptable in some peoples' eyes. It will be interesting to see how people wriggle out of this now he has 'fessed up officially.


----------



## uglyguy2 (Jun 20, 2012)

Turns out it was just a typo. LIE STRONG. That's what the bracelets meant to say. Not his fault.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

rockerc said:


> Not limited to 'American Justice', same holds for many other places. UK & Oz being 2.
> 
> The fact of the matter in all of this is that Lance Armstrong is a cheat and has been for many years. How anyone can try and justify cheating in any way beggars belief and makes me sad that it is acceptable in some peoples' eyes. It will be interesting to see how people wriggle out of this now he has 'fessed up officially.


Again, I don't think so many people think it is OK to cheat just understand why he did. 
It goes back to something I asked earlier.

If you busted your ass your whole life to get to the top and realized that you kept falling short because the guys on top were doping, what would you do? Would you chose to stay clean knowing you would never beat the dopers and just fade away losing potentially millions of dollars or do you throw your hat in the ring, do what the guys that are beating you are doing and hope to not get caught.

I believe most people here are good people and would like to believe that under all adversity they would always do the right thing no matter what the consequences are. However, I think that many of us if faced with that adversity would be surprised on what we would do to get on the top.


----------



## jkirkpatri (Sep 16, 2008)

Educational hijack:

I bet you anything that this whole Armstrong sage will be used as real life example printed in post secondary education ethic course textbooks in a few years (much like West Jet is used in organizational behavior and accounting courses, and Enron and Worldcom is used in audit courses).


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Again, I don't think so many people think it is OK to cheat just understand why he did.
> It goes back to something I asked earlier.
> 
> If you busted your ass your whole life to get to the top and realized that you kept falling short because the guys on top were doping, what would you do? Would you chose to stay clean knowing you would never beat the dopers and just fade away losing potentially millions of dollars or do you throw your hat in the ring, do what the guys that are beating you are doing and hope to not get caught.
> ...


A lot of the guys on Wall Street feel the same way. Let's have sympathy for them too and be okay with them cheating.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

kjlued said:


> Again, I don't think so many people think it is OK to cheat just understand why he did.
> It goes back to something I asked earlier.
> 
> If you busted your ass your whole life to get to the top and realized that you kept falling short because the guys on top were doping, what would you do? Would you chose to stay clean knowing you would never beat the dopers and just fade away losing potentially millions of dollars or do you throw your hat in the ring, do what the guys that are beating you are doing and hope to not get caught.
> ...


:smallviolin::smallviolin::smallviolin::smallviolin::smallviolin::smallviolin:


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

*Oprah says Lance Armstrong 'did not come clean' like she thought he would*

_Oprah Winfrey said Lance Armstrong, who she said confessed to her that he used performe-enhancing drugs during his string of Tour de France victories, did 'not come clean in the manner' she expected, Reuters reported.

Winfrey went on to say that she would leave it to others to decided if the former champion was contrite during the interview that was taped on Monday, but she did call him thoughtful and serious._

Full article


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

wmac said:


> A lot of the guys on Wall Street feel the same way. Let's have sympathy for them too and be okay with them cheating.


I see no comparison in that stretch.

The exchange affects an entire worlds economy to some degree. 
The TDF affects the TDF.

Kind of like comparing a guy who shoplifts a few groceries to feed his family because he was laid off his job to a guy who mugs little old ladies because he is too lazy to get a job. 
Sure, they are both stealing but I find it easier to understand and show sympathy too.

As far as LA goes, I could care less if you show him sympathy and I am sure he could care less too. I just understand why he did what he did.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Tone's said:


> :smallviolin::smallviolin::smallviolin::smallviolin::smallviolin::smallviolin:


Sometimes I like violins. 
If they ever come to Australia, you should catch an Avett Brothers concert. 
They have a guy that really rocks the violin.:thumbsup:


----------



## Roadsters (Jul 7, 2008)

*Oprah Says Armstrong Admitted Doping*

_Oprah Winfrey is confirming that Lance Armstrong came clean to her about his use of performance-enhancing drugs during their 2 ½-hour interview Monday. She says the cyclist was "forthcoming" as she asked him in detail about doping allegations that followed him throughout his seven Tour de France victories.

Speaking on "CBS This Morning," Winfrey said she had not planned to address Armstrong's confession before the interview aired on her OWN network but, "by the time I left Austin and landed in Chicago, you all had already confirmed it."_

Full article


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Regardless of all this talk that he has come clean, i still have serious doubts, i think it will be more self serving lies and manipulation from lance, and he will not devulge any more info than everybody already knows..
And i think that theres a good chance that him and Oprah are doing it.......and have been for ages


----------



## trevor_b (Nov 21, 2012)

Much more interested in how he financially/professionally attacked people that came clean/told the truth about him. Also more interested in how he was (and others) were able to pass the doping tests initially as I've always thought he and others used PEDs in TDF. Figured out to be a level paying field, albeit a dirty one.


----------



## trevor_b (Nov 21, 2012)

Should say "figured it to be a level playing field"


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

Roadsters said:


> *Oprah says Lance Armstrong 'did not come clean' like she thought he would*
> 
> _Oprah Winfrey said Lance Armstrong, who she said confessed to her that he used performe-enhancing drugs during his string of Tour de France victories, did 'not come clean in the manner' she expected, Reuters reported.
> 
> ...


Thursday night - 8 pm central channel 203 in HD (at least on my cable listing). I'll be tuned in (and on Friday for part 2 as well).


----------



## sjhiker (Apr 25, 2008)

Here's to hoping that Lance Armstrong gets crucified. Not because he took PEDs, but because he vociferously went after those in the courts and media, who claimed he did.


----------



## Ariben123 (Apr 26, 2012)

I always expected it to happen, However I am a little surprised at how early the confession was made I was expecting to hear this years down the road from now meh whatever..


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

On a side note, I wonder how much this bike is worth now.










Price: $500,000
Designed by renowned British Artist Damien Hirst and ridden by Lance Armstrong during the 2009 Tour de France, the Butterfly Trek Madone bike was auctioned off at Sotheby's, raising $1.3 million for the Texan's Livestrong charity. The bike was sold for $500,000, which makes it the most expensive bike in the world. Real butterfly wings were used in the making.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2013)

Spastook said:


> Even before all the drug crap came out. I always regarded Greg LeMond as America's greatest cyclist. Armstrong was good but much of his success (not including the drugs) was due to the teams that surrounded him. LeMond likely could have won 5 or maybe even 6 tours if he didn't have Bernard Hilnault for a team mate then suffer a collapsed lung from a hunting accident.


not even a comparison. 2 very diff eras of cycling but either way LA crushes whats his name.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

kjlued said:


> I see no comparison in that stretch.
> 
> The exchange affects an entire worlds economy to some degree.
> The TDF affects the TDF.
> ...


Nice rationalization. This might help you understand why it is the same thing:


----------



## Pedalfast (Nov 4, 2005)

Tone's said:


> Regardless of all this talk that he has come clean, i still have serious doubts, i think it will be more self serving lies and manipulation from lance, and he will not devulge any more info than everybody already knows..
> And i think that theres a good chance that him and Oprah are doing it.......and have been for ages


Tone, I mostly agree with the first part of your statement, don't know about him and Oprah doing the wild thing. When this thread started, I did not mean totally clean, I meant kinda like someone who had fallen into a mud pit, wallowed around in it, got out and rinsed their face off, enought to look and see where they need to be going and moving in that direction. I am of the opinion that he will not spill like a cement truck, unless somewhere down the road the situation dicates it. In the court of "public opinion" for the most part he has not only been implicated, but convicted for some time. The depth of his offenses are not likely to be owned up to by him.This partial confession is for self survival.

I did not think that I would be able to pick the OWN station up, but after going to the OWN website, there is a place where you can plug your zip code in and your TV station provider and it will tell you if the broadcast is available and also what channel it is on.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Kind of like comparing a guy who shoplifts a few groceries to feed his family because he was laid off his job to a guy who mugs little old ladies because he is too lazy to get a job


Hopefully you will also see why your statement above is ignorant and elitist.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

wmac said:


> Hopefully you will also see why your statement above is ignorant and elitist.


Ok, so what you are saying is that dishonesty is dishonesty and it is all the same no matter which way you rationalize it?


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

bt2S88 said:


> So, what did WE learn from all of this?


that for self-vindication, enlightenment/atonement there is spirituality, religion of all sorts BUT all i really need is Oprah in my living room. Oprah Saves.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

53119 said:


> that for self-vindication, enlightenment/atonement there is spirituality, religion of all sorts BUT all i really need is Oprah in my living room. Oprah Saves.


LMAO :lol:


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Ok, so what you are saying is that dishonesty is dishonesty and it is all the same no matter which way you rationalize it?


Watch the video and then I'll discuss it with you.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

wmac said:


> Watch the video and then I'll discuss it with you.


What makes you think I did not?

Now, answer the question, it is a simple one.


----------



## Orthoguy (Dec 4, 2011)

I agree with the camp that LA is initiating a calculated recovery plan. There is no telling what Oprah is paying him for the exclusive. While I acknowledge the whole "If everybody is doing it..." rational I believe LA to be of low character. His attacks were personal and hateful towards his teammates and others. Let the cards fall where they will..


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

LA will only say what the lawyers have said it is safe to say. The lawyers and the show producers will hash out what can and can't air. 

Kjlued, I've been following your arguments. All you have really done is position yourself so that you can't be wrong no matter what. It's a pretty nifty piece of argumentation for a parlor trick.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

kjlued said:


> What makes you think I did not?


If you did, then I'm not sure why you asked that question in that way. Either you did not comprehend it, or you are ignoring the findings. Since you are asking me to explain it to you for some reason (troll), I will.

1. You said the Wall Street guys effected the global economy and the TDF is the TDF - suggesting the magnitude wasn't the same. Airely discussed in the very beginning that his research finds that a lot of little cheaters effects the economy negatively at exponentially higher rates than the few big cheaters. Armstrong's cheating resulted in accumulation of wealth for himself and those involved to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. On a global scale, it was small, but in a micro scale, it was massive. Since many of the riders rationalized using PEDs, all those little bits of cheating led to one massive cheat. Add up all the sponsorship dollars, all the advertising, all the bike sales, all the books sold, all the posters hanging on walls, all the dreams crushed as a result of the rationalizing of the cheating and you'll see how big this fraud was.

2. When you stated you understand the guy getting laid off and stealing and do not understand the lazy guy robbing, what you did was rationalize the same behavior that takes place in two different socio-economic strata. You could see yourself getting laid off and stealing to feed your family, but you couldn't see yourself mugging someone because you can't rationalize that behavior. But the reason your statement is ignorant and elitest is, because, robberies are most often committed by males from the lower socio-economic strata and are "motivated by life's needs, rather than drugs" (Gill 2001; Matthews 2002; Mouzos & Borzycki 2003).

Stealing a pencil is the same as taking 10 cents from petty cash to go buy a pencil just as stealing groceries is the same as mugging someone to go buy groceries.

Cheating to win a race to get more sponsorship money is the same as embezzling hundreds of millions of dollars from several corporations and personal bank accounts of people who belived you were playing by the rules. Using your fraudulent success story as a way to motivate people to do better in their lives is the same as a pastor who preaches against same sex marriage while paying male prostitutes for sex behind closed doors.

Rationalizing dishonesty at any level is bad for ourselves and each other. The reason Lance Armstrong wants to come clean is explained at the end of the video. He wants to wash himself clean and show that he is remorseful. Well, guess what? So does Bernie Madoff. But, deep down, neither of them think they did anything wrong. They are only sorry they got caught. In Armstrong's case, he's sorry that he is no longer looked at as the greatest cyclist of all time.

He wants to come back and prove to everyone that he can do it without PEDs. But he doesn't deserve that.

Lance Armstrong deserves to be in prison, or a mental ward, because, that's where sociopaths belong.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

not mine, stolen from FB


----------



## Blueliner (Apr 5, 2010)

bt2S88 said:


> So, what did WE learn from all of this?


Fess up and tell it like it is early on, even if you are the arsehole of the month, you might be able to come back from that. The longer you wait the worse it is.

There is no money in honest business for most of us, unfortunately.

Blueliner


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

uglyguy2 said:


> Turns out it was just a typo. LIE STRONG. That's what the bracelets meant to say. Not his fault.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

bluestatevirgin said:


> Kjlued, I've been following your arguments. All you have really done is position yourself so that you can't be wrong no matter what. It's a pretty nifty piece of argumentation for a parlor trick.


So, if I positioned myself where I can't be wrong then I must be right. :thumbsup::lol:

Next time would you prefer if I position myself where I can be totally wrong or only partially wrong?



wmac said:


> If you did, then I'm not sure why you asked that question in that way. Either you did not comprehend it, or you are ignoring the findings. Since you are asking me to explain it to you for some reason (troll), I will.


Since I don't agree and ask a simple question in which you still dance around, I am a troll? ok

First off I did watch it and I did get it.

However, it still boils down to saying all dishonesty is equal and in your long winded explanation you say the same thing.

I will agree, that you have some valid points about LA not being remorseful about what was done but instead about being caught. This is most likely true. If it was not, he would have come forward on his own. I am sure every single one of have done something in our life wrong and were caught for it. At first we may have only been remorseful because we got caught. Otherwise, I am sure we would have came forward on our before getting caught.

I will agree that all dishonesty is wrong, however, I do not view it as all equal.

If LA would have been doping in a field of clean athletes just because he couldn't make the grade, I view that to be more wrong then if he was staying clean, realized that all the top guys were doping and the only he would beat them was to dope.

Do I still think it to be wrong? Yes
Do I think it to be just as wrong? No
Do I hold either to be as bad as what Bernie Madoff did?
Hell no, as Bernie Madoff did what he did knowing it would destroy the lives of those he swindled.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

kjlued said:


> Again, I don't think so many people think it is OK to cheat just understand why he did.
> It goes back to something I asked earlier.
> 
> If you busted your ass your whole life to get to the top and realized that you kept falling short because the guys on top were doping, what would you do? Would you chose to stay clean knowing you would never beat the dopers and just fade away losing potentially millions of dollars or do you throw your hat in the ring, do what the guys that are beating you are doing and hope to not get caught.
> ...


Ya mean,
Turn in the cheater, so an investigation could be conducted 

Someone of strong will,
Would not become a cheater, just to beat a cheat YMMV.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

bikeabuser said:


> Ya mean,
> Turn in the cheater, so an investigation could be conducted
> 
> Someone of strong will,
> Would not become a cheater, just to beat a cheat YMMV.


In theory turning in the cheaters would be ideal. 
However as we all know they still could not catch them. 
They knew it was happening, but still didn't know how to catch them. 
So the guy behind them turning them in really just comes across as sour grapes.

Proof is in the pudding. 
How many times was LA investigated and how many times did he get away with it?


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

kjlued said:


> Ok, so what you are saying is that dishonesty is dishonesty and it is all the same no matter which way you rationalize it?


Murder is murder ... Regardless of who dies.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

wmac said:


> If you did, then I'm not sure why you asked that question in that way. Either you did not comprehend it, or you are ignoring the findings. Since you are asking me to explain it to you for some reason (troll), I will.
> 
> 1. You said the Wall Street guys effected the global economy and the TDF is the TDF - suggesting the magnitude wasn't the same. Airely discussed in the very beginning that his research finds that a lot of little cheaters effects the economy negatively at exponentially higher rates than the few big cheaters. Armstrong's cheating resulted in accumulation of wealth for himself and those involved to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. On a global scale, it was small, but in a micro scale, it was massive. Since many of the riders rationalized using PEDs, all those little bits of cheating led to one massive cheat. Add up all the sponsorship dollars, all the advertising, all the bike sales, all the books sold, all the posters hanging on walls, all the dreams crushed as a result of the rationalizing of the cheating and you'll see how big this fraud was.
> 
> ...


Amen... very good wmac...


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

wmac said:


> *Rationalizing dishonesty at any level is bad for ourselves and each other. *


:thumbsup:


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

bikeabuser said:


> Murder is murder ... Regardless of who dies.


Yes, but if you go out, purchase a gun, stalk somebody and kill them does it hold the same criminal weight then if you get in an argument with somebody and in the heat of the fight pick up a knife and stab them once and they die. What if you stab them multiple times?

Yes, no matter which way you slice it, somebody is dead.
However, there is still a difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and manslaughter.

If an athlete dopes, I don't think he or she means to hurt others in the sport, but instead just to give themselves an edge.


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)

To compare this to Madoff shows complete idiotic logic. How many of you are jobless now, lost your money, savings funds since LA is guilty? None. 

Okay so he came clean big deal? What effect does this have to anyone posting in here? What have you gained or lost that you simply can't function ? 

Wall Street is the heart of America, it can crush over 300 million people within seconds..LA =just another user that finally got busted with others, that's all.


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

in case there is argument that my post was blasphemous..


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

kjlued said:


> So, if I positioned myself where I can't be wrong then I must be right. :thumbsup::lol:
> 
> Next time would you prefer if I position myself where I can be totally wrong or only partially wrong?


I think the only position you've actually proved is that you will go to any lengths not to be wrong. I'm not sure if that makes you totally wrong or only partially wrong.

Now that he's confessed all that's left is the chirp of the solitary cricket.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

kjlued said:


> bikeabuser said:
> 
> 
> > Ya mean,
> ...


Big assumptions on your part.

And based on that assumption, you'd not do a thing, because you don't believe it would do any good ... That's what I'm reading.
Giving up without trying :crazy:


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

kjlued said:


> bikeabuser said:
> 
> 
> > Murder is murder ... Regardless of who dies.
> ...


----------



## mykel (Jul 31, 2006)

So, did Trek know?
I find it hard to believe they were totally in the dark. Unless closing your eyes count...

michael


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Ok, so we are back to throwing out insults. 
I don't agree with you no matter what you say so I am a fence post. 
I suppose I could say the same about you because no matter what I say you won't agree.

Did I ever say nothing should be done? No



aedubber said:


> To compare this to Madoff shows complete idiotic logic. How many of you are jobless now, lost your money, savings funds since LA is guilty? None.
> 
> Okay so he came clean big deal? What effect does this have to anyone posting in here? What have you gained or lost that you simply can't function ?
> 
> Wall Street is the heart of America, it can crush over 300 million people within seconds..LA =just another user that finally got busted with others, that's all.


Exactly:thumbsup:


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

53119 said:


> in case there is argument that my post was blasphemous..
> View attachment 753425


Hey, it's the rent is too damn high guy! ^^^^^ What did he ever do to Lance?


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

....and now for something else......


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

kjlued said:


> Ok, so we are back to throwing out insults.
> I don't agree with you no matter what you say so I am a fence post.
> I suppose I could say the same about you because no matter what I say you won't agree.
> 
> Did I ever say nothing should be done? No


It's not an insult, Kjlued ... It's a follow-up to my statement that you would argue with a fence post, just to argue.


kjlued said:


> *Yes, but*


IMO, that's all you are doing in this thread ... Arguing with pretty much everyone, just to argue.

You agree with someone, then backtrack with verbage.
Find a fence post


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

Fiskare said:


> ....and now for something else......


A statement of a difference in character.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

bikeabuser said:


> A statement of a difference in character.


The difference is character doesn't really exist IMO, but if so it just shows they are less honorable for trying to mitigate their own losses by damaging someone else. Doesn't that sound familiar? Like character assassination that a certain fellow did when accused of cheating? They were all birds of a feather.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

sxotty said:


> The difference is character doesn't really exist IMO, but if so it just shows they are less honorable for trying to mitigate their own losses by damaging someone else. Doesn't that sound familiar? Like character assassination that a certain fellow did when accused of cheating? They were all birds of a feather.


:thumbsup:


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

bikeabuser said:


> A statement of a difference in character.


I was going for levity, because I think this here thread needs some-uh-dat. Next time I'm gonna add one-o-them smiley face thingamabobs, yessir I am. Avoid the confusion don't ya see!


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

aedubber said:


> To compare this to Madoff shows complete idiotic logic. How many of you are jobless now, lost your money, savings funds since LA is guilty? None.
> 
> Okay so he came clean big deal? What effect does this have to anyone posting in here? What have you gained or lost that you simply can't function ?
> 
> Wall Street is the heart of America, it can crush over 300 million people within seconds..LA =just another user that finally got busted with others, that's all.


I would venture there are a few bike riders who did not choose to dope on Postal who lost their bids at a professional cycling career and subsequently a job.

Johan Bruyneel is jobless also.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

Everybody Lance beat was also on the juice , and anybody who wasn't didn't have a job in the Pro Peleton. Maybe things will get cleaned up, but I doubt it as detection science always seems to be lagging behind cheating science. Perhaps Lemond was on to something about testing Vo2 as it is supposed to be constant unless your juiced?


----------



## PerfectZero (Jul 22, 2010)

aedubber said:


> What effect does this have to anyone posting in here?


If anything, the main effect on mtbr has been positive since its allowed everyone to get on their moral high horses and feel great about their own erudite ethical standards.


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

bt2S88 said:


> So, what did WE learn from all of this?


Along the lines of what Blueliner said........I learned that if LA had spoken first he could have outed the entire freakin peloton, and kept his Tour victories. So he who rats last is the only true scum? What a load of dung!

But wait, I was going for levity, so....:ciappa:


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

sxotty said:


> bikeabuser said:
> 
> 
> > A statement of a difference in character.
> ...


I'm not saying one is more right than the other.

Perhaps,
_Degrees of separation_ is a better term ?


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

It is funny how alot of people minimize the significance of Lance Armstrong's actions. He allegedly used PEDs, threatened teammates, sued individuals for saying he used PEDs, sued companies for saying he used PEDs, openly lied to the public, cycling enthusiasts, and to those who supported Livestrong. 
Their rationalization of 'it is only bicycle racing' and 'get a grip' .' It wasn't Wall Street or something important, so the cheating is not that bad'. 'Everyone was doing it.' 

Thank your lucky stars it was just bike racing ; Otherwise he may have been likely to murder people to keep his secrets.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

petersbike said:


> Thank your lucky stars it was just bike racing ; Otherwise he may have been likely to murder people to keep his secrets.


Yeah, likely.

I mean if millions of dollars, his company, sponships, and whole lively hood would have been involved, surely he would have killed somebody......oh wait, never mind.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Fiskare said:


> Along the lines of what Blueliner said........I learned that if LA had spoken first he could have outed the entire freakin peloton, and kept his Tour victories. So he who rats last is the only true scum? What a load of dung!
> 
> But wait, I was going for levity, so....:ciappa:


Many in the sport are better off because he held his ground and threw no one under the bus. It is a perverse sort of honor whether that was his intention or not.

I've seen these guys (Tyler, Floyd) hold their ground and deny and then finally give in. It is a strange behavior; tough-minded men, right or wrong, in a tight spot going as far as they can.

In my book such transgressions are venal, that is: It does not concern a "grave matter". At worst they are crooks instead of murderers, their cohort is undefined, and the mob bosses get off scot-free. Who actually was complicit and until what point? You don't see Postal stepping up to return any soiled money.

More than anything it rankles and makes me think twice about casting the first stone. I'm sure this is going to sound strange but my heart goes out to these guys and to all they effected.


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

kjlued said:


> Yeah, likely.
> 
> I mean if millions of dollars, his company, sponships, and whole lively hood would have been involved, surely he would have killed somebody......oh wait, never mind.


According to you 'wrong is wrong, except when it's okay'.

Refer to fencepost.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

petersbike said:


> According to you 'wrong is wrong, except when it's okay'.
> 
> Refer to fencepost.


Yup, that is exactly what I said. 

Refer to fence post.:thumbsup:


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I'm sure this is going to sound strange but my heart goes out to these guys and to all they effected.


Doesn't sound strange to me. Apparently the whole thing was dirty, and winning required getting into the mud with everyone else. I see no difference between Landis and Armstrong except that Armstrong went all in and Landis caved like a simpering pantywaist, and then took money under false pretenses from adoring fans.

So yep, Armstrong is the most evil of them all....NOT!


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Many in the sport are better off because he held his ground and threw no one under the bus. It is a perverse sort of honor whether that was his intention or not.
> 
> I've seen these guys (Tyler, Floyd) hold their ground and deny and then finally give in. It is a strange behavior; tough-minded men, right or wrong, in a tight spot going as far as they can.
> 
> ...


Good post and no it does not sound strange at all.



Fiskare said:


> Doesn't sound strange to me. Apparently the whole thing was dirty, and winning required getting into the mud with everyone else. I see no difference between Landis and Armstrong except that Armstrong went all in and Landis caved like a simpering pantywaist, and then took money under false pretenses from adoring fans.
> 
> So yep, Armstrong is the most evil of them all....NOT!


:thumbsup:


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

kjlued said:


> Well, I am sure I am one of those so called muppets lol
> 
> I never stated I believed he was clean. In fact I said I believed he did it.
> I am pretty sure most the other "muppets" felt the same but I can't speak for them.
> ...


'wrong is wrong, except if it's okay'


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Since I don't agree and ask a simple question in which you still dance around, I am a troll? ok
> 
> It's not that you don't agree, it's that your question is in the tone of trying to lead me into making a statement that you think you have a valid argument for, which you don't.
> 
> ...


And your final statement sums up your position nicely. You don't know that Bernie Madoff didn't do what he did knowing it would destroy the lives of those he swindled any more than Lance Armstrong recognized he destroyed the lives of those racers who spent most of their youth and much of their young adult lives focused on the possibility of winning the Tour.

Bernie Madoff "has become a 'hero' in prison, telling fellow inmates 'F--- my victims, I carried them for 20 years."

He thought back then and still thinks today that he did them a favor and that they are ungrateful.

Bernie Madoff's fraud was to the tune of $65 billion. Who knows how much Lance's fraud is valued at and combine all the other "little" cheaters' cheating in professional sports and it would surely surpass $65B.

For you to continue to rationalize Lance's fraud as he had to do it and you understand, alluding to you would have done the same thing does hit on one of Airely's points in that the circumstances often dictates the outcome. Given the right circumstances, we would all cheat or be dishonest. The magnitude of the cheating or dishonesty is determined by the level of incentive to cheat.

In Lance's case, he was given a scenario like this, "if you had the chance to be rich and famous, but you had to cheat, but you would never get caught, would you do it?"

He sold his sole to the devil and now he should live the rest of eternity in Hell.

And before you argue this any more, let me let you know this is a little personal for me. One of my friends had the dream of winning The Tour. After several Tours, he concluded that he just couldn't keep up and gave up on his professional riding career.

I'm not saying he could have been a contender, but that story is echoed across the world as so many really talented people were forced to make a decision to either give up their dreams or cheat.

I've read most of your arguments and they are weak at best. Stop rationalizing and defending Lance Armstong's fraudulent behavior. He is a bad person with no integrity. The more you rationalize and defend his behavior, the more I believe you are a person of low moral integrity.


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

kjlued said:


> Again, I don't think so many people think it is OK to cheat just understand why he did.
> It goes back to something I asked earlier.
> 
> If you busted your ass your whole life to get to the top and realized that you kept falling short because the guys on top were doping, what would you do? Would you chose to stay clean knowing you would never beat the dopers and just fade away losing potentially millions of dollars or do you throw your hat in the ring, do what the guys that are beating you are doing and hope to not get caught.
> ...


'Wrong is wrong, except when it's okay'


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

petersbike said:


> 'wrong is wrong, except if it's okay'


So where in that quote do you get wrong is wrong unless it is ok?

Because I understand why somebody does something it doesn't mean I think it is ok.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

wmac said:


> I've read most of your arguments and they are weak at best. Stop rationalizing and defending Lance Armstong's fraudulent behavior. He is a bad person with no integrity. The more you rationalize and defend his behavior, the more I believe you are a person of low moral integrity.


And you trying to compare LA to Bernie Madoff is valid? :lol:
That is a weak argument at best.

Personally, I could care less what you feel my moral integrity is. 
Personally I think you are overly judgemental and extremely long winded.

Climb off your soapbox.:thumbsup:


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

aedubber said:


> To compare this to Madoff shows complete idiotic logic. How many of you are jobless now, lost your money, savings funds since LA is guilty? None.
> 
> Okay so he came clean big deal? What effect does this have to anyone posting in here? What have you gained or lost that you simply can't function ?
> 
> Wall Street is the heart of America, it can crush over 300 million people within seconds..LA =just another user that finally got busted with others, that's all.


Idiotic logic? Lots of people do not have jobs and careers were destroyed as a result of Lance Armstrong's fraud. Lots of people got rich off of Lance Armstrong's fraud.

I am not going to neg rep you because I disagree with you. I am neg repping you because you used the term "idiotic logic" to describe my comparison of Madoff, who carried out the largest fraud in his profession to Armstrong, who carried out the largest fraud in his profession.

They are both sociopaths with no remorse.

Your argument is abrasive. Are you abrasive? You don't think this isn't a big deal? You come across as someone who is often dishonest and rationalizes that dishonesty and has no remorse for your rationalized dishonesty.


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

kjlued said:


> Sure, we all would.
> I mean lets face it, even the TDF on dope isn't "exciting" to watch.
> As far as excitement goes, the few more minutes it would take wouldn't make a difference.
> 
> ...


'wrong is wrong, except if it's okay'


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

petersbike said:


> 'wrong is wrong, except if it's okay'


WOW, are you really that that ignorant when it comes to reading comprehension?

You just posted a quote that proves I said exactly the opposite of what you are trying to claim I said. Thanks for proving me right.:thumbsup:

Go back and reread the quote, it should be easy to find as it is separated from the rest of what I wrote.


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

kjlued said:


> Well said.
> 
> I don't think anyone is saying it is ok because everyone is doing it.
> We are just saying we understand the nature of the beast.
> ...


You should have wrote:

'Say kjlued won't and believe kjlued won't if it makes kjlued feel better but in reality kjlued has a price kjlued would be willing to pay to be on top.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

Here let me help you



kjlued said:


> Sure, we all would.
> I mean lets face it, even the TDF on dope isn't "exciting" to watch.
> As far as excitement goes, the few more minutes it would take wouldn't make a difference.
> 
> ...


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

petersbike said:


> You should have wrote:
> 
> 'Say kjlued won't and believe kjlued won't if it makes kjlued feel better but in reality kjlued has a price kjlued would be willing to pay to be on top.


Good one[/sarcasm]


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

kjlued said:


> WOW, are you really that that ignorant when it comes to reading comprehension?
> 
> You just posted a quote that proves I said exactly the opposite of what you are trying to claim I said. Thanks for proving me right.:thumbsup:
> 
> Go back and reread the quote, it should be easy to find as it is separated from the rest of what I wrote.


I know when I read your post I said to myself "goldmine". This guy kjlued has no integrity. He offers up this idea that doping is not okay but then justifies doping and cheating and also relates that everyone would do it and that everryone has a price . Seems to me that kjlued has a price and just cannot admit that he believes that cheating is okay at some price , or to preserve millions or to be remembered as a cycling champion.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

petersbike said:


> I know when I read your post I said to myself "goldmine". This guy kjlued has no integrity. He offers up this idea that doping is not okay but then justifies doping and cheating and also relates that everyone would do it and that everryone has a price . Seems to me that kjlued has a price and just cannot admit that he believes that cheating is okay at some price , or to preserve millions or to be remembered as a cycling champion.


Yeah, and when I read your posts on insisting I said something that I did not and continually dropping quotes that don't say what you are trying say I said, I think "idiot". 
This guy peter can't comprehend what he reads and then when I prove it, he then throws a red herring out there and tries insulting my integrity.


----------



## Fiskare (Sep 5, 2008)

aedubber said:


> What effect does this have to anyone posting in here? .


Point taken, but I do know a few cancer survivors who are deep into Livestrong, both as a recipient of their offerings, and in support of the cause. One riding buddy of mine, and really a good friend too, loves to tell a story about riding with Lance at Ride for the Roses. It's his story, so I won't tell it, but it's a great memory for my friend. And that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

There's a difference between "I understand" in the Dan Airely sense and the "I understand" because you would do the same thing if you were presented the same opportunity because you rationalize that EVERYBODY would have done the same thing when presented the same opportunity.

You are wrong. I'm overly judgmental and extremey long winded because I am disgusted by people, like you and aedubber, who rationalize dishonesty.


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)

Wmac suk my dik ..thanks  judge away loser


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

kjlued said:


> Yeah, and when I read your posts on insisting I said something that I did not and continually dropping quotes that don't say what you are trying say I said, I think "idiot".
> This guy peter can't comprehend what he reads and then when I prove it, he then throws a red herring out there and tries insulting my integrity.


Just calling your BS out. Most of your posts allude to the idea that you believe that cheating is okay if it is done for the right reason(s).When you say that everyone has their price you are saying that it is okay at that point. At this amount of money it is okay for kjlued to cheat.

Just don't include everyone else in your personal decisions.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

wmac said:


> There's a difference between "I understand" in the Dan Airely sense and the "I understand" because you would do the same thing if you were presented the same opportunity because you rationalize that EVERYBODY would have done the same thing when presented the same opportunity.
> 
> You are wrong. I'm overly judgmental and extremey long winded because I am disgusted by people, like you and aedubber, who rationalize dishonesty.


That's cool because I get disgusted on how judgmental people can be and how quickly they like to cast stones. Usually they speak out so vigorously because they see something in them they that don't like. Maybe it is that you don't like the fact that you yourself are not 100% honest all the time.

You say I am rationalizing dishonesty, but yet I have not done that. 
Rationalizing it would be saying that it is ok to do it because everyone else does it. 
As Peter so generously quoted for me, I said it was not ok and that I simply understand. 
I also acknowledge the fact that everyone including myself has been dishonest. 
This does not rationalize dishonesty by saying it is ok, I just choose not to cast stones at others because they make mistakes.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

petersbike said:


> Just calling your BS out. Most of your posts allude to the idea that you believe that cheating is okay if it is done for the right reason(s).When you say that everyone has their price you are saying that it is okay at that point. At this amount of money it is okay for kjlued to cheat.
> 
> Just don't include everyone else in your personal decisions.


Yeah, I don't get how you get that translation from what I wrote. 
Maybe English is a second language for you?

Answer me one question honestly.
Do you act 100% honest 100% of the time?


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

sxotty said:


> The difference is character doesn't really exist IMO, but if so it just shows they are less honorable for trying to mitigate their own losses by damaging someone else. Doesn't that sound familiar? Like character assassination that a certain fellow did when accused of cheating? They were all birds of a feather.


they were all cheaters - and you are talking about the code of ethics... among cheaters?

laughable...


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

kjlued said:


> That's cool because I get disgusted on how judgmental people can be and how quickly they like to cast stones. Usually they speak out so vigorously because they see something in them they that don't like. Maybe it is that you don't like the fact that you yourself are not 100% honest all the time.
> 
> You say I am rationalizing dishonesty, but yet I have not done that.
> Rationalizing it would be saying that it is ok to do it because everyone else does it.
> ...


you are just an awesome person....


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

osokolo said:


> you are just an awesome person....


I know

At least we can agree on something.:thumbsup:


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

kjlued said:


> That's cool because I get disgusted on how judgmental people can be and how quickly they like to cast stones.


I've been lurking this thread, and the other Lance threads, watching you make a fool of your self for a long time before I chimed in. I even tried to break the tension for days, but you kept on going.

Your argument has been, "He probably did it, but I don't care. He doesn't owe anyone an apology. Everyone would have done the same thing if presented the same opportunity."

You have rationalized his behavior and rationalize your own.

You are not an awesome person.

Everyone above this post has been trolled by kjlued.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

wmac said:


> Everyone above this post has been trolled by kjlued.


Wow, really that is all you have?

Translation

"I don't agree with him so he is a troll"

Get over yourself.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

No, your baiting, circular arguments and unwavering ignorance makes you a troll.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

wmac said:


> No, your baiting, circular arguments and unwavering ignorance makes you a troll.


I suppose the same could be said about you:thumbsup:


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

C'mon guys. Cool your jets. This is not really worth arguing over, is it? Bite your tongue, tie your hands, figure out what's for dinner tonight.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

girlonbike said:


> C'mon guys. Cool your jets. This is not really worth arguing over, is it? Bite your tongue, tie your hands, figure out what's for dinner tonight.


Steak and leftover pepper jack cheddar mac. 
It is 7:30 here and I already ate dinner. 

But you are right, it isn't worth arguing over.
So I am done even though I am sure others won't be. :thumbsup:


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

In 6 days there have been 337 posts - of which Kjlued posted 71 times. Now he rationalizes that he is a good guy because he agrees that this this isn't worth arguing over


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

wmac said:


> In 6 days there have been 337 posts - of which Kjlued posted 71 times. Now he rationalizes that he is a good guy because he agrees that this this isn't worth arguing over


Wow, you actually went back and counted my posts? 

Well, I say you win just for that:thumbsup:


----------



## DavyRay (Apr 13, 2012)

Somebody made a promise and did not keep it. Wonder who?

(from a CNN news blog)
[Updated at 9:34 a.m. ET] Sometimes news travels faster than an airplane.

Media reports began swirling immediately after Lance Armstrong's interview Monday with Oprah Winfrey that he admitted for the first time to using banned substances.

Those details came despite an agreement between Armstrong's camp and Winfrey that they would not leak any details of the interview, she told CBS on Tuesday.

But it didn't last for long.

"By the time I left Austin [Texas] and landed in Chicago, you all had already confirmed it," Winfrey told CBS, seemingly referring to the media. "So I'm sitting here now because it's already been confirmed."


----------



## Alvinnf (Oct 6, 2011)

Armstrong will vaguely admit something? He won a civil suit against the London times, so I doubt you can expect a Mia culpa. The guy is a real A hole, he's also a great champion. That's where I hop off the train!


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

kjlued said:


> Wow, you actually went back and counted my posts?
> 
> Well, I say you win just for that:thumbsup:


No, I hit thread search with your name and it revealed the number of times you posted. Took two seconds. I do that a lot when someone is dominating a conversation and people are coming down on them before I get involved in a heated discussion. If someone lets out a dumb comment, I typically won't argue.

If someone lets out 50, like in your case, I like to try to help that person understand why their argument might be interpreted as misguided by nearly everyone else in the conversation. If someone throws out personal attacks or insults, I'm sorry - you rage, you lose.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

wmac said:


> No, I hit thread search with your name and it revealed the number of times you posted. Took two seconds. I do that a lot when someone is dominating a conversation and people are coming down on them before I get involved in a heated discussion. If someone lets out a dumb comment, I typically won't argue.
> 
> If someone lets out 50, like in your case, I like to try to help that person understand why their argument might be interpreted as misguided by nearly everyone else in the conversation. If someone throws out personal attacks or insults, I'm sorry - you rage, you lose.


Ok:thumbsup:


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

> *Armstrong can't give up his need to compete*
> Houston Chronicle
> - ‎1 hour ago‎
> 
> ...


His future will become his new global reality, and his ego will get the better of him, it seems.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

wmac said:


> In 6 days there have been 337 posts - of which Kjlued posted 71 times. Now he rationalizes that he is a good guy because he agrees that this this isn't worth arguing over


lol.... stop feeding the troll already, will you? 

we need to start a new thread so that we can accommodate all events from the oprah ....


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

kjlued said:


> Yeah, I don't get how you get that translation from what I wrote.
> Maybe English is a second language for you?
> 
> Answer me one question honestly.
> Do you act 100% honest 100% of the time?


Speaking of English as a second language, is acting honest the same as being honest?

They say 'Don't feed the trolls', but I am so weak I cannot resist.


----------



## Jag Brah (May 14, 2012)

Maybe "act" as in the actions, not as in tv "act". i.e Are your actions honest 100% of the time?


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

petersbike said:


> Speaking of English as a second language, is acting honest the same as being honest?
> 
> They say 'Don't feed the trolls', but I am so weak I cannot resist.


I meant act as in the first definition of the word given by Merriam-Webster

Act - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



> Definition of ACT
> 
> *1
> a : the doing of a thing : deed
> ...


To further clear things up, I do not mean it in the 3rd meaning of the word given by MW which is "the formal product of a legislative body : statute; also : a decision or determination of a sovereign, a legislative council, or a court of justice"

I know the English language can be very confusing at times where the same word can have different meanings. Those are called homonyms. I will try to keep that in mind later when I addressing you. Sorry

BTW, what you are doing is the epitome of trolling. 
I have to use an unconventionall source for this word since it is an unconventional use it.

Urban Dictionary: trolling

Feel free to come back for another English lesson and remember reading is fundamental.:thumbsup:


----------



## PoisonDartFrog (Jul 8, 2010)

kjlued said:


> I see no comparison in that stretch.
> 
> The exchange affects an entire worlds economy to some degree.
> The TDF affects the TDF.
> ...


Just to make sure I understand, in your analogy above, Armstrong would be analogous to the "bad" guy right? Because he didn't dope to feed his family or because he was forced to, he doped to enrich himself, just like all the other cyclists did. No matter how many special pleadings you use, he wasn't the good guy.

And to further your analogy, both the guys who stole will get punished when they get caught, regardless of their motives. The difference here is one guy admits it, takes his punishment and moves on, and the other guy acts like an arrogant ass for years, hides behind lies and lawyers, and then still wants to be the "good guy" when he finally gets painted into a corner and FORCED to admit what he did.

Was everyone doping, was it actually a "level playing field"? Probably, maybe, I don't know. Doesn't matter. The problem is, I find it very difficult to accept this new explanation/justification after so many years denial. Should he be crucified? No, but he should not get off scot-free either. He has punishment coming, and he deserves it.


----------



## floydlippencott (Sep 4, 2010)

True justice would see Lance treated just as he treated all the people that he victimized imo.


----------



## Jag Brah (May 14, 2012)

What if you absolutely had to use some of your company's funds (without anyone's knowledge ofc) for your family member's life-saving operation? 

I wonder what those who don't condone doping /dishonesty would do in this situation.

inb4 the situations are different. Yes they are different, but honesty is the topic being discussed here.


----------



## PoisonDartFrog (Jul 8, 2010)

Jag Brah said:


> What if you absolutely had to use some of your company's funds (without anyone's knowledge ofc) for your family member's life-saving operation?
> 
> I wonder what those who don't condone doping /dishonesty would do in this situation.
> 
> inb4 the situations are different. Yes they are different, but honesty is the topic being discussed here.


So Lance was only doping to save the life of a sick family member? What a guy!


----------



## floydlippencott (Sep 4, 2010)

Jag Brah said:


> What if you absolutely had to use some of your company's funds (without anyone's knowledge ofc) for your family member's life-saving operation?
> 
> I wonder what those who don't condone doping /dishonesty would do in this situation.
> 
> inb4 the situations are different. Yes they are different, but honesty is the topic being discussed here.


This isn't even a decent Strawman arguement. Honesty? Lance has already demonstrated that "honesty" is an alien concept to him.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Jag Brah said:


> What if you absolutely had to use some of your company's funds (without anyone's knowledge ofc) for your family member's life-saving operation?
> 
> I wonder what those who don't condone doping /dishonesty would do in this situation.
> 
> inb4 the situations are different. Yes they are different, but honesty is the topic being discussed here.


Wow. Just wow.

Well lemme think. Can I also consider asking Colombian Cartel for some cash?

Or my local mafia boss?

Besides - how is Livestrong related to your question at all? Would they give me money that someone loved would need for a treatment?

Do you know where their money is going exactly?

Wow.


----------



## Jag Brah (May 14, 2012)

I didn't even reference LA, not sure if serious.

Poisondartfrog, do you even comprehension skills?

--

Since the topic being discussed here is honesty, with one side saying that everyone has a tipping point when they would do something dishonest for something in return (whatever that something may be) VS the other side saying that dishonesty can _never_ be justified.


----------



## Jag Brah (May 14, 2012)

so many jimmies rustled itt.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Jag Brah said:


> so many jimmies rustled itt.


yep. we all got it wrong. you got it right...


----------



## Jag Brah (May 14, 2012)

Not sure what you mean, I couldn't give less of a **** if LA was doping. My question was influenced by wmac's and kjlued's exchanges.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

Watching a news idiots, yesterday.............
_What if the entire Livestrong aspect was to draw attention and heat away from his bad press about doping charges ?_

Quite the question, and based on how his situation has developed, and what has been exposed about his character .... It wouldn't surprise me in the least, to find out that the whole Livestrong thing was developed as a distraction.

Uh Oh...................
*Anti-doping officials want Lance Armstrong under oath*
SNIP
Around the same time, World Anti-Doping Agency officials issued a statement saying that nothing short of "a full confession under oath" would cause them to reconsider Armstrong's lifetime ban from sanctioned events.
SNIP

And this just in....................
*Livestrong calls for complete truth from Armstrong*


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

Oh, it's just Lance !!!
It's not like he's gonna be affecting a lot of people, like that Bernie Madoff character 

*Olympics could drop cycling over Lance Armstrong revelations*
Fallout from Lance Armstrong's revelations of doping, to be disclosed in an Oprah Winfrey television interview on Thursday, could end up costing cycling a spot in future Olympic Games.
SNIP

And they (Olympic Committee) just recently got around to accepting MTB style stuff and snowboarding :madmax:


----------



## Jag Brah (May 14, 2012)

What about the doping in weightlifting, running, etc? lol.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Everyone is dishonest some of the time with the right incentive Telling someone you have another call to end the one you're on; taking office supplies home are some examples. In the video I posted a couple pages back, it explains these seemingly little things have massive effects on a global scale.

The difference is, some of us would either not do it or admit to it when we are found out.

The question here is, would anyone cheat and break the rules of a professional sport to personally enrich themselves at the expense of others?

The answer for me is no. If your answer is anything other than no, you are a person of low moral character.

Before my dad died, he told me, "son, character and integrity are what you show youself when no one is looking."


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

wmac said:


> Everyone is dishonest some of the time with the right incentive Telling someone you have another call to end the one you're on; taking office supplies home are some examples. In the video I posted a couple pages back, it explains these seemingly little things have massive effects on a global scale.
> 
> The difference is, some of us would either not do it or admit to it when we are found out.
> 
> ...


I would pos rep you for this if I either knew how to do it, or ever did it... instead I will just say that your Dad sounds like a very enlightened guy.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

Jag Brah said:


> What about the doping in weightlifting, running, etc? lol.


When a weightlifting a$$hole comes along who acts like LA has been acting about his doping problems ... Then that subject will be up for discussion.

Besides,
All his apologists have already told us .... Everyone in cycling does this 

YEP,
Bring on the Olympic committee .... They have a case against this man also.
In fact the entire planet watched him steal a medal via an activity that, just wasn't caught, and ... The team was all doing it ... Right ???

What a disgrace this is becoming.
One man's ego might just end up embarrassing an entire nation.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

rockerc said:


> I would pos rep you for this if I either knew how to do it, or ever did it... instead I will just say that your Dad sounds like a very enlightened guy.


Covered that REP for ya, because I also agree with the words !!!

Oh, and click this icon







under the users name to pos/neg rep someone.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Kobe Bryant raped someone and came clean. Didn't cost him or the sport all that much. Now, people cheer for him and buy their children shirts with his number on them. The new number, because the old Number belonged to a rapist.


----------



## trevor_b (Nov 21, 2012)

wmac said:


> Kobe Bryant raped someone and came clean. Didn't cost him or the sport all that much. Now, people cheer for him and buy their children shirts with his number on them. The new number, because the old Number belonged to a rapist.


I don't remember him coming clean? I thought the accusations were dropped.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

bt2S88 said:


> Pretty bold statement for someone who claims that they would never cheat.


I have done both of the things I mentioned above. My boss knows about both of them. Those are the results found by Dan Airely, not me.


----------



## floydlippencott (Sep 4, 2010)

trevor_b said:


> I don't remember him coming clean? I thought the accusations were dropped.


They were bought, for a very large sum of money.


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

wmac said:


> Kobe Bryant raped someone and came clean. Didn't cost him or the sport all that much. Now, people cheer for him and buy their children shirts with his number on them. The new number, because the old Number belonged to a rapist.


Disinformation

Bryant admitted to an adulterous sexual encounter with his accuser, but denied the assault allegation. The case was dropped after Bryant's accuser refused to testify in the case. A separate civil suit was later filed against Bryant by the woman. This was settled out of court and included Bryant's publicly apologizing to his accuser, though admitting no guilt on his part. - Kobe Bryant sexual assault case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If he had admitted to the rape charge ... He might still be in jail !!

Nice diversion, though 

...

The more I think about it, and the possible fall-out that might still come .... I hope he goes down hard.
The justice department case about defrauding the Post Office = Lock him up !!!
The Olympic Medal = Return it !!!
All his fraudently gained earnings = Repay them, and include interest that could have been earned on that money.

The list goes on ...........

Because he's such a great role model for the kiddies


----------



## wv_bob (Sep 12, 2005)

Jag Brah said:


> dishonesty can _never_ be justified.


IMO dishonesty is never JUSTIFIED but it can be UNDERSTOOD. Two different things.


----------



## uneek78 (Dec 10, 2012)

This is a good interview, but the part some of you may find interesting is starting at 5 minutes and 40 seconds.

Skip Bayless is extremely candid.

Additionally, before anyone attacks me. I don't have a side. I just started mountain biking in november. Lol! So, I think all of this is interesting now that I like biking. But I really don't care either way about the whole debacle. My biggest concern is learning to ride and not hit a tree. But best believe I will be sitting in front of my tv set watching OWN (Oprah) interview him this thursday and friday night at 9pm.

Either way, the rest of this clip is good, but I like the perspective Skip Bayless put forth.

Reaction To Lance Armstrong Admission - ESPN Video - ESPN


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

uneek78 said:


> Reaction To Lance Armstrong Admission - ESPN Video - ESPN


Testify


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

floydlippencott said:


> They were bought, for a very large sum of money.


yep, exactly...

translated in english - yep - i am guilty, but here... take some cash to help you forget... one million, two million, three million.....


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Thanks for the Kobe clarification. And all this time I thought an innocent man was a convicted rapist. Whoopsey!


----------



## Lenny7 (Sep 1, 2008)

uneek78 said:


> This is a good interview, but the part some of you may find interesting is starting at 5 minutes and 40 seconds.
> 
> Skip Bayless is extremely candid.
> 
> ...


Skip Bayless is a liar. Making crazy claims about this hs/college sports career. He was busted on air a few months back.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

wv_bob said:


> IMO dishonesty is never JUSTIFIED but it can be UNDERSTOOD. Two different things.


Bingo

But some call that rationalizing.


----------



## Lovedirt (Jan 16, 2013)

Lance Armstrong for president !


----------



## bt (Nov 24, 2007)

Lovedirt said:


> Lance Armstrong for president !


were you not breast fed?


----------



## petersbike (Apr 5, 2006)

kjlued said:


> I meant act as in the first definition of the word given by Merriam-Webster
> 
> Act - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> ...


How about using the word in the correct manner. Maybe if you wrote 'Do you act 100% honestly' , I wouldn't question your abilty to use English. Your usage of the word "act' is as a verb but then you give me the definition when it is used as a noun. I don't claim to be an English major , but taking English lessons from you would be like clapping with one hand.( credit to Metallica).

BTW it is Mr. Peters, not peter, which you could have figured out if you fully understood the English language.

Mr. Peters


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

kjlued said:


> I know the English language can be very confusing at times


yep, no doubt. even for yourself:



kjlued said:


> later when I addressing you.





kjlued said:


> Feel free to come back for another English lesson and remember reading is fundamental.:thumbsup:


LOL lesson in English...

Thanks for the lesson in... Engrish... :thumbsup:


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

petersbike said:


> BTW it is Mr. Peters, not peter, which you could have figured out if you fully understood the English language.
> 
> Mr. Peters


Good one there since it could have easily been Peter S. as in the "s" could have been a last initial. Maybe it means Peter's Bike as in denoting ownership to your bike.
Maybe you are the owner of this website Peter's bike online
Hell for all that I or anyone else that you have never told knows, your last name could actually coincidentally be "Bike" making it Peter S. Bike.

But certainly anyone should be able to tell that your last name is Peters from a bunch of lower case letters.


----------



## kjlued (Jun 23, 2011)

osokolo said:


> yep, no doubt. even for yourself:
> 
> LOL lesson in English...
> 
> Thanks for the lesson in... Engrish... :thumbsup:


Yes, I make a lot of typos, I am sure you never do. :thumbsup:


----------

