The Sports Illustrated article has obviously had an impact... the college football message board I post on regularly has several threads on it regarding Lance Armstrong's doping.
What I find interesting is that I think I'm viewed here as being somewhat supportive of Armstrong... or at least not as "anti-Armstrong" as some would like.
But there, I'm being called a "hater" who is accusing Armstrong with no proof. I've mentioned his past positive tests when people have claimed he never tested positive, and I'm being told that I obviously have an agenda and that I'm out to get him.
As I read the responses, I can't help but laugh at how people view my motives there and here regarding a subject that I'm trying to talk about without unfair bias on both sites. It's interesting how the same sorts of statements can be viewed so differently by two different audiences.
What I find interesting is that I think I'm viewed here as being somewhat supportive of Armstrong... or at least not as "anti-Armstrong" as some would like.
But there, I'm being called a "hater" who is accusing Armstrong with no proof. I've mentioned his past positive tests when people have claimed he never tested positive, and I'm being told that I obviously have an agenda and that I'm out to get him.
As I read the responses, I can't help but laugh at how people view my motives there and here regarding a subject that I'm trying to talk about without unfair bias on both sites. It's interesting how the same sorts of statements can be viewed so differently by two different audiences.