Church of Lance Armstrong In Action

[Anonymous]

So you are saying you should never question the myth?

Not only should you not question it, but you should use the death of someone from cancer to justify your side of the argument against Armstrong's doping. See, Lance didn't dope if someone dies of cancer.

 

[Kennf1]

Wow. Some people get so upset over complete nonsense.

The facts are that LA makes a lot of money from his foundation and gives some of that money to help with the fight against cancer.

It is O.K. to make a profit.

It is good to give money to organizations focused on improving health care.

LA has raised and donated more money than I ever will. It's hard for me to find fault with that.

I tend to agree, but I do get tired of LA acting like he "owns" cancer (as a journalist "not worth the chair" he sat on once said). Anytime a celebrity announces they have cancer, LA has to tweet about it, and tell them to Livestrong. You'd think he was cancer patient zero.

 

[Wallace]

Not to muddy the waters to much, but isn't entirely possible and reasonable to assume that Armstrong a) is a genuine force for evil in cycling (doped his way to 7 Tour victories, enforcer of omerta, the most prominent example of cheating to win in sports history), b) using the myth of a cancer survivor for all sorts of moral and financial reasons, c) a genuine force for good in the cancer world, as an example, by what his foundation does, and through many private, selfless acts in the cancer community? Why does it have to be either a or b or c? Human nature is complicated. Some of the people here seem to hate Armstrong so much they just simply cannot abide the thought that he might be out there doing good for people in a terrible situation--they have to flatten him out into a one dimensional cartoon villain. Then the people who love him have to make him out to be a saint. Why can't he be a cheating cyclist who does a tremendous amount of good for sick people? I suppose that in a certain sense it can be argued that cancer is more important than any sport, but that doesn't mean LA shouldn't be help accountable for his actions within the sport.

 

[poupou]

Wow. Some people get so upset over complete nonsense.

The facts are that LA makes a lot of money from his foundation and gives some of that money to help with the fight against cancer.

It is O.K. to make a profit.

It is good to give money to organizations focused on improving health care.

LA has raised and donated more money than I ever will. It's hard for me to find fault with that.

If I give $1 to a non-profit organisation , I want to see it used by the non-profit organisation.

If a profit organisation is making money on a charity cause, for me that is a scam.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

His mailbox probably contains love letters from you. I wonder if I should even post the "pics".

LOL. sashimono gets pwned.

 

[cyclelicious]

dimspace is no dimbulb

Im an atheist, but like all good non believers when my time comes, i will have a quick pray just to be on the safe side..

im sure there's a lot of people who whilst they may mock it now, if they where unfortunate enough to be hit by cancer would take every ounce of help the LAF offered them..

in desperate times we all become hypocrites

but like i say, this has nothing to do with cycling, or doping come to that.. sounds to me more like beehive was getting his **** whupped on facebook and came here for a bit of moral and emotional support

Dim, you tell it like it is, a clear voice of reason in a choir of ugliness.

 

[Digger]

Patent on cancer is what Paul Kimmage said to Lance. You don't have a patent on cancer.
So Lance raises cancer awareness. Could that be any less transparent?
For me, one incident enapsulates lance and cancer awareness. Lemond questions Catlin and Lance about testing at Las Vegas - and then out of nowhere, Lance grabs the microphone and says Greg, I am here to raise cancer awareness. Like a child saying to another child, 'look over there', and taking a run for it.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Im an atheist, but like all good non believers when my time comes, i will have a quick pray just to be on the safe side..

Atheist? You sound like an agnostic, not an atheist. I think people confuse the two.

I don't find it surprising at all that cozybeehive would be attacked on places like facebook by the masses who understand nothing about cycling but have jumped on the Lance bandwagon.

This place has a greater percentage of people who actually know a few things about the sport and have actually spent some time reading articles and becoming familiar with the facts in the debate. It's just like the climate change debate. The Glenn Beck crowd is too preoccupied with getting spoon-fed the garbage from FoxNews and others to actually spend any time becoming more informed on the subject.

I'd bet there's a strong correlation between Glenn Beck followers, the religious right, and those who blindly believe whatever BS Lance dishes out.

 

[Cozy Beehive]

Not to muddy the waters to much, but isn't entirely possible and reasonable to assume that Armstrong a) is a genuine force for evil in cycling (doped his way to 7 Tour victories, enforcer of omerta, the most prominent example of cheating to win in sports history), b) using the myth of a cancer survivor for all sorts of moral and financial reasons, c) a genuine force for good in the cancer world, as an example, by what his foundation does, and through many private, selfless acts in the cancer community? Why does it have to be either a or b or c? Human nature is complicated. Some of the people here seem to hate Armstrong so much they just simply cannot abide the thought that he might be out there doing good for people in a terrible situation--they have to flatten him out into a one dimensional cartoon villain. Then the people who love him have to make him out to be a saint. Why can't he be a cheating cyclist who does a tremendous amount of good for sick people? I suppose that in a certain sense it can be argued that cancer is more important than any sport, but that doesn't mean LA shouldn't be help accountable for his actions within the sport.

If one goes by the Chinese held philosophy of Yin and Yang, true there's a duality of nature in any given individual. But if said individual makes a million dollar career built up on a lot of lies and continues to propel that myth around, you can't expect people to remain quiet about it and I take it I'm just an ocean in the drop of the people who don't believe in lies and corruption. Lance made his first big impact on the sport in 1999 when he won the Tour de France. A few years later, six of his samples turn up positive for synthetic drugs. He lies about it and continues to do so. (In his latest effort at soundbiting in the media, he calls the doctors who question his blood values as "poor students" who somehow edged out and passed medical school.)

If someone wanted to flatten a sports star just because they don't like him, they wouldn't do it to a cancer survivor. But here, its not like or dislike...its a legitimate case against an unfair person. There's plenty of proof for LA drugging himself and pushing others to take it.

Then the big question becomes, should Lance be treated as a modern day Robin Hood, who does bad things to boost his image and use that image to promote cancer awareness and sell his "anti-cancer" brand and merchandise? Maybe, maybe not. But if Al Capone did that back in the day , you know, killing people and extortioning money on one side, but raising money for some debilitating disease on the other...should his crimes be given a free pass because of his track record as a fund raiser?

 

[VeloCity]

For a cancer patient, I doubt what LA did from 1999-2005 is in anyway relevant. The fact that an athlete nearly died from a disease, and then returned to their respective sport is inspirational enough. If a cancer patient chooses to seek inspiration from someone that lied and cheated to win a bike race there is nothing irrational about that. How he won is most likely irrelevant to them, the fact that he cameback is where I would seek inspiration if I were a patient.

I can't think of anything more disrespectful to cancer patients than a guy surviving cancer coming back and doping himself up with god-knows-what substances with god-knows-what kind of long-term health effects and then lying to them in order to uphold a mythical version of his success.

Personally, I'd have a ton of respect for him if he came back clean and finished 138th in every Tour, but how can anyone have any respect for a cancer survivor abusing (or at least misusing) substances with unknown health risks solely for the purpose of winning a bike race?

 

[Anonymous]

I can't think of anything more disrespectful to cancer patients than a guy surviving cancer coming back and doping himself up with god-knows-what substances with god-knows-what kind of long-term health effects and then lying to them in order to uphold a mythical version of his success.

Personally, I'd have a ton of respect for him if he came back clean and finished 138th in every Tour, but how can anyone have any respect for a cancer survivor abusing (or at least misusing) substances with unknown health risks solely for the purpose of winning a bike race?

BINGO!! We have a winner.

Perfect analysis.

 

[JayZee]

Hey Mods, isn't this thread perfect evidence of the need for a separate "I Hate Lance Armstrong/Livestrong/LAF" forum? How does this thread relate to doping in cycling?

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Mods, isn't this thread perfect evidence of the need to have more moderators to monitor and shut down useless threads? If anything this should be in the general cycling forum, although I believe the OP knew he'd get the most support by posting his rant up in the Clinic.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Mods, isn't this thread perfect evidence of the need for a separate "I Hate Lance Armstrong/Livestrong/LAF" forum? How does this thread relate to doping in cycling?

If you do that then you'll need an I hate Jan Ullrich forum, I hate DiLucca forum, I hate AC forum, I hate *your fav doper name here* forum...

 

[VeloCity]

Hey Mods, isn't this thread perfect evidence of the need for a separate "I Hate Lance Armstrong/Livestrong/LAF" forum? How does this thread relate to doping in cycling?

It has everything to do with doping in cycling.

 

[Anonymous]

Atheist? You sound like an agnostic, not an atheist. I think people confuse the two..

trust me, im an atheist, and opposed to religion in all forms..

i was confessing to having the potential to be a hippocrite..

 

[JayZee]

It has everything to do with doping in cycling.

No, it has everything to do with Lance Armstrong and people's fixation with everything he does.

 

[poupou]

No, it has everything to do with Lance Armstrong and people's fixation with everything he does WRONG.

Better like that.

 

[Grilled]

sad

The church just keeps bringing in the blind, faithful, and vociferous. The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. Cozy - you're spot on with your write up, and this guy (like so many) confuses the smokescreen with reality. The LAF and Lance the cyclist are two completely separate entities.

And now Pharmstrong has his ducks to his liking, Gripper singing in tune, the Bio Passport labeled as "sufficient", and he's done away with that pesky independent testing. Let the little guys get busted, and we'll watch the DopeSHack and Saxo and Astana needle ponies go flying up mountains in July.

Just 'cuz your last in your class doesn't make you stupid, Lance. Clever wording though...

At the end of the day, Pharmstrong comes off as a sad, angry, little man.

 

[Polish]

At the end of the day, Pharmstrong comes off as a sad, angry, little man.

At at bedtime the Haters go to sleep as Happy, Joyful, He-Men GRRR

 

[flicker]

Respectfully

I agree but the main reason I differ with Lance is:

He banged Kristian,Sheryl Crow, Ashley Olsen,L.Lohan.

Not only can Lance whip my bootie on any mountain but he is also a player.

Lance you are my hero.

 

[Ripper]

You mods, can we close this thread?

No offence to the OP, but the initial post was (IMO) controversial from the get go ... not sure if I would want to quote someone who is crazy with grief, it's just a no win situation.

However, the thread appears to have degenerated into, into, WTF I have no idea what it is now, other than pointless.

 

[HL2037]

i agree but the main reason i differ with lance is:

He banged kristian,sheryl crow, ashley olsen,l.lohan.

Not only can lance whip my bootie on any mountain but he is also a player.

Lance you are my hero.

? ?

 

[Hugh Januss]

No offence to the OP, but the initial post was (IMO) controversial from the get go ... not sure if I would want to quote someone who is crazy with grief, it's just a no win situation.

However, the thread appears to have degenerated into, into, WTF I have no idea what it is now, other than pointless.

+1 to the first point!
As to the second, anytime you get Polish and Flicker in the same thread, I'm afraid that is gonna happen.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

No, it has everything to do with Lance Armstrong and people's fixation with everything he does.

Doping in cycling and Lance Armstrong are virtually synonymous. The only people still denying it are the fanboys.