• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Lance the Bully

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
yourwelcome said:
I'm kind of surprised at that - he's Republican, right?

After LA tweeted (twittered? whatever) an infographic a few weeks ago showing the Republicans being big donors to the superpac opposing the anti-smoking legislation he's been pushing hard for, I half wondered whether the USADA action was payback from the Republicans. 'You're now against us and not with us, buddy - protection withdrawn' etc.

Prop 29 failed. Maybe it was payback on Lance for him comeplety stuffing it up?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
yourwelcome said:
I'm kind of surprised at that - he's Republican, right?

After LA tweeted (twittered? whatever) an infographic a few weeks ago showing the Republicans being big donors to the superpac opposing the anti-smoking legislation he's been pushing hard for, I half wondered whether the USADA action was payback from the Republicans. 'You're now against us and not with us, buddy - protection withdrawn' etc.

When the final book is written it will be very clear which side gave him the most help.
 
rhubroma said:
This reminds me of the parable about the rich guy who gave tons of his wealth to the poor and the poor woman who gave one cent.

Again, this to me isn't so much a debate on how Gates got his money, or how much he could give away. I will try to be more clear. I think to compare or clump together Lance and Gates philanthropic giving and motivation behind their charitable donations is a poor comparison. Lance would be closer to the Koch brothers, if you wish to do that.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Again, this to me isn't so much a debate on how Gates got his money, or how much he could give away. I will try to be more clear. I think to compare or clump together Lance and Gates philanthropic giving and motivation behind their charitable donations is a poor comparison. Lance would be closer to the Koch brothers, if you wish to do that.

I don't wish to make any comparisons, but only point out that giving without sacrifice is hardly commendable as the parable suggested. How many billions does one need? Ultimately the "virtuous yes," "virtuous no" debate is consequently moot. Gates has been an unapologetic monopolist, Lance a sociopathic liar and hypocrite, while each have benefitted from the publicity as philanthropists.

All the charity in the world, though, won't work when one guy has billions, while billions literally live in squalor. In fact the exponential increase of wealth among the few our system has produced, set against the epidemic growth of poverty and exploitation in the underdeveloped world; clearly demonstrates that taking recourse to charity as a means to "cure" humanity's ills is a false and highly instrumental treatment at best – at worst a hypocritical self-justification.

Lance's giving unlike Bill's, for whom at least a modicum of decency exists, won't earn my praise, because he used his beneficiaries (that is the sick) as a shield of impunity against his crimes.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
Again, this to me isn't so much a debate on how Gates got his money, or how much he could give away. I will try to be more clear. I think to compare or clump together Lance and Gates philanthropic giving and motivation behind their charitable donations is a poor comparison. Lance would be closer to the Koch brothers, if you wish to do that.


I think a better comparison would be Jerry Sandusky's Second Mile foundation -- created by a sociopath to provide cover and legitimacy to illegal activities.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
Again, this to me isn't so much a debate on how Gates got his money, or how much he could give away. I will try to be more clear. I think to compare or clump together Lance and Gates philanthropic giving and motivation behind their charitable donations is a poor comparison. Lance would be closer to the Koch brothers, if you wish to do that.

Gates' philanthropy is every bit as cynical as Armstrong's and more dangerous.

PR in both cases.
 
rhubroma said:
I don't wish to make any comparisons...
Okay, but that's what the discussion was about, a comparison.

Lance's giving unlike Bill's, for whom at least a modicum of decency exists, won't earn my praise, because he used his beneficiaries (that is the sick) as a shield of impunity against his crimes.
My point exactly. And sure, I'm okay with the term "modicum". If one really wants to see a philanthropist, look at Warren Buffett. He still lives in the same 4 bedroom house he raised his family in, and is giving nearly all of his money away, reportedly over 99% of it. If you ask me, that's how all of the .1% should live. But that's another topic for another thread.

Turner29 said:
I think a better comparison would be Jerry Sandusky's Second Mile foundation -- created by a sociopath to provide cover and legitimacy to illegal activities.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but understand what you're saying and won't criticize you for your opinion either.

I do however find it almost amusing the people that scream no physical evidence exists proving Lance doped and the witnesses are all bitter and have a vendetta. I wonder if these same people would acquit Sandusky or feel he is innocent. After all, there was no physical evidence he raped those boys, and he was convicted almost exclusively on eyewitness and victim testimony.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Turner29 said:
I think a better comparison would be Jerry Sandusky's Second Mile foundation -- created by a sociopath to provide cover and legitimacy to illegal activities.

1+ Fully agree here.

Jeremiah said:
Gates' philanthropy is every bit as cynical as Armstrong's and more dangerous.

PR in both cases.

Also agree here. Couldn´t have said it better.

Alpe d'Huez said:
I do however find it almost amusing the people that scream no physical evidence exists proving Lance doped and the witnesses are all bitter and have a vendetta. I wonder if these same people would acquit Sandusky or feel he is innocent. After all, there was no physical evidence he raped those boys, and he was convicted almost exclusively on eyewitness and victim testimony.

Wow. Perfect. Classic. This post should be thrown into te faces of Pharmstrong´s fanboys/fanatics every time they repeat the BS that comes out of Lance´s mouth and/or twitter.
 
thehog said:
Prop 29 failed. Maybe it was payback on Lance for him comeplety stuffing it up?

Seeing Mr. Armstrong in the pro ads turned my vote aqainst. I am ambivalnet about Armstrong in totality, but it just smelled like national interests using a state where a tax on smoking should have passed easily to finance their research and development. The whole promise that the money would stay in state was BS.
 
Jeremiah said:
Gates' philanthropy is every bit as cynical as Armstrong's and more dangerous.

PR in both cases.

Perhaps you don't like either of them, and you are entitled to your opinion. But these are night and day situations.

One foundation is about to rid us of malaria while more cancer cases means that Lance can charge more appearance fees.

...

Dave.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Visit site
D-Queued said:
Perhaps you don't like either of them, and you are entitled to your opinion. But these are night and day situations.

One foundation is about to rid us of malaria while more cancer cases means that Lance can charge more appearance fees.

...



I don't know if it belongs in the clinic, but there may be a closer comparison here than you are aware.

There was quite a dialog on the ESPN forums about 1-1/2 years ago about Lance and a 17 year old high school co-ed in Cedar Falls, Iowa in 2007. The alleged incident occurring while he was in town for a cancer benefit.

http://myespn.go.com/s/conversations/show/story/6044270

(You have to sign in to read the discussion, and I am not posting any of it here)

Dave.

Erm, I did not read or hear anything about that in the link. Did I miss something?
 
Jul 22, 2010
22
0
0
Visit site
The only reason that Lance is being brought to justice is because of how much of an absolute c**t that he is. And he really had to **** off a huge number of people to make it happen.

If he had only been a nice guy he would have gone down in history the same as Indurain. I.e. everybody (in the cycling world) knows Indurain doped but still everybody considers him as a true champion.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Visit site
I would have to think that maybe th e reason the evidence is coming out now is because Lance is a #$%^, but if the evidence against Indurain did come out, it would have to be acted upon. However, Spain doesn't have a great history of doing things like this.
 
Oct 1, 2010
320
0
0
Visit site
Cunego gets in Armstrong's way during the 2009 Giro. Armstrong's reaction:

"I'll crush you, little prince!"

Julian Dean found it amusing:

http://www.juliandean.co.nz/diary.php?dType=archive

It kind of reminds me of an old man impotently waving his walking stick at a kid on a skateboard who has just passed him at speed, narrowly missing him.

So, perhaps not the best example of bullying...

Off-topic: how did the log-in process for the forum get so complicated? :confused:
 

TRENDING THREADS