Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

Page 51 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

aphronesis

Jul 30, 2011
7,539
107
17,680
Cyivel said:
She was under the age of consent which nullifies the validity of her giving consent.

Also what the **** does it matter when it happened, rape is rape.
Click to expand...

um, no, rape is not rape. maybe read back a few centuries.

never mind the inherent sexism of your remark that blanket and universal age of consent overrides individual agency.

maybe you should hit the streets and do sweeps: 'rapes' happening as we speak. get on that.
 
C

Cyivel

Aug 5, 2012
2,290
0
0
aphronesis said:
um, no, rape is not rape. maybe read back a few centuries.

never mind the inherent sexism of your remark that blanket and universal age of consent overrides individual agency.

maybe you should hit the streets and do sweeps: 'rapes' happening as we speak. get on that.
Click to expand...

Yeah defend rape all you want, this will be my last post responding to you, not worth wasting any more time on someone like you.
 
A

aphronesis

Jul 30, 2011
7,539
107
17,680
not a matter of defending rape. defining might be more to the point. since you're typing, you're clearly not out stopping statutory rape--let alone intervening In africa--where real rape happened just now. or china. whoops.

good we got the tenor of this thread nailed down.
 
A

aphronesis

Jul 30, 2011
7,539
107
17,680
not a matter of defending rape. defining might be more to the point. since you're typing, you're clearly not out stopping statutory rape--let alone intervening africa--where real rape happened just now. or china.

good we got the tenor of this thread nailed down.

@mew: an old lesson on this forum is that critiquing someone's position does not amount to a defense of what they abhor. it's rhetoric: much of yours is violent in its own way, so try to back it off a notch. else its worse less than what you criticize.
 
Netserk

Netserk

Apr 30, 2011
45,459
27,947
28,180
BroDeal said:
I was going to post a brilliant response but because one sentence will mention someone other than Armstrong I guess it is off-limits.
Click to expand...
We both know that is bull. DW's post is still there. It was only the 9 posts that had absolutely nothing to do with Armstrong, but instead discussed statutory rape that was deleted.
 
A

aphronesis

Jul 30, 2011
7,539
107
17,680
Netserk said:
We both know that is bull. DW's post is still there. It was only the 9 posts that had absolutely nothing to do with Armstrong, but instead discussed statutory rape that was deleted.
Click to expand...

Well you're right, technically, as the internet psychs will tell you: with the exception on the Olsen safari, armstrongs oedipal dynamic might mostly preclude statutory-or near-incidences
 
J

JMBeaushrimp

Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
BroDeal said:
I was going to post a brilliant response but because one sentence will mention someone other than Armstrong I guess it is off-limits.
Click to expand...

Haha! That was tongue-biting time. Could've been so funny...
 
Benotti69

Benotti69

May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Ninety5rpm said:
I disagree. He's got nothing. Who would want to be associated with him? He's way too well-known to be able to get away with a scam. Livestrong tossed him aside. Nobody trusts him.

He's like OJ, before OJ went to prison.

"Finding God"? That's much more likely for someone who was raised religious.

Infomercial? "Hi, I'm Lance Armstrong. Let me tell you about ..." <click>

Casino spokesperson? "I gambled in sports and I lost, but even I'm a winner at Casino Royale!" Doubt it.
Click to expand...

I am inclined to agree. Armstrong is knocking on the wrong door if he wants to do a Clinton. Clinton was a President and that lots repsect that. All he did was get a BJ from an intern and not a underage intern. Armstrong lied for years and years and years in sport. He is considered a cheater, a doper and a fraud. Clinton didn't deny the BJ, he said it wasn't sex in his book and he got cleared.

Armstrong should look to the porn industry for a future, they could get some great film titles with his history and physicality. :D
 
Netserk

Netserk

Apr 30, 2011
45,459
27,947
28,180
DirtyWorks said:
Sorry, I really, really didn't want to start a discussion on it.
Click to expand...
You didn't do anything wrong. I don't mind a reference to something else, as long as one discuss what the topic is about (Which you did). My problem was the following posts by others, where they discussed absolutely nothing about Armstrong, and everything about statutory rape.
 
Netserk

Netserk

Apr 30, 2011
45,459
27,947
28,180
From a recent tweet:
485973_348461828597986_1120765515_n.jpg
 
Christian

Christian

Mar 13, 2009
5,245
2
0
First time

Hello,

I do not follow the clinic very much and have, to this point, not yet expressed my views on the Lance Armstrong case, lest I forget. Therefore please excuse my possible lack of knowledge, or else repeating a point of view that may have been expressed by others before me.

When Lance Armstrong confessed to doping, I was not at all surprised. To me, this had been common knowledge at least since 2006, when pretty much all his main contenders were revealed to be doping. What surprised me was the surprise among the peloton. Did all these riders really not know or at least strongly suspect this? That seems very uncredible to me. I cannot put myself in the position of a pro rider, but if I were a young professional, I would honestly say: "I am not in the least bit surprised".

As regards to Lance Armstrong himself, I have been thinking lately that the public is too harsh on him. After all, what is Lance Armstrong? He is merely the product of a system that allowed, even supported him to be Lance Armstrong. A coloquial proverb says "Don't hate the player, hate the game" - why blame a player if the referees, the international federations, etc. are all corrupted? In my opinion, if it hadn't been Armstrong, it would have been Ullrich or Basso or Landis or you name it.

When all is said and done Armstong still remains a great athlete and an immensely talented cyclist. And a doper, and a cheater, and a liar, and an all around unpleasant and bullying person. I do not want to deny or belittle any of those truths, and strongly dislike him because of them. But the doping? He did what the system allowed him to do. All his main competitors did it. It's been common knowledge for a decade. What's the big woof?

Again - sorry if I am missing crucial information and thus my relections may be flawed.

Sincerely,

Christian
Senior Member
Cyclingnews Forum
 
W

WinterRider

Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
Christian said:
Hello,

I do not follow the clinic very much and have, to this point, not yet expressed my views on the Lance Armstrong case, lest I forget. Therefore please excuse my possible lack of knowledge, or else repeating a point of view that may have been expressed by others before me.

When Lance Armstrong confessed to doping, I was not at all surprised. To me, this had been common knowledge at least since 2006, when pretty much all his main contenders were revealed to be doping. What surprised me was the surprise among the peloton. Did all these riders really not know or at least strongly suspect this? That seems very uncredible to me. I cannot put myself in the position of a pro rider, but if I were a young professional, I would honestly say: "I am not in the least bit surprised".

As regards to Lance Armstrong himself, I have been thinking lately that the public is too harsh on him. After all, what is Lance Armstrong? He is merely the product of a system that allowed, even supported him to be Lance Armstrong. A coloquial proverb says "Don't hate the player, hate the game" - why blame a player if the referees, the international federations, etc. are all corrupted? In my opinion, if it hadn't been Armstrong, it would have been Ullrich or Basso or Landis or you name it.

When all is said and done Armstong still remains a great athlete and an immensely talented cyclist. And a doper, and a cheater, and a liar, and an all around unpleasant and bullying person. I do not want to deny or belittle any of those truths, and strongly dislike him because of them. But the doping? He did what the system allowed him to do. All his main competitors did it. It's been common knowledge for a decade. What's the big woof?

Again - sorry if I am missing crucial information and thus my relections may be flawed.

Sincerely,

Christian
Senior Member
Cyclingnews Forum
Click to expand...

People hate the player because he was ruthless in suppressing the truth. He has admitted that he sued people whom he knew to be truthful, he has ruined people's lives, he has defrauded people of millions of dollars, and to top it all off he has become weatlhy beyond reason by employing these tactics.

He is a bad man, and most people like to see bad men get their just deserts. The only reason more people don't know what a **** he is is that the media spent 15 years building him up as a hero and that work is not easily undone.
 
DirtyWorks

DirtyWorks

Feb 10, 2010
10,645
20
22,510
Christian said:
When all is said and done Armstong still remains a great athlete and an immensely talented cyclist.
Click to expand...

No, not really. We've learned he was a super-responder to whatever oxygen vector doping he was using. Prior to EPO/tranfusions and such, he's been doped since a teenager on Carmichael's USA Cycling team. Read all about it: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/10/60ii/main284958.shtml If reading is too much trouble: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_...somethings-fishy-in-cycling-our-first-report/

It is very, very doubtful a clean Wonderboy in a field full of clean elite riders would have any podiums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom