Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[Kennf1]

From Matt's blog..........

Now that's a post with irony.

Also I see he likes to use quotes from Lance in his writings. That's what happens kids when you mastu%%ate to Lance on Youtube. Let this be a lesson.

So he attempts to debate the issue (with incorrect facts), gets called out for being misinformed, he's confronted with the facts, and the response is "hater!"

I also love it when the supporters assume that someone must have spent hours and hours researching an issue about Lance to get the facts, when all it takes is a well-informed 1-minute Google search.

A mind is a terrible thing.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Hes now shut down commenting.

Interesting that my post about todays news that alcohol causes cancer didnt make it through his moderation.

He and others like him are welcome to believe in the vaguely defined cause of 'cancer awareness.' The right response is, "noted, thank you." and then keep right on believing using a slightly different set of beliefs. Instead, the personal attacks come out for no good reason.
Lastly, the guy does a 'cut and run' by throwing out another statistic (89 yellow jerseys) that doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination of the facts and closes with the same 'human shield' others are using.

 

[Granville57]

Hey guys,

Maybe directing all of this at one individual isn't the most effective way to educate people. The mindset behind the blog in question is hardly unique, and that's what I find so troubling. I don't blame anyone who looks up to LA when millions of dollars have been spent developing and perpetuating his public image and persona.

For those that are attracted to the idea of someone like the Texan, it's already pre-packaged and ready to go. For most people, there's just no reason for them to have followed the history of the sport or its nefarious ways of operating. It is the momentum behind the polluted waters of the Pharmstrong campaign that I find so alarming. Attacking the individuals only causes them to dig in deeper.

I fell sorry for them. I honestly do.

We shouldn't have to make it personal beyond LA himself since he is, obviously, the "person" at the core of all this. Especially considering that this one individual didn't attack anyone on here to begin with. What's been going on elsewhere (anti-twitter, etc) is a different story perhaps. I just don't believe that the "us against them" stand is going to be very persuasive when up against an independent blog.

If American politics is any example, it's living proof that heated attacks and back-and-forth accusations accomplishes...absolutely nothing.

If someone chooses to come on here and debate, then it's Game On!
But the tag-teaming of what appears to be somewhat of an innocent bystander will only distance the truth from those that perhaps deserve it most.

 

[Oldman]

Hey guys,

Maybe directing all of this at one individual isn't the most effective way to educate people. The mindset behind the blog in question is hardly unique, and that's what I find so troubling. I don't blame anyone who looks up to LA when millions of dollars have been spent developing and perpetuating his public image and persona.

For those that are attracted to the idea of someone like the Texan, it's already pre-packaged and ready to go. For most people, there's just no reason for them to have followed the history of the sport or its nefarious ways of operating. It is the momentum behind the polluted waters of the Pharmstrong campaign that I find so alarming. Attacking the individuals only causes them to dig in deeper.

I fell sorry for them. I honestly do.

We shouldn't have to make it personal beyond LA himself since he is, obviously, the "person" at the core of all this. Especially considering that this one individual didn't attack anyone on here to begin with. What's been going on elsewhere (anti-twitter, etc) is a different story perhaps. I just don't believe that the "us against them" stand is going to be very persuasive when up against an independent blog.

If American politics is any example, it's living proof that heated attacks and back-and-forth accusations accomplishes...absolutely nothing.
If someone chooses to come on here and debate, then it's Game On!
But the tag-teaming of what appears to be somewhat of an innocent bystander will only distance the truth from those that perhaps deserve it most.

Agreed except that occasionally a poorly worded opposing response becomes the rallying point for the fervent synchophants. Enough of them yelling the same thing can become a Tea Party and we know what that does to politics.

 

[DirtyWorks]

...

We shouldn't have to make it personal beyond LA himself since he is, obviously, the "person" at the core of all this.

I would argue this point. As much as he's the 'talent' and likely doper who may have orchestrated team-wide doping, my wild guess is his management is driving the myth building in order to monetize it. Like any actor that people respond to regardless of their skill, he's got 'it.'

If American politics is any example, it's living proof that heated attacks and back-and-forth accusations accomplishes...absolutely nothing.

If someone chooses to come on here and debate, then it's Game On!
But the tag-teaming of what appears to be somewhat of an innocent bystander will only distance the truth from those that perhaps deserve it most.

There is no reason to enable his childish behavior.

You are right, the back-and-forth doesn't work, but you are unclear on the issue. A healthy society contain/express conflicting opinions.

The comment I saw was factual and even validated his general opinion. He launched the personal attacks then doubled-down using a human shield strategy of hiding behind cancer advocacy. His failure to handle the simple matter of getting his facts wrong and then attacking the messenger falls on him, not on the factual corrections presented.

Furthermore, just because the myth relies on a team to propagate and defend it doesn't mean a group cannot organize to bust the myth using facts responsibly as was done in this situation.

This rhetorical strategy is used often with great damage done. Otherwise, I'm indifferent to the whole thing

 

[pmcg76]

He and others like him are welcome to believe in the vaguely defined cause of 'cancer awareness.' The right response is, "noted, thank you." and then keep right on believing using a slightly different set of beliefs. Instead, the personal attacks come out for no good reason.
Lastly, the guy does a 'cut and run' by throwing out another statistic (89 yellow jerseys) that doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination of the facts and closes with the same 'human shield' others are using.

The 89 yellow jerseys and green jersey tests thing was so funny, who did he think done the tests at the Tour. ASO?

 

[Oldman]

I would argue this point. As much as he's the 'talent' and likely doper who may have orchestrated team-wide doping, my wild guess is his management is driving the myth building in order to monetize it. Like any actor that people respond to regardless of their skill, he's got 'it.'


There is no reason to enable his childish behavior.

You are right, the back-and-forth doesn't work, but you are unclear on the issue. A healthy society contain/express conflicting opinions.

The comment I saw was factual and even validated his general opinion. He launched the personal attacks then doubled-down using a human shield strategy of hiding behind cancer advocacy. His failure to handle the simple matter of getting his facts wrong and then attacking the messenger falls on him, not on the factual corrections presented.

Furthermore, just because the myth relies on a team to propagate and defend it doesn't mean a group cannot organize to bust the myth using facts responsibly as was done in this situation.

This rhetorical strategy is used often with great damage done. Otherwise, I'm indifferent to the whole thing

I'm waiting for some unprecedented, large donations from his "charities" to some high-profile cause as evidence of his institutional worth. Why his handlers hadn't moved to that strategy rather than this nickel and dime banter in the press is hard to fathom. Nothing clears the public conscience more than huge donations to a heart rendingly tragic medical condition's research.

 

[Benotti69]

I'm waiting for some unprecedented, large donations from his "charities" to some high-profile cause as evidence of his institutional worth. Why his handlers hadn't moved to that strategy rather than this nickel and dime banter in the press is hard to fathom. Nothing clears the public conscience more than huge donations to a heart rendingly tragic medical condition's research.

what consititutes large? he allegedly gave aus$50,000 to the flooding down under in January, but his name was not recorded on the list of donations over aus$10,000.

 

[mewmewmew13]

what consititutes large? he allegedly gave aus$50,000 to the flooding down under in January, but his name was not recorded on the list of donations over aus$10,000.

As with his UCI 'donations', didn't that take quite a while to 'show up' and I remember the actual donation amount seemed to fluctuate with who was asked....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hey guys,

Maybe directing all of this at one individual isn't the most effective way to educate people. The mindset behind the blog in question is hardly unique, and that's what I find so troubling. I don't blame anyone who looks up to LA when millions of dollars have been spent developing and perpetuating his public image and persona.

For those that are attracted to the idea of someone like the Texan, it's already pre-packaged and ready to go. For most people, there's just no reason for them to have followed the history of the sport or its nefarious ways of operating. It is the momentum behind the polluted waters of the Pharmstrong campaign that I find so alarming. Attacking the individuals only causes them to dig in deeper.

I fell sorry for them. I honestly do.

We shouldn't have to make it personal beyond LA himself since he is, obviously, the "person" at the core of all this. Especially considering that this one individual didn't attack anyone on here to begin with. What's been going on elsewhere (anti-twitter, etc) is a different story perhaps. I just don't believe that the "us against them" stand is going to be very persuasive when up against an independent blog.

If American politics is any example, it's living proof that heated attacks and back-and-forth accusations accomplishes...absolutely nothing.

If someone chooses to come on here and debate, then it's Game On!
But the tag-teaming of what appears to be somewhat of an innocent bystander will only distance the truth from those that perhaps deserve it most.

Great post.

I really think there is nothing to be gained by engaging with these people if they are not open to debate and prepared to answer questions.

Lets not forget that RRs email was sent to LAF/Livestrong - they should be the only ones to answer and set the record straight.

The only area I might disagree with you is the highlighted above - it appears that many of these people accept that Lance did dope, but are trying to justify it.
When in reality they should avoid LA, his personality, his cycling, his doping etc -which should have no bearing on the charity - and concentrate on the unanswered questions on the performance of the charity.
Many of these people have themselves had cancer and (I would guess) would be appalled if the charity was more about Lance than the disease.

 

[Digger]

Great post.

I really think there is nothing to be gained by engaging with these people if they are not open to debate and prepared to answer questions.

Lets not forget that RRs email was sent to LAF/Livestrong - they should be the only ones to answer and set the record straight.

The only area I might disagree with you is the highlighted above - it appears that many of these people accept that Lance did dope, but are trying to justify it.
When in reality they should avoid LA, his personality, his cycling, his doping etc -which should have no bearing on the charity - and concentrate on the unanswered questions on the performance of the charity.
Many of these people have themselves had cancer and (I would guess) would be appalled if the charity was more about Lance than the disease.

For me all along, there was the fervent fan who didn't believe, or wouldn't accept that he doped. Lately I'm seeing more and more the Livestrong fanatic. These people seem to find self importance in associating themselves with Livestrong. It gives them validation that they are good people (in their own minds) and have a purpose. Every waking minute seems to be taken up with cancer in some shape or form - be it someone they know or raising funds or a reminder of their own battle. It really is a cult and an obsession. Criticise it or question it and you enter into a Holy War where reasoning or the ability to take on new facts deserts them. Why? Because they do not want their belief systems altered. Their raison d'etre would be extinguished. No identify. It seems as though some like the recognition and kudos all the livestrong association can bring them (again in their own minds). Or maybe they think that they are disciples of Lance. There are people we all know and admire, who are affected by cancer or are suffering from it, and the courage and dignity they display is the polar opposite of this kind of Hollywood drama bullsh**.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

what consititutes large? he allegedly gave aus$50,000 to the flooding down under in January, but his name was not recorded on the list of donations over aus$10,000.

Maybe it's an expression of the theoretical value in kind generated by the economic activity of the TDU and the supposed amount that trickled down to flood assistance from the beneficiaries of that trickle down?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

For me all along, there was the fervent fan who didn't believe, or wouldn't accept that he doped. Lately I'm seeing more and more the Livestrong fanatic. These people seem to find self importance in associating themselves with Livestrong. It gives them validation that they are good people (in their own minds) and have a purpose. Every waking minute seems to be taken up with cancer in some shape or form - be it someone they know or raising funds or a reminder of their own battle. It really is a cult and an obsession. Criticise it or question it and you enter into a Holy War where reasoning or the ability to take on new facts deserts them. Why? Because they do not want their belief systems altered. Their raison d'etre would be extinguished. No identify. It seems as though some like the recognition and kudos all the livestrong association can bring them (again in their own minds). Or maybe they think that they are disciples of Lance. There are people we all know and admire, who are affected by cancer or are suffering from it, and the courage and dignity they display is the polar opposite of this kind of Hollywood drama bullsh**.

Exactly.....

 

[Just Some Dude]

Maybe it's an expression of the theoretical value in kind generated by the economic activity of the TDU and the supposed amount that trickled down to flood assistance from the beneficiaries of that trickle down?

Or maybe that attached some sort of monetary value for "raising awareness" of the existence of floods and other excess-of-water calamities.

 

[Oldman]

Great post.

I really think there is nothing to be gained by engaging with these people if they are not open to debate and prepared to answer questions.

Lets not forget that RRs email was sent to LAF/Livestrong - they should be the only ones to answer and set the record straight.

The only area I might disagree with you is the highlighted above - it appears that many of these people accept that Lance did dope, but are trying to justify it.
When in reality they should avoid LA, his personality, his cycling, his doping etc -which should have no bearing on the charity - and concentrate on the unanswered questions on the performance of the charity.Many of these people have themselves had cancer and (I would guess) would be appalled if the charity was more about Lance than the disease.

With any luck this is where the salient truth will have an effect. That's why I think his image managers should counsel him to actually make the "Foundation" whatever form it is; pay out some serious dough in a public way to improve his image. It's no longer an asset to him if he's prosecuted but therein lies a possibility: the IRS and Novitsky have already spent enough time examining his operations and he may not be able to direct any spending. That would be a tactically chilling situation to strip Lance of his major PR tool.

 

[Granville57]

This is exactly why I enjoy and respect The Clinic so much.
In its finer moments, we keep each other honest with rational and balanced exchanges.

A quote from the Godfather comes to mind:

"After all, we’re not murderers, in spite of what this undertaker thinks."

Of course that could be paraphrased multiple ways to apply more specifically to our surroundings, but I think you get the idea.
---------------------------------------

I would argue this point. As much as he's the 'talent' and likely doper who may have orchestrated team-wide doping, my wild guess is his management is driving the myth building in order to monetize it. Like any actor that people respond to regardless of their skill, he's got 'it.'

Well said, and I agree 100%. I realized soon after posting that I hadn't fully or correctly stated my position. I wasn't able to address it at the time but I trusted that someone would catch me out on it.

I was really just trying to make a point of where to focus. But absolutely, LA's inner-circle is fair game and need to be held accountable. In my more zen moments, I might even see LA himself as being a bit of a victim here, at the hands of Weisel and the others, who, quite literally, financed and orchestrated much of what the world has come to know as "Lance." But his own words about his early life betray the fact that he was a tool long before he ever met those great manipulators of public opinion. They're all in it up to their necks.

The only area I might disagree with you is the highlighted above - it appears that many of these people accept that Lance did dope, but are trying to justify it.

I too find this elasticity of morals to be very disturbing. The most severe omission in all of this, on the part of the believers, is that "all the good that LA has done" is only a result of "all the bad" that preceded it. You can't really have one without the other, and to ignore the facts of the situation is the highest form of self-delusion.

Many of these people have themselves had cancer and (I would guess) would be appalled if the charity was more about Lance than the disease.

I am also reminded of the Shroud of Turin, and how the Vatican put limitations on the scientific tests that could be applied to determine its authenticity. Their stance (as I recall) was that as an "article of faith," maintaining and perpetuating that "faith" outweighed the need for any sort of empirical truth.

Lately I'm seeing more and more the Livestrong fanatic...

All of it. Spot on. If Lance fails and is brought down, they will simply steal away the Livestrong identity as it suits them. No harm, on the surface. But they should learn to teach their children that empowerment can come from within, and not to elevate celebrities to unrealistic heights. Believe in oneself. At least then you know who you're dealing with.

 

[Benotti69]

....... <snip>


Believe in oneself. At least then you know who you're dealing with.

Great post.

in wonderboy's case he believe in his many selfs

 

[AussieGoddess]

The problem that you guys are up against is the image of Lance himself up against the big C - and Lance winning the fight.


So he doped - well, everyone doped so its not actually that big a deal in cancer survivors minds.

He had cancer, had surgery, had chemo, had his life destroyed .... and he rebuilt it enough so that even with drugs, he managed to ride around France 7 times in a row faster and better than everyone else. Other pro's who were also likely on the same drugs ...

To get better enough to be able to do such a thing IS an inspiration to people who are still facing that fight.

And they do not want to see that their idol cheated his way to that by paying off the UCI, paying off the drug testers so that his competition (who might have beaten him without this cheating) could not do the same drugs he did, by intimidating anyone who might otherwise stop him.

They do not want to see that his charity is not really a charity but is about increasing his own back pocket in his retirement years .... giving him an audience and a cause ... and someone else to pay the bills.

They do not want to see the idol fall off the pedestal.

You have a long hard road to expose the truth .... because the true believers will not go away just because of some pesky facts.

 

[Benotti69]

The problem that you guys are up against is the image of Lance himself up against the big C - and Lance winning the fight.


So he doped - well, everyone doped so its not actually that big a deal in cancer survivors minds.

He had cancer, had surgery, had chemo, had his life destroyed .... and he rebuilt it enough so that even with drugs, he managed to ride around France 7 times in a row faster and better than everyone else. Other pro's who were also likely on the same drugs ...

To get better enough to be able to do such a thing IS an inspiration to people who are still facing that fight.

And they do not want to see that their idol cheated his way to that by paying off the UCI, paying off the drug testers so that his competition (who might have beaten him without this cheating) could not do the same drugs he did, by intimidating anyone who might otherwise stop him.

They do not want to see that his charity is not really a charity but is about increasing his own back pocket in his retirement years .... giving him an audience and a cause ... and someone else to pay the bills.

They do not want to see the idol fall off the pedestal.

You have a long hard road to expose the truth .... because the true believers will not go away just because of some pesky facts.

those pesky facts will never deter the nutjobs who have latched onto the myth but hopefully it will deter honest Joe's who wish to make a donation to helping the 'fight against cancer' and will donate to a charity that is TRYING to make a difference not a slush fund for a sociopath.

Big difference

He got lucky in his cancer survival. Period. He took PEDs before cancer and he took them after. Difference after is Bruyneel and Ferarri.

 

[mewmewmew13]

The problem that you guys are up against is the image of Lance himself up against the big C - and Lance winning the fight.


So he doped - well, everyone doped so its not actually that big a deal in cancer survivors minds.

He had cancer, had surgery, had chemo, had his life destroyed .... and he rebuilt it enough so that even with drugs, he managed to ride around France 7 times in a row faster and better than everyone else. Other pro's who were also likely on the same drugs ...

To get better enough to be able to do such a thing IS an inspiration to people who are still facing that fight.

And they do not want to see that their idol cheated his way to that by paying off the UCI, paying off the drug testers so that his competition (who might have beaten him without this cheating) could not do the same drugs he did, by intimidating anyone who might otherwise stop him.

They do not want to see that his charity is not really a charity but is about increasing his own back pocket in his retirement years .... giving him an audience and a cause ... and someone else to pay the bills.

They do not want to see the idol fall off the pedestal.

You have a long hard road to expose the truth .... because the true believers will not go away just because of some pesky facts.

I don't think you can intellectually speak for all cancer survivors...this argument is old and worn. How would those survivors feel if they knew there was a chance that the doping actually caused his cancer?

Their idol. False idol. Most would be so pi**ed if they knew what a bully and jerk this guy really is. Duped into believing he is a saint is the way I tend to see it. "Pesky facts"???
If you were being deluded wouldn't you want to know the real story?

 

[D-Queued]

The problem that you guys are up against is the image of Lance himself up against the big C - and Lance winning the fight.


So he doped - well, everyone doped so its not actually that big a deal in cancer survivors minds.

He had cancer, had surgery, had chemo, had his life destroyed .... and he rebuilt it enough so that even with drugs, he managed to ride around France 7 times in a row faster and better than everyone else. Other pro's who were also likely on the same drugs ...

To get better enough to be able to do such a thing IS an inspiration to people who are still facing that fight.

And they do not want to see that their idol cheated his way to that by paying off the UCI, paying off the drug testers so that his competition (who might have beaten him without this cheating) could not do the same drugs he did, by intimidating anyone who might otherwise stop him.

They do not want to see that his charity is not really a charity but is about increasing his own back pocket in his retirement years .... giving him an audience and a cause ... and someone else to pay the bills.

They do not want to see the idol fall off the pedestal.

You have a long hard road to expose the truth .... because the true believers will not go away just because of some pesky facts.

Well stated.

Of course, the lie is even bigger than you state. It is the size of the lie that diminishes how hard that road may be. And, it is the size of the lie that attracts attention to it.

The more Lance tries to inflate himself upon a leaky, weak and corrosive foundation, the harder and faster he will fall.

Dave.

 

[Dallas_]

BS?itter by trade

sociopath.
Big difference;

He got lucky in his cancer survival. Period. He took PEDs before cancer and he took them after. Difference after is Bruyneel and Ferarri.

Let us wind back the clock for a moment and look at some of the claims by MiracleBoy.

1: Most tested athlete. BS, well and truly debunked with figures showing as one example "least tested athlete in the US"

2: At the TOC, claimed never to have paid the UCI any money. Pat said he did. Why lie?

3: Never tested positive. Wrong again. If he said never sanctioned, then that is not an outright lie. Hang on, Marion never tested positive!

I spot a paten of outright ****ing BS lies one after the other. After all, a doper is a liar by default?

Now to state my opinion, which I presume many on both sides of the fence will disagree with and maybe even get hostile. FI, I do not care, my opinion has to be heard.

And a bit more background before my bombshell opinion. At the Indiana medical center, do you agree a paten of lying was exposed by not only his nibs but also his financial associates? The UCI coffers increased and now Indiana MC has a windfall! This fits his MO.

To put it bluntly, I am suspicious of ANY statement emerging from WonderBoy's lips.

Agreed, he had cancer, was operated on and morphed into the Uniballer.


But, HIS CANCER WAS NEVER AT THE LEVEL HE CLAIMED. Going on his MO, he exaggerated his claims for ambitions of financial gain and incidentally was successful.
.

 

[sniper]

Let us wind back the clock for a moment and look at some of the claims by MiracleBoy.

1: Most tested athlete. BS, well and truly debunked with figures showing as one example "least tested athlete in the US"

2: At the TOC, claimed never to have paid the UCI any money. Pat said he did. Why lie?

3: Never tested positive. Wrong again. If he said never sanctioned, then that is not an outright lie. Hang on, Marion never tested positive!

I spot a paten of outright ****ing BS lies one after the other. After all, a doper is a liar by default?

Now to state my opinion, which I presume many on both sides of the fence will disagree with and maybe even get hostile. FI, I do not care, my opinion has to be heard.

And a bit more background before my bombshell opinion. At the Indiana medical center, do you agree a paten of lying was exposed by not only his nibs but also his financial associates? The UCI coffers increased and now Indiana MC has a windfall! This fits his MO.

To put it bluntly, I am suspicious of ANY statement emerging from WonderBoy's lips.

Agreed, he had cancer, was operated on and morphed into the Uniballer.


But, HIS CANCER WAS NEVER AT THE LEVEL HE CLAIMED. Going on his MO, he exaggerated his claims for ambitions of financial gain and incidentally was successful.
.

interesting.

So what you're basically saying is: LANCE MIGHT STILL HAVE TWO BALLS?

 

[Benotti69]

Let us wind back the clock for a moment and look at some of the claims by MiracleBoy.

1: Most tested athlete. BS, well and truly debunked with figures showing as one example "least tested athlete in the US"

2: At the TOC, claimed never to have paid the UCI any money. Pat said he did. Why lie?

3: Never tested positive. Wrong again. If he said never sanctioned, then that is not an outright lie. Hang on, Marion never tested positive!

I spot a paten of outright ****ing BS lies one after the other. After all, a doper is a liar by default?

Now to state my opinion, which I presume many on both sides of the fence will disagree with and maybe even get hostile. FI, I do not care, my opinion has to be heard.

And a bit more background before my bombshell opinion. At the Indiana medical center, do you agree a paten of lying was exposed by not only his nibs but also his financial associates? The UCI coffers increased and now Indiana MC has a windfall! This fits his MO.

To put it bluntly, I am suspicious of ANY statement emerging from WonderBoy's lips.

Agreed, he had cancer, was operated on and morphed into the Uniballer.


But, HIS CANCER WAS NEVER AT THE LEVEL HE CLAIMED. Going on his MO, he exaggerated his claims for ambitions of financial gain and incidentally was successful.
.

i agree with all the above, not sure what you have a problem with in my post though.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But, HIS CANCER WAS NEVER AT THE LEVEL HE CLAIMED. Going on his MO, he exaggerated his claims for ambitions of financial gain and incidentally was successful.
.

Common sense suggests the cancer might have been a doping complication.

Does everyone need to be reminded his development occurred under the Wenzel/Carmichael USA Juniors doping program? Several of his cohorts developed complex, abnormal, medical conditions as young adults. It is therefore likely the cancer was somehow doping related.

Now, to be extremely fair, the smoking lobby used to defend smoking by claiming lung cancer and smoking causal link could never be established. And they were strictly right. Now, apply the same reasoning to Armstrong's Junior doping experience. Is there causal link between the likely Junior doping and his cancer as a young adult? no way to prove it. If the mass media ever puts the Wenzel/Carmichael doping together with Armstrong, team Pharmstrong will use the same absurd defense the smoking lobby did. There's enough sycophants to sell it.

Like the smoking example, the doping followed by medical complications suggests the cancer might have been a doping complication. This turns the 'hero' into something else. I doubt the association will ever be made, but there it is...