The Official LANCE ARMSTRONG Thread 2010-2011

[Publicus]

i don't think you love cancer, i think you are a small, bitter person who doesn't really care if one sick person gets some help from it because your feelings are what really matter.

think scooter's proud?

I really hate when folks come on here and get sanctimonious about criticizing Lance Armstrong. Last I checked he was a human being. One good deed doesn't make him immune to criticism. Lance Armstrong is not perfect. He makes money off of his popularity under the guise of helping folks. Lots of folks do it, it's called capitalism. Some people are critical of how he does it; some, like yourself, see no problem with it. Does that make you special? No, that just means you are entitled to your opinion. If you can't accept that fact the others disagree with you, then perhaps you should refrain from engaging in discussion of this nature until you are emotionally mature.

 

[patricknd]

I really hate when folks come on here and get sanctimonious about criticizing Lance Armstrong. Last I checked he was a human being. One good deed doesn't make him immune to criticism. Lance Armstrong is not perfect. He makes money off of his popularity under the guise of helping folks. Lots of folks do it, it's called capitalism. Some people are critical of how he does it; some, like yourself, see no problem with it. Does that make you special? No, that just means you are entitled to your opinion. If you can't accept that fact the others disagree with you, then perhaps you should refrain from engaging in discussion of this nature until you are emotionally mature.

i have no problem with criticizing lance armstrong. i do however have a problem with cancer patients being called groupies, and a magazine that might actually help a bit being called "stroke material". try reading what was actually written instead of jumping to conclusions.

 

[Publicus]

i have no problem with criticizing lance armstrong. i do however have a problem with cancer patients being called groupies, and a magazine that might actually help a bit being called "stroke material". try reading what was actually written instead of jumping to conclusions.

Can you point me to the language in RR's post that called cancer patients groupies? Because for the life of me, I don't see that referenced ANYWHERE in his post.

More stroke material for the groupies.

Of course the writers will get screwed.

http://www.foliomag.com/2010/demand-media-can-go-hell

Perhaps YOU should slow your roll a bit and maybe back up off the LiveStrong juice just a bit.

 

[ravens]

I found something to agree with you on.

I am reviewing my post to see how my meaning had to have been misconstrued by you.

 

[Race Radio]

i don't think you love cancer, i think you are a small, bitter person who doesn't really care if one sick person gets some help from it because your feelings are what really matter.

think scooter's proud?

You would be surprised how many of those who have suffered, and continue to suffer from Cancer, despise Armstrong for using the halo of cancer to cover up his actions. Scooter was one of those. As a former professional athlete he knew the game and was disgusted by Armstrong's actions. You would also be surprised by what Armstrong really thinks about his followers, but as that discussion is not related to a cycling forum there is no reason to bring it up

I have said many times that Armstrong's story is inspiring. When another long time friend was diagnosed his book was the first thing I sent to him. He read it a couple times before he died three weeks ago.

This is a cycling forum. We discuss bike racing. Tactics, doping, politics of the sport. Armstrong factors into all of these topics and to ignore his actions just because of cancer would be disingenuous (I learned that word from CC)

 

[patricknd]

Can you point me to the language in RR's post that called cancer patients groupies? Because for the life of me, I don't see that referenced ANYWHERE in his post.



Perhaps YOU should slow your roll a bit and maybe back up off the LiveStrong juice just a bit.

perhaps you should read what the comment about stroke material was aimed at here http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2010/02/08/daily19.html or go to post # 953.

then you may congratulate me 0n my one year anniversary 1-20-09. my survival chances took a big leap upward.

get it now?

 

[patricknd]

You would be surprised how many of those who have suffered, and continue to suffer from Cancer, despise Armstrong for using the halo of cancer to cover up his actions. Scooter was one of those. As a former professional athlete he knew the game and was disgusted by Armstrong's actions. You would also be surprised by what Armstrong really thinks about his followers, but as that discussion is not related to a cycling forum there is no reason to bring it up

I have said many times that Armstrong's story is inspiring. When another long time friend was diagnosed his book was the first thing I sent to him. He read it a couple times before he died three weeks ago.

This is a cycling forum. We discuss bike racing. Tactics, doping, politics of the sport. Armstrong factors into all of these topics and to ignore his actions just because of cancer would be disingenuous (I learned that word from CC)

your remark wasn't directed at armstrong, it was directed at people who might read that magazine, and that's wrong. admit it and go on.

 

[Race Radio]

i have no problem with criticizing lance armstrong. i do however have a problem with cancer patients being called groupies, and a magazine that might actually help a bit being called "stroke material". try reading what was actually written instead of jumping to conclusions.

I was not referring to cancer patents. Many of Armstrong fans have never had cancer.

I jump to conclusions because Armstrong has shown he has no issues with exploiting the Livestrong charity for personal gain. Is this magazine only going to benefit the Livestrong charity? If yes then I am all for it. More info is better. Is the magazine just another way to enrich Armstrong and his business partners like Livestrong.com?

 

[Race Radio]

your remark wasn't directed at armstrong, it was directed at people who might read that magazine, and that's wrong. admit it and go on.

I see your point, and it is valid.

I first heard about the magazine a few months ago. It was pitched to be a print version of the .com site, not the .org. While the financial arrangement is unknown it appears to be more focused on the .org, which is a good thing.

 

[Race Radio]

then you may congratulate me 0n my one year anniversary 1-20-09. my survival chances took a big leap upward.

get it now?

Congratulations. I hope you have many more

 

[patricknd]

I was not referring to cancer patents. Many of Armstrong fans have never had cancer.

I jump to conclusions because Armstrong has shown he has no issues with exploiting the Livestrong charity for personal gain. Is this magazine only going to benefit the Livestrong charity? If yes then I am all for it. More info is better. Is the magazine just another way to enrich Armstrong and his business partners like Livestrong.com?

you referred to anyone who might read it, and who do you think that might possibly be? it was an ugly statement and if you don't understand that i pity you.

 

[patricknd]

I see your point, and it is valid.

I first heard about the magazine a few months ago. It was pitched to be a print version of the .com site, not the .org. While the financial arrangement is unknown it appears to be more focused on the .org, which is a good thing.

thank you. i want to apologise for my anger and please disregard the previous post. considering your losses i was shocked and hurt when i read it.

it's funny but livestrong.org has taken on a life and identity that has very little to do with la. the survivors there are the lifesblood of it all. just a little food for thought.

 

[Publicus]

perhaps you should read what the comment about stroke material was aimed at here http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2010/02/08/daily19.html or go to post # 953.

then you may congratulate me 0n my one year anniversary 1-20-09. my survival chances took a big leap upward.

get it now?

I read the comment. And what I quoted was from post #953. What you claim was written there, wasn't actually written there. The fact that you have had cancer and are surviving , does not change the fact what you said was untrue or make you immune from correction.

I've had three people survive (briefly) and ultimately succumb to cancer in my immediate family, so I wish you all the best and congratulations on pushing through.

 

[Race Radio]

thank you. i want to apologise for my anger and please disregard the previous post.

No worries. You have a very valid point. I certainly hope that the magazine is focused around Cancer and the .org's work. As many channels as possible to get the word out.

The original press kits that were sent out to potential advertisers last year painted it more as a lifestyle magazine and an attempt to expand the Lance brand.

 

[patricknd]

No worries. You have a very valid point. I certainly hope that the magazine is focused around Cancer and the .org's work. As many channels as possible to get the word out.

The original press kits that were sent out to potential advertisers last year painted it more as a lifestyle magazine and an attempt to expand the Lance brand.

i got one in the mail yesterday. the first issue seems to be geared towards survivorship issues, which i'm struggling with right now. ( a bad case of survivor's guilt ) believe it or not it's harder to cope with than you might think.

 

[Carboncrank]

No worries. You have a very valid point. I certainly hope that the magazine is focused around Cancer and the .org's work. As many channels as possible to get the word out.

The original press kits that were sent out to potential advertisers last year painted it more as a lifestyle magazine and an attempt to expand the Lance brand.

Here is the media press kit.

Look like a lifestyle magazine to you?

http://www.spotonmedia.com/images/gslm/LSQ_MediaKit_2010.pdf

You need to get over the idea that everything this guy touches is tainted.

 

[Carboncrank]

I really hate when folks come on here and get sanctimonious about criticizing Lance Armstrong. Last I checked he was a human being. One good deed doesn't make him immune to criticism. Lance Armstrong is not perfect. He makes money off of his popularity under the guise of helping folks. Lots of folks do it, it's called capitalism. Some people are critical of how he does it; some, like yourself, see no problem with it. Does that make you special? No, that just means you are entitled to your opinion. If you can't accept that fact the others disagree with you, then perhaps you should refrain from engaging in discussion of this nature until you are emotionally mature.

One good deed? Looks like he repeats that good deed about every day of his life all over the world.

I certainly know my life will never have near the positive impact his is having.

You say "Armstrong is not perfect". I don't know anybody who ever claimed he was. The comment itself is emotionally immature.

Are you certain this is the side you want to be on in this one?

Is there anything he can do that doesn't meet your scorn? You think because of past misdeeds he's not capable of being a good human being?

These righteous indignations of yours are getting really really worn.

 

[dolophonic]

Perhaps if you tried to expend the same effort in a positive manner elsewhere as you do here,you may be surprised at the positive impact YOU may have!

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

One good deed? Looks like he repeats that good deed about every day of his life all over the world.

I certainly know my life will never have near the positive impact his is having.

You say "Armstrong is not perfect". I don't know anybody who ever claimed he was. The comment itself is emotionally immature.

Are you certain this is the side you want to be on in this one?

Is there anything he can do that doesn't meet your scorn? You think because of past misdeeds he's not capable of being a good human being?

These righteous indignations of yours are getting really really worn.

Really? Righteous indigations? Pub's comments toward Lance have always been legitimate criticisms of him and the LAF.

 

[Publicus]

Really? Righteous indigations? Pub's comments toward Lance have always been legitimate criticisms of him and the LAF.

Thanks Immaculate. We can disagree without being disagreeable, which is what I've come to appreciate about you.

 

[Publicus]

One good deed? Looks like he repeats that good deed about every day of his life all over the world.

I certainly know my life will never have near the positive impact his is having.

You say "Armstrong is not perfect". I don't know anybody who ever claimed he was. The comment itself is emotionally immature.

Are you certain this is the side you want to be on in this one?

Is there anything he can do that doesn't meet your scorn? You think because of past misdeeds he's not capable of being a good human being?

These righteous indignations of yours are getting really really worn.

You are right. A multitude of good deeds does not make him immune to criticism. He is human and therefore fallible--it's what makes us human. As far as I was concerned, I wasn't on a side so much as I did understand where patricknd's anger was coming from. After reading the rest of the conversation between RR and Patricknd, I understand better.

As for Lance, there is plenty he does that does not meet with scorn, but that is largely not the topic of discussion within these forums. I'm not so blinded by hatred for the man that I cannot appreciate that he inspires millions of folks (heck, he is one of the main reasons I became a cycling fan). But I am also equally not so enamored with his good deeds that I cannot be critical of his less than flattering attributes.

As much as you tire of my so-called righteous indignations, I so tire of your inability to grasp basic concepts and lack of reading comprehension. Perhaps instead of drawing hasty conclusions where you are unclear of the underlying premise, try asking a question. It's less hostile and gives the speaker the opportunity to clarify any ambiguity that you note.

 

[Carboncrank]

You are right. A multitude of good deeds does not make him immune to criticism. He is human and therefore fallible--it's what makes us human. As far as I was concerned, I wasn't on a side so much as I did understand where patricknd's anger was coming from. After reading the rest of the conversation between RR and Patricknd, I understand better.

As for Lance, there is plenty he does that does not meet with scorn, but that is largely not the topic of discussion within these forums.

Like what?

I'm not so blinded by hatred for the man that I cannot appreciate that he inspires millions of folks (heck, he is one of the main reasons I became a cycling fan). But I am also equally not so enamored with his good deeds that I cannot be critical of his less than flattering attributes.


As much as you tire of my so-called righteous indignations, I so tire of your inability to grasp basic concepts and lack of reading comprehension. Perhaps instead of drawing hasty conclusions where you are unclear of the underlying premise, try asking a question. It's less hostile and gives the speaker the opportunity to clarify any ambiguity that you note.

No really, I comprehend just fine. I'm deep into reading "the rise and fall of nanobacteria" in Scientific American today, and your usages are certainly no harder than theirs.

IMO RR was indefensible but it was good that he... wait for it... apologized.

I admit I may have over reached with the Righteous indignations comment. I let anger at another poster spill over to you.

Sorry.

 

[Publicus]

No really, I comprehend just fine. I'm deep into reading "the rise and fall of nanobacteria" in Scientific American today, and your usages are certainly no harder than theirs.

IMO RR was indefensible but it was good that he... wait for it... apologized.

I admit I may have over reached with the Righteous indignations comment. I let anger at another poster spill over to you.

Sorry.

Based on what you write in response to my posts, your comprehension is not always born out. No need for the apology, the acknowledgement you overreached was a big step for you.

 

[flicker]

Please excuse me for getting off subject. I know that a lot of people in this closet called cycling news hate Mr. Armstrong. I do want to give kudos to him for his foundation donating to Haiti. He also suggested donating to Doctors without borders. My sons pediatric dentist goes to Mexico, sometimes Belize and sometimes Guatamala to do volunteer dental work for kids who need help down south. The dentist works with the organisation Doctors without borders. If you feel so inclined help out others, do so, any way you can. It makes our world a better place. Ciao Flicker.

 

[Ferminal]

Please excuse me for getting off subject. I know that a lot of people in this closet called cycling news hate Mr. Armstrong. I do want to give kudos to him for his foundation donating to Haiti. He also suggested donating to Doctors without borders. My sons pediatric dentist goes to Mexico, sometimes Belize and sometimes Guatamala to do volunteer dental work for kids who need help down south. The dentist works with the organisation Doctors without borders. If you feel so inclined help out others, do so, any way you can. It makes our world a better place. Ciao Flicker.

I thought it was a foundation for raising global cancer awareness? These are two very different goals, if I donated to a cancer charity I'd be ****ed to see that money being used for emergency relief.