Why do you dislike Armstrong?

[buckwheat]

As was written in another thread, we can only form our opinions on "knowns", there are plenty of "knowns" relating to Armstrong and just because there may be more "unknowns" in relation to other cyclists it doesn't mean Armstrong is off the hook.
I think he is being disingenious. The pro-peloton is filled with grudges and needle matches. Some riders the other day were fighting after the finish, trying to smash a tyre over the other guys head. Imagine if Armstrong had done that? The first comfort break that team sky took during the tour of Oman,the peloton went on the attack - against the normal practise - to shake them up. Renshaw almost took out a couple of riders and was thrown out. Vino decided not to work for the pink jersy guy at the end of the Giro because he had done a deal with Basso, and so on. Behind the scenes teams are often asking for money during a race to chase down for other teams, or to not chase down. Again, imagine if it came out that Armstrong did this. And you constantly hear stories from Lemond and David Millar about how young riders were given the choice of either doping or leaving the sport.

I just find it bizarre the way people focus on Armstrong and pretend he is to blame for pretty standard behaviour. That's why the former UCI head so easily got the better of Landis in that email exchange.

You're hitting the pipe too hard.

 

[dbrower]

I just find it bizarre the way people focus on Armstrong and pretend he is to blame for pretty standard behaviour. That's why the former UCI head so easily got the better of Landis in that email exchange.

Now I get it, this is comedy. The poll here went 10:1 saying Landis cleaned Hein's clock.

-dB

 

[buckwheat]

No it was easily the more powerful of the two. I'm not kidding about that in any sense.

Remember Landis is your hero now because he has turned on Armstrong, so naturally you've got to pretend everything he says and does is fantastic, but the other guy had the best points in that exchange. Read it again and not the spin. Landis tried his best to get away with doping, but as soon as it was a lost cause he pretends it's all Armstrong's fault.

Whatever way you split it, that was the best point. W

My heroes are cancer and mediocrity. I hate excellence.

 

[online-rider]

Ahh Geez I just got sucked in to 4 hour Youtube bender by HL2037 and his stupid puppet video...
So why do I hate Armstrong?? - Well, um....I don't really. I geuss I just like witchburnings and I've got no moral backbone. I mean Armstrong just turned pro at what 19?, 18? and arrived in Europe as a young guy and probably started on a drug proagramme like 99 out of every 100 of us would of in his shoes. All the directors and team staff would have been treating EPO and etc like it was just another vitamin pill or chamois cream. That was the attitude on the inside of teams pre '98, or so I've heard. And probably still is on some teams today. You just take your dosage and manipulate your passport as part of your responsiblitys as a good professional.
As I was saying anyway, if Armstrong sees this tour through to the end, and finishes in say 15th or 20th place, a lot of the witchhunting thats sitting on his back now will probably subside. Most people just want to see the Big Tex humbled and shamed for the entertainment value and this epic failure that his comeback has turned out to be, resultswise, will probably sate that desire. People will leave him alone after retirement.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Now I get it, this is comedy. The poll here went 10:1 saying Landis cleaned Hein's clock.

-dB

The poll on here would have gone 10:1 in favour of Landis even if he had just managed a grunt. Hardly the place for objectivity

 

[SpartacusRox]

Strange how you quoted my post - yet didn't answer the question it asked - to the highlighted above, please name some other riders who did what LAnce has.

All pro cyclists are great riders.
But Armstrongs athletic acomplishments that you admire came out of a syringe - send your admiration to Dr. Ferrari, not Lance.

You also appear to be unable to distinguish between popular with recognised - Lance is the most recognised person in the sport not popular.

Well actually I quoted your post only because it presented an alternate view rather than to challenge it.

But now that you have raised it; I think most of your list and the response to it is purely a subjective issue. If you believe lance is a bad guy, would only have been riding club races without doping and only uses the LAF as a front to mask fraudulent activity, then the list you present meshes nicely with that world view and would just support an individuals preconceptions of the man.

If you take a different view (not necessarily a polar opposite as some on here believe is the only alternative) then the list relies almost solely on subjective bias that I personally don't share. To present allegation as fact, which is what you have done is not being honest.

Other riders who did what Lance has? I am not entirely sure what you are referring to here. But if you are talking about denying doping then many riders have. If you are talking about him upsetting Simeoni, well he isn't the first person to feud with another athlete, Hinault upset most of the peloton on a weekly basis.

His athletic accomplishments coming out of a syringe? Well that is pure allegation on your part, Are you talking about one race, two races, every race that he has ever done? Are you saying that every other TdF winners accomplishments and most placegetters also deserve no admiration? Perhaps we should wipe all TdF winners from the record books going back to say 1960 when PED's and speed were starting to become endemic. Antequiel should certainly go because he actually admitted to doping.

The most recognised person in the sport, not the most popular? You base this observation on what exactly?? do you have some statistical evidence to uphold that view?

 

[andy1234]

Wow, I have just come back to this thread after a good nights sleep.
It seems like some people could start an arguement with themselves while stood in a cupboard!

It seems that some people still think I am a troll, without actually reading what I have written. It may be how badly I worded the original question, but if anyone takes the time to read my responses, they should see that my question has some merit.

Thanks for the constructive responses. Its fair to say that I wont need to ask the same question again

 

[maxonce]

Let me give you my take on it, which is purely personal, but might be shared by others who followed cycling during the last 25 years or so. Indeed, it is fairly independant on doping, since (as others have said) it is hard to say today whether Lance was less, more or equally doped than his contemporaries. It is however hard to believe that he never took anything. Others in the past have shown more class in admitting it (Zülle, Dufaux, Millar,...), but on the other hand, many others have shown even less class despite overwhelming evidence (Virenque, Hamilton, Landis, Valverde, Vinokourov, Ullrich,...).

That being said, the real reasons why I disliked Armstrong are the follwing ones:
- He destroyed the interest of many tours in a row by establishing a 5 min lead after just one TT and one mountain stage. The remaining two weeks were like a funeral procession to Paris. I turned to looking to the Giro, which used to be largely more exciting (note that this was already the case with Indurain, which I didn't like much either).
- Someone like Hinault or Indurain let other people win even when they were at their best. They would just follow the best climber day after day and let them win the stages while conforting their GC lead (remember the victories of, e.g. Lucho Herrera). That shows class. On the other hand, Armstrong (and before him Pantani in 1998-1999, or Basso in 2007-2008) tries to win every stage if that is possible, even when having already built an unassailable lead in GC, frustrating the whole peloton in the process by depriving them from the stage honours and bonusses. How much of this egoistic attitude is due to Armstrong himself, and how much of it is due to Bruyneel is hard to say, but it was certainly supported by both.
- A less understandable reason is that I always had a weakness for "Poulidor" type guys, who (almost) always finish second, like Zülle and Ullrich (maybe Andy Schleck is this new Poulidor...). Actually, I find myself disliking Armstrong less since he returned, maybe because he cannot destroy the race anymore.

I hope that it was a more constructive answer.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Let me give you my take on it, which is purely personal, but might be shared by others who followed cycling during the last 25 years or so. Indeed, it is fairly independant on doping, since (as others have said) it is hard to say today whether Lance was less, more or equally doped than his contemporaries. It is however hard to believe that he never took anything. Others in the past have shown more class in admitting it (Zülle, Dufaux, Millar,...), but on the other hand, many others have shown even less class despite overwhelming evidence (Virenque, Hamilton, Landis, Valverde, Vinokourov, Ullrich,...).

That being said, the real reasons why I disliked Armstrong are the follwing ones:
- He destroyed the interest of many tours in a row by establishing a 5 min lead after just one TT and one mountain stage. The remaining two weeks were like a funeral procession to Paris. I turned to looking to the Giro, which used to be largely more exciting (note that this was already the case with Indurain, which I didn't like much either).
- Someone like Hinault or Indurain let other people win even when they were at their best. They would just follow the best climber day after day and let them win the stages while conforting their GC lead (remember the victories of, e.g. Lucho Herrera). That shows class. On the other hand, Armstrong (and before him Pantani in 1998-1999, or Basso in 2007-2008) tries to win every stage if that is possible, even when having already built an unassailable lead in GC, frustrating the whole peloton in the process by depriving them from the stage honours and bonusses. How much of this egoistic attitude is due to Armstrong himself, and how much of it is due to Bruyneel is hard to say, but it was certainly supported by both.
- A less understandable reason is that I always had a weakness for "Poulidor" type guys, who (almost) always finish second, like Zülle and Ullrich (maybe Andy Schleck is this new Poulidor...). Actually, I find myself disliking Armstrong less since he returned, maybe because he cannot destroy the race anymore.

I hope that it was a more constructive answer.

Agree with every word, "Class" might be defined as humility, something well adusted people admire greatly in very succesful people as it shows they have an understanding of the deeper human value of equal value.
Lance shows no Humilty and even when his words might his body doesnt.
Subconsiously , in many of the "Lance Bashers" dislike I suspect thats the hub of the anger. Lets not forget body language,internation,and and other none verbal clues are over 90% of communication , the words themselves are less than 10% and human beings are fine tuned to read these. communications. Belief is the trip wire of the "believers"...once committed to belief it`s hard to do a U turn.

"You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of the time"

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well actually I quoted your post only because it presented an alternate view rather than to challenge it.

But now that you have raised it; I think most of your list and the response to it is purely a subjective issue. If you believe lance is a bad guy, would only have been riding club races without doping and only uses the LAF as a front to mask fraudulent activity, then the list you present meshes nicely with that world view and would just support an individuals preconceptions of the man.

If you take a different view (not necessarily a polar opposite as some on here believe is the only alternative) then the list relies almost solely on subjective bias that I personally don't share. To present allegation as fact, which is what you have done is not being honest.

Other riders who did what Lance has? I am not entirely sure what you are referring to here. But if you are talking about denying doping then many riders have. If you are talking about him upsetting Simeoni, well he isn't the first person to feud with another athlete, Hinault upset most of the peloton on a weekly basis.

His athletic accomplishments coming out of a syringe? Well that is pure allegation on your part, Are you talking about one race, two races, every race that he has ever done? Are you saying that every other TdF winners accomplishments and most placegetters also deserve no admiration? Perhaps we should wipe all TdF winners from the record books going back to say 1960 when PED's and speed were starting to become endemic. Antequiel should certainly go because he actually admitted to doping.

The most recognised person in the sport, not the most popular? You base this observation on what exactly?? do you have some statistical evidence to uphold that view?

The highlighted Red above that you wrote is correct- but then you go and write ..."If you believe lance is a bad guy, would only have been riding club races without doping and only uses the LAF as a front to mask fraudulent activity,....

Why attribute a view to me that I have not suggested - you object to the use of 'polar opposite' logic and then use it to answer my post.

Lance was an excellent 1 day racer - and if it was an era like the 70's & 80's before EPO took hold, he probably would have won many classics.
But he never showed the consistency to be competitive in a 3 week period.

Without a GT win - only the diehard cycling fans in the US would know him - that does not get you on Oprah or Leno and Nike don't come knocking.

As for Lances popularity - check the Lance thread on the main page, where are all the posters that proclaiming his innocence from a year ago?

 

[SpeedWay]

Great job Andy1234. Your thread has been very entertaining. To be labeled a troll right out of the gate and than get a post count that now exceeds 100 takes talent. As always the ones complaining and hating the most have posted multiple times to this thread. Although to be fair they can't help themselves which, in and of itself, accounts for most of the entertainment value.

 

[Benotti69]

... where are all the posters that proclaiming his innocence from a year ago?

well, let's see, some are getting the "let Lance go" posters printed, other are organising cakes with files in them for the jail bars and there are other's doing charity cycles to raise funds for his defense team.

 

[ThaiPanda]

And that is fine. I would suggest a couple of differences to him and the people you cite.

1. Neither of them ever beat everyone over the head with how much dope he didn't use. Methinks the lady doth protest too much, and I always did.

2. Neither of them aggressively pursued those who opposed his narrative in an effort to silence and hurt them on a personal level.

I have have said many times, it isn't about the doping. It is about the things he has done to hide that, and his prostitution of cancer for his selfish purposes. Show me the commercial with either Basso or Ulrich where they uses images of cancer patients with a voice over that talks about how they aren't a doper. People have cancer and it is sad = Lance didn't dope is a disgusting equation and one that entitles the person using such a rhetorical device anything that happens to them. He prostituted cancer patients. That makes him much less than a bad guy.

I don't watch alot of tv so I admit I missed that commercial. You got a link or some proof of that thing? If so that would be pretty bad. The other day he tried to hide behind cancer pertaining to this investigation.

Armstrong always hit the critics head on and you have to admit his MO is pretty effective for the casual fan. It is a fact he has never been sanctioned because of PED use, ie never failed a test (let's not argue over that, ok?). That resonates with the audience he really cares about which are casual American fans. To have other riders out there being aggressive towards that public persona, and potentially affecting his livelihood, I can understand how he could react the way he did. And, when he is interviewed and the subject of doping comes up what do you expect him to say? "He doth protest too much" is usually a reaction to a reporter's question. Hopefully you can shed some light on how he should answer those questions to make him look better in your eyes.

I also think it is possible his heart is in the cancer fight. He had the disease so I cut him some slack on that. I don't really go there, though I don't care for what he said the other day. Talk to me about UCI payoffs, tipped tests, and PED techniques. You guys can stick to the personal stuff because I don't let emotion get in my way. It's not contructive.

He does seem to have a silver spoon stuck in his a$$. He thinks he can choose whether he will be involved in a "witch hunt" or not? LOL. How does one get to choose whether they get investigated by the federal government or not?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't watch alot of tv so I admit I missed that commercial. You got a link or some proof of that thing? If so that would be pretty bad. The other day he tried to hide behind cancer pertaining to this investigation.

Armstrong always hit the critics head on and you have to admit his MO is pretty effective for the casual fan. It is a fact he has never been sanctioned because of PED use, ie never failed a test (let's not argue over that, ok?). That resonates with the audience he really cares about which are casual American fans. To have other riders out there being aggressive towards that public persona, and potentially affecting his livelihood, I can understand how he could react the way he did. And, when he is interviewed and the subject of doping comes up what do you expect him to say? "He doth protest too much" is usually a reaction to a reporter's question. Hopefully you can shed some light on how he should answer those questions to make him look better in your eyes.

I also think it is possible his heart is in the cancer fight. He had the disease so I cut him some slack on that. I don't really go there, though I don't care for what he said the other day. Talk to me about UCI payoffs, tipped tests, and PED techniques. You guys can stick to the personal stuff because I don't let emotion get in my way. It's not contructive.

He does seem to have a silver spoon stuck in his a$$. He thinks he can choose whether he will be involved in a "witch hunt" or not? LOL. How does one get to choose whether they get investigated by the federal government or not?

The highlighted last paragraph is a fair question you asked -
but you answered it yourself in the second last paragraph - the Red text.

You are right - I fully understand why you don't really "want to go there" - cancer is an emotive subject that we have all been touched with.

Which is why TFFs point is so valid - that is exactly the card Lance plays and why as you do, people "cut him some slack"

Here is theNike advert you requested.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't watch alot of tv so I admit I missed that commercial. You got a link or some proof of that thing? If so that would be pretty bad. The other day he tried to hide behind cancer pertaining to this investigation.

Armstrong always hit the critics head on and you have to admit his MO is pretty effective for the casual fan. It is a fact he has never been sanctioned because of PED use, ie never failed a test (let's not argue over that, ok?). That resonates with the audience he really cares about which are casual American fans. To have other riders out there being aggressive towards that public persona, and potentially affecting his livelihood, I can understand how he could react the way he did. And, when he is interviewed and the subject of doping comes up what do you expect him to say? "He doth protest too much" is usually a reaction to a reporter's question. Hopefully you can shed some light on how he should answer those questions to make him look better in your eyes.

I also think it is possible his heart is in the cancer fight. He had the disease so I cut him some slack on that. I don't really go there, though I don't care for what he said the other day. Talk to me about UCI payoffs, tipped tests, and PED techniques. You guys can stick to the personal stuff because I don't let emotion get in my way. It's not contructive.

He does seem to have a silver spoon stuck in his a$$. He thinks he can choose whether he will be involved in a "witch hunt" or not? LOL. How does one get to choose whether they get investigated by the federal government or not?

For your viewing enjoyment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VfiXAaEQiY

I think it is also possible that he cares about cancer patients also, though I also believe that he is a poster child for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which means that it is a self serving "care." But I tend to judge him pretty harshly, so take that as coming from a person who has little objectivity in regards to him.

 

[ThaiPanda]

The highlighted last paragraph is a fair question you asked -
but you answered it yourself in the second last paragraph - the Red text.

You are right - I fully understand why you don't really "want to go there" - cancer is an emotive subject that we have all been touched with.

Which is why TFFs point is so valid - that is exactly the card Lance plays and why as you do, people "cut him some slack"
.

OK, I've never seen that commercial. I agree; there are other ways to get the anti-cancer message out there than to use that language and I don't really understand the point in that approach in that commercial. He didn't have to say "doper", or "fraud". He could've just said "I'm coming back to continue the fight, etc" and it would have had the same effect. He was taunting you and Thoughtforfood in that commercial LOL, along with the actual message. A two-fer. I'm sure RaceRadio's panties really got twisted up when he saw that thing.

Also, maybe in his comeback he is pretty clean and didn't expect all of this from the past to get him. That is understandable but still he put this out there with no real benefit other than to jam the critics because he felt invincible. I don't think that invincibility is a sole result of him thinking cancer can protect him, as you imply. I just think he thinks he is untouchable for a variety of reasons.

What do you guys think about Nike in all of this?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK, I've never seen that commercial. I agree; there are other ways to get the anti-cancer message out there than to use that language and I don't really understand the point in that approach in that commercial. He didn't have to say "doper", or "fraud". He could've just said "I'm coming back to continue the fight, etc" and it would have had the same effect. He was taunting you and Thoughtforfood in that commercial LOL, along with the actual message. A two-fer. I'm sure RaceRadio's panties really got twisted up when he saw that thing.

Also, maybe in his comeback he is pretty clean and didn't expect all of this from the past to get him. That is understandable but still he put this out there with no real benefit other than to jam the critics because he felt invincible. I don't think that invincibility is a sole result of him thinking cancer can protect him, as you imply. I just think he thinks he is untouchable for a variety of reasons.

What do you guys think about Nike in all of this?

He wasn't taunting, per se - but certainly getting his point across.

But the real effect of ad's like that and when he say's...
"I'm not doing it for them"....

...is that people (as you yourself admitted) "cut him some slack".

As for Nike....meh.

 

[ThaiPanda]

For your viewing enjoyment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VfiXAaEQiY

I think it is also possible that he cares about cancer patients also, though I also believe that he is a poster child for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which means that it is a self serving "care." But I tend to judge him pretty harshly, so take that as coming from a person who has little objectivity in regards to him.

Self admission is the first part of recovery.

I tend not to judge people too harshly if I am not in their shoes or even know them. I've looked like an idiot too much in my private life by telling others "I would do this, wouldn't do that" when asked for advice, but then I find myself in that position and it is not quite so easy and I usually look like a hypocrite.

We all say what we would or wouldn't do if we were Lance Armstrong. The money, the following, the world wide persona, his family background, his own cancer, celebrity, competitors doing the same thing with PEDs, etc. all play a role in what we are seeing today. We can say where we would have stood up and became "real" over the last 10 years or so, but you just don't know that unless you are there. It is not that easy, and that is why I shy away from it.

I don't "cut him slack" in the overall sense because of cancer, doctor M. I just choose to debate a different way, and have different priorities. That does not mean I think he is any less guilty of doping than you are anybody else. I just stick to that subject more or less, though I will stray at times.

Not being critical of you or others, but just tossing something out there to think about.

 

[ThaiPanda]

He wasn't taunting, per se - but certainly getting his point across.

But the real effect of ad's like that and when he say's...
"I'm not doing it for them"....

...is that people (as you yourself admitted) "cut him some slack".

As for Nike....meh.

I call it taunting, you call it getting his point across. I think there is common ground there.

I think you are reading a little too much into my "slack cutting" comment. For clarification I probably won't write anything more aggressive than I did earlier when I commented on what he said to the press the other day when it comes to this subject. It is possible that he is doing what you and others claim, ie he is hiding behind cancer to shield himself from criticism. He had cancer and his heart may be in the right place. I would tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, at least initially, but it is not a subject I am interested in. I kinda now wish I didn't write that comment because it is getting too much attention from you; oh well. But, I will play along....

Did he say in 98 "hey, I can come back and dope up, and if I catch shyt I can use the cancer card to get people to back off. This cancer stuff is my teflon"? I doubt it. I think maybe that evolved IMO and that evolution is unfortunate but understandable. Should he use it that way? No, but that does not mean he doesn't care about the subject and is fundamentally real about it.

I do not think his only or main use for cancer is a shield from doping questions. I do not think he started out that way one bit, even though he is tossing it out there now. That should not take away the good he has done or use words like "prostitution" in describing his relationship to this cause. YMMV.

 

[red_flanders]

No, not a troll.
As to why is this my first post, its because I have time on my hands and finally decided to post something after lurking for many years.

It's news to me that this site has had a forum for "many years". You must have been lurking in anticipation of a forum being established. Strong commitment.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Self admission is the first part of recovery.

I tend not to judge people too harshly if I am not in their shoes or even know them. I've looked like an idiot too much in my private life by telling others "I would do this, wouldn't do that" when asked for advice, but then I find myself in that position and it is not quite so easy and I usually look like a hypocrite.

We all say what we would or wouldn't do if we were Lance Armstrong. The money, the following, the world wide persona, his family background, his own cancer, celebrity, competitors doing the same thing with PEDs, etc. all play a role in what we are seeing today. We can say where we would have stood up and became "real" over the last 10 years or so, but you just don't know that unless you are there. It is not that easy, and that is why I shy away from it.

I don't "cut him slack" in the overall sense because of cancer, doctor M. I just choose to debate a different way, and have different priorities. That does not mean I think he is any less guilty of doping than you are anybody else. I just stick to that subject more or less, though I will stray at times.

Not being critical of you or others, but just tossing something out there to think about.

Not at all - I am enjoying reading your viewpoint.

Again this, kind of, goes back to SpartacusRox point - of polar opposites on views on LA.

That because one believes he is a doper that you must then think he is a bad person, or that you hate them - I don't.

As for being in his shoes -its irrelevant to having an opinion, my viewpoint has always been "do the crime, do the time".
The difficulty with Armstrong is that unlike every other doper in the sport - he has covered himself with a protective shield.
Money to the UCI, threats, intimidation etc.. and yes, the cancer card.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I call it taunting, you call it getting his point across. I think there is common ground there.

I think you are reading a little too much into my "slack cutting" comment. For clarification I probably won't write anything more aggressive than I did earlier when I commented on what he said to the press the other day when it comes to this subject. It is possible that he is doing what you and others claim, ie he is hiding behind cancer to shield himself from criticism. He had cancer and his heart may be in the right place. I would tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, at least initially, but it is not a subject I am interested in. I kinda now wish I didn't write that comment because it is getting too much attention from you; oh well. But, I will play along....

Did he say in 98 "hey, I can come back and dope up, and if I catch shyt I can use the cancer card to get people to back off. This cancer stuff is my teflon"? I doubt it. I think maybe that evolved IMO and that evolution is unfortunate but understandable. Should he use it that way? No, but that does not mean he doesn't care about the subject and is fundamentally real about it.

I do not think his only or main use for cancer is a shield from doping questions. I do not think he started out that way one bit, even though he is tossing it out there now. That should not take away the good he has done or use words like "prostitution" in describing his relationship to this cause. YMMV.

Apologies - we were cross posting.

Again - your viewpoint is valid, and there is much of it I agree with.

I do agree with you - he had no idea he could win the Tour until the Vuelta in 98. There was no grand plan to pay off the UCI or use cancer or chase down Simeoni - things just moved along and they (UCI/ASO etc) all reacted to events as they happened, as you say it evolved.

And again you are correct - the LAF was not set up as a shield and the LAF does some great thing - I personally find the business relationship he has through Livestrong.com unnecessary and takes away from what would be an honorable endeavor.

 

[Steel4Ever]

I dislike Pharmstrong because he dumped Sheryl(?) Crow after she got cancer.
Maybe he thought it was contagious.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I dislike Pharmstrong because he dumped Sheryl(?) Crow after she got cancer.
Maybe he thought it was contagious.

Sheryl had her cancer in 27th February 2006- herself and Armstrong had split almost a month earlier on 3rd February 2006.

 

[ThaiPanda]

I personally find the business relationship he has through Livestrong.com unnecessary and takes away from what would be an honorable endeavor.

Pardon my ignorance, but can you point me in the right direction to what exactly his financial relationship is to that? I agree if he is getting paid somehow by this, with his fortune, then that is not cool. Thanks.