|
On August 26 2012 11:46 Luepert wrote:
Let's look at this:
no doping > he doesn't win > he's not famous > he doesn't raise 500 million dollars for cancer research.
Which is more important to society, fair play in recreational competitions or curing cancer?
He was such an inspiration and story because people believed he won while remaining clean.
|
On August 26 2012 11:48 McFeser wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 11:46 Luepert wrote:
Let's look at this:
no doping > he doesn't win > he's not famous > he doesn't raise 500 million dollars for cancer research.
Which is more important to society, fair play in recreational competitions or curing cancer? He was such an inspiration and story because people believed he won while remaining clean.
So we should take back all the money from the cancer research groups because it was a lie?
|
On August 26 2012 11:59 Luepert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 11:48 McFeser wrote:On August 26 2012 11:46 Luepert wrote:
Let's look at this:
no doping > he doesn't win > he's not famous > he doesn't raise 500 million dollars for cancer research.
Which is more important to society, fair play in recreational competitions or curing cancer? He was such an inspiration and story because people believed he won while remaining clean. So we should take back all the money from the cancer research groups because it was a lie?
The way you are putting the scenario, it's just a case of the ends justifying the means. This is to assume that he is guilty and his motives were purely raising money for cancer research.
|
On August 26 2012 11:46 Luepert wrote:
Let's look at this:
no doping > he doesn't win > he's not famous > he doesn't raise 500 million dollars for cancer research.
Which is more important to society, fair play in recreational competitions or curing cancer?
Obviously fair play because personal accomplishments in today's society will always > any type of global effort. We must be #1 !!!!
|
If the end justifies the means, then I can embezzle 500 millions of dollars from the rich and distribute it to humanitarian causes.
Joking aside, this falls under the category "what's done is done" and should be viewed as such. Lance cheated and used his undeserved fame to do good things: oh well. It's bad in some ways, but let's just say it cancels itself out 
|
RIP armstrong, you were a hero.
|
Lance himself knows the truth. If he can live with it, so be it. (That's if he is lying).
Still a stunning feat though.
|
I really don't understand how Lance donating money to charity justifies his supposed cheating to get that money.
It is true that this $500 million did do much good for society, but it isn't right that he should be glorified for this. Chances are, if he did not win these titles, someone else would have done the same thing (although perhaps not for cancer research).
Admit it, most people would donate at least some of their prize winnings. I would rather give respect for someone who has won legitimately.
|
On August 26 2012 11:59 Luepert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 11:48 McFeser wrote:On August 26 2012 11:46 Luepert wrote:
Let's look at this:
no doping > he doesn't win > he's not famous > he doesn't raise 500 million dollars for cancer research.
Which is more important to society, fair play in recreational competitions or curing cancer? He was such an inspiration and story because people believed he won while remaining clean. So we should take back all the money from the cancer research groups because it was a lie?
you can't be serious...
|
On August 26 2012 12:38 Daniel C wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 11:59 Luepert wrote:On August 26 2012 11:48 McFeser wrote:On August 26 2012 11:46 Luepert wrote:
Let's look at this:
no doping > he doesn't win > he's not famous > he doesn't raise 500 million dollars for cancer research.
Which is more important to society, fair play in recreational competitions or curing cancer? He was such an inspiration and story because people believed he won while remaining clean. So we should take back all the money from the cancer research groups because it was a lie? you can't be serious...
I think it's a good idea, they don't deserve his charity and fundraising because of alleged cheating claims. In fact we should allocate that money into more wars, humanity is good at them.
|
careful. with talk like that, you might become president.
|
I've come to realise that you just can't talk to non-fans about the realities of cycling. Not just here but elsewhere. I'll just wait for all this to blow over and keep enjoying the Vuelta.
|
Actually Livestrong (Armstrong cancer foundation) mostly sponsors educational programs and not research. I couldn't find any information about scientific research sponsored by it. So poeple saying he contributes towards curing cancers seems to be yet again those who don't know much about the case yet jump to defend him.
One thing that Lance was really good is PR. Even though a lot of people say he is/was arrogant douche the public seems to like him.
And seriously, if you watched cycling and saw him performing (I did watch TdF 1995-2003) you would know that it is highly unlikely that he was clean. If not impossible.
|
On August 26 2012 11:59 Luepert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 11:48 McFeser wrote:On August 26 2012 11:46 Luepert wrote:
Let's look at this:
no doping > he doesn't win > he's not famous > he doesn't raise 500 million dollars for cancer research.
Which is more important to society, fair play in recreational competitions or curing cancer? He was such an inspiration and story because people believed he won while remaining clean. So we should take back all the money from the cancer research groups because it was a lie?
No, I'm saying he raised so much money because of the example he set. You're trying to say it was alright that he doped because he raised so much money, when in reality people donated because they thought he never doped. I don't know why you are putting words in mouth other than for attention.
|
On August 26 2012 12:18 sertas wrote:
RIP armstrong, you were a hero.
Wrong thread man, lmao.
|
holy fucking shit this is big news! its bad
|
Armstrong has always been a doper, everyone actually knew that but no one wanted to talk about it b/c of all the money involved. They should definitley erase his name off everything as cheating is not something to inspire people.
|
I think that this thread shows some of the ills of society:
1) Everyone loves a winner.
2) People like it more when said winner fails, preferably publicly shamed.
3) It's not cheating unless you get caught.
4) Someone is guilty by public opinion, it doesn't matter if it's true.
5) Wars of attrition are won by the side with more money.
Lots of conflicting shit at work here. I personally think that on the Tour itself, he never doped, but that EVERY pro cycler uses PEDs and most of all athletes as well. It helps for far quicker recovery from injuries which will always happen when training at that level. I think Armstrong is just a scapegoat so people can say "see, we fight the war against drugs! NO ONE IS SAFE, NOT EVEN A NATIONAL HERO!". I personally think he was no more guilty than his competition.
|
might as well ban usain bolt from ever competing in track ever again
|
On August 26 2012 14:59 Kazius wrote:
I think that this thread shows some of the ills of society:
1) Everyone loves a winner.
2) People like it more when said winner fails, preferably publicly shamed.
3) It's not cheating unless you get caught.
4) Someone is guilty by public opinion, it doesn't matter if it's true.
5) Wars of attrition are won by the side with more money.
Yes! These are HUGE problems in America! We slob the knobs of celebrities, pop stars and athletes, use them to promote corporate products and then when the slip up we CRUCIFY them. Britney Spears, Tiger Woods, Manny Ramirez come to mind. How great they are, what an amazing story blah blah blah buy their foot fungal cream blah blah blah. And then just as quickly they're back in the news but it's allllll bad news now. Hour long specials about the "fall." Juicy books published by the dozens. Legislative action (for the sporties)!
It's like everyone suffers from extreme idolatry and tall-poppy syndrome at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
