Yeah, screw those cancer types and the weight they put on society. How about getting a casino as a sponsor?
You are taking this thread way too far. Chelsea has an owner that stole billions from the Russian people, but people don't make a big deal out of it. This is nothing compared to some of the other events happening in football.
Murders by Mexican drug cartels are connected to our Justice Department. And I thought our Justice Department uses this thing called "courts" to determine verdicts.
That's not right either. Again, Livestrong is called the Lance Armstrong Foundation, so for those trying to establish some sort of distant connection- forget it.
Are we talking about what is right here, or whether or not you can get a conviction? I don't know a lot of people who think Clemens was clean, but he got off. How often can you get 10 teammates of any player, in any sport to say the same thing?
He didn't "steal billions". He was awarded oil rights due to his connections in the communist government that was being dismantled.
Are you seriously suggesting that you can divorce the charity from it's public face and namesake? BTW, I DO NOT think KC has ANY obligation to change the stadium name. They need to decide whether the name is a value or an embarassment. They will live with the consequences either way and they have no "moral" obligation to do a damn thing about it.
When the charity has nothing to do with what the person is charged with, yes. Sandusky's charity was to help underprivileged youth, and he's a child molester. Armstrong is a doper who is the face of a cancer charity.
First, I do not equate Armstrong's fraud with Sandusky's activities. Fair point. BUT, Armstrong's whole Live Strong pitch had to do with encouraging people with cancer because of the example he set as a great athlete and cancer survivor himself. When it turns out that the "great athlete" part of the pitch was a doper's fraud, then it does ring hollow when he encourages cancer sufferers to live strong. Look, his NAME is on the charity, so I just can't buy the concept that the charity has "nothing to do" with him. Without him, there IS no charity. But if that subtle and fine distinction makes you more comfortable with the situation, great. I think it is a rationalization of the obvious but we just view the situation differently.
george steinbrenner was a convicted felon (iirc)! i'm no fan of lance armstrong, but the question of weighing the good against the bad and being picky about whose good deeds you're willing to accept and how much you ought to question their motives, isn't anything this thread will be able to resolve. at least that's my prediction...
Here's your ********ing problem, and it's why you've become a sad little troll. You start all these heavily slanted threads and discussions, but you're so hyperbolic in your approach it's laughable. When folks don't immediately come in and say what you're afraid to state in the opening post, you finally wade in in the replies. What you don't seem to realize, is that you're not that clever. It's obvious from the start what you're trying to say. Just ********ing go ahead and say it. You think LSP should drop the sponsorship, just come out and say it. Don't wait for three pages of replies to get to the point where you just come out and show your true stripes and your ridiculous reasoning behind it.
Maybe it's just the fact that being a KC fan I've had plenty of time to consider this situation coming up since its been a topic of discussion from day 1 for KC. I've seen some of the good the organization has done personally I've started to disassociate it from Armstrong itself.
Moved to general as this is MLS related only in so much as Livestrong is the charity founded by Lance. Not strictly MLS news at this point.
You guys are all looking at this from the wrong angle. It should boost the image of Livestrong knowing they have a person behind it who will push science to its limits to achieve success...
How are the USADA and Justice Department "connected", other than they have investigated the same people in the past? And I'm still waiting for you to show me where I said I was OK with cheating in sports...
I think they could use persuasion to get Armstrong to fully disassociate himself with his charity. As should every group closely connected to Livestrong. That what should happen in all cases like this. Armstrong should have nothing to do with that charity anymore, he is a fraud, and KC can play their role. If Armstrong wants to be a financial contribution to Livestrong, great, but he should not be the public face and should not fundraise for them and it should not be called the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Armstrong should not be using Livestrong for purposes of image improvement. So you are 100% wrong. And that makes the rest of your post really a personal attack. There have been 60 other posts on this thread in less than 1/2 a day, so there is obviously interest in this issue + different sides to discuss. We would all roll our eyes, and not wish that the new SJ stadium was named after the Barry Bonds Foundation. The only difference between that and Livestrong is that Armstrong institutionalized his lie over the course of more than a decade (as he built Livestrong) and he was damn good at doping and lying in people's faces. I think you are naive if you don't realize Livestrong was (in part) a huge PR tool for Armstrong to fight for his reputation as a clean cyclist. His motives were far from pure, and he is a terrible example for our children now.
You think KC should you their "muscle" to get Armstrong to disassociate himself from Livestrong? Are you on crack? Nike might be able to exert that kind of pressure. Sporting KC? No f-ing way. And I'm still waiting for you to show me where I said I was OK with cheating in sports. If you're going to complain that Andy's attack is personal, then own up to your own.
I misspoke actually. Change employee for agency. Which comes from this article and several others. http://www.clarionledger.com/viewar...g-charges-faces-lifetime-ban?odyssey=nav|head My only issue with this is that the enter sport of cycling is dirty. So if he won by doping he beat other dopers. And if he did not dope then he beat people that were doping. The other issue I have here is that the people that run the tour have made no secret about the fact that they do not like Lance. So even if he did cheat there are other questions that could be raised about this whole thing.
What organization is that? The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is not connected to the Justice Department. It is a non-governmental organization. Besides, the Justice Department does not find people guilty, the Judiciary does that. The Justice Department prosecutes people, the courts determine guilt. The decision this week by the District court in Texas did not determine guilt. It merely said that the U.S. federal courts are not the proper venue to dispute a ruling by the USADA.