I will take you at your word then. How come you support KC's stadium being named after The Lance Armstrong Foundation, a known cheater in athletics. Aren't those positions incongruent?
Last time I checked the Lance Armstrong Foundation hasn't cheated in athletics. Is there a big of negative PR right now, yeah. But the Livestrong Foundation has done great work separate from being image-rehabilitation for Lance. They're going to continue to do that work even after this mess fades. If KC wanted to change the name because of the PR I wouldn't blame them, but I don't think they have a "responsibility" to do so. Here's a question for you. If Livestrong, due to this PR mess, changes its name (and as such, the name of the Park) to something like the Yellow Bands of Hope Foundation do you think KC needs to change the name of the park for reasons other than Yellow Band of Hope Park is a lousy name?
I'm beginning to wonder if you started this thread to destroy SKC's reputation just because they support a charity that is linked to Armstrong. The 2 issues are completely separate. This isn't a place for making attacks on a team just because you don't like them
I love KC. I think they have done a fantastic job and are a model franchise for the league. All the more reason to take stuff like this seriously.
Very true. Also kind of ironic when you think that when someone is disqualified for doping, like Floyd Landis, they give the victory to the second-place finisher, who was also clearly doped. So I can understand how all of those guys convince themselves that they're not cheating because their opponents are all doped too. That being said, maybe he was better at doping than the other guys, you know? People always say (with Usain Bolt too) "They're all doped so he must be the best athlete anyway." Not necessarily - maybe he has a better doctor than the other competitors. Maybe he can afford better drugs than the other guys. Because that's how it works in doping - the more money you have, the less likely you are to get caught, because you're using drugs that are less traceable. All of which would be fine if they weren't so arrogant about it. If you know damn well you couldn't have done it without cheating, then don't act like you're the greatest thing since sliced bread, the way Usain Bolt does and the way Armstrong did for years.
That's a fair statement. I don't agree with your position, but fair enough. That would have been easy enough to post without taking the initial shot you did.
Somebody went through and determined the best rider in each of Lance's tour wins who hasn't been implicated in a doping scandal: http://www.nieuwsblad.be/extra/dopingzondaars He had to go down to the 8th placed rider twice.
I think the 'everyone is doing it' argument is a strawman. If the 8th placed person is the first one not cheating, then they are the winner. End of story.
First one not implicated. In one case it was a member of Lance's USPS squad, and members of that squad have stated doping was rampant without naming names (Vaughters, Landis). BTW, are you going to answer my question about the foundation changing its name?
Unless he is a saint, every dude whoever started a charity is flawed. We all are. But if the charity is run responsibly and does good things, then bottoms up! And if your concern is that somehow the face of the charity is tained, then the face of the charity should do the right, and let others share time as the front man. I suspect that's what's likely to happen.
Woah, that is crazy. I remember once hearing... I think it was the Linda McCartney team, who tended to hang out just ahead of the broom wagon... saying: "Yeah, there are some riders who aren't doped. They're back here with us!"
You're not making sense. If Livestrong was dedicated to stamping out sports cheats, you'd be making sense. But Livestrong is about stamping out cancer. So you're not making sense. But we already know that.
hmmm, having a hard time developing an opinion on this, I do think Lance is a douche, and he's avoiding a public hearing I'm assuming because he dosnt want certain things being publicly stated. The charity though I'm assuming does some great things, and I'm guessing K.C will only look to change naming rights if it's going to negatively impact there brand costing them money.
i agree with your posts in this thread. imo armstrong's attitude is that everyone doped, so really the playing field was even, so he deserves his trophies. unfortunately that's not a presentable legal argument for the pickle he's in. personally, as i said above, i would have other issues with armstrong. his pitiful record of participating in races other than the tdf (for which he prepared exclusively) as well as his famously limiting media contact to the 'legal minimum' during the race, gave him unfair advantages. armstrong appeared short on sportsmanship in any case, which has not helped his situation as this whole saga unfolded.
That's the sad reality, isn't it? Its how these guys can get through the day living the big lie, and look people in the eye and never say they doped. That + their competitive, never-say-die attitude towards losing on this issue.
As someone who thinks Lance Armstrong and Usain Bolt were/are drugged to the eyeballs, and that SKC's affiliation with Livestrong was a bit dicey to begin with, your posts in this thread come across as baiting the SKC fans. SKC will presumably analyze this situation and decide whether they think their relationship with Livestrong is detrimental to their brand, and will then react accordingly. That's pretty much the upshot of this. No need to pile on to SKC and bait their fans into responding to your prodding.