Because you're trolling. I think Amway are crooks. I think Herbalife is a scam. I think Red Bull is a hideous concoction that shouldn't be marketed to kids. I think Barry Bonds' records should be stripped from the record books and Hank Aaron's rightful place restored. (All hail Hammerin' Hank!) But you are focusing on the wrong thing. If it was the Lance Armstrong Park, by all means, change the name if you think his supposed guilt is going to be bad publicity. I think the Giants would be stupid to rename their stadium Bonds Field. But your thread title question is "Does KC have a responsibility to change their stadium name?" (emphasis mine) So we are just trying to point out to you that REGARDLESS of the connection between Livestrong and Armstrong, Livestrong is still a CHARITY - a separate entity - a charitable foundation - that focuses on cancer research. Now, unless you think cancer research is somehow an unworthy cause and something that SKC should not be associated with, your original question is ludicrous. My grandfather died of prostate cancer. My grandmother and mother-in-law had breast cancer. A little four-year-old girl at my church almost died from blood cancer. So I am proud to support a team that DONATES the stadium naming rights to an organization that tries to fight this thing and passes up the money they could be making by selling the rights to Sprint or who knows who else. SKC's support of Livestrong and their stated goals has nothing to do with Armstrong and his doping or not doping. Full stop.
The issue is Armstrong's association, not the name. If there is an exit plan to have him no longer actively associated with the charity, then that would seem a good route to clear this up. KC can call their stadium whatever they want. Of course, its name if the name sounds good in any case.
So you are implying that there is some sort of arm's length between Livestrong (which is also the Lance Armstrong Foundation) and their founder, funder, primary source of income, headline spokesperson, and who their charity is named after? On paper, they are separate. In reality, that's a hard case to make. I've had cancer directly in my family so that's not the issue here. Of course, I am proud they made the decision to donate naming rights to a charity. That's is the right thing to do. I am just questioning if it is the wrong charity. And apparently I am not the only one who thinks this worth debate. No one is saying KC shouldn't name their stadium after a charity. There are lots of great charities involving cancer research and charities period that are rated 5 star and have no issue like this attached to them.
USADA. They are a quasi-government organization that receive 2/3 of the funding from the Federal government, but was also set up to police this issue. They have special privileges, like looking at Senate evidence that you + I would not get access to.
Question for you: If KC's stadium was called the Lance Armstrong Foundation stadium, would that make a difference here to you?
Difference is- Steinbrenner was punished and he did his time. He didn't drag out the guilty/innocent issue over more than a decade, lying all the way. Had Armstrong done this in 2001, there would be no issue here. But then again, Livestrong would be in no position to be part of KC's stadium either. Armstrong used his story to build the charity. His story is just one big placebo effect now.
They call themselves a "non-governmental agency". http://www.usada.org/about Just because they get government funding does not mean they are connected to the Justice Department. I know that in the BALCO case USADA tried to get information from the U.S. Justice Department but that was denied. Congress had to issue a subpoena to get the Justice Department to turn anything over to USADA. I see no evidence that there is any connection between the USADA and the Justice Department.
Sounds reasonable to me. Would have been just as easy for others to post. I'll repeat, I think KC has done a fantastic job in turning around the franchise in every way. (well, their offense seems too direct and predictable, but that's a subject for another thread )
This implies that evidence exists. This sort of innuendo is all anyone has. Oh, I'm sorry, there's testimony from some guys who tested positive and would love to change the focus to Armstrong. Where are Armstrong's positive results? Is that some of that special Senate evidence?
This thread should be closed until Sporting Kansas City makes a statement. If the post was started without an agenda, than it would be a discussion worth having, this is just a dumb op to rile everyone up.
They have released a statement, from Robb Heineman "The naming rights partnership between our stadium and LIVESTRONG provides an opportunity to spread health and wellness messages that emphasizes the spirit of cancer survivorship. LIVESTRONG's focus is the fight against cancer and the support of 28 million people around the world affected by this disease, and we believe strongly in this mission. The statements made last night by the Lance Armstrong Foundation speak for themselves: moving forward and continuing the fight against this horrible disease."
Speaking of innuendo... (Unless, somehow, you know the names of all 10 former riders who testified to the USADA and if they all tested positive.)
Wait, he's been lying all the way ? So you've go the proof ? Show it. Then show the proof that Bonds used steriods. I'm talking about the actual hard evidence that allows one to say that these two men did, in fact, use steriods/dope/PED, etc etc etc. I'll wait. (I'll pre-empt the stupid ass "oh you know they did" "look at this and that" "you have to be nieve" etc etc crap. I'm not taking a stance one way or the other with this post)
Who is this directed at? If it's me, I'm not sure what the point is... we're not in a court of law and I'm not trying to send any of them to jail. You'd have to be pretty naive (and yes, I know that word is condescending and I try not to use it too often) to believe that Lance Armstrong absolutely dominated a sport over a seven-year period in which all the top riders have been caught doping at one point or another. The most likely scenario is he never got caught because he has the most money to pay the best doctors to design the least detectable drugs for him. Not to mention, as someone else said, he didn't compete in any other events, so I assume he was free to train all year long without fear of being drug-tested. Edit: Haha, I didn't see your last sentence.... sorry. Hey, you can believe what you want to believe. And I'll do the same.
Again, I'm not stating what I believe or don't believe and I'm not taking a stance on him. I'm merely stating a truth (abliet through baited questions) about both scenarios. It was aimed at the genius that started the thread and has said that Armstrong doped and has lied this entire time. That's half of what he's basing this retarded thread on. The FACT that Armstrong doped, which isn't a fact at all. Train without fear of being tested ? Well, he's submitted multiple samples over the course of his dominance so ...... I'll leave it to Scott Van Pelt as he pretty much nailed it (summized as I heard him this morning and can't remember word for word): "If he didn't dope, he just became the greatest athlete ever in order to have blown the field away when they were all doping and couldn't sniff his back tire. If he did dope, at this point so what ? We KNOW everyone else did and he still smoked them. Either way, doping doesn't change the fact that Armstrong beat the crud out of the entire field ... a field that we all know for a fact did cheat."
I addressed that earlier (not sure if you saw it): the world's top endurance athletes employ doctors who design drugs for them. They go into the lab, put together a specific drug for the athlete in question and change a molecule or two at the end of the chain so that the doping agencies have no way of detecting the drug (because they don't know what to look for). There are also ways of breaking down the drugs in question very quickly so that they can no longer be detected in the test - or ways of making the B sample negative even when the A sample is positive. Wasn't there an issue with Armstrong's blood samples from 2009, supposedly containing EPO? I realize he maintains that the samples were tainted - but consider this: if he won the Tour in 99 as a dark horse without the money and means to use better (i.e. less easily detectable) drugs, he would have had those means already by 2000. If you're interested, check out this interview with Mexican doping doctor Angel Heredia: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/a-571031.html Unfortunately it's long and in German, and I don't have time to translate it right now. It's very interesting though - you might want to run it through google translate or something and see if it makes any sense. He explains the entire process and pretty convincingly lays out why none of the world's top endurance athletes are competing clean. Edit: I quickly translated a couple of the more interesting passages: Heredia: There are tablets for the kidneys that block the metabolites in steroids:so when athletes submit a urine sample, they don’t excrete the metabolites, and the sample is negative.Or there’s an enzyme that slowly eats up proteins – epo has protein structures, so the enzyme ensures that the B sample of the doping test has completely different values from the A sample. SPIEGEL: Is there doping at every level of sports? Heredia: Yes, the only difference is the quality of the doping.The poor athletes take simple steroids and hope they don’t get tested.If you’re one of the stars, you earn 50,000 dollars a month, plus starting bonuses and shoe sponsorships.If you’re at the very top, you invest 100,000 dollars and I build you an undetectable designer drug. SPIEGEL: Explain how that works. Heredia: Designer drugs are composed of several chemicals that produce the desired reaction. At the very end of the chain, I change one or two molecules in such a way that the entire structure falls through the doping investigators’ raster screens.
Yeah, and that's why I don't really care that he doped. I do care that he's been an arrogant ass since then any time somebody brings up the subject and instead of trying to help the sport he's tried to bring down anyone who even hints at his doping. You look at the things he's said about Hamilton and Landis when they started to come clean. I don't think its a coincidence that this year for the first time the two Continental squads run by Frankie Andreu (who reportedly talked) weren't invited to the 3 big stage races in the u.S., all of which are organized by the same company, who happens to employ former Armstrong lieutenant Kevin Livingston (who hasn't talked) in a leadership capacity. This despite the Kendra 5-Hour energy team being one of the best American Continental teams in the early season and Jelly belly being a perennial fan favorite that always brings great PR to the races. Combine that with some of the insinuations (admittedly unproven at least to the public) that not only did he dope but he was also the ringleader of the doping, essentially forcing young riders to dope or be removed from the team. I think Armstrong could have used his platform to help the sport move out of the doping-era. Instead he's run over anyone who's suggested he doped in order to further his image. Jonathan Vaughters' recent confession and statements may be somewhat self-serving, but at least he's trying to improve the sport and reduce the influence of doping. Armstrong could have done even more than Vaughters has, but chose not to and at times actively prevented improvements buy undercutting those attempting them. That's the issue I have with Lance.
I'm glad you posted that info. I'm sure there are many on here that don't actually have familiarity with what's being discussed (IE - experience/familiarity with PEDs). I have (for better or worse) pretty extensive "hands on" experience with various levels of PEDs etc. I'm well aware of what's going on in labs and behind the scenes. Hell, you should see what the "locker room science majors" come up with. They can get around anything. Being in football (gridiron type) and powerlifting for 20 of my years has opened this door for me. You should see the crap powerlifters get ... sheesh. I appreciate the insight ... I just happen to be an individual that has a pretty good knowledge of this stuff (through experience and study). Absolutely, and I completely see that take on it. I also understand his initial defensive approach before the shit slinging really got stupid. I mean think about it ... how would you react under a continued barrage even after every single time, for over a decade, you've come up "clean" ? I'm sure there's a point where people like him (and Bonds) get that they actually believe what they're saying truth or not. However, I think he's been pushed to this final point. I mean really, despite all of the smoking guns and other "he totally did it" cliches, there is absolutely zero imperical evidence at the moment that proves it and every time someone has claimed it, it hasen't resulted in any actual proof. The moral court is a load of crap anyway. People cry about it like they were actually cheated. Sure, hate him because he's a pompous ass. That's legitimate. The whole "cheating" thing is completely blown out of proportion for all sports. ... which I think leads to a direct conflict of interest for him. Hell, simply by saying "I don't want to fight anymore because it simply isn't a fair fight" people are already running with the (unproven) fact that he doped. They're taking it as an admission from him. Imagine (after all he's done in his own defense) if he'd step up to do this ? Right or wrong is a different topic. He simply can't do this now (before his quitting the fight with it).
This is not correct, and this is the problem with using this as an ethical base. This is the problem with Wall Street and so many things. 'Everyone's doing it', so its ok. No, everyone is not doing it, and its not ok. Van Pelt is an idiot for saying this. Not every cyclist was doping. Many were. But not all. You award the title to the guy who (to the best of your knowledge) didn't cheat. End of story. Armstrong is relying on a mix of the Van Pelt's and "I'm a good guy for doing charity work" along with as many legal obstructions as possible to win what he perceives as the long-term battle here. In the meanwhile, he has accumulated fame, fortune and a lifestyle most of us envy. From being a cheat. What happened to integrity? This is unfair to all those athletes (including cyclists) who were clean.
Good on Heineman to release a statement on this. Clearly this is an issue for discussion and it is great that he came out early and stated their position on it. Well run organization from everything I can tell.
Ignorance truly is bless ... There's a side of PEDs that is drastically overlooked. I by no means justify there use by saying this, but again, am merely stating something. Do you know why Bonds "blew up" after his alleged usage ? It's because he was the hardest working SOB in the game (stated by many MLBers and the vast majority of his teammates). PEDs simply don't make you better. You do. It's no different than using any "legal" PED (which is kind of an ironic statement yeah ?). The individual has to work in order for the PED to work. Bonds worked harder than anyone. Not just in the weight room, but at everything. He became 100% more disciplined at the plate, changed his swing numerous times, put in more hours before and after the game than anyone, and never stopped adapting his approach to hitting. THAT is why he blew up. Did alleged usage of PEDs enhance that ? Surely they did if he indeed took them. That doesn't erase what he himself did. That doesn't erase how much of his own ass he busted to be the best player ever. Ditto anyone else that has actually gotten results from PEDs. That's also why what SVP said about Armstrong is indeed true (in this context mind). The last thing you need to do is call someone else an idiot. Never once did SVP say it was ok. Not once. That's you taking your already formed opinion and being an idiot with it. He said "so what ?" Cheating, doping, whatever else you want to name it is RAMPANT in sports. Period. It doesn't matter that little timmy 3rd string doesn't cheat, but it does matter that joe big nuts and the 70%+ of everyone else does. There are multitudes of people cheating in every facit of everything. That doesn't make it right, or ok. It makes it FACT. A fact sir, that you really need to come to terms with and understand. I don't envy a guy with one nut that has had to deal with cancer. Not one bit. Nothing about his accomplishments have made me envy anything about that arrogant sack of crap. Life is unfair guy, always has been. Cheating is a fact of life. You'd probably shit your pants if the reality of it was ever able to be revealed. Cheating is done in so many ways you might as well try to count the stars in the sky. You've got a better chance at reaching that number. It's so rampant and so blurred that you can't distinguish who has and who hasn't ... end of story.