I'm by no means an expert. Sounds like you have a lot more experience/knowledge on this subject than me! I just know what I read, and when I put two and two together I just can't imagine that a Lance Armstrong or a Usain Bolt is competing clean when all around them seem not to be. But you're right, unless solid evidence emerges there isn't much to debate here.
SVP needs a course in ethics. Your post is very confusing. You start out by stating is not ok to use PEDs, but then you launch into a justification/defense of the reputation of any PED user if the demonstrate a strong work ethic after taking PEDs. Then you basically capitulate at the end saying 'there is nothing we can do about it, what's the point?' Your kind of thinking is exactly what Bonds and Armstrong cloak themselves with.....in order to live the lie. Your kind of thinking is the polar opposite of how we need to think in order to being to solve the problem. Integrity is more important than results, and it should always be treated that way. We should honor those who have integrity, not those who are hard working + with drugs in their system. SVP capitulated as well with his comments.
Hey Andy- MLS thought this was an important enough issue to make a headline of it and for KC's ownership to make a definitive statement on it today. http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...strong-sponsorship-amid-armstrong-controversy
Your ethics don't amount to much in the face of cold, hard reality. Is it any secret that baseball was able to recover from their strike thanks to Sosa/McGwire's roid-fueled homerun chase? People can go on and on about doing things "the right way," but guess what...winning is what brings fans back for more. As long as cheating will continue to be rewarded by the fans, ethics accounts for nothing. Nor was their anything confusing about his post. The point that he was trying to make was that a person on the street can't start taking some HGH and walk onto a football/baseball/etc. field--there has to be underlying talent. The PED's are that extra bit of a push that can turn good players into great ones, and great ones into legends, hence the constant pressure to use them.
Not at all. You need a course in reality. The reality of the situation is that cheating is rampant. SVP knows it and adjusts his take accordingly. I mean, are you honestly saying that what Armstrong did is somehow less impressive if he doped ? Especially given that every single major competitor at the time is already known and proven to have doped as well ? He commented on the situation given the facts that the situation resides in. Nothing more. How is it confusing ? Oh, I see, you ignored part of it. A pretty imprtant part of it: " I by no means justify there use by saying this ...." ^ holy hell man. It has nothing to do with their reputation or anything else. It has to do with the vast majority of idiots that pop off on this topic having ZERO ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with what they're openly condemning. Do you even know why steriods were derived ? I stated, TWICE, that it wasn't my opinion or stance. I can see why you're so confused considering you're taking this as my personal beliefs rather than what I'm actually putting in the posts. I merely stated facts above. You know, the things I've asked you to present in your condemnig of the man. You went off in this thread and even stated that he's "been lying the whole time" ... yet you have zero FACT to back that up. Didn't you say something about integrity ? No, breeding out ignorance is step 1. Sorry, integrity is not as important as results in our society. Again, that has nothing to do with what I personally believe, but is just a fact. I guess I'll quit honoring all those Wounded Warriors and Paralympians that have/do rehab with steriods ... I mean, if they had integrity they wouldn't need them right ?
So it is less impressive that he absolutely demolished all of the other guys that were doping simply because he himself doped (if he did) ? No. That puts everything back into perspective about him as an athlete. Remember what I wrote about Bonds ? That's the difference between Armstrong and everyone else that doped (if Armstrong did). I'd ask, but I'm pretty sure the wheels still aren't turning.
I think this is being looked at from the wrong angle. The charity itself should not be effected by the actions of Armstrong and neither should the relationship between Livestrong and SKC. Great partnership. Worthy cause. End of story.
I'll go ahead and cross post this here from the related thread in SKC boards... Not actually related to the name but instead the money that LSP generates for LIVESTRONG, but pretty much the same thing anyway. --- "Hey, some guy was proven to have taken performance enhancing dru... er... some guy admitted he was gui... er... some guy stopped fighting a dispute which says he took performance enhancing drugs - don't you think that you should reconsider donating money to fight cancer?" "You know, I hadn't thought about it that way - I had always considered that I was helping countless people deal with a horrible disease, but I really ought to rethink whether those people deserve our money now that this guy, who happened to start the organization we donate to, has been proven to have used performance enhancing drugs. Proven, of course, in the sense that some agency accused him of it and he decided he wasn't going to contest the accusation, but what more proof do you want? Oh, and I guess he had done something like beaten cancer personally, or some nonsense like that - but what does that matter in comparison? He probably used drugs to beat his cancer too!" "We're glad you have your priorities in the right order. Sticking it to this guy for using performance enhancing drugs is obviously most important thing to do in this situation. If he really wanted to help people he should have considered that before he cheated... but to try and help people now, after all the cheating and lying he may have done? The man's a monster." "I'm glad you support our decision. Sure, denying funding to this organization may result in the people who are impacted by cancer to suffer more due to the disease, but they should at least be happier in their suffering that we're willing to make a statement about how horrible this guy is."
I think it is stupid that doping is "illegal" in the first place. I think it is a far bigger injustice that tax money is being spent on what is ultimately a trivial matter, even if is funneled through this so called "non government entity." Anyway, successful troll has been successful in this thread. You and vevo5 should hang out. LSP is fine, dig into any other stadium or shirt sponsor and you will likely find people that have done far worse than be accused of cheating in a bicycle race.
https://twitter.com/PaulPabst/status/238835667956813825 He cheated but used his winnings for the sick, so I don't know why you would think KC would change there stadium name.
Your argument is truly amazing! Quit acting like this is a reading comprehension problem. But if you want to keep writing that way: Your 'wheels' aren't 'turning' about the fact that some bicycle riders don't dope. And that is, as you like to say, a fact. Why don't you and Scott Van Pelt go do what you are itching for: Start a 'druggie' Tour de France (a separate race), and make it clear from the beginning everyone that takes drugs can participate. Just be transparent about it up front. Don't stop there: please start a druggie baseball league, druggie football league and while you are at all- talk to MLS about starting a parallel league for druggies too! We will keep the regular Tour de France for all the riders who don't cheat.
Reading comprehension is but one of many problems you face. I honestly don't give two shits about cycling, at all. I'm not itching for anything and neither is SVP. I'd much rather rid the interwebz of posters like you. Also, these druggie leagues you're talking about already exist. See: MLB, NFL, etc etc Finally get around to actually reading one of your posts ?
I don't understand why this is a government matter in any way, shape or form. Any more than if some team in the local softball rec league cheated by bringing in ringers or whatever. And even if Armstrong murdered a busload of children, why should that stop people from working with a cancer charity?
The Charity is wonderful and worthy. SKC is commended for doing it in the first place and sticking with it. So Lance enriched his blood to compete against an entire tour that was doping and enriching and doing all they could? I'm disappointed but still impressed. The thought that Lance won only because of doping is wrongly simplistic and uninformed. I encourage anyone that thinks that to do a bunch of research on Armstrong's whole comeback to cycling. How his cancer recovery forced him to train differently, to teach his body to spin faster than anyone in cycling thought was possible so he could utilize different gears, etc. Learn about the team tactics that Bruyniel brought to US Postal. Read about the unique focus LA brought to winning that race. It is a great story and will enrich your understanding beyond some simplistic moralistic pronouncement. In your honor OP I'm going to make another contribution to LiveStrong today.
Its a shame that he ruined all the good work in the late 90s by cheating. What could have been..... Great that you gave to charity. There are lots that deserve our support, including many different ones involving cancer research. It is really odd that this thread would trigger your donation, but I am sure this is exactly the kind of reaction that Lance is looking for (poor Lance, everybody picking on him!). He made a strategically smart choice apparently to give up fighting the lie in public. Touche' Lance!
His charity isn't a reflection of his bicycling skills, it's an more about fighting cancer. At least, that is what I think it's about. Nike was said to have remained in support of Livestrong, so I imagine it's not going anywhere. Of course, if it were a charity designed to help people get off steroids, then yeah, change the name...
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Armstrong did cheat by doping. How does that ruin all the good his charity has accomplished?? And it's really weird to me that someone would be do outraged by one athlete potentially cheating in a sport full of cheating.
I spent the day watching the stage of the USA Pro Cycling Challenge. There were many different viewpoints of Lance being talked about in general conversation. I think its going to take a while for most people to evaluate this one and decide where they stand. Oh, and go Jens!!!
Short answer: no they don't. Livestrong is a charity devoted to the fight against cancer. The charity has not been implicated one iota in any wrong-doing. Nearly everyone agrees that the fight against cancer is a noble thing. Hence, there is ZERO reason to change the stadium name.
Surprised that this thread made it this far without being closed. There are some definite close calls back there. No negrep, so how about someone quote the post and add "negrep" which we rep. its not great and is similar to how we rep worthy critiques and comebacks. But its the best we got right? Unlike other threads, here I kinda feel where supercooper is coming from. The level of doping in sports in general(and biking specifically) is a tragedy and should not be acceptable (though I do not think anyone here IS actually calling it that). But I think its valid and useful to find the positive in these situations, success stories and hard work and pain that have led to great accomplishments. PED use should contextualize that narrative but I don't think its fair to let it overwhelm it. Personally I don't see the difference between PED's and a $10,000 custom designed carbon-fibre bike: Neither will do me any good. It all takes a ton of work to take any advantage of. Doping has to be eliminated, maybe better testing tech will help, maybe a cultural change is needed. The answers are obviously not clear at the moment, but calling a nuanced view an "excuse" for unethical behavior is not getting is anywhere. Also, yes, Armstrong is a douchebag, news at 11.