Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 59
  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Tabor Heights
    Posts
    12,581
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    4891
    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    I guess I'm in the minority but I don't give a **** if he juiced. The dude overcame cancer and then won the tour de france several times in a row. What was it, like 7 times or something?

    You mean if I stick a needle in my ass I can win the tour de france? No? Of course not.

    Today's steroids were last century's vitamins and exercise equipment and machines. Science has been trying to enhance physical performance for centuries. Why it's suddenly considered taboo is beyond me.

    The dude overcame cancer, and then won the tour de france, like 7 times. We're seriously condemning him for juicing up? Even though everyone else was juicing up too? Why?

    Let me see anyone on this board, or reporting on this story in the media, win the tour de france even once. Juice up all you want and tell me how it instantly made you superman, lol.
    Shocker here. Sorry but it's not the fact that he juiced. It's the fact that he juiced, adamantly denied it for years in his all high and mighty, I beat cancer, why would I ever put drugs in my body, sort of way, and then comes clean like every other POS when the **** hits the fan and their backs are up against the wall. He may have helped thousands of people with cancer. Good for him. This doesn't change the fact that he's a major doucher of epic proportions and is a pretty ****ty human being from almost all accounts.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Tabor Heights
    Posts
    12,581
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    4891
    Quote Originally Posted by MoreFeasts View Post
    patently false
    Meh. If you know the sport, they almost all are.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Tabor Heights
    Posts
    12,581
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    4891
    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    The same can be said of actual physical training. Some guys get ripped really quick or are naturally ripped without even working out, others have to work their ass off to get there.
    Do you have a point? Or any moral fabric for that matter?

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,781
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    4567
    Haven't read the thread, but I thought I'd drop in to declare what a giant douchehole Lance has made himself into. Every non-naive person already knew everybody was juicing, so this record of denial avalanching back onto him is just sorta funny. He should have handled this in an ENTIRELY different fashion.

    Whatevar dude.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    796
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Gyp Rosetti View Post
    Meh. If you know the sport, they almost all are.
    I don't know the sport, but your statement does not conflict with my statement. Also, there likely were many hundreds or thousands of people who would liked to have made a living in the sport but they did not want to cheat, or they did not have the money or access for the right doctors to help them cheat.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,064
    Rep Power
    21
    Rep Level
    2071
    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    I guess I'm in the minority but I don't give a **** if he juiced. The dude overcame cancer and then won the tour de france several times in a row. What was it, like 7 times or something?

    You mean if I stick a needle in my ass I can win the tour de france? No? Of course not.

    Today's steroids were last century's vitamins and exercise equipment and machines. Science has been trying to enhance physical performance for centuries. Why it's suddenly considered taboo is beyond me.

    The dude overcame cancer, and then won the tour de france, like 7 times. We're seriously condemning him for juicing up? Even though everyone else was juicing up too? Why?

    Let me see anyone on this board, or reporting on this story in the media, win the tour de france even once. Juice up all you want and tell me how it instantly made you superman, lol.
    It's a big deal because PED use is against the rules of the sport. Vitamins and exercise equipment are not. He cheated, which gave him an unfair advantage against everyone who didn't cheat. (Yes, lots of cyclists cheat, but to say that ALL cheat is unsubstantiated and almost certainly wrong.)

    Then he lied about his PED use for years, and bullied and tormented mercilessly those who accused him of cheating. Frankly, I'm less bothered by his cheating than the despicable way in which he bullied and tried to silence his accusers. He's a scumbag who doesn't deserve our compassion or forgiveness, unless and until he apologizes and tries makes amends to all of the people whose lives he tried to ruin.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    796
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    391
    I wonder whether Lance influenced an increase in cheating in the sport.

    The US Postal Service is trying to get back some of the $30,000,000 they spent promoting Lance.

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,831
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    1026
    Quote Originally Posted by MoreFeasts View Post
    I wonder whether Lance influenced an increase in cheating in the sport.

    The US Postal Service is trying to get back some of the $30,000,000 they spent promoting Lance.
    And this is why it doesn't bother me that he lied about it. Once he came clean, everyone demanded a refund. So how much of that 500 million that he raised for charity would not have happened if he wouldn't have lied?

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    796
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    391
    I am under the imporession that the 30 million was not for charity, but to sponser Lance.'s biking and bank accounts.

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    796
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    391
    Did they cure cancer by the way? No.
    Could they have instead used all that charity money instead to reduce cancer causing chemicals in our environment, and thereby reduce cancer cases worldwide? Yes.

  11.  

     

  12. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,831
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    1026
    Quote Originally Posted by MoreFeasts View Post
    I am under the imporession that the 30 million was not for charity, but to sponser Lance.'s biking and bank accounts.
    Quote Originally Posted by MoreFeasts View Post
    Did they cure cancer by the way? No.
    Could they have instead used all that charity money instead to reduce cancer causing chemicals in our environment, and thereby reduce cancer cases worldwide? Yes.
    No, I don't think they are asking for the charity money back (but I could be wrong). My point is that nobody works have donated to his charity. And this should be obvious.

    No they didn't cure cancer, but they helped a lot of cancer patients and helped get closer to a cure, even if they didn't get all the way there.

  13. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    796
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    391
    I am skeptical that the world is better off because of Lance in any way. There would still have been money for cancer research, with or without him.

  14. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,831
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    1026
    Quote Originally Posted by MoreFeasts View Post
    I am skeptical that the world is better off because of Lance in any way. There would still have been money for cancer research, with or without him.
    Sure there would have been money, just not as much. He raised 500 million. That's not an insignificant amount in my opinion.

  15. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Tabor Heights
    Posts
    12,581
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    4891

  16. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    796
    Rep Power
    0
    Rep Level
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    Sure there would have been money, just not as much. He raised 500 million. That's not an insignificant amount in my opinion.
    I think charities in general do more harm than good. They are an inefficient model for distributing resources from an economic viewpoint. There are exceptions, and I have not studied this particular instance, but my guess is that the social costs were larger than the social benefits, so the net impact on society was negative.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •