Lance ArmDrugStrong going to burn?

[SaltyDawg]

I am under the imporession that the 30 million was not for charity, but to sponser Lance.'s biking and bank accounts.

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.

 

[MoreFeasts]

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.

 

[SaltyDawg]

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.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

 

[MoreFeasts]

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.

 

[HipHopAnonymous]

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.

So based on nothing you figure most charities do more harm than good?

 

[MoreFeasts]

based on nothing

No, not nothing.

 

[kwb]

I don't have a problem with him doping in a sport where every one dopes. That's just the way it is these days with sports. What I do have a problem with is him throwing lawsuits at anyone who dared accuse him of doping. He's a little cry baby bitch and I for one love laughing at him right now.

 

[The Thriller]

Who cares if he doped? So did/does 99 percent of all cyclists. Cycling makes baseball look clean.

I do however, care for those who he sued for telling the truth.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

For the most part, I agree with MOREFEASTS on charity. The tiny percentage of money donated that actually goes to that charity, generally speaking, is a joke.

 

[candrew]

I don't have a problem with him doping in a sport where every one dopes. That's just the way it is these days with sports. What I do have a problem with is him throwing lawsuits at anyone who dared accuse him of doping. He's a little cry baby bitch and I for one love laughing at him right now.

In the end that's what he's really guilty of - being a douche bag.

Carl Lewis most definitely doped in the 80's; but when people brought up the subject he would just smile and go back to signing autographs and pose for pictures with kids.

Granted, it was a different time; but he would have met the same fate if he was a defensive a-hole like Armstrong.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

In the end that's what he's really guilty of - being a douche bag.

Carl Lewis most definitely doped in the 80's; but when people brought up the subject he would just smile and go back to signing autographs and pose for pictures with kids.

Granted, it was a different time; but he would have met the same fate if he was a defensive a-hole like Armstrong.

Trust me, Lewis is pretty much a doucher too. Just not at the same level as Strongarm.

 

[NAOS]

What's the over-under on the number of lies he told Oprah? It's painful watching the guy continue to spin..

 

[candrew]

What's the over-under on the number of lies he told Oprah? It's painful watching the guy continue to spin..

I watched the Armstrong thing and read the Te'o interview back to back - and it's the same god damn thing. Confess to all the crap we areadly know to be ******** and then lie about the rest.

They must have the same publicist or something.

 

[JimLes]

Lance Armstrong is certainly an arsehole, but we're nearing a point where we simply ought to allow any and all substances into sports. It's ridiculous how arbitrary and haphazard the decision on what constitutes a PED is.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Lance Armstrong is certainly an arsehole, but we're nearing a point where we simply ought to allow any and all substances into sports. It's ridiculous how arbitrary and haphazard the decision on what constitutes a PED is.

To me, this sets an awful example to our youth. AWFUL.

 

[JimLes]

To me, this sets an awful example to our youth. AWFUL.

Athletes are generally an awful example to our youth.

The issue I have with this is the hypocrisy. Athletes are not normal humans. Hell, I sometimes think they're barely human. More like X-Men mutants or something. They're not like you and me at all. They're genetically bigger, taller, stronger, faster. They don't eat like you and me, they don't live like you and me, their bodies aren't used the way yours and mine are. They're just about bred for this like race horses.

Nothing about them is normal, yet we pretend that there's some obvious moral line that shouldn't be crossed. Like it's okay to take dietary supplements and have a diet that is completely unlike the diet of an average human(and contrary to any diet recommended by health experts), but it's not okay to take certain other things. As if somehow looking like this is normal and okay if you're not using steroids, but it's wrong and terrible if you are. https://www.learn-bodybuilding.com/images/bb/kev3.jpg

The ideal of the amateur athlete made sense. Let's see, among the average members of our society, who is fastest, strongest, or able to throw things most accurately. Just like a 120 years ago, college football meant seeing who can put together the best team of the students that just happen to be attending those colleges. Professional sports changed all this long ago. Everything these guys do is performance-enhancing. It's stupid that all these rules do nothing to actually fix the problem of athletes trying to win by any means necessary. They just throw a few sticks in their spokes and force them to be more creative. If having more red blood cells makes you perform better, all you have to do is figure out a currently legal way to raise that level. Or, you have to find "mutants" who naturally have higher levels. That's cool, apparently, but giving yourself a transfusion of your own blood is not.

It's just hypocrisy. We want to see humans perform at the level far beyond the abilities of an average human, but then we figure that certain ways of accomplishing that should be legal while others should be illegal.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Athletes are generally an awful example to our youth.

The issue I have with this is the hypocrisy. Athletes are not normal humans. Hell, I sometimes think they're barely human. More like X-Men mutants or something. They're not like you and me at all. They're genetically bigger, taller, stronger, faster. They don't eat like you and me, they don't live like you and me, their bodies aren't used the way yours and mine are. They're just about bred for this like race horses.

Nothing about them is normal, yet we pretend that there's some obvious moral line that shouldn't be crossed. Like it's okay to take dietary supplements and have a diet that is completely unlike the diet of an average human(and contrary to any diet recommended by health experts), but it's not okay to take certain other things. As if somehow looking like this is normal and okay if you're not using steroids, but it's wrong and terrible if you are. https://www.learn-bodybuilding.com/images/bb/kev3.jpg

The ideal of the amateur athlete made sense. Let's see, among the average members of our society, who is fastest, strongest, or able to throw things most accurately. Just like a 120 years ago, college football meant seeing who can put together the best team of the students that just happen to be attending those colleges. Professional sports changed all this long ago. Everything these guys do is performance-enhancing. It's stupid that all these rules do nothing to actually fix the problem of athletes trying to win by any means necessary. They just throw a few sticks in their spokes and force them to be more creative. If having more red blood cells makes you perform better, all you have to do is figure out a currently legal way to raise that level. Or, you have to find "mutants" who naturally have higher levels. That's cool, apparently, but giving yourself a transfusion of your own blood is not.

It's just hypocrisy. We want to see humans perform at the level far beyond the abilities of an average human, but then we figure that certain ways of accomplishing that should be legal while others should be illegal.

By God.

 

[HeavenHarris]

Athletes are generally an awful example to our youth.

The issue I have with this is the hypocrisy. Athletes are not normal humans. Hell, I sometimes think they're barely human. More like X-Men mutants or something. They're not like you and me at all. They're genetically bigger, taller, stronger, faster. They don't eat like you and me, they don't live like you and me, their bodies aren't used the way yours and mine are. They're just about bred for this like race horses.

Nothing about them is normal, yet we pretend that there's some obvious moral line that shouldn't be crossed. Like it's okay to take dietary supplements and have a diet that is completely unlike the diet of an average human(and contrary to any diet recommended by health experts), but it's not okay to take certain other things. As if somehow looking like this is normal and okay if you're not using steroids, but it's wrong and terrible if you are. https://www.learn-bodybuilding.com/images/bb/kev3.jpg

The ideal of the amateur athlete made sense. Let's see, among the average members of our society, who is fastest, strongest, or able to throw things most accurately. Just like a 120 years ago, college football meant seeing who can put together the best team of the students that just happen to be attending those colleges. Professional sports changed all this long ago. Everything these guys do is performance-enhancing. It's stupid that all these rules do nothing to actually fix the problem of athletes trying to win by any means necessary. They just throw a few sticks in their spokes and force them to be more creative. If having more red blood cells makes you perform better, all you have to do is figure out a currently legal way to raise that level. Or, you have to find "mutants" who naturally have higher levels. That's cool, apparently, but giving yourself a transfusion of your own blood is not.

It's just hypocrisy. We want to see humans perform at the level far beyond the abilities of an average human, but then we figure that certain ways of accomplishing that should be legal while others should be illegal.

bro u could use some weed in ur life