Export thread
F**K YOU! LANCE!
#1
Silent Bob
Silent Bob
http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/st...o-admit-doping-oprah-winfrey-interview-011113
I'm not naive, I knew he probably did. Now we know he did. I'm officially nixing the sport of biking from my mind. Nothing but a bunch of doping liars.
I'm not naive, I knew he probably did. Now we know he did. I'm officially nixing the sport of biking from my mind. Nothing but a bunch of doping liars.
#2
Bowielee
Bowielee
Honestly, he's no different than every other professional athlete. He just got caught.
#3
Wahad
Wahad
They should just legalize doping. If everybody does it, the differences are nullified.
#4
strawman
strawman
What sports haven't you nixed then?
#5
Tress
Tress
Really? Every professional athlete? Are you really that jaded?Honestly, he's no different than every other professional athlete. He just got caught.
#6
PatrThom
Obligatory.
--Patrick
PatrThom
They should just legalize doping. If everybody does it, the differences are nullified.
Obligatory.
--Patrick
#7
Bowielee
Bowielee
Yes, I am. We have kind of this shared delusion that the use of performance enhancers are not widespread so that can adhere to our belief of fair play and all that. Realistically, though, with the stakes as high as they are in professional sports, people literally wouldn't be able to compete in today's atmosphere without performance enhancers of some kind.[DOUBLEPOST=1358020668][/DOUBLEPOST]Quite frankly, anabolic steroids and blood doping aren't nearly as detrimental to your health as the propaganda to the contrary would have you believe. I honestly don't see what the big deal is about their widespread usage.Really? Every professional athlete? Are you really that jaded?
#8
Silent Bob
Woah, hold the phone. Time out.
Silent Bob
Yes, I am. We have kind of this shared delusion that the use of performance enhancers are not widespread so that can adhere to our belief of fair play and all that. Realistically, though, with the stakes as high as they are in professional sports, people literally wouldn't be able to compete in today's atmosphere without performance enhancers of some kind.[DOUBLEPOST=1358020668][/DOUBLEPOST]Quite frankly, anabolic steroids and blood doping aren't nearly as detrimental to your health as the propaganda to the contrary would have you believe. I honestly don't see what the big deal is about their widespread usage.
Woah, hold the phone. Time out.
#9
PatrThom
PatrThom
Anabolic steroids = detrimental.
Blood doping = risky (potential for infection) but otherwise okay.
I realized the ridiculousness the first time I heard about doping in wheelchair racing. Seems some people will clamp off their catheter so that their body will sense the stress (of backed-up urine, most likely) and therefore start the dumping of more adrenaline into their systems. Totally undetectable, right? And then there's Smokey Yunick, who did the mechanical equivalent of doping race cars.
--Patrick
Blood doping = risky (potential for infection) but otherwise okay.
I realized the ridiculousness the first time I heard about doping in wheelchair racing. Seems some people will clamp off their catheter so that their body will sense the stress (of backed-up urine, most likely) and therefore start the dumping of more adrenaline into their systems. Totally undetectable, right? And then there's Smokey Yunick, who did the mechanical equivalent of doping race cars.
--Patrick
#10
Bowielee
Bowielee
The effects of Anabolic steroids are detrimental when used in extremely high quantities steadily over long periods of time.
#11
PatrThom
I won't argue the "excessive is probably bad" part. That's pretty much a no-brainer. But it turns out that even at low doses, if you use them continuously over long periods of time, it will upset your body's hormone regulatory system, which will have undesirable effects. The whole testosterone/estrogen balance relies on a feedback loop to keep effective levels of each in your body, and screwing up that push/pull system can unbalance that equilibrium for long periods of time.
--Patrick
PatrThom
FTFY.The effects of Anabolic steroids are detrimental when usedin extremely high quantitiessteadily over long periods of time.
I won't argue the "excessive is probably bad" part. That's pretty much a no-brainer. But it turns out that even at low doses, if you use them continuously over long periods of time, it will upset your body's hormone regulatory system, which will have undesirable effects. The whole testosterone/estrogen balance relies on a feedback loop to keep effective levels of each in your body, and screwing up that push/pull system can unbalance that equilibrium for long periods of time.
--Patrick
#12
Bowielee
Bowielee
I'm certainly not saying that it's good for you, but I just hate when people try to overstate health risks in an attempt to "scare straight".
#13
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
Yeah! A little meth doesn't hurt, just make sure to moderate!I'm certainly not saying that it's good for you, but I just hate when people try to overstate health risks in an attempt to "scare straight".
#14
Bowielee
Bowielee
That's a false equivalency. The effects of Meth are actually immediately harmful and addictive. If we're constantly selling these extreme scare tactics, it actually detracts from the actual harm that can be done and also dulls people to the real dangers of more extreme drugs.Yeah! A little meth doesn't hurt, just make sure to moderate!
#15
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Pro Cycling has been a complete rolling Pharmacy for over 20 years. I remember reading reports from before Armstrong's run bemoaning that ALL the teams cheat. Then after Armstrong beat cancer, he used his team of doctors that help to rebuild him hide his doping. And man that group of docs were good at screening his pee. So it was amazing to see somebody rally from cancer and beat the hell out of all those dope-fiends.
#16
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
Who cares about the damage it does, this is about how he cheated to affect his performance.That's a false equivalency. The effects of Meth are actually immediately harmful and addictive. If we're constantly selling these extreme scare tactics, it actually detracts from the actual harm that can be done and also dulls people to the real dangers of more extreme drugs.
#17
Bowielee
Bowielee
You have to follow the entire flow of the conversation, not just select one post. The point originally is that if everyone is cheating, is one person being caught for cheating really cheating.Who cares about the damage it does, this is about how he cheated to affect his performance.
#18
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
When the narrative to this point was that he did it "clean", and it was all just sour grapes from a vengeful French press, then yeah. It's cheating.You have to follow the entire flow of the conversation, not just select one post. The point originally is that if everyone is cheating, is one person being caught for cheating really cheating.
#19
Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh
Yes.You have to follow the entire flow of the conversation, not just select one post. The point originally is that if everyone is cheating, is one person being caught for cheating really cheating.
#20
Bowielee
Bowielee
Fair enough.
#21
Silent Bob
Doping is not regulated or sanctioned, period. Therefore it doesn't matter if an entire group of racers is doping, they're all still cheating.
Silent Bob
You have to follow the entire flow of the conversation, not just select one post. The point originally is that if everyone is cheating, is one person being caught for cheating really cheating.
Doping is not regulated or sanctioned, period. Therefore it doesn't matter if an entire group of racers is doping, they're all still cheating.
#22
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
Lance, Contador, Landis, Ullrich, Pantani (RIP). Who hasn't been caught doping? Not that I'm condoning it. Looking through the list of recent winners, they've nearly all been caught or at least implicated.
#23
Zappit
Zappit
If they all break the rule, why not get rid of the rule? That's really cynical. How 'bout we take away the below the belt rule in boxing, the helmet to helmet rule in football, or the don't use your bat as a cudgel to beat an opponent rule in baseball? That last one didn't stop Jose Offerman, so why have the rule at all?
#24
strawman
strawman
It is and it should be disappointing. I like to think that with enough work and dedication one can come close to their performance.
Clearly it requires more than work and dedication to get close.
The race is a joke if all the competitors are doping.
Clearly it requires more than work and dedication to get close.
The race is a joke if all the competitors are doping.
#25
Bowielee
Bowielee
So, we should also ban training at high altitudes and using hyperbaric chambers as well? These too can be used to increase your blood cell count, which is what EPO, the hormone used in blood doping does. I guess my question is really, why is the line drawn specifically at blood doping? Why specifically are synthetic hormones the ultimate no-no in sports? I'm seriously asking.
#26
strawman
strawman
It doesn't seem hard to me to differentiate between training to produce the desired results, and using other processes besides training to produce the desired results.
#27
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I think because there's many good reasons why a professional athlete wouldn't want to do those (health concerns) and if it becomes an ok thing, it then becomes mandatory for anyone to keep up.So, we should also ban training at high altitudes and using hyperbaric chambers as well? These too can be used to increase your blood cell count, which is what EPO, the hormone used in blood doping does. I guess my question is really, why is the line drawn specifically at blood doping? Why specifically are synthetic hormones the ultimate no-no in sports? I'm seriously asking.
#28
Silent Bob
You're purposefully being obtuse now...
High altitude training is a form of conditioning. What you're saying amounts to banning the use of any sort of resistance during athletic training. This is not the same as using steroids or doping. The athletes' have to work for desired results; it's not a matter of sticking a needle in one's arm and doing the same routine as everyone else.
Silent Bob
So, we should also ban training at high altitudes and using hyperbaric chambers as well? These too can be used to increase your blood cell count, which is what EPO, the hormone used in blood doping does. I guess my question is really, why is the line drawn specifically at blood doping? Why specifically are synthetic hormones the ultimate no-no in sports? I'm seriously asking.
You're purposefully being obtuse now...
High altitude training is a form of conditioning. What you're saying amounts to banning the use of any sort of resistance during athletic training. This is not the same as using steroids or doping. The athletes' have to work for desired results; it's not a matter of sticking a needle in one's arm and doing the same routine as everyone else.
#29
Bowielee
Bowielee
I'm honestly thinking that people don't really know what blood doping is. All it does is increase the amount of blood cells in your body, allowing faster distribution of oxygen through the body. The results would be negligible for the average shmoe, it still requires extreme amounts of training and talent to achieve what Lance Armstrong did. The only reason it has any appreciable difference for high functioning athletes is because their margin of difference is so small. Prior to the discovery of EPO, the same effects were achieved through blood transfusions of the athlete's own blood with no drugs involved whatsoever.
#30
PatrThom
I'm pretty sure that the main objection everyone has is that we want/expect every sporting event to be an honorable contest of training and skill, but instead there are others treating it as a contest of how much they can get away with without getting caught, which should really be two separate contests.
--Patrick
PatrThom
And that's what I assumed you meant by blood doping. Donate a pint or two of blood, put them in the fridge, wait a month, then put them back in before your competition. No foreign substances, no drugs, just increased red blood cell count and nothing to show for it except for an injection site.I'm honestly thinking that people don't really know what blood doping is. [...] Prior to the discovery of EPO, the same effects were achieved through blood transfusions of the athlete's own blood with no drugs involved whatsoever.
I'm pretty sure that the main objection everyone has is that we want/expect every sporting event to be an honorable contest of training and skill, but instead there are others treating it as a contest of how much they can get away with without getting caught, which should really be two separate contests.
--Patrick
#31
Frank
Frank
Athletes should just do what MMA fighters do, use steroids excessively in the dark ages of your sport before testing was widely available until your testosterone production is that of someone with hypogonadism. THEN, you get a physician to prescribe testosterone injections so that your T levels are those of a teenager. THEN, you get a medical exemption from your athletic commission (inexplicably). Suddenly, you go from a guy who's nickname for years was Decision Dan Henderson (I'm done pussyfooting around who I was talking about) to a guy who's right hand, in his mid 40's, is suddenly knocking people cold left right and center.
#32
strawman
Training at high altitiudes 9/10ths of the year doesn't do the same thing although it gets close. Yes, the hemoglobin levels increase, but not to the degree achieved by blood transfusion and EPO methods.
I think the term "blood doping" is misleading. There are many, many other ways to improve performance through artificial means rather than training. Doping is one of them. Blood doping is a subset of doping.
In this case the issue isn't what is happening inside their body, but how they are achieving that performance increase. The means are what levels the playing field.
There are several reasons to avoid this, including preventing teams from having an unfair advantage, and avoiding creating a sport that is destructive to the human body just to win a competition.
strawman
Prior to the discovery of EPO similar effects were achieved without training by increasing the blood cell density using transfusion techniques. This is still cheating. Using EPO is still cheating.I'm honestly thinking that people don't really know what blood doping is. All it does is increase the amount of blood cells in your body, allowing faster distribution of oxygen through the body. The results would be negligible for the average shmoe, it still requires extreme amounts of training and talent to achieve what Lance Armstrong did. The only reason it has any appreciable difference for high functioning athletes is because their margin of difference is so small. Prior to the discovery of EPO, the same effects were achieved through blood transfusions of the athlete's own blood with no drugs involved whatsoever.
Training at high altitiudes 9/10ths of the year doesn't do the same thing although it gets close. Yes, the hemoglobin levels increase, but not to the degree achieved by blood transfusion and EPO methods.
I think the term "blood doping" is misleading. There are many, many other ways to improve performance through artificial means rather than training. Doping is one of them. Blood doping is a subset of doping.
In this case the issue isn't what is happening inside their body, but how they are achieving that performance increase. The means are what levels the playing field.
There are several reasons to avoid this, including preventing teams from having an unfair advantage, and avoiding creating a sport that is destructive to the human body just to win a competition.
#33
Bowielee
Bowielee
All the oxygen in the world is not going to replace training, that's just an assinine assumption. It's so much easier to demonize Lance Armstrong than to recognize that the atmosphere of competetive professional sports is fundimentally broken and permissive of these things. Atheletes do all sorts of crazy things to boost performance, from specialized diets, to using legal drugs as well is illegal ones. More than anything, I feel like this specific witch hunt against one particular athelete is mainly to push aside concerns of these widespread practices.
I also get tired of the mis-characterization of steroids and blood doping as some sort of superfuel. People picture it like freakin' Popeye eating spinach. These atheletes aren't sitting on couches popping pills and shooting up and then excelling in their chosen sport. They're still putting just as much work as others are, if not more.
I understand the moralistic standpoint of having a level playing field. That's what brings me back to the original point of "If everybody is cheating, is cheating really cheating"
I also get tired of the mis-characterization of steroids and blood doping as some sort of superfuel. People picture it like freakin' Popeye eating spinach. These atheletes aren't sitting on couches popping pills and shooting up and then excelling in their chosen sport. They're still putting just as much work as others are, if not more.
I understand the moralistic standpoint of having a level playing field. That's what brings me back to the original point of "If everybody is cheating, is cheating really cheating"
#34
strawman
strawman
Are you trying to say that doping doesn't work? Are you saying that two athletes who follow the same training schedule, and one who dopes, will have the same chance at winning?
Of course they work hard. No one here is suggesting that doping means they don't have to train.
You may have a different opinion about whether doping is good for the sport or not. But whipping out words like asinine and witch hunt doesn't strengthen your argument that all athletes should be allowed to dope however they like.
Start your own cycling association that allows doping if you believe in it so strongly.
Leave doping out of our sports.
Of course they work hard. No one here is suggesting that doping means they don't have to train.
You may have a different opinion about whether doping is good for the sport or not. But whipping out words like asinine and witch hunt doesn't strengthen your argument that all athletes should be allowed to dope however they like.
Start your own cycling association that allows doping if you believe in it so strongly.
Leave doping out of our sports.
#35
PatrThom
The same sort of thing could be said about the poor v. the rich, or the entrepreneur v. big business. There are people who succeed on their own merits, either due an accident of genetics, or because they're just so devoted to what they do. And they make for great stories, too...but usually they don't attract the attention of the media, so we don't hear as much about them.
--Patrick
PatrThom
I can only imagine that it is disheartening to folks who are just entering a sport, all fired up and rarin' to go, only to get soundly beaten by the veterans. Stung, they train hard, eat right, sweat the details, and really become something, only to continue getting the sand kicked in their faces by people who "juice." Their spirits crushed, their wills broken, they then realize the only way to make it to the highest echelons of their sport is to stoop to the dopers' level, to cheat, to compromise their integrity, and, in their minds, to "sell out" to the lure of questionable methods bringing better results."If everybody is cheating, is cheating really cheating"
The same sort of thing could be said about the poor v. the rich, or the entrepreneur v. big business. There are people who succeed on their own merits, either due an accident of genetics, or because they're just so devoted to what they do. And they make for great stories, too...but usually they don't attract the attention of the media, so we don't hear as much about them.
--Patrick
#36
strawman
strawman
Every competition has rules and boundaries.
If you allow any sort of doping you essentially remove any boundaries, because there will always be some better drug, some better blood technique, etc.
The playing field will never be level.
The rules serve only to make it so that you can actually test yourself against another person. Not your doping methods against another teams doping methods.
And yes, doping only gets that last few percent of performance, and only matters at the very high end, but isn't the point of the competition to push everyone to the wall, and see who has that last little bit left to pull out a win?
Training, strategy, teamwork in the case of team sports, etc make vastly more difference than doping, but those are largely "solved" and everyone is really just competing for that last little bit.
If you allow any sort of doping you essentially remove any boundaries, because there will always be some better drug, some better blood technique, etc.
The playing field will never be level.
The rules serve only to make it so that you can actually test yourself against another person. Not your doping methods against another teams doping methods.
And yes, doping only gets that last few percent of performance, and only matters at the very high end, but isn't the point of the competition to push everyone to the wall, and see who has that last little bit left to pull out a win?
Training, strategy, teamwork in the case of team sports, etc make vastly more difference than doping, but those are largely "solved" and everyone is really just competing for that last little bit.
#37
Silent Bob
Silent Bob
Blood transfusions were considered cheating before EPO's. And EPO's involve injecting growth hormone to achieve said results. That's cheating too.I'm honestly thinking that people don't really know what blood doping is. All it does is increase the amount of blood cells in your body, allowing faster distribution of oxygen through the body. The results would be negligible for the average shmoe, it still requires extreme amounts of training and talent to achieve what Lance Armstrong did. The only reason it has any appreciable difference for high functioning athletes is because their margin of difference is so small. Prior to the discovery of EPO, the same effects were achieved through blood transfusions of the athlete's own blood with no drugs involved whatsoever.
#38
Jay
Jay
*Lance begins to cry. Oprah leans in*
I think what you need Lance is a....performance enhancing hug
I think what you need Lance is a....performance enhancing hug
#39
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
let's get back on topic -Lance Armstrong is an utter scumbag.
#40
Azurephoenix
Azurephoenix
You forgot giant lying hypocrite too.let's get back on topic -Lance Armstrong is an utter scumbag.
#41
strawman
strawman
Lance just wants to earn a living like everyone else, so he's coming "clean" to reduce his sentence so he can make money performing again.
Well that's all well and good, but if he were an accountant and embezzled hundreds of millions of dollars from his clients and supporters, should he be given another accounting position just because he came "clean" about it?
The USADA should not reduce his ban. Let him compete in unsanctioned events, if he likes.
Well that's all well and good, but if he were an accountant and embezzled hundreds of millions of dollars from his clients and supporters, should he be given another accounting position just because he came "clean" about it?
The USADA should not reduce his ban. Let him compete in unsanctioned events, if he likes.
#42
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
please darkaudit, go on with why you disagree that Lance Armstrong is a bad person
#43
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
He's raised millions of dollars for cancer research. And his success helped me climb out of a dark place.
#44
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
#45
ThatGrinningIdiot!
This sounds like innuendo. . . . -_-
ThatGrinningIdiot!
Since his legacy was foundered on lies and bullshit, I could say his illusion tricked you into finding the strength to allow you to climb out of the dark place yourself.He's raised millions of dollars for cancer research. And his success helped me climb out of a dark place.
This sounds like innuendo. . . . -_-
#46
strawman
strawman
So, do any of you want to contribute an open letter to Lance? For grins and giggles I've created http://dearlance.com and am planning on posting people's open letters to Lance (or the USADA, or anyone else associated with the Lance Armstrong doping saga).
I'd be very pleased if there were a wide variety of letters - positive, negative, apathetic, etc.
I'm still creating the website, so there's nothing of interest there yet, but of course I need some letters to prime the site with.
Anyone game?
I'd be very pleased if there were a wide variety of letters - positive, negative, apathetic, etc.
I'm still creating the website, so there's nothing of interest there yet, but of course I need some letters to prime the site with.
Anyone game?
#47
Bubble181
Bubble181
Not right at the moment...
But anyway: I don't think it's a witch hunt. I don't think we're singling out one athlete. When Contador got tested postivie, his titles were stripped, he was publicly shamed. Same for every other big name who was caught. Whole teams were thrown out of the Tour de France! Armstrong always played the white knight, the Disney hero who made it clean. He didn't exactly shy away from calling others out and humiliating/calling for heavy penalties. For him to be found guilty does get an extra mention because of that.
Also, I think you're underestimating how much of this you're hearing compared to many others, simply because you're American and so is he. Cycling isn't exactly the biggest sport in the US - I doubt many of the others being found out caused much of a stir in US sports media. Museeuw or Bruyneels got at least as much flak as Armstrong over here. The decision not to name new winners wasn't brought on by vengefulness (because in many other years the official winner is someone who actually ame 2nd or 3rd at the time), more because it's been a while and it would be difficult to recover the monetary prizes - Armostong's used most of them in his cancer organisation. Recouping them and giving them to the "new" winners would be too difficult, and they didn't want to give the title without the money. Official reason, that.
But anyway: I don't think it's a witch hunt. I don't think we're singling out one athlete. When Contador got tested postivie, his titles were stripped, he was publicly shamed. Same for every other big name who was caught. Whole teams were thrown out of the Tour de France! Armstrong always played the white knight, the Disney hero who made it clean. He didn't exactly shy away from calling others out and humiliating/calling for heavy penalties. For him to be found guilty does get an extra mention because of that.
Also, I think you're underestimating how much of this you're hearing compared to many others, simply because you're American and so is he. Cycling isn't exactly the biggest sport in the US - I doubt many of the others being found out caused much of a stir in US sports media. Museeuw or Bruyneels got at least as much flak as Armstrong over here. The decision not to name new winners wasn't brought on by vengefulness (because in many other years the official winner is someone who actually ame 2nd or 3rd at the time), more because it's been a while and it would be difficult to recover the monetary prizes - Armostong's used most of them in his cancer organisation. Recouping them and giving them to the "new" winners would be too difficult, and they didn't want to give the title without the money. Official reason, that.
#48
Silent Bob
Silent Bob
No. Livestrong contributes NOTHING to research. It's a good program, but it's soul purpose is to promote support to those who have cancer.He's raised millions of dollars for cancer research. And his success helped me climb out of a dark place.
#49
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Still strikes close to home, since I had the same but less serious cancer that he did.No. Livestrong contributes NOTHING to research. It's a good program, but it's soul purpose is to promote support to those who have cancer.
#50
SpecialKO
And let's just say, just for the moment, that you genuinely need TRT at 40. Then don't compete. You're done. Because everything you're accomplishing at that point is because of the TRT, not you.
SpecialKO
This actually really irritates me about TRT in MMA. I get that there is research showing that repeated blows to the head might affect your body's ability to produce testosterone. But there's a shitload more research showing that steroids and testosterone injections do that as well. And when you come in with a T:E ratio of 17-fucking-1 (you know who I'm talking about, Frank), claiming you need TRT to live and keep competing is fucking horseshit. Or say, claiming that you need TRT, then mysteriously getting better (hint: old men on TRT never come off of it).Athletes should just do what MMA fighters do, use steroids excessively in the dark ages of your sport before testing was widely available until your testosterone production is that of someone with hypogonadism. THEN, you get a physician to prescribe testosterone injections so that your T levels are those of a teenager. THEN, you get a medical exemption from your athletic commission (inexplicably). Suddenly, you go from a guy who's nickname for years was Decision Dan Henderson (I'm done pussyfooting around who I was talking about) to a guy who's right hand, in his mid 40's, is suddenly knocking people cold left right and center.
And let's just say, just for the moment, that you genuinely need TRT at 40. Then don't compete. You're done. Because everything you're accomplishing at that point is because of the TRT, not you.
#51
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Y'know, it occurs to me we pretty much had the exact same discussion over in the stock market thread. It wasn't about sports, but it was about gaming the system.I'm pretty sure that the main objection everyone has is that we want/expect every sporting event to be an honorable contest of training and skill, but instead there are others treating it as a contest of how much they can get away with without getting caught, which should really be two separate contests.
--Patrick
#52
Gusto
Gusto
Can't wait until his inevitable tell-all book release due sometime this summer.
#53
Calleja
Calleja
So, did you guys see the interview?
The guy is a cheat, a liar and a bully in my book. He SUED and ruined the public image of people he knew WERE TELLING THE TRUTH. Fuck that oneballed liar.
The guy is a cheat, a liar and a bully in my book. He SUED and ruined the public image of people he knew WERE TELLING THE TRUTH. Fuck that oneballed liar.
#54
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Feel free to attack someone for the deeds that they have done, but to insult him because he got sick should not be done.
#55
Calleja
Calleja
I don't insult him because he got sick, I insult him because he's a fucking liar. "Oneballed" just happens to be a fact.
#56
strawman
strawman
It's quite possible that he became sick due to his use of steroids, nevermind all the other junk he put in his system.Feel free to attack someone for the deeds that they have done, but to insult him because he got sick should not be done.
#57
Shakey
Shakey
You're using it as an insult though. Not cool.I don't insult him because he got sick, I insult him because he's a fucking liar. "Oneballed" just happens to be a fact.
#58
sixpackshaker
Most likely just time in the saddle. Heat and physical damage from bicycle seats has some connection to testicular cancer. I used to ride a bit. So my one healthy habit likely caused my cancer.
sixpackshaker
It's quite possible that he became sick due to his use of steroids, nevermind all the other junk he put in his system.
Most likely just time in the saddle. Heat and physical damage from bicycle seats has some connection to testicular cancer. I used to ride a bit. So my one healthy habit likely caused my cancer.
#59
Calleja
Calleja
More like a colorful adjective, I don't really think anyone believes Armstrong is anything less cause of the one-ballness. I'd also use stuff like "fat" or "ugly" or "bald" or whatever if it were applicable. Would that be unfair? Probably, but it's just the way people talk, you don't have to be so sensitive about it.You're using it as an insult though. Not cool.
#60
strawman
strawman
Now I'm curious what the rates of cancer are for each activity. I'd have thought the correlation between steroid use and cancer would be higher than the correlation between cycling and cancer, but perhaps I should be glad I didn't pursue ultra marathon cycling as much as I might have.Most likely just time in the saddle. Heat and physical damage from bicycle seats has some connection to testicular cancer. I used to ride a bit. So my one healthy habit likely caused my cancer.
#61
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Chiding myself for correlation is not causation.Most likely just time in the saddle. Heat and physical damage from bicycle seats has some connection to testicular cancer. I used to ride a bit. So my one healthy habit likely caused my cancer.
#62
Silent Bob
Silent Bob
sixpack, don't defend Lance. I used to be a huge Lance fan. Everything he did for the sport, cancer, physical fitness. It's all lies. It hurts, but he's a cheat.
#63
Shakey
Shakey
Didn't look like he was defending him to me.
#64
Bowielee
Bowielee
How is what Lance Armstrong did for cancer research null and void because he cheated at a sport? That's just crazy talk. I know you're upset that one of your personal heroes turned out to be a cheating douchebag, but it's just plain denial to believe that the good he did for cancer is simply null and void because of it.
#65
Calleja
Calleja
Livestrong hasn't really done much for cancer research, they even stopped accepting donations for it according to wikipedia, it was more of a cancer awareness thing. Which is fine, except that the awareness that used to come from an incredible athlete surviving cancer, coming back and doing something uncanny is now forever tarnished, cause it wasn't really that uncanny, and they guy was a liar. Part of a whole doping ring mafia thing.
It's almost like having Bernie Madoff as your spokeperson.
It's almost like having Bernie Madoff as your spokeperson.
#66
Bowielee
Bowielee
The awareness is still there, though. Nothing can change that. The proverbial genie is already out of the bottle. As I've stated multiple times, I fully understand WHY people are pissed off. I'm just not sure that you can say that every good thing he's ever accomplished is automatically wiped out by this.
#67
PatrThom
The same applies to someone you used to love but they they cheat on you or something. All the passion and motivation is still there, providing the same amount of energy, but the flow gets reversed, so super-love becomes super-hate until the flow finally dies down again.
--Patrick
PatrThom
Because when you hold someone up to be a Hero so much that you voluntarily spread their word to others, having that Hero suddenly admit to non-heroic behavior can feel like...I'm just not sure that you can say that every good thing he's ever accomplished is automatically wiped out by this.
The same applies to someone you used to love but they they cheat on you or something. All the passion and motivation is still there, providing the same amount of energy, but the flow gets reversed, so super-love becomes super-hate until the flow finally dies down again.
--Patrick
#68
Calleja
Calleja
Did cancer really need awareness, though? I mean... after learning about the whole Pink Ribbon Breast Cancer scam thing, I'm a little weary of "charities" of the sort... and LIVESTRONG's main goal is "cancer awareness", but.. I mean... isn't EVERYONE already very, very aware of cancer? If the money isn't going for actual research AGAINST it, what has Armstrong really accomplished besides putting a famous face to an affliction that didn't really need one, unlike Parkinson's and Michael J Fox?The awareness is still there, though. Nothing can change that. The proverbial genie is already out of the bottle. As I've stated multiple times, I fully understand WHY people are pissed off. I'm just not sure that you can say that every good thing he's ever accomplished is automatically wiped out by this.
#69
Shakey
Shakey
Yes, it did. When he first showed up there was still a big stigma related to testicular cancer, and male cancer all together. He founded it in 1997, not 2 years ago. Many men at that time would rather not know then to have to face losing one of their balls. He basically showed everyone the idea that you were no longer a man after that was bull shit. Which also led towards greater awareness of prostate cancer. He provided a lot of inspiration towards a lot of people.
Maybe it doesn't need a famous face now, but it did when he first started it. That doesn't excuse what he did, but it doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything anymore.
Maybe it doesn't need a famous face now, but it did when he first started it. That doesn't excuse what he did, but it doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything anymore.
#70
Cajungal
Cajungal
I hate hearing this news. When I see what athletes can do, I'm amazed. As one of the least athletic people ever, I have a lot of respect for people who push the limits of what a human can do. When I hear they've brought drugs and corner-cutting procedures into the mix, all I can think is "...weenie." Let's just have 2 sections for each sport--the people who have integrity and discipline... and the weenies. Maybe that's too black and white, and maybe those people accomplished a lot before they started, but that's what happens, I guess.
#71
Tress
But is there anyone who can make the case that Armstrong was one of the better cyclists before he started doping?
Tress
There's an interesting argument. Barry Bonds was a Hall of Famer before he started using steroids; he just played the game very differently. He was a mix of speed and excellent hitting, with some power mixed in. He was the second player ever to steal 40 bases and hit 40 home runs in the same season, and it has only happened four times in the history of the game. It was only when he saw all the attention that McGuire and Sosa got during their single season record chase that he decided that he needed to max out his power with 'roids (to the detriment of his speed and body). Bonds was already one of the best, it just wasn't enough for him. He wanted to be the best....and maybe those people accomplished a lot before they started, but that's what happens, I guess.
But is there anyone who can make the case that Armstrong was one of the better cyclists before he started doping?
#72
Shakey
Shakey
It's hard to say since most likely all the winning cyclists at that point were doping or doing something. He has said that before his cancer diagnosis he didn't use anything illegal, if that's the truth, but he didn't win before then so it probably is. He did win a few legs of the tour before then., but it doesn't really matter. He cheated and lied about it. His sports legacy is gone.
#73
Calleja
But then that brings up another interesting point... if Livestrong has done all it can do, what's the point of it existence now? The stigma or lack thereof will not change anymore, specially with Armstrong not even being PART of the organization... and they're doing nothing for research, so... what's the point NOW, really?
Calleja
I wouldn't agree completely, I'm not sure the stigma for testicular cancer in 1997 was really that different, but I do see how that could mean something.Yes, it did. When he first showed up there was still a big stigma related to testicular cancer, and male cancer all together. He founded it in 1997, not 2 years ago. Many men at that time would rather not know then to have to face losing one of their balls. He basically showed everyone the idea that you were no longer a man after that was bull shit. Which also led towards greater awareness of prostate cancer. He provided a lot of inspiration towards a lot of people.
Maybe it doesn't need a famous face now, but it did when he first started it. That doesn't excuse what he did, but it doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything anymore.
But then that brings up another interesting point... if Livestrong has done all it can do, what's the point of it existence now? The stigma or lack thereof will not change anymore, specially with Armstrong not even being PART of the organization... and they're doing nothing for research, so... what's the point NOW, really?
#74
Bubble181
Bubble181
The idea of losing a (or both of your) ball(s) and how emasculating it is, is still strong, though. Plenty of people refuse to take screenings and whatever and would rather "risk it". Women don't exactly like mammographies (durrr!), prostate exams aren't all that much fun either obviously, but the taboo around losing your balls is bigger than that surrounding losing (one of) your breasts. Not to say that isn't a) horrible, b) painful and c) can really hurt your sense of self-worth and feeling "feminine", with reconstructive surgery we're slowly getting there and those women I know who don't get regular mammo's (after a certain age) tend to not do it because they're too painful (for the well-endowed). Amongst men over a certain age, the humiliation of the prostate exam is certainly there as well, but I hear a LOT more of "I don't want to know"/"I'll die with both my balls/a real man". I'd say testicular cancer still needs more awreness, especially in regards to what can be done if diagnosed early, and what impact losing a ball has on you (not all that much if you still have one).
Of course, Lance as an example of "see how manly you can still be with one ball" doesn't hold up anymore.
Of course, Lance as an example of "see how manly you can still be with one ball" doesn't hold up anymore.
#75
strawman
strawman
Before anyone goes off on how Livestrong doesn't serve a purpose if it doesn't fund cancer research, please go to http://livestrong.com and explore what they do.
Then come back here and explain why you feel they should close up shop.
Anything else is ignorance.
Then come back here and explain why you feel they should close up shop.
Anything else is ignorance.
#76
sixpackshaker
The awareness should be pointed to young men 18-30, since they are the most likely to develop that cancer. I was odd because I was about 7 years outside the normal age range. I was not aware that during those years that I was in the high risk category. ...the more you know.
sixpackshaker
Funny, you were just insulting him for having one ball the other day.I wouldn't agree completely, I'm not sure the stigma for testicular cancer in 1997 was really that different, but I do see how that could mean something.
But then that brings up another interesting point... if Livestrong has done all it can do, what's the point of it existence now? The stigma or lack thereof will not change anymore, specially with Armstrong not even being PART of the organization... and they're doing nothing for research, so... what's the point NOW, really?
The awareness should be pointed to young men 18-30, since they are the most likely to develop that cancer. I was odd because I was about 7 years outside the normal age range. I was not aware that during those years that I was in the high risk category. ...the more you know.
#77
Charlie Don't Surf
Charlie Don't Surf
wait, did Lance Armstrong happen before Tom Green sang "hey kids, feel your balls, so you don't get cancer?"
#78
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Tom Who?
#79
strawman
strawman
#80
Tress
Yeah, steroid use has no negative side effects. It's just people being silly.
Tress
Yeah, steroid use has no negative side effects. It's just people being silly.
#81
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
No one bans steroids because of the side effects. They get banned because they are cheating.
Yeah, steroid use has no negative side effects. It's just people being silly.
#82
Dave
(By the way, I'm agreeing with you.)
Dave
Starving yourself for wrestling, vicious hits in football, blowing through the catcher in baseball...these things are all encouraged and are not safe or healthy. These things are fine. Steroids are not because it's cheating.No one bans steroids because of the side effects. They get banned because they are cheating.
(By the way, I'm agreeing with you.)
#83
GasBandit
GasBandit
I posted this in the video thread, but it's relevant, soooo...