Discussion in 'Sports Zone' started by MonsterD, Oct 22, 2012.
And I doubt he cares. He knows he won them.
I say get bent.
Armstrong appeals to cancer supporters as some donors ask for their money back
Austin, Texas (CNN) -- For years, Connie and Daniel Roddy did all they could to support Livestrong, raising tens of thousands of dollars for the cancer charity founded by cyclist Lance Armstrong.
"It all started when Lance's first book came out," Connie Roddy said, referring to the 2001 publication of "It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life," which details Armstrong's bout with testicular cancer. "I read it cover to cover. I was just so taken by who he said he was."
The Roddys, who live in Santa Monica, California, say they initially gave $50,000 to the foundation. In 2003, Connie Roddy said, she helped organize an event for the foundation at a health club that raised an additional $150,000.
Now they want their money back.
"I feel we were really fooled. We were really hoodwinked," she said.
Ya that is utterly ridiculous. I could understand if it was going to the cycling team but to help fund research for a cure, c'mon.
This, IMO, is why he tried to distance himself from the Charity but I don't really know. Like all of us, I'm on the outside looking in but I gotta say that this stuff blows.
The whole upper tier of cycling is dirty. Why single one out?
Answer: because he was better at it
While I disagre, I can atleast respect this line of thinking as long as it's across the board. If you have no problem with athletes using PED in any sport or at the very least a sport where almost everyone else is (i.e baseball) then whatever.
the reason you're in the minority here, is there are other forms of proof besides drug test.
It's honestly hard to believe that the entire world of cycling including former teamates just have it in for the guy. Sworn testimony from countless teamates, friends and others detailing how Lance and others were able to get away with doping is more than the "hunch" you're making this seem to be.
I don't know that I am in the minority here but let's agree that I am for the sake of discussion.
So far as I know, only a positive test can confirm if an athlete is using. What other forms of proof are acceptable according to cycling rules and regulations?
You have no credible proof, according to their own rules, that allow for what has taken place. You have those same cyclists using and you have the same kinds of statements about virtually every other high profile cyclist in the world but only Armstrong gets action taken against him.
You can say that there are other forms of proof all you want but it's not proof unless you have a dirty test.
lol, they want their money that they donated to cancer research back? haha Let me guess. They are having debt issues these days and see a possibility of getting that cash back? :lmao2: :lmao:
Not gonna happen.
Not that I cared for cycling, but Armstrong kept me interested enough to at least read about the Tour de France, occasionally turn it on the tv if it was on now... Cycling goes right along with underwater basket weaving competition.
Cancer Research > Cycling.
Bonds and Clemons couldn't act like they didn't understand English.
Yep, agreed. I'd tell them to pound sand.
Every time someone loses their battle with cancer, I'd then tell them "your donations could've saved them."
Idiots. They clearly have had nobody in their life affected by cancer.
Anybody that claims Lance Armstrong is clean is fooling themselves. The evidence is overwhelming and Armstrong originally said he wasn't going to defend himself anymore, because he thought the US cycling association would not turn in the evidence and make it known. Now, he has to step down from his 'charity'. His whole career is built on lies and everytime he was making a commerical, was in a beer commercial, was selling stuff based upon his 'clean' image, he obviously wasn't respecting his fans, let alone people in general.
He's a piece of crap and people who have actually met him, I've read, consider him a arrogant and mean guy. He left his wife for his fling Sheryl Crowe, the same wife who stood by him during cancer.
You know, maybe his doping is what caused his cancer in the first place...
Well, maybe they want their money back to donate to an organization who runs it is actually ethical.
He was and he was running a very systematic operation, while the sport of cycling was actually trying to clean up the mess for the last few years. While they were making clear strides, Armstrong was trying to advance methods of cheating.
One of cycling biggest races, The Tour Of California is sponsored by Amgen. Amgen is the manufacturer of a steriod called Epogen. Epogen is the most notorious performance-enhancing drug in cycling; Epogen is to professional cycling what anabolic steroids are to professional bodybuilding! Oh, and apperently the race orginizers of the Tour Of California do drug testing for every banned drug except Epogen. The whole sport is dirty. The problem with Armstrong is that not only was he the best cheater but he was a jerk about it too. Just like Bonds, Clemons and McGwire. No one likes a cheater, and people hate a cocky arrogant cheater....
I'm sorry to sink your ship, but nobody has ever presented indisputable evidence of his guilt. Guilty or not, nobody has ever proved him guilty.
No, the entire sport is dirty and they aren't trying to clean anything up. They are hanging the best athlete the sport has ever had because he is an arrogant ****.
Don't like him? Hang him.
trying to clean up the sport?
Wow you must own the brooklyn bridge you are so gullible