| Tue, Aug 10 2010 10:37pm ADT 1 |

TURPLE
345 Posts
|
His first book, It's not
about the bike made me a fan. Since finishing that read I
have felt as if I was part of his life somehow. It was so well
written in that it opened up his life to the world and let us
in.
I have always believed him to be drug free. I've just thought of
him as an arrogant, stubborn man who strives to win at everything
he ever attempts. Isn't that what heros do?
The whole gong show that his former team mate Floyd Landis pulled
before the tour cearly wrecked his focus. Lance was ready to win an
8th tour, he could have done it I am sure.
Today I learned that he will also not be defending his Leadville
100 crown. My alarms are sounding, something is up. Since the tour
Lance has been very private. His once over active Twitter account
has become silent, I once found annoying, but now find troubling.
Somehow I miss it.
As I am always one to think the worst, I can't help but think maybe
there is some truth to the rumors that Lance was involved with
performance enhancing drugs. A recent article in todays Herald indicates that if he was, we will soon find
out. The toughest drug cop in the world has his sights set on
Armstrong.
If it is discovered that he was a doper, I doubt that my opinions
of him will change, he was a man on the very edge of deaths door,
and came back to become one of the worlds greatest athletes. No
matter how he did it, it is still an inspiring story.
However I fear what a positive drug test may do to the Livetrong
Foundation. Through Lance Armstrong, millions of dollars are raised
for Cancer research. If Lance is proven to be a fraud all of this
could be lost.
Is the truth really worth the price of a cure?
|
|
| Wed, Aug 11 2010 08:59am ADT 2 |

Smallguy
237 Posts
|
I agree Troy
lots of people on the top have doped or do dope.... millions are
spent trying tofind ways to not get caught
Lance's days at the top of cycling are over... by continuing this
witch hunt I think all your doing in hurting his foundation
it seems odd to me that the US gov't cares so much about him doping
that they are looknig for any angle to get him.... tax evation for
seelnig team bikes.. come on
since when did sports doping become soemting that so many resources
are thrown at
regardles of how many people are caught people will always try ot
get an edge.. soem via trianing some via doping
|
|
| Wed, Aug 11 2010 09:51am ADT 3 |

bignose
263 Posts
|
Well said by both of you guys.
My take is - He probably is a doper. They all are, but .... find a
way to turn a blind eye and let him continue to raise massive funds
for reasearch. Also, the Livestrong Foundation does much more for
cancer than just research. They provide support infrastructure for
families and patients of cancer and that goes a long way to a
persons recovery and survival.
If they do take him down, they should take down as many people at
the same time as posssible, and I don't me 7 or 8 [aka a team] I
mean 60 0r 70, all with the exact same penalty and repercussions.
Don't make him a poster boy.
|
|
| Wed, Aug 11 2010 11:43am ADT 4 |

Crushing Cramp
68 Posts
|
I have to agree with bignose in that many should be taken down at
once. The blind eye to Lance though in order to keep Livestrong
going strong poses some problems for me. If someone has cheated,
you have to think of the folks who didn't cheat. Do they not
deserve some sort of retribution? I also believe that if Livestrong
folds as a result of bad publicity, another organization(s)
supporting cancer research will gain any support that was given to
Livestrong. The support for the fight against cancer won't
disappear if it is determined that Lance was/is a doper. Doping and
supporting the fight against cancer are 2 separate issues.
As for the doping issue...is it worth all the money and efforts to
fight this issue?? Should everything/almost everything be made
legal?? I've read many, many term papers from my students arguing
both sides of this issue and each year I become more and more
unable to take a stance. I think I will always sit on the fence
with this one. However, what I have decided is that I believe that
there is a very high percentage of top athletes in the world doing
something that is illegal/against the rules and that there are very
few athletes that are publicly proven and announced as cheaters. So
if there are many athletes breaking the rules and most not being
publicly charged and penalized plus with the enormous cost of
trying to "catch" cheaters, what is the point of putting all that
effort into only "catching" a few? I find myself just shaking my
head at major sporting events and wondering why we even have them.
But then again, I find myself watching the TDF or the Olympics
(etc., etc.) and being fascinated by what an athlete can do even if
they are "cheating". As I said, I guess I will always sit on the
fence when it comes to "cheating" in sports.
|
|
| Wed, Aug 11 2010 07:07pm ADT 5 |

bikergrl
499 Posts
|
We're a big part of the problem. We (and by "we" I mean Joe Blow,
society in general) worship athletes and treat them like
superheroes. We support a system where some of them get paid
zillions of dollars for being faster and stronger and we support a
system that doesn't care how they achieve it. Why does someone who
hits a baseball for a living make more than someone who works in an
ER or helps underpriveleged children?
As long as society wants records to be broken, athletes will cheat.
I wonder what would happen if we decided that instead of
celebrating speed and power (natural or not) we would celebrate
determination, tenacity, sportsmanship, leadership and the desire
to set a good example?
Oh wait - I must be insane. Those things will NEVER sell tv
commercials.
|
|
| Thu, Aug 12 2010 10:19am ADT 6 |

O9Man
95 Posts
|
Professional sports is an excellent example of supply and demand. I
guess you could say we are a problem in that society is the demand,
but that's if you perceive it as a problem. If you eliminate the
current economy of professional sports then professional sports
wouldn't exist as we know it. That might be nice for some people,
but as the "demand" suggests, more people say othewise. Money makes
the world go 'round.
I'm starting to base my thoughts on doping on the root of the
problem. I ask myself why performance enhancing drugs are banned.
(I use the same argument for recreational drugs, which I don't nor
do I intend to use.) Are they illegal because they are dangerous?
So are burgers and fries, over training, cigarettes and alcohol,
most of the sports I enjoy... the list goes on.
Are there other reasons that performance enhancing drugs are
banned?
|
|
| Thu, Aug 12 2010 10:59am ADT 7 |

bikergrl
499 Posts
|
Given that sports are heralded as a helathy attribute to one's
lifestyle I think it's most logical to assume that doping is banned
because it's dangerous. If it were legal, every athlete would feel
compelled to do it because it would be totally ludicrous to try and
compete without doping. Athletes are considered role models - do we
want our kids growing up worshipping people who are considered
great because of the drugs that make them that way?
|
|
| Thu, Aug 12 2010 11:15am ADT 8 |

bikergrl
499 Posts
|
...and on the topic of the economy of sports, I think the problem
is not sports themselves, or even the economy, but rather the
aspect of sports that we really value. I see athletes and fashion
models as similar beings - if you've got the genetics to be fast,
strong or beautiful, things like personality are irrelevant in both
the sports and fashion worlds. Competition and skinny thighs are
both entertainment and entertainment is money.
I think sports are really important, when we participate they can
teach us a lot . When we treat them as entertainment, however, what
do we gain besides couch potato asses and the message that it IS
whether you win or lose and not how you play the game?
|
|
| Thu, Aug 12 2010 12:05pm ADT 9 |

O9Man
95 Posts
|
Ludicrous is a bit of a stretch, but you're right in some sports
more than others there would be a compulsion to use performance
enhancers.
I'll also on occasion be in the camp for making some enhancers
illegal based on their perceived danger. I suppose I just struggle
with the definition of performance enhancing drugs. I find it too
subjective.
Sports can be appreciated on many levels... not really sure what
your trying to suggest. It's a bit of a stereoytpe to say those who
are entertained by sports don't get anything but a fat ass.
|
|
| Thu, Aug 12 2010 12:17pm ADT 10 |

bikergrl
499 Posts
|
Sports can be appreciated on many levels... not really sure what
your trying to suggest. It's a bit of a stereoytpe to say those
who are entertained by sports don't get anything but a fat
ass.
That's not what I said at all - re-read please! I'm saying that
most of what I perceive to be the real value in sport - exercise,
leadership skills, learning to cooperate, self-discipline, etc. -
cannot be obtained by simply watching. To gain these benefits you
have to actually participate. The manner in which sporting events
are broadcast is designed to hype the competition, the speed the
adrenaline, the glory of winning and the agony of defeat. I see
little value in that other than the value of entertainment.
|
|
| Thu, Aug 12 2010 12:41pm ADT 11 |

O9Man
95 Posts
|
Oh, I see. I guess I see the real value being singularly as them
being fun. But we digress.
|
|
| Thu, Aug 12 2010 05:14pm ADT 12 |

TURPLE
345 Posts
|
I think doping should be allowed, but there needs to be a special
category for the event. All competitors who dope who wish to
compete will forever be stuck in this category for their entire
careers. The prize money by law should be lower than the norm.
Lastely, all competitors should have their skin died blue so they
look like Avatars just so the human element has appeared to have
been removed. Competition among man is about pitting the best
Humans against each other, not the best freaks!
|
|