IGX

Hymen Asshole wrote:What a cunt

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/sport ... .html?_r=2&

All elite sportsmen are cunts, Mr Asshole. Factoid. He cheated because everyone else cheated. He was the best at it. And a hell of a rider. And a great liar and self-justifying fraudulent cunt. And a bully. And everything else needed to get ahead in the shittiest, toughest sport in the world. He's quite boring now that he's 41 and all he has is the ability to come clean and he chooses to do that on Oprah. Just fade away, you old fart. You're not going to win any fucking triathlons or marathons or shit. Just fade away. Go somewhere quiet and learn to live with the disgrace, solitude and ultimate virtual anonymity that will enshroud you now that you climbed to the top in your spikey boots and got pushed off.

Does anyone care about honesty anymore or am I the only one?

Lying even if you get away with it is as bad as lying if you get caught, but nobody seems to get that.

I personally don`t believe that anyone in the top 30 in the last,say 20 Tours have been clean.

kreator wrote:Does anyone care about honesty anymore or am I the only one?

Lying even if you get away with it is as bad as lying if you get caught, but nobody seems to get that.

We all get that, but lying about taking drugs in sport is different from lying about stealing someone's wallet. Armstrong was completely immersed in a world of elite cycling where EVERYONE knew what was going on. What was EXPECTED if you wished to succeed. It was endemic. Totally pervasive. In his mind, he just did what he had to do. He lied about it because the sport wished to hide this ugly underbelly. But the sport knew what was going on.

This is perhaps the last bit of interest he can wring from this old rag of a story. He will probably "shock" Oprah by telling her that the official sport and those in charge were wholly complicit in what was going on. That's deflection, it's "honourable" because those people are not his former colleagues and it's news. But it's small enough beer really. Because only a fool or someone not interested in cycling thought that those guys were not imbibing industrial levels of smarties as a matter of course.

"Lying" in the above context isn't the moral point. It's not about truth v untruth. It was those inside the sport v those outside the sport. It was those who knew what it took v those who didn't. It was those prepared to pedal a bike up an Alpine slope tasting blood v those who watch on tv drinking cool beer. Armstrong sees more honour in his "dishonesty" than a lifetime of truthful underachievement and inaction. Part of me agrees, part of me doesn't.

Bobby wrote:I personally don`t believe that anyone in the top 30 in the last,say 20 Tours have been clean.

I honestly think LeMond was the last clean winner, and his final loss was due to him not taking drugs. He talks about it in his book, where he said he trained as hard as ever before and was faster than he's ever been and all of a sudden guys who were peloton fodder the previous year were now dropping him like it was nothing. This was the beginning of the EPO era which is completely different than the amphetamines in wide use before that.

Some of that is sour grapes from LeMond but there's a whole lot of truth to what he's said.

Gorbachev wrote:Lying" in the above context isn't the moral point. It's not about truth v untruth. It was those inside the sport v those outside the sport. It was those who knew what it took v those who didn't. It was those prepared to pedal a bike up an Alpine slope tasting blood v those who watch on tv drinking cool beer. Armstrong sees more honour in his "dishonesty" than a lifetime of truthful underachievement and inaction.

What a bunch of bologna. It doesn't matter what noble goals you have for lying or who is "in the know" about your lie.
I see very few acceptable exceptions to lying, and winning a sport championship is not one of them.

Would it also be honourable for me to deceive millions of people out of money - assuming I work harder than any one else in the fraud business - if it's for the noble cause of donating to charity? Tell me how that's different.

The nature of the sport and its governing body created this issue. When you have difficult-to-detect drugs that enable also-rans to crush all-natural champions, everybody who doesn't use gets selected out of the pool.

If you create fucked up incentives where the only way to be champion is to lie, you'll get liars at the top.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:The nature of the sport and its governing body created this issue. When you have difficult-to-detect drugs that enable also-rans to crush all-natural champions, everybody who doesn't use gets selected out of the pool.

If you create fucked up incentives where the only way to be champion is to lie, you'll get liars at the top.

This^ The ultimate Catch 22 situation. This scenario is more interesting than the actual sports where they exist. It defies logic and has no solution with the current public mindset. It will continue until a major paradigm shift occurs.

October 24, 2012

The head of cycling's governing body has described the whistleblowers who exposed Lance Armstrong's doping as ''scumbags''.

The president of the International Cycling Union (UCI), Pat McQuaid, was trying to restore order to a sport reeling from the revelation that its champion is a drug cheat.

McQuaid, who said he would not resign despite the scale of the scandal, then attacked two former teammates of Armstrong - Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis - who helped expose his use of banned substances and blood transfusions.

He said David Millar, the British cyclist and drug user who now campaigns for a clean sport, had asked the UCI to apologise. ''I don't think the UCI should apologise,'' McQuaid said. ''They didn't hold Millar's hand when he stuck a needle in his backside. He is an adult and they know they are breaking the rules. It's not the president's responsibility if they go into a doping program.
Advertisement

''Another thing that annoys me is that Landis and Hamilton are being made out to be heroes. They are as far from heroes as night and day. They are not heroes. They are scumbags. All they have done is damage to the sport.'' He later sought to retract the word ''scumbags''

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/the ... 283jo.html

Jan. 14, 2013
"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling and he deserves to be forgotten in cycling," Pat McQuaid, the president of the International Cycling Union, said at a news conference in Switzerland announcing the decision. "This is a landmark day for cycling."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/lance-armstron ... d=18211227

Gorbie is playing you kreator. It's nice work.

I don't care if Lance doped or if any other professional athlete doped. In fact if you want to be a pro you'd damn well better be getting legit gear from a good source if you want to survive.

My only complaint is people lifting/competing in drug free orgs that are on full on stacks while claiming to be drug free.

Ed Zachary wrote:Gorbie is playing you kreator. It's nice work.

I don't care if Lance doped or if any other professional athlete doped. In fact if you want to be a pro you'd damn well better be getting legit gear from a good source if you want to survive.

My only complaint is people lifting/competing in drug free orgs that are on full on stacks while claiming to be drug free.

WTF? I've got opinions on the sport that distinguish between lying within that rotten matrix and sitting on a couch pontificating about honesty. You're so keen to be wordly and spot trolling you don't even read the posts I've made. Grow up.

Gorbachev wrote: WTF? I've got opinions on the sport that distinguish between lying within that rotten matrix and sitting on a couch pontificating about honesty. You're so keen to be wordly and spot trolling you don't even read the posts I've made. Grow up.

LOL

To be so enlightened you sure are a sensitive cunt.

Gorbachev wrote:Lying" in the above context isn't the moral point. It's not about truth v untruth. It was those inside the sport v those outside the sport. It was those who knew what it took v those who didn't. It was those prepared to pedal a bike up an Alpine slope tasting blood v those who watch on tv drinking cool beer. Armstrong sees more honour in his "dishonesty" than a lifetime of truthful underachievement and inaction.

Hmmm...if this is trolling, it's about right. Nobody said winning was an honorable pursuit.

What's Lance's angle here? So the statute of limitations is over on the purjury charge from what I gather so is coming clean a way to get back into the game a la triathlon? Supposedly a public admission of guilt is necessary for the USADA to clear him for competition...again just something I read somewhere else. Does it matter if his public admission of guilt is a means to an end and perhaps disingenuous?

Shapecharge wrote:What's Lance's angle here? So the statute of limitations is over on the purjury charge from what I gather so is coming clean a way to get back into the game a la triathlon? Supposedly a public admission of guilt is necessary for the USADA to clear him for competition...again just something I read somewhere else. Does it matter if his public admission of guilt is a means to an end and perhaps disingenuous?

I'm wondering about all the people he slandered who now have a legitimate suit at a guy with very deep pockets.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Shapecharge wrote:What's Lance's angle here? So the statute of limitations is over on the purjury charge from what I gather so is coming clean a way to get back into the game a la triathlon? Supposedly a public admission of guilt is necessary for the USADA to clear him for competition...again just something I read somewhere else. Does it matter if his public admission of guilt is a means to an end and perhaps disingenuous?

I'm wondering about all the people he slandered who now have a legitimate suit at a guy with very deep pockets.

them pockets be gettin shallowwww.....

get while the gettin is good. Lance will be broke as fuck unless someone ghost writes him a good book.

What's the income stream for a major cyclist if you're not Lance Armstrong? Aside from Lance, I can't name a single one besides Greg LeMond, and that's from a million years ago. Do you get a million dollars for wearing 7-11 Big Slurp on your jersey, and finishing in 29th place at Le Tour? I don't even know who the fan base is for this queer sport...never walked into a sports bar and heard a bunch of guys talking about pelatons and carbon fiber cycles and how Lance crushed some frog in the trials. Is it like Crossfit...there's only 50,000 people on the planet that actually do it, but those 50,000 spend their every waking hour obsessing and throw the last dime in their pocket at it?

Kazuya Mishima wrote:What's the income stream for a major cyclist if you're not Lance Armstrong? Aside from Lance, I can't name a single one besides Greg LeMond, and that's from a million years ago. Do you get a million dollars for wearing 7-11 Big Slurp on your jersey, and finishing in 29th place at Le Tour? I don't even know who the fan base is for this queer sport...never walked into a sports bar and heard a bunch of guys talking about pelatons and carbon fiber cycles and how Lance crushed some frog in the trials. Is it like Crossfit...there's only 50,000 people on the planet that actually do it, but those 50,000 spend their every waking hour obsessing and throw the last dime in their pocket at it?

The pay is shite unless you're a Pro Tour rider. Americans are ignorant when it comes to many interesting things, soccer, cycling and red wine included. The fan base for cycling is quite significant in europe, less so outside of there.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Americans are ignorant when it comes to many interesting things, soccer, cycling and red wine included.

Oh? The Tour de Franzia suggests otherwise.

that's a slick recumbent.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Lance will be broke as fuck unless someone ghost writes him a good book.

10-1 he already put his cash in a trust.

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Lance will be broke as fuck unless someone ghost writes him a good book.

10-1 he already put his cash in a trust.

assplain...how does that work?

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Lance will be broke as fuck unless someone ghost writes him a good book.

10-1 he already put his cash in a trust.

assplain...how does that work?

The trust owns his assets, Armstrong does not. If set up correctly (and Armstrong can afford the lawyers who can do it) it can hide his assets from the courts. Rumor is that that was what Teddy was setting up with his lawyer when Mary Jo was slowly drowning.