Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [mattreg3] [ In reply to ]
 
Holy Moly! This just keeps getting worse. This is sickening.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [AmaDablam] [ In reply to ]
 
AmaDablam wrote:
Holy Moly! This just keeps getting worse. This is sickening.http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283[/quote[/url]]

That is not a real story. Anyone can put BS there. It has no quotes or fact checking.
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [Hanaki] [ In reply to ]
 
Hanaki wrote:
AmaDablam wrote:
Holy Moly! This just keeps getting worse. This is sickening.http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283[/quote[/url]]

That is not a real story. Anyone can put BS there. It has no quotes or fact checking.

Between you and something on CNN, I'm going with CNN.
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [AmaDablam] [ In reply to ]
 
AmaDablam wrote:
Hanaki wrote:
AmaDablam wrote:
Holy Moly! This just keeps getting worse. This is sickening.http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283[/quote[/url]]

That is not a real story. Anyone can put BS there. It has no quotes or fact checking.


Between you and something on CNN, I'm going with CNN.

He can't hear you....his heads jammed up Lances arse.
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [AmaDablam] [ In reply to ]
 
AmaDablam wrote:
Hanaki wrote:
AmaDablam wrote:
Holy Moly! This just keeps getting worse. This is sickening.http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283[/quote[/url]]

That is not a real story. Anyone can put BS there. It has no quotes or fact checking.


Between you and something on CNN, I'm going with CNN.

Not commenting on the actual article, but, if you look at the top left of the picture it says "not vetted by CNN." You can also note that pretty much anybody can be an "iReporter."

From the "about" section:
Everything you see on iReport starts with someone in the CNN audience. The stories here are not edited fact-checked or screened before they post. CNN's producers will check out some of the most compelling, important and urgent iReports and, once they're cleared for CNN, make them a part of CNN's news coverage.
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [AmaDablam] [ In reply to ]
 
AmaDablam wrote:
Between you and something on CNN, I'm going with CNN.



Wow then you will love this story on cnn http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860663
Last edited by: Hanaki: Oct 19, 12 16:26
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [idk] [ In reply to ]
 
One of the later paragraphs:

"In closing, I wanted to add that my personal opinion is that I am skeptical as to whether Armstrong ever really was a cancer victim/survivor or whether this was another of his scams to fool the world, his followers and those suffering from the disease. While the foundation does incredible work their founder may be a fraud but for the ultimate goal the money is needed no matter what the source."

From this personal story it would be interesting to hear corroboration form other participants...this statement, however in my mind, sort of lessens the impact of the rest of the story. Just my opinion.



 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [Mike C] [ In reply to ]
 
Mike C wrote:
One of the later paragraphs:

"In closing, I wanted to add that my personal opinion is that I am skeptical as to whether Armstrong ever really was a cancer victim/survivor or whether this was another of his scams to fool the world, his followers and those suffering from the disease. While the foundation does incredible work their founder may be a fraud but for the ultimate goal the money is needed no matter what the source."

From this personal story it would be interesting to hear corroboration form other participants...this statement, however in my mind, sort of lessens the impact of the rest of the story. Just my opinion.



Ya...that statement was kind of weird. I assume the guy didn't know much about Armstrong and then after seeing him as a scamming dick, he questioned everything Armstrong.
The part about Lance pocketing money and being an asshole sounds about right though. Not like we haven't heard that a thousand times.
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [Mike C] [ In reply to ]
 
Mike C wrote:
One of the later paragraphs:

"In closing, I wanted to add that my personal opinion is that I am skeptical as to whether Armstrong ever really was a cancer victim/survivor or whether this was another of his scams to fool the world, his followers and those suffering from the disease. While the foundation does incredible work their founder may be a fraud but for the ultimate goal the money is needed no matter what the source."

From this personal story it would be interesting to hear corroboration form other participants...this statement, however in my mind, sort of lessens the impact of the rest of the story. Just my opinion.



So it looks more like a letter to the editor. It should be labeled as such.

Although I have heard of similar incidents of Armstrong riding away from people he was supposed to ride with. No idea about the money stuff.
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [idk] [ In reply to ]
 
idk wrote:

He can't hear you....his heads jammed up Lances arse.


Have no freaking clue what you are talking about. I have always said Lance was a doper. You are such person that believes iReport is CNN reporting. It is not anyone can put anything there http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860663
Last edited by: Hanaki: Oct 19, 12 16:24
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [AmaDablam] [ In reply to ]
 
So it looks more like a letter to the editor. It should be labeled as such.

Although I have heard of similar incidents of Armstrong riding away from people he was supposed to ride with. No idea about the money stuff.

Pretty much agree on all counts there...

 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [AmaDablam] [ In reply to ]
 
AmaDablam wrote:
Holy Moly! This just keeps getting worse. This is sickening.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283

So why did it take 7 years for this guy to tell his tale?

I'm far from an LA supporter, but this smells funky.

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [nedbraden] [ In reply to ]
 
nedbraden wrote:
Here is my question: Will the people who have been demanding an admission from LA and think he is the devil change their tune if he does admit it tonight in his speech?

He didnt. If he had, and apologized, and stated he would work with USADA to provide any additional details of his doping program that the other athletes hadn't seen, and agreed to honor his ban, then yes.
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [pick6] [ In reply to ]
 
pick6 wrote:
nedbraden wrote:
Here is my question: Will the people who have been demanding an admission from LA and think he is the devil change their tune if he does admit it tonight in his speech?


He didnt. If he had, and apologized, and stated he would work with USADA to provide any additional details of his doping program that the other athletes hadn't seen, and agreed to honor his ban, then yes.

Yep, he did not. I do find it funny how there are suddenly a number of caveats whereas before it was about simply admitting he doped.
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [nedbraden] [ In reply to ]
 
nedbraden wrote:
pick6 wrote:
nedbraden wrote:
Here is my question: Will the people who have been demanding an admission from LA and think he is the devil change their tune if he does admit it tonight in his speech?


He didnt. If he had, and apologized, and stated he would work with USADA to provide any additional details of his doping program that the other athletes hadn't seen, and agreed to honor his ban, then yes.


Yep, he did not. I do find it funny how there are suddenly a number of caveats whereas before it was about simply admitting he doped.

mine has NEVER changed. Maybe others said they wanted an admission only but thats never been enough for me. because admitting doesnt mean an apology, and an apology is only words if you dont change the behavior.
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [pick6] [ In reply to ]
 
pick6 wrote:
nedbraden wrote:
pick6 wrote:
nedbraden wrote:
Here is my question: Will the people who have been demanding an admission from LA and think he is the devil change their tune if he does admit it tonight in his speech?


He didnt. If he had, and apologized, and stated he would work with USADA to provide any additional details of his doping program that the other athletes hadn't seen, and agreed to honor his ban, then yes.


Yep, he did not. I do find it funny how there are suddenly a number of caveats whereas before it was about simply admitting he doped.


mine has NEVER changed. Maybe others said they wanted an admission only but thats never been enough for me. because admitting doesnt mean an apology, and an apology is only words if you dont change the behavior.

I got it, my bad, you were all about an admission and an apology (with a change of behavior) and now you have added the caveats of demanding all details and honoring a ban.
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [nedbraden] [ In reply to ]
 
nedbraden wrote:
pick6 wrote:
nedbraden wrote:
pick6 wrote:
nedbraden wrote:
Here is my question: Will the people who have been demanding an admission from LA and think he is the devil change their tune if he does admit it tonight in his speech?


He didnt. If he had, and apologized, and stated he would work with USADA to provide any additional details of his doping program that the other athletes hadn't seen, and agreed to honor his ban, then yes.


Yep, he did not. I do find it funny how there are suddenly a number of caveats whereas before it was about simply admitting he doped.


mine has NEVER changed. Maybe others said they wanted an admission only but thats never been enough for me. because admitting doesnt mean an apology, and an apology is only words if you dont change the behavior.


I got it, my bad, you were all about an admission and an apology (with a change of behavior) and now you have added the caveats of demanding all details and honoring a ban.


The only thing i added was honoring the ban, because I simply assumed he would; I should have known better, and when he didn't I added that to my list. What i wonder is why do you argue these minutia ? I shouldnt have to state every single tenant of what i care about in every single post. It would make the whole process tiring and tedious.
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [pick6] [ In reply to ]
 
pick6 wrote:
nedbraden wrote:
pick6 wrote:
nedbraden wrote:
pick6 wrote:
nedbraden wrote:
Here is my question: Will the people who have been demanding an admission from LA and think he is the devil change their tune if he does admit it tonight in his speech?


He didnt. If he had, and apologized, and stated he would work with USADA to provide any additional details of his doping program that the other athletes hadn't seen, and agreed to honor his ban, then yes.


Yep, he did not. I do find it funny how there are suddenly a number of caveats whereas before it was about simply admitting he doped.


mine has NEVER changed. Maybe others said they wanted an admission only but thats never been enough for me. because admitting doesnt mean an apology, and an apology is only words if you dont change the behavior.


I got it, my bad, you were all about an admission and an apology (with a change of behavior) and now you have added the caveats of demanding all details and honoring a ban.


The only thing i added was honoring the ban, because I simply assumed he would; I should have known better, and when he didn't I added that to my list. What i wonder is why do you argue these minutia ? I shouldnt have to state every single tenant of what i care about in every single post. It would make the whole process tiring and tedious.

I asked a simple question in advance of his speech, you chose to respond and admitted to adding caveats. Now you are making excuses for yourself. I think the thing I find most interesting is how you are claiming he is not honoring his ban. Remind me what USADA covered races he is competing in.

Let's be honest, you are being totally disingenuous...again.

My point has been made, feel free to get in a last word if you need to, but it won't change the facts about you.
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [nedbraden] [ In reply to ]
 
nedbraden wrote:
pick6 wrote:
nedbraden wrote:
pick6 wrote:
nedbraden wrote:
pick6 wrote:
nedbraden wrote:
Here is my question: Will the people who have been demanding an admission from LA and think he is the devil change their tune if he does admit it tonight in his speech?


He didnt. If he had, and apologized, and stated he would work with USADA to provide any additional details of his doping program that the other athletes hadn't seen, and agreed to honor his ban, then yes.


Yep, he did not. I do find it funny how there are suddenly a number of caveats whereas before it was about simply admitting he doped.


mine has NEVER changed. Maybe others said they wanted an admission only but thats never been enough for me. because admitting doesnt mean an apology, and an apology is only words if you dont change the behavior.


I got it, my bad, you were all about an admission and an apology (with a change of behavior) and now you have added the caveats of demanding all details and honoring a ban.


The only thing i added was honoring the ban, because I simply assumed he would; I should have known better, and when he didn't I added that to my list. What i wonder is why do you argue these minutia ? I shouldnt have to state every single tenant of what i care about in every single post. It would make the whole process tiring and tedious.




I asked a simple question in advance of his speech, you chose to respond and admitted to adding caveats. Now you are making excuses for yourself. I think the thing I find most interesting is how you are claiming he is not honoring his ban. Remind me what USADA covered races he is competing in.

Let's be honest, you are being totally disingenuous...again.

My point has been made, feel free to get in a last word if you need to, but it won't change the facts about you.

He raced a race that was to be USAT sponsored that had to drop sanctioning to let him race. I am not being disingenuous, you just like to argue minutia and i dont bother to type every single point I care about in every post; it's too time consuming.
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [Toenail] [ In reply to ]
 
Toenail wrote:
Man....

Your post caused sorry feelings to well up from within.

As someone who endeavors to have a decent relationship with the Buddha, - I've turned around. I used to just hate the guy for being so insecure, angry, and obsessed beyond reason into hurting the people in his life that he should be celebrating.
It has never been about drugs, it has been about treating people badly and bringing them down to make himself look better. It is about (essentially) selling your soul, honor, and grace and friends to achieve a comparatively trivial goal. The costs to him, (even if he isn't mindful enough to fully recognize them), will be very, very, very, high indeed.

I feel really sorry for the suffering that he has placed upon himself.

I feel sorry for the suffering he has placed on others

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * *
http://www.bobswims.com/

"If you didn't swallow water in your last open water race, you weren't racing"
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [Mike C] [ In reply to ]
 
Mike C wrote:
One of the later paragraphs:

"In closing, I wanted to add that my personal opinion is that I am skeptical as to whether Armstrong ever really was a cancer victim/survivor or whether this was another of his scams to fool the world, his followers and those suffering from the disease. While the foundation does incredible work their founder may be a fraud but for the ultimate goal the money is needed no matter what the source."

From this personal story it would be interesting to hear corroboration form other participants...this statement, however in my mind, sort of lessens the impact of the rest of the story. Just my opinion.

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/...atname=Latest%20News
Same event, different participant?
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [Power13] [ In reply to ]
 
Well if that is not strong evidence of Lance being the supreme douchebag, I don't know what is.

________________
Adrian in Vancouver
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [dontswimdontrun] [ In reply to ]
 
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/...atname=Latest%20News
Same event, different participant?

Could be...at the time he wrote this, it didn't seem he was really over-the-top upset about it...only in hindsight does it appear his hackles have been raised a bit.


 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [Francois] [ In reply to ]
 
Francois wrote:
Had you followed cycling before Lance you would know...Bassons was the one and only guy from the Festina team who always refused to dope.
He always took a stand, and when all teammates of Festina were ratting each other out, he was the only one spared and every single one of them
said he was clean, the doc. said he was clean, the team director said he was clean...But you'd have to know cycling a bit to know that. Go back and
pray to your Lance Armstrong poster fanboy.

Well maybe didn't dope but he didn't follow the rules.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/...-one-year-suspension
 
Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [Mike C] [ In reply to ]
 
grim

http://www.cnn.com/...index.html?hpt=hp_t1

this could get super ugly(er)...how much did Livestrong spend on LA's defense over the years? I remember reading that their legal expenses were way over the norm for a big non-profit...
 

Prev Next