Been some interesting stuff on Radio 5 about how he was friendly with a lot of American presidents and the cycling authorities didn't want to expose him, someone said for a decade he was the most powerful sportsman in the world.
Ok so he did a lot for charity but the message he gave out was it's ok to cheat, lie and use your influence to bully/threaten to get what you want, nothing should stand in the way of you getting to the top, not really the type of message we want to send out to the youth.
And he is probably one of those cunts who cycles on pavements.
Quote: beduth jase wrote in post #65[quote=Victorinox|p194517]Don't give a shit, it is a sport. He has saved fucking loads of LIVES in real life, outside of a hobby/sport. Couldn't care about the rest if he did or didn't. It is like judging a top doctor because he smoked pot in college or something. Plus, they were all on the stuff, if he didn't win it, someone else who used would have.
Read your post from friday september 7th. Of course you don't give a shit.
I don't give a shit that this has now come about... I just said that and explained my reason, what is your point? [/quot
My point? Couple of weeks ago the guy was a cycling legend and anyone who thought he was on drugs, was literally a fucking crank. Your posts on the subject show you do give a shit.
Read my reply again, it ain't rocket science.
Your reply was in support of a drug cheat, a fraud and a bully. But hey....you have no interest in this....
In support of his charity work. At the time i fully believed he didn't cheat. I later took the new news into consideration and said i don't give a shit as his charity stuff is miles more important to me. So no i don't give a shit about the fact it now looks certain he did cheat. But i do give a shit about the charity stuff as i have now stated about a million fucking times.
Anyone else not able to use basic skills to put 2 and 2 together and also read and summarize or are we done here with internet egos?...
No internet egos here.
You can't simply mention his charity without discussing his career. Afterall the charity came about after his winning races whilst doping. They go hand in hand. Forcing riders to dope which would put them at risk of cancer doesn't sound too good does it? "Ah it don't matter, he raises awareness of cancer". There are plenty who have questioned Livestrong too but that is for another debate altogether.
Quote: beduth jase wrote in post #65[quote=Victorinox|p194517]Don't give a shit, it is a sport. He has saved fucking loads of LIVES in real life, outside of a hobby/sport. Couldn't care about the rest if he did or didn't. It is like judging a top doctor because he smoked pot in college or something. Plus, they were all on the stuff, if he didn't win it, someone else who used would have.
Read your post from friday september 7th. Of course you don't give a shit.
I don't give a shit that this has now come about... I just said that and explained my reason, what is your point? [/quot
My point? Couple of weeks ago the guy was a cycling legend and anyone who thought he was on drugs, was literally a fucking crank. Your posts on the subject show you do give a shit.
Read my reply again, it ain't rocket science.
Your reply was in support of a drug cheat, a fraud and a bully. But hey....you have no interest in this....
In support of his charity work. At the time i fully believed he didn't cheat. I later took the new news into consideration and said i don't give a shit as his charity stuff is miles more important to me. So no i don't give a shit about the fact it now looks certain he did cheat. But i do give a shit about the charity stuff as i have now stated about a million fucking times.
Anyone else not able to use basic skills to put 2 and 2 together and also read and summarize or are we done here with internet egos?...
Is the need the condescending tone really necessary?
Quote: beduth jase wrote in post #65[quote=Victorinox|p194517]Don't give a shit, it is a sport. He has saved fucking loads of LIVES in real life, outside of a hobby/sport. Couldn't care about the rest if he did or didn't. It is like judging a top doctor because he smoked pot in college or something. Plus, they were all on the stuff, if he didn't win it, someone else who used would have.
Read your post from friday september 7th. Of course you don't give a shit.
I don't give a shit that this has now come about... I just said that and explained my reason, what is your point? [/quot
My point? Couple of weeks ago the guy was a cycling legend and anyone who thought he was on drugs, was literally a fucking crank. Your posts on the subject show you do give a shit.
Read my reply again, it ain't rocket science.
Your reply was in support of a drug cheat, a fraud and a bully. But hey....you have no interest in this....
In support of his charity work. At the time i fully believed he didn't cheat. I later took the new news into consideration and said i don't give a shit as his charity stuff is miles more important to me. So no i don't give a shit about the fact it now looks certain he did cheat. But i do give a shit about the charity stuff as i have now stated about a million fucking times.
Anyone else not able to use basic skills to put 2 and 2 together and also read and summarize or are we done here with internet egos?...
No internet egos here.
You can't simply mention his charity without discussing his career. Afterall the charity came about after his winning races whilst doping. They go hand in hand. Forcing riders to dope which would put them at risk of cancer doesn't sound too good does it? "Ah it don't matter, he raises awareness of cancer". There are plenty who have questioned Livestrong too but that is for another debate altogether.
I agree. Had it not been for Armstrong's cycling-related fame, I doubt that his charity work would have had half as much publicity and been as successful.
Quote: Jazzy J wrote in post #87Heard on the radio today his doing an interview on Oprah, I doubt their will be much talk of dopping thow....
Nah, Oprah is one of his 'friends' and this will be a damage limitation job. Expect a few tears, long silences as he composes himself in this infair witchunt. I'm glad it's surfaced that he offered USADA a wad of money, this verminous individual knows no shame. And even if he does admit to a bit of doping, I'm sure the bullying of riders, team helpers, officials and journalists won't make the stage.
Quote: Jazzy J wrote in post #87Heard on the radio today his doing an interview on Oprah, I doubt their will be much talk of dopping thow....
Nah, Oprah is one of his 'friends' and this will be a damage limitation job. Expect a few tears, long silences as he composes himself in this infair witchunt. I'm glad it's surfaced that he offered USADA a wad of money, this verminous individual knows no shame. And even if he does admit to a bit of doping, I'm sure the bullying of riders, team helpers, officials and journalists won't make the stage.
Sounds about right that, wouldn't be surprised if its to plug a book or something his releasing, as you say it will be scripted questions no doubt all carefully planned in advance etc etc..
Oh, this will be a new episode just like when Tom Cruise was there. No tricky questions there. Sure Armstrong’s lawyer will say which questions can be asked and not. Another extra commercial income for Operah then.
So he has 'admitted to doping' in his Oprah interview but even now it is all about Lance. Turns out he is simply trying to get his lifetime ban reduced so he can compete in triathlons. Staggering. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...1441261928.html
Great quote from Nicole Cooke who retired from cycling this week. "When Lance cries on Oprah later this week and she passes him the tissue, spare a thought for all those genuine people who walked away with no rewards - just shattered dreams. Each one of them is worth a thousand Lances."
The origins of the Internet reach back to research of the 1960s, commissioned by the United States government to build robust, fault-tolerant, and distributed computer networks. The funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s, as well as private funding for other commercial backbones, led to worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies, and the merger of many networks. The commercialization of what was by the 1990s an international network resulted in its popularization and incorporation into virtually every aspect of modern human life. As of June 2012, more than 2.4 billion people—over a third of the world's human population—have used the services of the Internet.[1]
the www protocol might have been an english invetion though but IP is Xerox who invented that. To say 1 nation is responsible for the internet is wrong but its based on an american invention
They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
I'm not getting into an argument about this but Berners-Lee is the bloke recognised as the inventor of the world wide web. That isn't up for debate I'm afraid.
hehehe like I said, I am not disputing he invented WWW but that isn't the internet :)
Mark never stated internet I know that but its a common mistake to speak as it was the same. They are very intertwined but still very far appart. Thats why I get a little defensive cause I have heard this argument and both sides state they invented the internet as we know it today.
Both are right and both a wrong
They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
OFF HAND
Print view
Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:27 pm
reply
