[micomico]

Your thoughts?
[/quote]

At the minimum Lance may want to buy some Barry Bonds baseball cards.

Something to keep in mind is that although there could be quite a bit of evidence, at the end of the day, you got 12 jurors sitting there, and the Feds can only vet and dismiss so many.

You have a hugely popular figure. A world-class defense. You only need one juror to say no. Statistically speaking, what are the chances that at least one of those twelve has someone that he loves that has been afflicted by cancer?

[VdB]

adker, on 14 February 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

I am not a fan of cycling, I am not a fan of LA, I am a very interested observer in both. Fans cannot be objective.

I also do not believe in conspiracies. But you have to look at the numbers and make some sense out of it.

http://www.livestron...-the-Money-Goes

Look at how big Livestrong has become. Make no mistake about it we do not live in a democratic society, we live in a Capitalistic society where money influences decision considerably more the the PEOPLE do. I will not debate the right of wrong of that.

Any politician that looks at the money this organization raises in support of a cause largely because of the iconic figure that started it, and the harm that would be done to it's capacity to continue that good work if he was crestfallen would choose to make sure that did not happen. A couple of million people (if that many) would like to see LA nailed because of the injustice he brought to his sport. A couple hundred million are effected by the cause he represents. Read the site a bit, look at the names of political leaders listed on it (and no you cannot use their name without their support) and yes you pay for that support. Look at the global reach of the organization.

I found it very hard to believe from the beginning that at some point this investigation would be squashed by people in high places. There was no way to prove him innocent, and a marginal chance to prove him guilty. The sport was already devastated by doping scandal so nailing him would not improve this or any other sport, but the cost of taking him down would be much much larger. I don't want to imply that he bought his way out of this, I don't think that happened. I do believe his activity outside of the sport bought him some good will and the decision was made to stop pursing him. is it fair? no, do I understand? I think i do.

Your thoughts?

I never understood how hard it is for people (and by that I mean the general public, not you!) to understand that maybe LA is ALL those things. He can be both an inspirational cancer survivor with a great charity AND a cycling cheater. They are not mutually exclusive. If Ali mentioned Millar's book, that is one of the things I took away from that (not that Millar says it in those words).

Do I believe that Armstrong is a source of great hope and inspiration for many people, a tough SOB and survivor in many ways, and a world class athlete? To all those things, my answer is yes. But I also believe that he is a liar, a fraud and a bully, who would not stop at destroying others to get what he wants.

The validity of his charity and cancer story, for me, are not necessarily linked to his cycling exploits. Sure, Livestrong became huge for a great part thanks to his cycling results, but the core of his story (being a cancer survivor) has little to do with cycling or doping. So I'm not sure why there is such a reluctancy to 'expose' him on that.

[adker]

Ali, on 14 February 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

The problem here is that Armstrong is a national hero in the States. Present company excepted, US Joe public views Armstrong as the very pinnacle of success, sportsmanship and philanthropic deeds. If he was exposed as a fraud and a doper, then in all likliehood, public morale in the US, already stretched to the limit by the drastic state of the economy, would finally break. I have no opinion on the matter, personally, but I'm sure the top politicians in the US do and we all know where the buck stops when it all hits the fan. Letting Armstrong walk would be a no-brainer for Obama.

I think you underestimate the public here. At one time this was very true, but the cloud of suspicion has loomed for so long now that I think most people, non fans, non cycling folks do not perceive him as lilly white, nor do they think it is important to support the good he is doing for a cause. Other then gratifying frustrated cycling fans no good comes from taking him down.

[adker]

VdB, on 15 February 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

I never understood how hard it is for people (and by that I mean the general public, not you!) to understand that maybe LA is ALL those things. He can be both an inspirational cancer survivor with a great charity AND a cycling cheater. They are not mutually exclusive. If Ali mentioned Millar's book, that is one of the things I took away from that (not that Millar says it in those words).

Do I believe that Armstrong is a source of great hope and inspiration for many people, a tough SOB and survivor in many ways, and a world class athlete? To all those things, my answer is yes. But I also believe that he is a liar, a fraud and a bully, who would not stop at destroying others to get what he wants.

The validity of his charity and cancer story, for me, are not necessarily linked to his cycling exploits. Sure, Livestrong became huge for a great part thanks to his cycling results, but the core of his story (being a cancer survivor) has little to do with cycling or doping. So I'm not sure why there is such a reluctancy to 'expose' him on that.

My point was not about reluctance to expose him. Every decision in life at it's very base is a decision of cost/benefit ratio. He is out of the sport now, the sport has already uncovered a huge doping problem that needs to be dealt with. So the benefit of proving Lance was a doper at that level is not great. The cost, well that is two fold, first a huge investigation cost as we have seen with nothing CONCRETE yet so a lot more, and as you point out people have a hard time segregating the two (lance the doper and lance the Cancer advocate) could have a huge cost to the good being done relative to the fight on cancer.

My point is lots of people are looking for that AH HA! see I knew it proof what real good does it serve the sport to nail him?

[The Rake]

adker, on 21 February 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

..... lance the Cancer advocate) could have a huge cost to the good being done relative to the fight on cancer.

Do you think? It almost seems like, and not referring to you Adker, that certain people think Lance invented the fight against cancer, and without Lance we'd just be shrugging our shoulders and raising a glass to the dear departed. Many worthy organisations have been working in this field for many years

[adker]

The Rake, on 22 February 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Do you think? It almost seems like, and not referring to you Adker, that certain people think Lance invented the fight against cancer, and without Lance we'd just be shrugging our shoulders and raising a glass to the dear departed. Many worthy organisations have been working in this field for many years

Not true at all......there are lots of good organizations out there, but you cannot deny the $35 million a year livestrong raises (see my link) would not be impacted. I am a much bigger fan of the Jimmy V foundation but you cannot deny that Livestrong organization has done more to raise public awareness, and increase government involvement.

[Velo]

adker, on 21 February 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

what real good does it serve the sport to nail him?

What real good does it serve the sport to nail any doper then? By that token, they should all be allowed to skate. Or does Armstrong deserve special treatment?