Is Lance Armstrong the biggest fraud in the history of sports?

Armstrong raised half a BILLION dollars for cancer research, and whether he used a dime of his own money or a dollar, it was strictly because of his story and his efforts that the money was raised. And no one I've heard from has ever said that his foundation was anything short of a model philanthropic institution. He was the biggest fraud in a sport of frauds and a sport that no one cares about. He's a disgusting person for being a liar on par with Nixon and a litigious bully but it seems his non-cycling activities have been done with class and the best of intentions.

Tiger's school for under privileged kids is a worthy goal but its window dressing. I'm confident that the money came from Nike, dollar for dollar with the teamsters. Tiger's a shallow phony and it wouldn't surprise me if he's tied to HGH, and if that's the case, he lapped the field of frauds.

 

Um, what? Are you talking about Armstrong?

 

Sorry, forgot the blue font.

 

I agree with nearly everything you say here, but that was not the point I was making. My point, at least in the portion you quoted above, was that technology plays a greater role in golf than it does in cycling, and that is part of why Lance's fall is far greater than would be Tiger's were he caught using PEDs.

My 80-year-old grandfather can consistently hit 200-yard drives. But if you put him on a bicycle, he couldn't peddle from the parking lot to the first tee without being winded. That's because with a golf club head the size of my thigh and balls that were designed in wind tunnels, golf technology can make an average golfer much better than bike technology will make an average cyclist. You don't have to be nearly as fit and healthy to be a world-class golfer as you do to be a world-class cyclist.

That's why Lance's fall is so devestating to those who believed he was clean (for the record, I did not). To those people, Lance Armstrong represented an ability to overcome a brutal disease that has affected many people, and he gave those people and their families hope. Tiger hitting golf balls doesn't do that - especially now, after his affairs. He's certainly a great golfer and always has been, but he's nobody to model your life after. A clean Lance Armstrong, though, was somebody you could model your life after. You can beat cancer and come back better than before. He provided hope and inspiration to anyone who had cancer, or who had a loved one with cancer. You could point to Lance Armstrong and say, "Hey, you can be like him. Look what he's done!" But now you find out that he only did it by cheating, and that he was an ass, a bully, and a liar to boot. You don't point to a person like that.

That's more devestating than anything Tiger could be caught doing at this point. Everyone already knows Tiger is an ass, a liar and a (real-life) cheater. Would it really be a shock if he cheated at golf too? And even if he does cheat at golf, it doesn't affect people the way Lance Armstrong's cheating rips away his inspirational veneer. That's the difference - Tiger never inspired sick people the way Lance did, so Tiger's influence was more as a pitchman and athlete than as someone to be modeled and looked up to by sick people.

 

1919 Chicago Black Sox.

 

If you rob a bank, but give almost all the money to the poor, did you not still rob a bank?

Almost none of the money goes to 'research'. And it may have just been money that would have found its to the ACS anyway, but was redirected to Livestrong simply because Armstrong is charismatic.

www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all

 

maybe HGH, under proper medical supervision, is nothing more than an advance in sports technology. Armstrong came back from cancer and aided by medical science became the best in his sport.

 

But he still DID beat the disease, and that is an inspiration of hope.

A person with cancer doesn't want to win the Tour and be a role model. They just want the disease to go away, by any means necessary and by way of any drugs necessary.

 

OK, the cancer -- and I admit all this latest Lance stuff is something I have completely avoided except the headline news -- but did the report conclude that PED use predated the cancer, with the obvious implication being that maybe it actually caused the cancer? That has always been the most interesting facet to me. I know a lot of people believe that to be the case especially with the kind of cancer he had.

 

I wonder if Sheryl has anything to say about all this. Did they split up because she couldn't stand the fraud?

 

The story in SI this week hinted that the PED use predated the cancer and that Armstrong's doctor thought the drugs may have caused it.

 

thanks for the link. I did believe Livestrong was a conduit for hundreds of millions for research, I am wrong. Ullman is a douche, too.