UCI confirms Armstrong ban, strips him of seven Tour titles (Page 2)

"could be", "alleged", "potentially"... and it's a sports writer making guesses about a medical condition. Are you actually taking that serious?

I seperate the entire cancer philanthropy from the cycling controversy.

The cancer philanthropy is unimpreachable. It's good. To me, nothing takes away from that. Even if the factors that contributed to Lance's own cancer have become murky, the benefits of Livestrong absolutely continue.

The sporting controversy is the worst of messes. That's not over.

I posted a link to the BBC World News story about the UCI stripping Lance of his Tour de France titles on my Facebook page when it broke this morning. The responses to mine and the many, many other postings seemed polarized into one of two camps:

1. Lance is largely unimpeachable. He cured cancer. I'm sticking by him.

2. Lance is the worst of criminals and his indiscretions tarnish Livestrong beyond repair.

I don't think any circumstance is that polarized, but human nature has a tendency to try to define it like that.

The first group, the group that is "sticking by Lance" seems to be a group not in touch with their mortality and morality. They are afraid to die of cancer. They either feel they themselves have never done anything wrong or, more probably, know they have since they're human but want to believe there is some shining light of virtue and rightousness known as Lance. Their allegiance is unswerving. I'm tempted to use examples of other "cult of personality" situations but those mentions by name always seem to be more inflammatory than constructive.

I'm afraid to die of cancer. I do acknowledge I likely will. Or another stroke. Or an accident. Or something. No one's philanthropy will save me. It may ease my suffering- I hope it does- but it won't make me or anyone immortal. I'll still die, so will you. Armstrong's philanthropy and Livestrong have saved some people, some children, and that is unimpeachably good in every respect. It's also made many cancer victims' treatment and recovery easier. That's entirely good.

That is seperate from the sporting matter.

Again, I don't think this is over. It also isn't "clean" or convenient. Many aspects of the sport are rife with controversy. The governing bodies, the testing labs, etc. Messy. The damage continues. We likely won't see the sport fully recover for quite some time. That's a shame.

I do wish Armstrong would "own" it. To me personally, if the guy just said, "I made a huge mistake and I apologize" that would go a long, long way. It would humanize him. It would be easier to feel empathy for him. As it is, I do feel bad for him because he must be in very lonely place right now, but then again, its up to him to decide to leave that place.

The SI article this week explains exactly why the "never tested positive" defense means nothing. (Page 45). It sites also that LA's own doctor worried that the EPOs he'd been giving him was the actual cause of the cancer to start with.  In his treatment for cancer, one of the things the "real" doctors wanted to  know was what all had he REALLY been taking. He told them.  Dr. Ferrari also showed the team how to "micro-dope" and take small amounts that clear out of your system over night. The authorities would take years and millions of $ to come up with a better test and Dr. Ferrari would defeat it in 5 minutes the article said.

SI article page 45 cites real doctors speculating. If it did not CAUSE the cancer, the HGH could help it spread worse/faster. Pretty good summary in the article and sounds pretty believable to me. What you still think "never tested positive" means anything?

"speculating", "could".... good thing that we're certain :/

Let me help you with the meaning there - they DON'T know. They are GUESSING.

And this has precisely what to do with this aspect???

Oh, the doctor cited in the SI article, among others, is only the Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society- Dr. Otis Brawley.  I'm pretty much going with what he says. (p. 45, bottom right of page).

"Prediction: In a year or so, the Livestrong organization as it currently exists will be no more.  Too many other "non-controversial" organizations to donate to." 

Maybe.

The Susan B Komen breast cancer charity underwent a similar controversy regarding reproductive rights. The United Way charity underwent a controversy regarding executive salaries within their organization. Those are just two charities off the top of my head that took some serious heat in the public eye and continue. There are many, many others.

I hope, for the sake of everyone involved, especially cancer patients and even for Lance Armstrong himself, that Livestrong does not go away.

Ultimately, that may be the reason Lance goes public with an ownership of what happened- to save the charity. If he did that, I'd respect it.

That even reinforces my stance... he's *that* guy and he STILL doesn't KNOW.  He's STILL GUESSING.

Gawd, it amazes me how intensely people argue over this issue.

Like anyone is realyl affected by the UCI stripping him of his titles?  Read Hamiltons book.  Download and read the USADA's reasoned decision.  It's pretty daming stuff, and honestly you'd have to be intentionally turning a blind eye to the facts to deny he doped.

But as Tom said that's different than Livestrong.  That he doped, or that his titles were stripped, has nothing to do with any good that LS has done in cancer awareness (which, from what I understand, is a lot). 

Personally, I can believe that he doped and he should lose his titles while still believing he did a lot of good by establishing LS.

Not sure if you remember the male USA  olympic volleyball player this year, who tested "positve" but the testers realized that the only way he could test positive for that particular substance was if he was female or had testicular ca. He was instructed to follow up with his primany doctor.  That test quite literally could have saved his life since things were caught in the begining, where treatments options are better  

So my connection is that the drugs he was taking while they might have had a part in his getting cancer. (which I doubt).

 I look at it another way.  The fact that they were manipulating his blood work so it always came out normal hid the fact that the cancer had invaded and spread all over his body. while he was racing.  So while the drugs might not have caused it, the fact that he was taking them and doing whatever was needed to keep a "normal" blood test. Did have a effect on when they caught it disease.  Which for him was after it spread to the lungs, and brain.  Causing him to have more aggressive treatments

Completely agree with you on all points.  

Not that it excuses any of it - but i did just read Tyler Hamilton's book and it paints a picture of a real person - not a hero or a villain. 

It isn't pretty and while I don't exactly feel bad for these guys they were put in a difficult position where no one knows exactly what the other team is doing and if you don't dope you literally get left behind.  Not the kind of decision I would ever want to be faced with.  

I personally view the speculation that it is medically possible for the drugs to cause cancer, not as an indictment against Lance Armstrong, but as information to an inquiring public mind who want to know if that is in fact possible.  The medical community tells us that it is possible.  No one can know the cause of Arnstrong's or any individual's cancer for sure , at least not with today's medical knowledge.  Publishing the information is not idle curiosity.  That information is useful to inform the general public against the dangers of PEDs.

TW

I am not surprised but a bit disheartened to see news reporting that some donors to LS want their money back.  People want to group celebrities into buckets and not acknowledge that human beings often contradict themselves.

Lance may have created Livestrong for selfish motivations, but the end result is still a net positive.  You could as easily say that Susan Komen's sister, who created her foundation, had selfish reasons too.  Both foundations took a negative and turned it into a positive.

Don't let Lance's turmoil take away that positive.  It has helped many people and hopefully will continue.

apparently these people feel affected...

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8537796/texas-insurance-firm-asks-lance-armstrong-repay-75-million-bonuses

Huh?  I was talking about people arguing here.  On BT.  No one here is affected, which is why I don't understand the emotion

I didn't really need to say that no one "on BT" was affected, did I?

I guess I did. 

To that, I would say:

a) I think many of them appreciate the goals of Livestrong, regardless of its founder.

b) Most of them who sponsored Lance during his Tour reign probably *made* more money than they put into him, as such companies do when they support a hugely popular athlete.  Those gains don't magically disappear because of what's going on now.

I'm guessing most will leave it alone.

Succesfully?  Doubtful.  Also, why do you suggest a corporate donor would have this sort of claim, but not an individual donor?

And would they then have to refile their tax returns to reflect the cancellation of a deductble donation and pay more taxes as a result?  Smart co.'s would leave this alone for many reasons

I'd like to think so, but neither UW or Komen are tied so closely to one person and the "controversies" you mention are pretty garden-variety and fixable for the most part.  There is no real abuse of trust, or fraud, or illegalities.

The better analogy might be a fallen televangelist.

LiveStrongs continued survival really comes down to the % of people who can separate Lance from the organization he has been the face of for many years.  I just don't think that number is going to be high enough.

I think this is a sadly funny analogy.

WHAT? Nobody is donating millions to Armstrong. They're donating to Livestrong. GE would be giving money to cancer research/patients (which is where Livestrong money goes) not to Lance. Which is why it's horribly disgusting that people would have the nerve to ask for there money back. Lance isn't putting the money in his pocket.