dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

Jedi Poster

1 edit
reply to fatness

Re: Armstrong getting caught up in lies

If one were to do a full and complete in depth investigative background of the Livestrong foundation as well as other charitable involvement by Armstrong it would reveal that numerous long standing reputable standing organizations in addition to the one all ready identified, rate Livestrong as financially an up front top line charity and highly successful in achieving its publicly stated goals while successsfully directing the majority of its efforts and funds in that direction.

I personally have had nothing to do with the Livestrong Foundation. However, the leading cancer hospital in the nation the "City of Hope" is near me. I personally know that Armstrong and his foundation has done work on site there that was greatly received and appreciated by patients, their loved ones, and staff.

A long-time close friend of mine is a two-time cancer survivor and knows nothing about Armstrong in terms of being a sports fan, (she simply knows that he was famous and highly successful athlete in cycling but that is of no interest to her except in the narrow context of he achieved it after beating and recovering from his cancer.) She only truly knows him through his personal involvement with cancer survivors, their families and patients.

She is a retired successful investigative reporter, journalist and author that is closely associated in weekly activities with the City of Hope and to a much lesser extent with Armstrong and the foundation. She devotes a daily part of her life to cancer survivors and in addition those that currently suffer from the disease. Several of her books' royalties go 100 percent to the hospital.

She is at least one person that has nothing but praise for the Armstrong the humanitarian, citizen, person and his charity--not the celebrity or the guy in front of the camera. She has formed that opinion not only from her direct experience but also from her extensive interaction with hundreds of beneficiaries of the Livestrong foundation and from the personal level experience of Armstrong's direct contact with others she personally has witnessed. She is nationally known to be a person of the highest ethical moral standards.

All of the people I speak of are either cancer survivors, family of cancer survivors, cancer patients, or staff involved with the same and in that context based upon personal experience she thinks the guy is pretty special. She regards him not as a sports figure but as a cancer survivor and humanitarian. She has stated to me, “He is one of my heroes.”

It is not surprising that many people would incorrectly assume that Armstrong's foundation donates to cancer research given his battle with the disease and the formal and personal commitment he has directed toward cancer in a variety of ways, the leading example of many being his work toward survivors of cancer and their experiences and the impact on their lives and their loved ones.

If journalist of Scott Pelley stature and the editorial staff of Sixty Minutes can make such a public mistake it is not surprising that other would do so also. Armstrong can hardly be attacked for that.

What he can be is judged on an accurate assessment of his work with Livestrong.

Jedi Poster
reply to ZZZZZZZ

Re: Well here we go

Apparently in cycling they all ready do and have done so since at least the eighties. In the seventies I know they did it but they did it wrong. They use stimulants like amphetamines that physiologically really don't enhance performance. Plus they are dangerous to take under certain conditions as the Tour de France competitor that dropped stone cold dead at the crest of one the steepest and most famous climbs many years ago--from memory I would say it was in the seventies.

Look at the list of world records in track and field. Notice how even today so many are from the nineties and eighties! Here in 2012 so many records still stand. Gee, I wonder why that is so?

There are many other instances in many other sports. Remember when approximately 20-30 years ago, (tapping the aging memory here again), when the Chinese women's team that in their history had all ways sucked in swimming showed up at the Olympic games with the broad sloping shoulders and their knuckles dragging on the concrete? From no where the BLEW away everyone and just about in every race broke the world record. It goes on and on.

About 20 years a large poll was taken. Olympic athletes were asked a question that went something like this:

If you could take a substance that would guarantee you a gold medal winning performance but also would guarantee that you would die from it in five years would you take it? Ninety percent said yes. (Actually I can't remember if the will die period was one year or five years but since I can't remember I will go with the five and give the athletes the benefit of the "doubt.")

If you watch NFL panels on stations like ESPN and the NFL channel or other networks you will see here and there the discussion among former players that quit not that long ago and also the sports commentators on should PEDs be allowed in the NFL and regulated or should they be banned? From what I've heard it's about 50/50 on the couple of debated I've heard. The most common agreement from both side of the argument is that the playing field should be a level one.

South Richmond Hill, NY
reply to ZZZZZZZ

Re: Armstrong getting caught up in lies

»www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cy ··· 1828311/

Woud love to see how he cheated the system. He's a dirtbag to me now.

Lance Armstrong plans to make an admission about doping in an interview with Oprah Winfrey scheduled to tape Monday at his home in Austin, Texas, a person with knowledge of the situation said.

In the interview, which is scheduled to air Thursday on the Oprah Winfrey Network, the famed cyclist plans to admit to doping throughout his career but probably will not get into great detail about specific cases and events, the person said. The person spoke to USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly about it.