Lance Armstrong: Hero or Villian ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • C-Gold
    SBR Hall of Famer
    • 09-04-10
    • 6808

    #1
    Lance Armstrong: Hero or Villian ?
    I'm so sick of the media trying to make your opinion on things for you. They tell you that you should HATE guys like Barry Bonds, Mark Mcguire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmero because they are CHEATERS and they are so so bad human beings. The baseball writers and media goofs make it sound like you are a horrible person if you still like Barry Bonds.

    So now all of the people that dislike Bonds but don't dislike Lance Armstrong look like such hypocrites. Do all of you steroid era baseball players despise Lance Armstrong too? Is he an evil sub human like that Barry Bonds that you hate so much?
  • Doc JS
    SBR Hall of Famer
    • 09-15-06
    • 6885

    #2
    Neither...

    Just another athlete who doped.
    Comment
    • jazzmonkey
      SBR High Roller
      • 06-27-08
      • 130

      #3
      both
      Comment
      • EasyHustlin
        SBR Wise Guy
        • 07-15-10
        • 633

        #4
        I hated Barry Bonds long before the steroids accusations started swirling around. That guy is a complete douchenozzle, doper or not.
        Comment
        • muldoon
          SBR MVP
          • 01-04-10
          • 4397

          #5
          Admirable after what he went through with his multiple cancers that he achieved such a high level of athletic success. Always believed he was like everyone else and did blood doping (which I don't even really consider cheating)
          Comment
          • jjgold
            SBR Aristocracy
            • 07-20-05
            • 388189

            #6
            Villan

            He is a loser and a huge fraud
            Comment
            • ChileCheese
              SBR MVP
              • 11-07-09
              • 1957

              #7
              Whats funny is that this is even a discussion.
              How did people think Lance won all those titles without cheating?
              Forget the fact he dominated the sport like no one before him...
              HE DID SO AFTER FUKKING CANCER.
              Cancer people. Think about it.
              Comment
              • C-Gold
                SBR Hall of Famer
                • 09-04-10
                • 6808

                #8
                Originally posted by jjgold
                Villan

                He is a loser and a huge fraud
                So says the bald 40 year old wearing sweatpants posting 1500 posts a day at SBR.
                Comment
                • C-Gold
                  SBR Hall of Famer
                  • 09-04-10
                  • 6808

                  #9
                  Originally posted by ChileCheese
                  Whats funny is that this is even a discussion.
                  How did people think Lance won all those titles without cheating?
                  Forget the fact he dominated the sport like no one before him...
                  HE DID SO AFTER FUKKING CANCER.
                  Cancer people. Think about it.

                  How do you know he wasn't cheating before he had cancer?

                  So you give the guy a 100% free pass because he had cancer? So who cares what he did? So if they found out that Albert Pujols played his entire career with a corked bat but that he also had cancer you'd give him a free pass? Hardly.
                  Comment
                  • ChileCheese
                    SBR MVP
                    • 11-07-09
                    • 1957

                    #10
                    Originally posted by C-Gold
                    How do you know he wasn't cheating before he had cancer?

                    So you give the guy a 100% free pass because he had cancer? So who cares what he did? So if they found out that Albert Pujols played his entire career with a corked bat but that he also had cancer you'd give him a free pass? Hardly.

                    No no no no. You got me all wrong. I think he cheated and dont care that he had cancer. I hate the fact he hid behind his cancer, saying shit like " I would never take drugs, since I already went through cancer... blah blah"
                    He is a big piece of shit and a liar.
                    My point was,,, how could people be so gullible to think he DID NOT take drugs when the man dealt with cancer. The only way a man who beat cancer gets enough strength to dominate their given sport is with the help of PEDs.
                    Simple as that
                    Comment
                    • purecarnagge
                      SBR MVP
                      • 10-05-07
                      • 4843

                      #11
                      Everyone cheated, he had cancer and still ******* won. Hero...

                      He didn't have to do all that shit for charity... but at some point he needs to admit he did wrong. Or he's gonna be the next pete rose...

                      You can only lie about it for so long before the public opinion will turn against you.
                      Comment
                      • antifoil
                        SBR MVP
                        • 11-11-09
                        • 3993

                        #12
                        there is a big difference in the facts of bonds and armstrong. armstrong was tested more than any athlete for doping while bonds never took a test. so there is hard proof surrounding armstrong that can't be ignored. most people believed evidence like this over someone saying something.

                        this evidence does not exist with bonds so the only evidence available is the words of others which you either have to believe or not believe
                        Comment
                        • C-Gold
                          SBR Hall of Famer
                          • 09-04-10
                          • 6808

                          #13
                          Originally posted by antifoil
                          so the only evidence available is the words of others which you either have to believe or not believe
                          That's a stupid point. So when the witness comes before the jury and says he saw Mr. Smith pull out a gun and shoot the dead guy, do you think the defense will come out and say that the witness could be telling the truth, but then again he could be lying... 50/50 chance here jury?
                          Comment
                          • antifoil
                            SBR MVP
                            • 11-11-09
                            • 3993

                            #14
                            no you can introduce character evidence in some instances against a witness to discredit them where it would not be 50/50.
                            Comment
                            • ChuckyTheGoat
                              BARRELED IN @ SBR!
                              • 04-04-11
                              • 36700

                              #15
                              Unwritten rule in cycling = EPO ok. EPO = Industry-std. What do u want him to do? Try to beat guys who are better prepared (by having better blood)?
                              Where's the fuckin power box, Carol?
                              Comment
                              SBR Contests
                              Collapse
                              Top-Rated US Sportsbooks
                              Collapse
                              Working...