Lost any or all respect for Lance Atrmstrong?

Yes but not because he doped but the fact that he vehemently denied it so hard for so long. I would have respected him more if, a few years ago he came out about it. We would have forgiven him like we forgave Mike, Kobe, Ray Lewis etc etc etc and he would still be doing great things with Livestrong.

It's certainly true that if someone's actions don't affect me, they are neither right nor wrong.

Think about that. I hope you really just misspoke, and don't mean the exact words you just posted.

Oh my.

I guess you give Hitler a free pass then as long as he didn't kill anybody you knew.

Changed my mind. You are right!

This just stratches the surface of who he hurt.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/questions-oprah-should-ask-lance-armstrong-230849439.html

No. Everyone at the top is enhanced and admitting usage is taboo thanks to our wonderful laws and propaganda fueled culture

It's certainly true that if someone's actions don't affect me, they are neither right nor wrong.

Think about that. I hope you really just misspoke, and don't mean the exact words you just posted.

Oh my.

I guess you give Hitler a free pass then as long as he didn't kill anybody you knew.

Great comparison. There should be a "not" button on my keyboard, BTW.

I disagree. The Hitler reference really drove home for me the error of my viewpoint.

It's certainly true that if someone's actions don't affect me, they are neither right nor wrong.

Think about that. I hope you really just misspoke, and don't mean the exact words you just posted.

Oh my.

I guess you give Hitler a free pass then as long as he didn't kill anybody you knew.

Great comparison. There should be a "not" button on my keyboard, BTW.

I disagree. The Hitler reference really drove home for me the error of my viewpoint.

Yeah . . . there really isn't any logic to comparing a doper to Hitler. You'll have to trust me: you're being persuaded by ridiculous logic, and I highly recommend you don't try the comparison out yourself in edumacated company. Of course, you can do it if you want. Just make sure someone Youtubes the event: if it isn't a meme by now, it should be.

Sage advice. I would add that I don't plan on applying Hitler comparison logic whilst driving an automobile and I won't lift heavy objects or go swimming for 45 minutes after doing so for fear of brain cramps.

I really do not care either way. I think we should be more focused on how our politicians lie to us then some athlete

finally! a sane person!

We all have lied and cheated at some point. And hurt people close to us doing it.

Am I disappointed he took this long to admit it and tried to bully others to keep it covered up? Yes. But, ultimately it does not matter. I wonder how many people on here are actually affected in any way by what Lance Armstrong (or any other athlete/celebrity) does or doesn't do.

A friend of mine is a very close personal friend of Lance and while I am tempted to ask him what he thinks of all of this, I will not because his answer will not change anything in my life. We spend too much time worrying about what others are doing instead of what we are doing.

yes my friends have done some bad things but none have them have ruined people by threatening them and suing them.

I don't respect the majority of people anyway.

i would also like to know why everybody pats him on the back for beating cancer and acts as though he overcame some terrible ordeal with his cancer.

don't get me wrong, there are many types of cancer that are devastating and debilitating and lead to death and suffering. my grandfather wasted away from lung cancer when i was a child. people like Gene Upshaw can literally be fine one day, diagnosed the next, and dead within the week from some truly terrible forms of cancer. so i know many types of cancer are a big deal, but if there's any type of cancer for a man to get, it would be testicular cancer, which has a 5-year survivability rate of 95% (and if it it hasn't spread outside of the testicle, that rate increases to 99%). it's not something i would volunteer to get, but if i somebody pointed a gun at my head and forced me to choose, that would probably be the one to choose because the odds of dying from it are extremely low compared to other forms, such as pancreatic cancer.

is there some part of his ordeal that i am not aware of? because right now, i'm under the impression that the whole cancer angle of his story has been vastly hyped for his own personal benefit and enrichment.

technically speaking, i COULD have died when my appendix burst in my early 20's. i didn't and i didn't seriously think it was much of a possibility when the doctor warned me about that prior to the surgery for having my appendix removed. i don't go around asking for sympathy 25 years later for having my burst appendix removed either. it seems to me, and maybe i'm not informed of all of the details relating to his case, that Armstrong's cancer was not that big of a deal compared to pretty much all of the other types of cancer.

i would also like to know why everybody pats him on the back for beating cancer and acts as though he overcame some terrible ordeal with his cancer.

don't get me wrong, there are many types of cancer that are devastating and debilitating [ . . . ]

Let's not judge the severity of damage done to other men's testicles. In any case, it's not so much the fact that he survived cancer that is the marvel of the modern world, but that he went on to have a modest level of success in his chosen field. True, it seems he may have had a wee bit of chemical assistance; but he did keep going after all.

so you're an elite cyclist, get cancer in your nut, have it snipped off, recover for a few weeks or months, and resume being an elite cyclist... means many pats on the back and awards for courage? i'm afraid i don't get that either. it still doesn't seem like a big deal to me. what about having a nut snipped off implies that he could no longer be an elite cyclist?

it seems to me that everything about the guy is fraudulent and always has been.

i would also like to know why everybody pats him on the back for beating cancer and acts as though he overcame some terrible ordeal with his cancer.

don't get me wrong, there are many types of cancer that are devastating and debilitating [ . . . ]

Let's not judge the severity of damage done to other men's testicles. In any case, it's not so much the fact that he survived cancer that is the marvel of the modern world, but that he went on to have a modest level of success in his chosen field. True, it seems he may have had a wee bit of chemical assistance; but he did keep going after all.

so you're an elite cyclist, get cancer in your nut, have it snipped off, recover for a few weeks or months, and resume being an elite cyclist... means many pats on the back and awards for courage? i'm afraid i don't get that either. it still doesn't seem like a big deal to me. what about having a nut snipped off implies that he could no longer be an elite cyclist?

it seems to me that everything about the guy is fraudulent and always has been.

Yeah. If anything he may even be a little less discomfited by the bicycle seat.

i would also like to know why everybody pats him on the back for beating cancer and acts as though he overcame some terrible ordeal with his cancer.

don't get me wrong, there are many types of cancer that are devastating and debilitating [ . . . ]

Let's not judge the severity of damage done to other men's testicles. In any case, it's not so much the fact that he survived cancer that is the marvel of the modern world, but that he went on to have a modest level of success in his chosen field. True, it seems he may have had a wee bit of chemical assistance; but he did keep going after all.

so you're an elite cyclist, get cancer in your nut, have it snipped off, recover for a few weeks or months, and resume being an elite cyclist... means many pats on the back and awards for courage? i'm afraid i don't get that either. it still doesn't seem like a big deal to me. what about having a nut snipped off implies that he could no longer be an elite cyclist?

it seems to me that everything about the guy is fraudulent and always has been.

The cancer was quite a bit more invasive than that. Multiple tumors in his lungs and in his brain.
Don't underestimate the hell he went through with chemo as well....that's some seriously nasty stuff.

ok, that's why i asked previously. i didn't know the details, just that he had testicular cancer.

He competed in an era when players doped. And, they all lied about it. Not saying I condone the doping or the lying. But, I can't lose respect for his accomplishments knowing he was competing against what is likely a fair number of other dopers. I say you put an asterisk on his record, but let it stand.

Agreed Brett.... It is so easy for people to judge from this side of the fence. Pro athletes in all sport are constantly looking for that edge and even though I do not condone enhancement drugs of any kind it is a product of the way the majority of these pro's go about things in their respected sport. He didn't ruin anyone's life the people that he sued are doing just fine with their millions, I feel bad for the foundations though and the work that they was doing and are not going to be able to do now... I am not a big cyclist fan although come the Tour when Lance raced I admit to flipping over to watch some of it. Put an asterisk by his name like they did with those in baseball or any other sport where these reports came out. Is it right no but the humiliation that he has went through and now standing up and admitting he lied and apologizing in my eye is doing the right thing. A little late yeah but every one deserves a second chance as long as he is making good on it then I personally do not have a problem with him....

all