Posted on 01/17/2013 12:08:06 PM PST by TexasCajun
Consider this: You and I have now won the Tour de France as many times as Lance Armstrong.
In case you need a quick recap: After more than a year of investigating, in June 2012, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) charged Armstrong with using illicit performance-enhancing drugs. In August, it stripped Armstrong of all competitive results from August 1998 on, and announced that he was banned from competitive cycling for life. In October, the sport’s governing body, UCI, accepted USADA’s recommended sanctions. By early November, nearly all of his sponsors had dropped him (including Nike, Anheuser-Busch, RadioShack and Oakley). In mid-November, Armstrong resigned from the board of directors of his foundation, Livestrong. Yet despite all this, and even though 26 of his former teammates have offered damning evidence against him, including several who admit to doping with him, Armstrong hasn’t publicly admitted to taking performance-enhancing drugs.
But that’s about to change because of — who else? — Oprah. The AP is reporting that Lance Armstrong admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs in his recent interview with Oprah, which airs Thursday night on OWN. I’ll be watching not just to see an admission of guilt, but to see an admission that he’s an addict, just like me, and needs help, just like I did.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/why-lance-armstrong-has-my-sympathy/#ixzz2IGSzjkei
I know a person who uses “performance enhancing drugs”, and he is the biggest ******* on the face of the earth. Not saying there’s a connection, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Google “roid rage”.
Not likely. If he had not cheated and therefore not won, it is much more than likely that the winner would have been another doping cyclist, not a non-doping cyclist.
Lance won because he had enormous native talent and immense drive, plus he was apparently the king of doping.
It is probable he would not have won as much, possibly not at all, without doping, since the competition was mostly cheating, too. But it is also entirely possible that in a clean field he would have won just as much as he did while doping against a dirty field.
The tragedy of this is that we will never know.
“Armstrong has destroyed anyone who has been successful in cycling,” LeMond said.
LeMond, a 51-year-old Californian, won the Tour in 1986, 1989 and 1990. He said he won the race without resorting to performance enhancing drugs because of his talent and dubbed Armstrong’s cycling talent only average at best.
“If Armstrong had given Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton the same stuff he was taking, he would never have won — they would have beaten him,” LeMond said.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/01/news/lemond-isnt-convinced-by-armstrongs-confessional_271885
Lance Armstrong is the worst kind of liar.. he stood publicly for years..putting other people’s character in question without batting and eye. And why does he come forward now? because he wants to compete? The worst kind of narcissist there is.
Laurie lowers herself to put a sociopath-ic power addict on the same plane as her alcohol addiction. Armstrongs sins were not that he was “addicted” to these “drugs”, but that he was a lying calculating cheater who would knock anyone down who challenged his web of lies.
I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
Hot damn
i could give that a whole lot of attention.......for hours
Or Mexican Citizens and United States Federal Agent due to Fast and Furious.
Has the possibility of his drug use bringing on the testicle cancer been brought up?
If so, would that mean that the cancer that he garnered all the sympathy for, may have been as a result of his own doing???
I don't know if it's ever been proven, but speculation is Rush's addition to OxyContin and Hydrocodone lead to his hearing loss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.