The miracle is that he was able to conceive a child with his most recent wife, after having had testicular cancer!
There's a lot of stuff getting thrown around in this thread. I'll try to clear up some misconceptions.
If Armstrong doped, he probably used EPO more than steroids. For distance athletes EPO helps by providing extra oxygen-carrying blood cells to fire the muscles. Steroids are used to aid in recovery after strenuous workouts and more effective for anerobic sports like football.
The Lance Armstrong Foundation exists primarily as an advocacy group for cancer survivors. They actually fund very little research dedicated to "finding a cure". Armstrong felt that those who survived cancer needed help that wasn't available in other programs that focused on chemical and biological research. I point this out, not to denigrate their activities, but to properly identify them.
Reading the financial statements of LAF can be very instructional. They actually spent ~$5M in grants in 2011. The remainder of their ~$30M in expenses was largely overhead, a lot of it in "lobbying".
Something that has troubled me for some time is that Livestrong.org and Livestrong.com are largely indistinguishable. Livetrong.com is a lifestyle site, at which one can buy a number of products. It is my understanding that Lance is the principle owner of this business, although I'm not certain of that. In any case, I find it a little troubling that a commercial venture is so closely tied to a charitable venture.
Ok, changing trains of thought here, it is unlikely Armstrong will be prosecuted criminally. The feds did a thorough investigation and elected not to proceed with charges.
There's no way Armstrong has spent $40M defending himself. He's never had to appear in court. He does spend money on lawyers and PR, for sure, but it has to be a LOT less than $40M.
No evidence has been presented to anyone, so it can't be "overwhelming".
Armstrong was on a very creidible run to an upcoiming Kona Ironman race. He had a legitimate chance for a podium finish. He is now banned from tha sport, too.
Finally, on a philosophical note, I'm less troubled by whether a professional athlete "cheated" by doping than I am about its effect on society (even if the athlete does good things with his winnings). The case is frequently made that they are pros, can afford proper medical advice, and they're big boys who can take care of themselves. However, IMHO, if we turn a blind eye to this kind of thing it will trickle down to amateur and junior athletes. They will feel compelled to use drugs to stay competitive. That will result in serious physical problems and deaths. Somehow doping with PEDs has to be stopped.
JR
There's a lot of stuff getting thrown around in this thread. I'll try to clear up some misconceptions.
If Armstrong doped, he probably used EPO more than steroids. For distance athletes EPO helps by providing extra oxygen-carrying blood cells to fire the muscles. Steroids are used to aid in recovery after strenuous workouts and more effective for anerobic sports like football.
The Lance Armstrong Foundation exists primarily as an advocacy group for cancer survivors. They actually fund very little research dedicated to "finding a cure". Armstrong felt that those who survived cancer needed help that wasn't available in other programs that focused on chemical and biological research. I point this out, not to denigrate their activities, but to properly identify them.
Reading the financial statements of LAF can be very instructional. They actually spent ~$5M in grants in 2011. The remainder of their ~$30M in expenses was largely overhead, a lot of it in "lobbying".
Something that has troubled me for some time is that Livestrong.org and Livestrong.com are largely indistinguishable. Livetrong.com is a lifestyle site, at which one can buy a number of products. It is my understanding that Lance is the principle owner of this business, although I'm not certain of that. In any case, I find it a little troubling that a commercial venture is so closely tied to a charitable venture.
Ok, changing trains of thought here, it is unlikely Armstrong will be prosecuted criminally. The feds did a thorough investigation and elected not to proceed with charges.
There's no way Armstrong has spent $40M defending himself. He's never had to appear in court. He does spend money on lawyers and PR, for sure, but it has to be a LOT less than $40M.
No evidence has been presented to anyone, so it can't be "overwhelming".
Armstrong was on a very creidible run to an upcoiming Kona Ironman race. He had a legitimate chance for a podium finish. He is now banned from tha sport, too.
Finally, on a philosophical note, I'm less troubled by whether a professional athlete "cheated" by doping than I am about its effect on society (even if the athlete does good things with his winnings). The case is frequently made that they are pros, can afford proper medical advice, and they're big boys who can take care of themselves. However, IMHO, if we turn a blind eye to this kind of thing it will trickle down to amateur and junior athletes. They will feel compelled to use drugs to stay competitive. That will result in serious physical problems and deaths. Somehow doping with PEDs has to be stopped.
JR
Black wallnut
Comment