Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #21 - luidias (01/22/2013) [-]
>lance wins a bunch of prizes whilst doping
>raises millions of dollars for cancer research
>gets found out about doping
>becomes evil human being

let me reiterate that.

>millions of dollars for cancer
>some stupid prize
somehow, he's a bad person for cheating on the prize, and ISN'T a good person for the millions of dollars to cancer.
User avatar #40 to #21 - tiddycats (01/22/2013) [-]
He was a dick though, he ruined a lot of reporter's careers for probing into doping, he basically bought off a lot of the people that run the tour de france and all that through "donations" and then would blacklist certain reporters that he didn't like.
I wouldn't have cared otherwise since I'm pretty sure 90% of all cyclists dope.
User avatar #46 to #40 - luidias (01/22/2013) [-]
granted, he's no saint. a lot of the **** he did was wrong, but he did a lot of good as well.
User avatar #33 to #21 - Marker (01/22/2013) [-]
People are treating him worse than Barry Bonds, which is pathetic as all hell.

Armstrong, while proven to have cheated, what a good person.
Bonds, although never actually proven to have cheated, made it quite obvious. And to top it off, he was scum.
User avatar #34 to #33 - Marker (01/22/2013) [-]
was* a good person.
User avatar #36 to #34 - luidias (01/22/2013) [-]
I agree. What Lance did was wrong, but I think he's getting way too much heat for it, especially considering all the good he did on the side.
#52 to #36 - anon (01/22/2013) [-]
Disagree. He sued people who told the truth that he was cheating. How is that right? Him raising money for cancer does not negate the **** he did and the hell he put other people through with lawsuits. He also lied during an investigation. I hope he gets sued and thrown in jail for perjury. **** him, he's a piece of **** .
User avatar #62 to #52 - luidias (01/22/2013) [-]
it doesn't negate anything, but he deserves some credit for it. again, I'd rather have lance as a cheater and cancer receiving the money, than honest lance and no money for cancer.
User avatar #74 to #62 - Marker (01/22/2013) [-]
Agreed completely. There is no reason to treat Lance anywhere near as bad as Bonds.

Of course, Bonds' punishment is one that will sit with him for the rest of his life, knowing he's never getting into the Hall of Fame.
User avatar #23 to #21 - KillYourself (01/22/2013) [-]
how much monetary gain did he make from cheating?
User avatar #25 to #23 - luidias (01/22/2013) [-]
>he gained money
>he raised much more for cancer

if you could give a man some amount of money to raise ten times that amount for cancer, wouldn't you do it? wouldn't you say that's a pretty good deal?

I can see why people are upset about it, but I don't think it matters in the big picture. what does it matter what he gets, if cancer got the money anyways? I'll take the current situation over the one where he never cheats and the millions for cancer are never raised.
User avatar #32 to #25 - StrayBullet (01/22/2013) [-]
So you would say the ends justify the means? I agree with that sentiment. However, at what point do the means cease to be justifiable and become universally deplorable? As far as the universe is concerned, never, but what do you think?
User avatar #35 to #32 - luidias (01/22/2013) [-]
I think people incorrectly treat that statement, "the end justifies the means" as a black and white statement. Its truthfulness depends entirely on the scale, effects, moral implications and a billion other factors pertaining to the ends and the means.

In other words, sometimes the ends justifies the means and sometimes not, because the world is not black and white, it's made up entirely of grey zones. I think that, in this situation, the ends do justify the means, although saying that is still oversimplifying it.
User avatar #39 to #35 - StrayBullet (01/22/2013) [-]
With that, I agree with you. Everything can be found in shades of grey.
(And a Hell of a lot more than fifty. It doesn't take a telepath to know what you're thinking.)
#26 to #25 - anon (01/22/2013) [-]
People could still DONATE THEIR MONEY toward cancer research without Lance Armstrong making millions.
User avatar #28 to #26 - luidias (01/22/2013) [-]
but they don't. the only reason those millions were raised was because lance founded Livestrong and started a massive awareness campaign

i.e. if lance hadn't been there, no one would've donated **** all. again, I don't mind that lance cheated, because the alternative meant that none of that money would have gone to cancer.

I mean, I think it's fair that he was stripped of the title. In terms of the competition, cheating was a dick move. However, I think what he did for cancer research deserves some merit, and I just can't call him an overall bad person.
 Friends (0)