THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: Cerveza mas fina on October 22, 2012, 12:22:57 PM
-
(http://media.nu.nl/m/m1nx17cafq3f_std320.jpg)
What a discgrace to people with cancer jesus, loser. Imagine the deception after being inspired by him.
Good thing he will have to pay the money back AND lose his victories.
-
Anyone remember that cameo in Dodgeball?
:lol :lol :lol
-
LANCE FFFS
-
Good. I always thought his version of Hello Dolly! was overrated anyway.
-
Imagine caring about professional cycling, losers.
-
More people care about prof cycling on this board then know who you are
(http://www.thecampuscompanion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Dwight-2.jpeg)
-
BREAKING: DOPER BEATS A BUNCH OF DOPERS
-
BREAKING: DOPER BEATS A BUNCH OF DOPERS AND DOPE CREATES THREAD ABOUT IT
.
-
I haven't followed this Lance thing at all but i find the idea of retro actively taking stuff away to be strange. Didnt that sprinter Carl Lewis also get caught in a doping thing after the fact? Whatever happened there?
-
Did Lance Armstrong ever make a cool rap video like Lewis? No.
:piss Lance :piss2
:bow Carl :bow2
-
Didn't Armstrong raise like half a billion dollars for cancer research?
I mean, I know it's not the same as making Chinatown, but you'd figure it would buy him some leniency.
-
Didn't Armstrong raise like half a billion dollars for cancer research?
I mean, I know it's not the same as making Chinatown, but you'd figure it would buy him some leniency.
Your brain is like a fucking vault.
-
He duped half a billion dollars away from other charity you mean.
Maybe he could be charged for that too.
It's not really raising money if its given on false premise. Sorry.
Polanski just made Chinatown, a work of art I've never seen.
-
"Oh look at me I raised 500 million by telling a lie"
Twat.
-
He duped half a billion dollars away from other charity you mean.
You're assuming all those people would have donated to charity anyway and would have donated the exact same amount. It's probable that his story, as tainted as it is, inspired people who otherwise wouldn't have done so to donate to cancer research.
-
They should ask for their money back.
-
I see a disguised piracy argument
-
How could they get their money back. Lance Armstrong is a fraud--the Lance Armstrong Foundation is not.
-
He is going for it BUT the reality its more like donating money to a kickstarter project from the makers of your favourite game and then they get caught being two fat kids in a basement and not the real dev team you gave the money too.
Lance Armstrong Foundation is a fraud too, since its got its money from people that gave it assuming the guy who's name is in the name of the foundation beat cancer and wont the Tour 7 times. You're assuming someone would give the same amount of money to the foundation of a nobody, like Lance Armstrong really is, which we know they woulnd't. Its called false advertising and there are laws about it.
-
So because Armstrong doped during his cycling career, the Livestrong Foundation will be somehow less effective in supporting cancer research? Interesting.
-
Some bad logic going down in this thread.
-
I want to start a kickstarter project one day, have an idea that I think would work. Will need a fat kid from a basement in the states to assist me one day.
-
What would the Lance Armstrong Foundation be without his fraud for all these years?
Might as well have been the Flannel Boy Foundation, with zero income. No one would care about Lance if he didn't cheat to such extent, just another nobody.
-
Some bad logic going down in this thread.
I'd assume it was just a blatant troll, but...
-
So because Armstrong doped during his cycling career, the Livestrong Foundation will be somehow less effective in supporting cancer research? Interesting.
His foundation has a future now? :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
-
its more like donating money to a kickstarter project from the makers of your favourite game and then they get caught being two fat kids in a basement and not the real dev team you gave the money too.
For that analogy to hold there would need to be actual charity fraud. In other words, the money would have to go to non-charitable purpose. People donated to fight cancer and to help cancer survivors and that is where the money is going--not the equivalent of two fat kids in a basement.
The nature of a charity is defined by its purposes, not the character flaws of its founder.
-
So because Armstrong doped during his cycling career, the Livestrong Foundation will be somehow less effective in supporting cancer research? Interesting.
His foundation has a future now? :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
Just change the name to the Dolph Lundgren Cancer Foundation. Boom. Problem solved.
-
Good thing he will have to pay the money back AND lose his victories.
AND he has to get cancer back.
-
So because Armstrong doped during his cycling career, the Livestrong Foundation will be somehow less effective in supporting cancer research? Interesting.
His foundation has a future now? :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
Just change the name to the Dolph Lundgren Cancer Foundation. Boom. Problem solved.
No need for a foundation then, Dolph could just punch the cancer cells to death.
-
Good thing he will have to pay the money back AND lose his victories.
AND he has to get cancer back.
well that was going to happen anyway
-
The difference between Lance and every other competitive cyclist since the birth of drugs is that Lance Armstrong raised half a billion dollars for charity. The whole sport is a fraud, and will continue to be embarrassing for everyone involved until they just say fuck it and let people dope as much as they want.
-
They should ask for their money back.
I just read this. What kind of asshole asks for their money back from CANCER RESEARCH?
-
They should ask for their money back.
What kind of asshole asks for their money back from CANCER RESEARCH?
The same people who are still "undecided" less than a month before a Presidential election.
-
Hey Borys I cant read your shit cause you're on ignore
-
So because Armstrong doped during his cycling career, the Livestrong Foundation will be somehow less effective in supporting cancer research? Interesting.
You can't cure cancer with cancerous money
-
....
*slow-clap*
-
This thread just sodomized me against my will.
-
This thread just sodomized me against my will.
And now you have colon cancer but there are no charities left to help you out :'(
-
maybe polanski making a movie about lance armstrong doping and buttraping a teenage cancer patient (for charity) could teach lager about the grey areas of life
-
maybe polanski making a movie about lance armstrong doping and buttraping a teenage cancer patient (for charity) could teach lager about the grey areas of life
and possibly the pink ones
-
This thread is pretty sad.
-
maybe polanski making a movie about lance armstrong doping and buttraping a teenage cancer patient (for charity) could teach lager about the grey areas of life
and possibly the pink ones
:lol
-
id rather see people helped even IF it goes against 'the principle of the thing'. Saying Lance's contributions are tainted/wrong is basically an accusation against anyone who's benefited from it out of a basic need.
-
Didn't Armstrong raise like half a billion dollars for cancer research?
I mean, I know it's not the same as making Chinatown, but you'd figure it would buy him some leniency.
Annihilated.
maybe polanski making a movie about lance armstrong doping and buttraping a teenage cancer patient (for charity) could teach lager about the grey areas of life
and possibly the pink ones
:rofl
-
Apparently he was a notorious bully.
-
id rather see people helped even IF it goes against 'the principle of the thing'. Saying Lance's contributions are tainted/wrong is basically an accusation against anyone who's benefited from it out of a basic need.
No no no. Everyone has to be either good or bad. So either the accusations against Armstrong are false and he's a martyr, or he's a dirty cheater and all his charity work is sullied and meaningless!
Gosh, how can you be so naive?
-
haha wtf?
So basically a director assraping a minor is a-ok but getting caught doping in a sport full of dopers is so reprehensible that it completely eradicates all of the goodwill this guy has brought? I mean, the act was so offensive that people who donate to his cancer research fund should ask for their money back?
So what would it take for Lance Armstrong to redeem himself in the eyes of Kosma? Does he need to assrape a minor? Does he need to make a few acclaimed movies? Does he need to reveal some Polish ancestry?
-
What if he doesn't want to give his medals back? are they gonna have the cops raid his house looking from medals with little bycicles on them?
-
dude already won them, so he'll still be thought of as one of the best regardless. just like polanski is still thought of as one of the best directors even though he rapes people
just like ben roethlisburger!
-
everyones doping in that sport, so he technically is still the best lol
-
just like everyone is on roids in the nfl, and everyone smokes pot in skateboarding
-
hey, I dont wanna invest too heavily in this argument, im gonna generalize so I can move on with my life
-
:lol
-
Didn't Armstrong raise like half a billion dollars for cancer research?
I mean, I know it's not the same as making Chinatown, but you'd figure it would buy him some leniency.
CCCCCCOMBO BREAKER
-
interesting interview on joe rogan's podcast with some guy, evidently pretty much every athlete "juices", there's a lot of chemicals out there...
-
Good thing he will have to pay the money back AND lose his victories.
AND he has to get cancer back.
:rofl
Also, Premium Lager is nutso
-
id rather see people helped even IF it goes against 'the principle of the thing'. Saying Lance's contributions are tainted/wrong is basically an accusation against anyone who's benefited from it out of a basic need.
No no no. Everyone has to be either good or bad. So either the accusations against Armstrong are false and he's a martyr, or he's a dirty cheater and all his charity work is sullied and meaningless!
Gosh, how can you be so naive?
I guess the question becomes "do the ends justify the means?" I mean, his charity wouldn't be nearly as successful without Lance himself being successful, and the doping was a major contributor to his success. Can all heinous acts be forgiven if a large enough check is written? What about just minor infractions? Where is the line drawn?
-
I don't think you even really need to ask that. You can believe that the years of doping and lying about it were bad and that the charity work was good without having to weigh the two against each other. There's a need to decide whether someone's a Good Guy or a Bad Guy when the answer's always a bit of both, and besides, I'm not St. Peter. It's not my job.
-
duh, the doping and the charity work were entirely different endeavours with entirely different motivations. They are not 'end' and 'means'
-
id rather see people helped even IF it goes against 'the principle of the thing'. Saying Lance's contributions are tainted/wrong is basically an accusation against anyone who's benefited from it out of a basic need.
No no no. Everyone has to be either good or bad. So either the accusations against Armstrong are false and he's a martyr, or he's a dirty cheater and all his charity work is sullied and meaningless!
Gosh, how can you be so naive?
I guess the question becomes "do the ends justify the means?" I mean, his charity wouldn't be nearly as successful without Lance himself being successful, and the doping was a major contributor to his success. Can all heinous acts be forgiven if a large enough check is written? What about just minor infractions? Where is the line drawn?
Who was harmed by the doping? Did anyone get their ass fucked in the course of this doping?
-
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all
Apparently Livestrong money doesn't go to cancer research.
-
Oh now ya'll quiet feggs :lol
Who would have thought, the foundation of an attention seeking whore like Armstrong donates most cash to "awareness", probably of his own organisation and name.
-
Oh now ya'll quiet feggs :lol
Who would have thought, the foundation of an attention seeking whore like Armstrong donates most cash to "awareness", probably of his own organisation and name.
(http://i42.tinypic.com/8y82yo.jpg)
-
Oh now ya'll quiet feggs :lol
Who would have thought, the foundation of an attention seeking whore like Armstrong donates most cash to "awareness", probably of his own organisation and name.
If by awareness you mean fundraising, 13.5% (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6570) of LAF's budget goes to fundraising, which seems to be below the national average. (http://www.affinityresources.com/pgs/articles/fundraising_costs.html)
If by awareness you mean education, I don't see how the purpose of these programs (http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do/Our-Actions/Programs-Partnerships) is simply to bring awareness to Lance Armstrong's name.
-
Does being a diehard sports fan permanently damage your sense of morality, or are most diehard sports fans just dumb?
-
He should also have to give back the memories of sleeping with Sheryl Crowe also. It's only fair to guys like me who will never get to fuck her.
-
He should also have to give back the memories of sleeping with Sheryl Crowe also. It's only fair to guys like me who will never get to fuck her.
Or alternately, she could give everyone who hasn't used steroids a turn to balance it out.
-
id rather see people helped even IF it goes against 'the principle of the thing'. Saying Lance's contributions are tainted/wrong is basically an accusation against anyone who's benefited from it out of a basic need.
No no no. Everyone has to be either good or bad. So either the accusations against Armstrong are false and he's a martyr, or he's a dirty cheater and all his charity work is sullied and meaningless!
Gosh, how can you be so naive?
I guess the question becomes "do the ends justify the means?" I mean, his charity wouldn't be nearly as successful without Lance himself being successful, and the doping was a major contributor to his success. Can all heinous acts be forgiven if a large enough check is written? What about just minor infractions? Where is the line drawn?
Who was harmed by the doping? Did anyone get their ass fucked in the course of this doping?
The other cyclists who couldn't compete because they didn't dope, or the cyclists who felt they had to dope in order to compete have been harmed. The Tour De France has lost a great deal of credibility. The charity is having to deal with the fallout of this scandal. But you are right that there was no sodomy involved with this scandal (that we know of!) :P