Lance Armstrong can't ...

Nike commercial Lance can't ...

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• lance
• armstrong
• nike
• commercial
• ad

[jpzzzz]

Please someone I'm dieing to see some evidence he drugged himself... Until then, suck it up and stop making assumptions, it's been 7 Tour de France and no one ever got anything on him, it feels more like jealousy than anything else...

[starbucks3954]

It just means you're not suppose to everything well in life. Like if you can't lift 500lbs, it doesn't matter, because we all have something we are good at. We should focus on that thing, and take pride in it. Also, it's to humble us too, Lance knows he's not God, since he can't do 2985892585 things, but at the same time he still respects what he can do - ride a bike really fucking well. Anyways, that's the message of the commercial, also to sell Nike crap.... At least this is my take.

[foohi08]

So We Meet Again, 240p. :D

[jess1up]

This guy has half the nuts and could probably get more than twice the girls that all his haters could.

[DHTCF]

@jpzzzz We can agree of the first part of what you say - you're right, there are no guarantees. There is some evidence, and there are arguments against that evidence. Also right to say that, for all that there is much to criticise about Lance (his attitude towards people like Bassons), there is also much that is praiseworthy. But then much the same could be said for most of us.

[jpzzzz]

@DHTCF Agree to disagree then. There is no way to guarantee that the samples that were in storage for four years were not tampered with. There is no way to guarantee that the documents linking the samples were not tampered with in four years. You tell me to deny any evidence against LA is silly, I'm telling you that to not confront the validity of a tabloid sport journal allegations is beyond absurd, especially when you fully know LA was never tested positive during most of his Tour wins.

[DHTCF]

@jpzzzz I believe that I recognised the arguments against the tests that formed the basis of the L'Equipe article in my post 2 months ago. Not sure about a terrible lack of ethics, seems like good journalism in obtaining the results and linking them to LA. No-one knows what happened in the intervening years? True. No possibility of testing a B sample? Again, true. There are arguments both ways. But to deny that there is any evidence against Lance is silly.

[jpzzzz]

@DHTCF No sir, I just told you that the allegations that you used for you argument were just that, allegations. The way l'Équipe handled the affair was so unethical that they couldn't use this as a proof. The tests were made in 2001, handed in 2005, who knows what happened in a four years span. Plus, LA had no way to counterproof with a sample of his own(even though he was tested multiple times). The last sentence of my post means that unless you bring something else to the table, I won't bother

[DHTCF]

@jpzzzz In an earlier comment I had recognised the counter-arguments in favour of LA. Your last sentence demonstrates that you are not interested in a serious exchange about the arguments.

[jpzzzz]

@DHTCF Let's say you are right about everything you just said about the 1999 samples (which I'm not agreeing since the allegations you're basing your argument on were never proved) and that we don't count the 1999 Tour. Not only did he win six Tour afterwards, but he did so while being the most tested athlete on the planet. So please, before saying anything else, just give me your references so I can shit all over them.

[DHTCF]

@jpzzzz If you are well informed you will know full well that the reason why Lance was not banned or penalised for the 1999 samples was that it was not possible to conduct a B test. The samples didn't test positive in 1999 (as no test for EPO then existed). They were later tested, and a journalist from L'Equipe was able to show that some of the samples that were positive were Lance's. Those samples had EPO. But lance could nto be banned because there could be no B sample tested.