F**K YOU! LANCE!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tress

Tress

Cajungal said:
...and maybe those people accomplished a lot before they started, but that's what happens, I guess.
Click to expand...
There's an interesting argument. Barry Bonds was a Hall of Famer before he started using steroids; he just played the game very differently. He was a mix of speed and excellent hitting, with some power mixed in. He was the second player ever to steal 40 bases and hit 40 home runs in the same season, and it has only happened four times in the history of the game. It was only when he saw all the attention that McGuire and Sosa got during their single season record chase that he decided that he needed to max out his power with 'roids (to the detriment of his speed and body). Bonds was already one of the best, it just wasn't enough for him. He wanted to be the best.

But is there anyone who can make the case that Armstrong was one of the better cyclists before he started doping?
 
Shakey

Shakey

It's hard to say since most likely all the winning cyclists at that point were doping or doing something. He has said that before his cancer diagnosis he didn't use anything illegal, if that's the truth, but he didn't win before then so it probably is. He did win a few legs of the tour before then., but it doesn't really matter. He cheated and lied about it. His sports legacy is gone.
 
Calleja

Calleja

Shakey said:
Yes, it did. When he first showed up there was still a big stigma related to testicular cancer, and male cancer all together. He founded it in 1997, not 2 years ago. Many men at that time would rather not know then to have to face losing one of their balls. He basically showed everyone the idea that you were no longer a man after that was bull shit. Which also led towards greater awareness of prostate cancer. He provided a lot of inspiration towards a lot of people.

Maybe it doesn't need a famous face now, but it did when he first started it. That doesn't excuse what he did, but it doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything anymore.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't agree completely, I'm not sure the stigma for testicular cancer in 1997 was really that different, but I do see how that could mean something.

But then that brings up another interesting point... if Livestrong has done all it can do, what's the point of it existence now? The stigma or lack thereof will not change anymore, specially with Armstrong not even being PART of the organization... and they're doing nothing for research, so... what's the point NOW, really?
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

The idea of losing a (or both of your) ball(s) and how emasculating it is, is still strong, though. Plenty of people refuse to take screenings and whatever and would rather "risk it". Women don't exactly like mammographies (durrr!), prostate exams aren't all that much fun either obviously, but the taboo around losing your balls is bigger than that surrounding losing (one of) your breasts. Not to say that isn't a) horrible, b) painful and c) can really hurt your sense of self-worth and feeling "feminine", with reconstructive surgery we're slowly getting there and those women I know who don't get regular mammo's (after a certain age) tend to not do it because they're too painful (for the well-endowed). Amongst men over a certain age, the humiliation of the prostate exam is certainly there as well, but I hear a LOT more of "I don't want to know"/"I'll die with both my balls/a real man". I'd say testicular cancer still needs more awreness, especially in regards to what can be done if diagnosed early, and what impact losing a ball has on you (not all that much if you still have one).

Of course, Lance as an example of "see how manly you can still be with one ball" doesn't hold up anymore.
 
strawman

strawman

Before anyone goes off on how Livestrong doesn't serve a purpose if it doesn't fund cancer research, please go to http://livestrong.com and explore what they do.

Then come back here and explain why you feel they should close up shop.

Anything else is ignorance.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Calleja said:
I wouldn't agree completely, I'm not sure the stigma for testicular cancer in 1997 was really that different, but I do see how that could mean something.

But then that brings up another interesting point... if Livestrong has done all it can do, what's the point of it existence now? The stigma or lack thereof will not change anymore, specially with Armstrong not even being PART of the organization... and they're doing nothing for research, so... what's the point NOW, really?
Click to expand...
Funny, you were just insulting him for having one ball the other day.

The awareness should be pointed to young men 18-30, since they are the most likely to develop that cancer. I was odd because I was about 7 years outside the normal age range. I was not aware that during those years that I was in the high risk category. ...the more you know.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
sixpackshaker said:
No one bans steroids because of the side effects. They get banned because they are cheating.
Click to expand...
Starving yourself for wrestling, vicious hits in football, blowing through the catcher in baseball...these things are all encouraged and are not safe or healthy. These things are fine. Steroids are not because it's cheating.

(By the way, I'm agreeing with you.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top