Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Slik on December 24, 2012, 09:56:25 AM

Title: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Slik on December 24, 2012, 09:56:25 AM
Just a ruse to scam people out of their hard earned money to contribute to the corrupt American cancer society.
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: njflex on December 24, 2012, 09:58:33 AM
Just a ruse to scam people out of their hard earned money to contribute to the corrupt American cancer society.
i hope not,,,
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Slik on December 24, 2012, 10:07:15 AM
K. U guys r gonna think I'm full of shit but late stage testicular cancer that metastasized to his lungs abdomen and brain n he survived that has always been a hard pill for me to swallow.  It's bugged me for a long time. So I got up  posted this never before having heard anyone say this.  So then I just googled it n saw this.  Is this legit?


http://dailycurrant.com/2012/10/18/investigation-reveals-lance-armstrong-cancer/
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: njflex on December 24, 2012, 10:10:19 AM
K. U guys r gonna think I'm full of shit but late stage testicular cancer that metastasized to his lungs abdomen and brain n he survived that has always been a hard pill for me to swallow.  It's bugged me for a long time. So I got up  posted this never before having heard anyone say this.  So then I just googled it n saw this.  Is this legit?


http://dailycurrant.com/2012/10/18/investigation-reveals-lance-armstrong-cancer/
yeah i mean thats some hill to climb survival is bleak,,,then u survive and are a top athlete for yrs to come,,,
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: TrueGrit on December 24, 2012, 10:15:57 AM
Yep, the celebrated surgeon that wrote about removing Lance's tumors is in on the scam. He was paid with kigs.
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Slik on December 24, 2012, 10:22:11 AM
Yep, the celebrated surgeon that wrote about removing Lance's tumors is in on the scam. He was paid with kigs.
yeah. That's why I was asking for input. I don't know what that site is wether it's legit or not. I never read about th surgeon who removed tumors. I do know that w live in a money driven corrupt society tho.
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: 240 is Back on December 24, 2012, 10:31:03 AM
"Lance" is a great porn name.
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: viking1 on December 24, 2012, 10:41:33 AM
"Lance" is a great porn name.

"Lance"    Starring Dick Pound from USADA

 :D
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Slik on December 24, 2012, 10:47:22 AM
Armstrong famously got very ill in 1996, contracting cancer. The signs of this showed up very early in the year, but weren’t recognised. This is important: Armstrong, despite having cancer, put in some of his best ever performances. A debilitating disease (at least, Armstrong’s own foundation lists it as such) was having a chronic effect on his body and yet he was performing better than ever before, despite Armstrong’s own admission that he’d noticed abnormalities related to the cancer three years before his diagnosis.

But there’s a subscript to his cancer that hasn’t really been explored: Armstrong by his own claim is the most tested athlete on the planet, and given he enjoyed considerable success in 1996 and beforehand, would certainly have been subject to numerous doping controls. Some cancers - including the type Lance Armstrong had - cause enormously elevated levels of human chorionic gonadotropin hormone (hCG), a naturally occuring hormone in the body, but at low levels in males. Now, there are rules for the amount of hCG permitted in an athlete, because it offers a competitive advantage - not enough to overcome the deficiencies cancers cause, but a good advantage in a healthy human being, because it produces testosterone. An athlete is often considered to have failed a drug test if the urinary T/E (Testosterone:Epitestosterone) ratio is greater than 6. So the UCI would have been testing for it, and Armstrong’s cancer would have resulted in an enormously elevated T/E ratio.

But Armstrong never produced a positive sample. Compare that with Jake Gibb whose life, it could be argued, was saved by USADA’s testing, when it detected those hugely elevated levels in an anti-doping test, and advised him to see a doctor. That ultimately led to the discovery of testicular cancer, and Gibb recovered. Lance Armstrong wasn’t so lucky - so we can assume one of two things. Either the UCI’s anti-doping measures were woefully below standard, and didn’t detect Armstrong’s elevated levels of hCG, allowing his cancer to worsen while competing, or the UCI’s anti-doping discovered Armstrong’s elevated levels and didn’t report them. Either way, it’s a massive condemnation in the UCI’s ability to validate itself as a serious entity in drug testing. At best it’s woefully ineffective, at worst it’s simply corrupt.

http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike


Or thirdly he never had cancer
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Slik on December 24, 2012, 10:49:26 AM
I know some of u r laughing but ten years from now just like in the Seville case someone's gonna look back at this thread n say those crazy mofos from getbig knew all along.
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: 240 is Back on December 24, 2012, 10:56:09 AM
that woudl be the biggest case of fraud/betrayl in recent history.

lance would be the biggest villian in the history of sports, bar none.

i do find it odd that the tests didn't find elevated HCG, that doesn't make sense at all.   THey should have seen that a mile away and known something was up.
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: quadzilla456 on December 24, 2012, 10:57:47 AM
This sounds like BS. I am all for conspiracy theories but show me a serious article where this is mentioned? I just searched Google News and nothing came up. They way they are out to crucify him this would be all over the place if there was any truth to it.
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: dj181 on December 24, 2012, 11:36:34 AM
is lance a narcissistic sociopath?
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: The Abdominal Snoman on December 24, 2012, 11:45:05 AM
If someone had a gun to my head and I had to pick whether Lance had cancer or not, I'd say he didn't have cancer.


Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: hrspwr1 on December 24, 2012, 11:49:21 AM
maybe he is an android like that weird dude on star trek
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: 240 is Back on December 24, 2012, 11:50:34 AM
levar burton...?   he was excellent on reading rainbow.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: WOOO on December 24, 2012, 11:51:10 AM
this is an interesting conspiracy theory... Armstrong is a liar, a cheat and an addict... it's believable.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NelsonMuntz on December 24, 2012, 11:55:20 AM
how come we never look into the validity of the testers, personally i think they are part of the agenda to make sport look clean and pick and choose who will be busted or who wont, regardless of test results
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: The Grim Lifter on December 24, 2012, 02:14:21 PM
I bet he never fucked Sheryl Crow. I mean why would she, when he has 10 inch arms and no mass at all.
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Primemuscle on December 24, 2012, 02:21:38 PM
K. U guys r gonna think I'm full of shit but late stage testicular cancer that metastasized to his lungs abdomen and brain n he survived that has always been a hard pill for me to swallow.  It's bugged me for a long time. So I got up  posted this never before having heard anyone say this.  So then I just googled it n saw this.  Is this legit?


http://dailycurrant.com/2012/10/18/investigation-reveals-lance-armstrong-cancer/

The Daily Currant, the global satirical newspaper of record. Apparently a publication for the most gullible, which it seems some of you are.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: MikMaq on December 24, 2012, 02:23:24 PM
this is an interesting conspiracy theory... Armstrong is a liar, a cheat and an addict... it's believable.
The dude bought his way through tests that are entirely bullshit. You folk are like sheep.

Dude is still impressive.

My guess is he may of exaggerated some of his symptons to support cancer research but thats about it.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NO ABSENCE OF MUSCLE on December 24, 2012, 03:14:32 PM
The dude bought his way through tests that are entirely bullshit. You folk are like sheep.

Dude is still impressive.

My guess is he may of exaggerated some of his symptons to support cancer research but thats about it.

Lance has decided NOT to fight the allegations.  Reason being, he will purjure himself and face jail time -similar to Marion Jones....Lance is a snivelling, dog, lying, cheating scumbag.  His reputation and status is forever destroyed.

Yes, this piece of shit played the cheating steroid game and lost everything....no one likes a cheat and a liar...more to come for this fucking disgrace to the sport.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: che on December 24, 2012, 03:17:13 PM
Lance has decided NOT to fight the allegations.  Reason being, he will purjure himself and face jail time -similar to Marion Jones....Lance is a snivelling, dog, lying, cheating scumbag.  His reputation and status is forever destroyed.

Yes, this piece of shit played the cheating steroid game and lost everything....no one likes a cheat and a liar...more to come for this fucking disgrace to the sport.

Good post NAOM .
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: The Grim Lifter on December 24, 2012, 03:18:13 PM
Lance has decided NOT to fight the allegations.  Reason being, he will purjure himself and face jail time -similar to Marion Jones....Lance is a snivelling, dog, lying, cheating scumbag.  His reputation and status is forever destroyed.

Yes, this piece of shit played the cheating steroid game and lost everything....no one likes a cheat and a liar...more to come for this fucking disgrace to the sport.

So they're all a disgrace to the sport?

It's not his fault the public are a bunch of dumbshits.
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Skeletor on December 24, 2012, 03:18:56 PM
The Daily Currant, the global satirical newspaper of record. Apparently a publication for the most gullible, which it seems some of you are.

Was about to say, it resembles The Onion.
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Slik on December 24, 2012, 03:45:54 PM
Was about to say, it resembles The Onion.
was wondering. But often satire is not far from truth.  I am wondering if he either exaggerated how bad his cancer was or he never had it.  Gonna say it again, late stage cancer that metastasized to his brain?
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: WOOO on December 24, 2012, 03:50:47 PM
Was about to say, it resembles The Onion.

i like it
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NO ABSENCE OF MUSCLE on December 24, 2012, 05:14:00 PM
was wondering. But often satire is not far from truth.  I am wondering if he either exaggerated how bad his cancer was or he never had it.  Gonna say it again, late stage cancer that metastasized to his brain?

no doubt, lance, the lying piece of shit, fully exaggerated the extent of his cancer.  he built his whole warrior reputation and metality around his ability to overcome it.  He traded on it. 

I hear that this dog Lance is now being prescribed anti depressents to deal with the fall out.  a person like him who has lost his reputation and credibility is a fate worse than death....i hope this sack of shit rots in his lies and deceit.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: The Abdominal Snoman on December 24, 2012, 06:06:21 PM
If Lance went into hiding and became some sort of scientific experiment, I'm not so sure we would all call him "impressive" if that was his truth. Whats next? Robots made to look human who beat all the records in every sport known to man? Lance Armstrong may just be Steve Austin the 6 million dollar man. Or Jay Cutler the man who won the Mr. Olympia with a body full of PMMA.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: jwb on December 24, 2012, 06:12:23 PM
He wasn't famous or even all that good back in 1995/6.

Plus there are plenty of pics of the scars on his head and him looking like every other chemo patient.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: The Abdominal Snoman on December 24, 2012, 06:15:39 PM
Lance Armstrong is supposedly a Jewish man. Whats interesting is he is sooooo guilty that almost all Jews went against him. That's almost unheard of. In fact, Lance is basically in Madoff country.

Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NO ABSENCE OF MUSCLE on December 24, 2012, 06:16:38 PM
He wasn't famous or even all that good back in 1995/6.

Plus there are plenty of pics of the scars on his head and him looking like every other chemo patient.

very true...many riders over that period commented on Lance being quite a mediocre cyclist....so glad this lying dog has got what he deserves...now living the life of a chemically addicted clinical depression patient...got what he deserved.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Marty Champions on December 24, 2012, 06:17:50 PM
young people having cancer = just sitting around getting small dieting losing hair from chemo, beleiving they have a problems becuase they dont want to eat, and eat good ole lima beans an pintos would make them not say they have cancer cause theyd be able to shit and feel beter
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: axestream on December 24, 2012, 06:22:59 PM
If Lance went into hiding and became some sort of scientific experiment, I'm not so sure we would all call him "impressive" if that was his truth. Whats next? Robots made to look human who beat all the records in every sport known to man? Lance Armstrong may just be Steve Austin the 6 million dollar man. Or Jay Cutler the man who won the Mr. Olympia with a body full of PMMA.

I have no problem with athletes using drugs. All these discussions about doping should have taken place 50 years ago. There's no going back now. IMO not getting caught is part of the game.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Power on December 24, 2012, 07:15:35 PM
Lol, so he faked the scars on his head too? That bastard! 
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: avxo on December 24, 2012, 08:01:27 PM
http://dailycurrant.com/2012/10/18/investigation-reveals-lance-armstrong-cancer/

I was skeptical at first, but since it's in "The Daily Currant" a respected publication which describes itself in no uncertain terms as the "Global Satirical Newspaper of Record" then it must be true... What a story!


P.S.: Oh and for those of you who might contemplate your own "at-home-orchidectomy" (you know who you are!) keep in mind that your testicles receive blood from not one, not two but three separate arteries. Make sure to clamp them all before suturing your sliced-open scrotum or else you might get a wee bit lightheaded doing those heavy squats!
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: basil on December 24, 2012, 08:37:09 PM
K. U guys r gonna think I'm full of shit but late stage testicular cancer that metastasized to his lungs abdomen and brain n he survived that has always been a hard pill for me to swallow.  It's bugged me for a long time. So I got up  posted this never before having heard anyone say this.  So then I just googled it n saw this.  Is this legit?


http://dailycurrant.com/2012/10/18/investigation-reveals-lance-armstrong-cancer/

Not a hard pill to swallow at all.  If you've actually read any science-based info on nut cancer and treatment, you would have read that this type of cancer responds very well (or poor, I guess, in terms of cancer cells continuing to duplicate) to chemo treatment.  The only reason it spread as much as it did with Armstrong is b/c it was unchecked.  With nut cancer treatment(s), it tends to be all or nothing.  If a patient responds at all to treatment(s), they will respond very well.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: tommywishbone on December 24, 2012, 09:05:49 PM
Not only that, he didn't even ride in those Tours. It was all done with a green screen on a sound stage in Burbank.
True story.
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Slik on December 24, 2012, 09:19:59 PM
Not a hard pill to swallow at all.  If you've actually read any science-based info on nut cancer and treatment, you would have read that this type of cancer responds very well (or poor, I guess, in terms of cancer cells continuing to duplicate) to chemo treatment.  The only reason it spread as much as it did with Armstrong is b/c it was unchecked.  With nut cancer treatment(s), it tends to be all or nothing.  If a patient responds at all to treatment(s), they will respond very well.
maybe in the year 3012, where u teleported to in your bicep time machine, but any cancer that metastasizes to the brain is a very poor prognosis. I think what u mean to say at least in my primitive time, is that if caught early enough prognosis is good.  And next time your on the battlestar gallactica say hello to Lorne Green for me.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Slik on December 24, 2012, 09:42:24 PM
Stage II, III and IV Non-seminoma
Chemotherapy is standard treatment for non-seminoma that has spread beyond the testes. Most regimes are based on 4 cycles of Bleomycin, Etoposide and Cisplatin. The results of chemotherapy depend on the nature and extent of disease.

Patients with disease confined to the lymph glands and lungs and with only moderately elevated tumour markers are regarded as a good prognostic group. They comprise 84% of all cases of metastatic non-seminoma. The overall survival following chemotherapy is 75 – 90%. The remaining 16% are those patients with spread beyond the lymph glands and the lungs and marked elevation of tumour markers.

The prognosis of this subgroup is poor with a 5 year survival of 40 – 50%.

Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: LATS on December 24, 2012, 09:44:56 PM
Lord.. The Daily Currant site Ida spoof ite.. It's mean to be funny.. Some probably believe that lance actually cut his own nuts off.. Lol
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: MikMaq on December 24, 2012, 10:02:02 PM
So they're all a disgrace to the sport?

It's not his fault the public are a bunch of dumbshits.
Seriously though the dude overcame cancer and is an olympian, dude does not give a fuck what a bunch of overfed side liners think.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NO ABSENCE OF MUSCLE on December 24, 2012, 10:54:24 PM
Seriously though the dude overcame cancer and is an olympian, dude does not give a fuck what a bunch of overfed side liners think.

you stupid retard...lance is a cheat and a liar.  his reputation is in shatters.  he is despised across the planet for the long ongoing lies he has perpetrated.

all his achievements now amount to zero,

now, get out of this thread you ignorant cum stain....you have nothing to offer and are an incredibly boring poster.
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: RadOncDoc on December 24, 2012, 11:02:34 PM
K. U guys r gonna think I'm full of shit but late stage testicular cancer that metastasized to his lungs abdomen and brain n he survived that has always been a hard pill for me to swallow.  It's bugged me for a long time. So I got up  posted this never before having heard anyone say this.  So then I just googled it n saw this.  Is this legit?


http://dailycurrant.com/2012/10/18/investigation-reveals-lance-armstrong-cancer/

I didn't read all the responses but it's not totally improbable that he beat widely metastatic testicular cancer. testicular cancer is one of the most treatable cancers...super sensitive to chemotherapy and radiation. It's one of the few cancers that even when metastatic can be cured at a reasonable frequency. I've never really doubted this part of his story.
Title: Re: Lance prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NO ABSENCE OF MUSCLE on December 24, 2012, 11:09:01 PM
I didn't read all the responses but it's not totally improbable that he beat widely metastatic testicular cancer. testicular cancer is one of the most treatable cancers...super sensitive to chemotherapy and radiation. It's one of the few cancers that even when metastatic can be cured at a reasonable frequency. I've never really doubted this part of his story.

not this shit again!  he beat it, big fucken shit....if this lying piece of shit got cancer of the asshole he would have been dead in a year.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: epic_alien on December 25, 2012, 12:40:14 AM
you stupid retard...lance is a cheat and a liar.  his reputation is in shatters.  he is despised across the planet for the long ongoing lies he has perpetrated.

all his achievements now amount to zero,

now, get out of this thread you ignorant cum stain....you have nothing to offer and are an incredibly boring poster.

he won those races, that can never be changed

other riders in next top positions were also on drugs, that  aslo cannot be changed.

who would you give the titles too? 13th place?

who has been cheated?

do you feel cheated somehow by lance?
how? and why? did he rob you of you being great?

Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NO ABSENCE OF MUSCLE on December 25, 2012, 12:54:32 AM
he won those races, that can never be changed

other riders in next top positions were also on drugs, that  aslo cannot be changed.

who would you give the titles too? 13th place?

who has been cheated?

do you feel cheated somehow by lance?
how? and why? did he rob you of you being great?

jesus fucking christ...you are beyond ignorant..

cheating is cheating...lying is lying....lying and cheating to win by deception is NOT winning...furthermore, it is not relevant to this discussion what others were doing...that being said, they were cheating as well - doesn't make it right.

the tour de france is a joke.  there are no winners...just all liars and drug cheats...fucking ugly and appalling situation...so is all professional sport for that matter....it has to said -money and big end sponsorship are the root of all evil when it comes to so called professional/elite athletes


Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NO ABSENCE OF MUSCLE on December 25, 2012, 01:00:36 AM


jesus fucking christ...you are beyond ignorant..

cheating is cheating...lying is lying....lying and cheating to win by deception is NOT winning...furthermore, it is not relevant to this discussion what others were doing...that being said, they were cheating as well - doesn't make it right.

the tour de france is a joke.  there are no winners...just all liars and drug cheats...fucking ugly and appalling situation...so is all professional sport for that matter....it has to said -money and big end sponsorship are the root of all evil when it comes to so called professional/elite athletes

Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: epic_alien on December 25, 2012, 01:10:23 AM
you must not have ever played sports beyond jr high and junior varsity,

sports arent about words,  they are about action. so your worrying about what a athlete says is your own emotional issue

your emotionally hurt by what they say or claim. why?

if i recall, when you turn on a game on tv or are in a stadium watching,  you watch men run, jump, throw, dunk, cycle ect,

you dont watch them be interviewed or care what they say or think.

but somehow you  get all wrapped up in their words?

also let me let you in on a little secret, sport records dont regress, because some  men want to be the best at what they do,  and they dont care what you think or your feelings,
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NO ABSENCE OF MUSCLE on December 25, 2012, 01:11:41 AM
you must not have ever played sports beyond jr high and junior varsity,

sports arent about words,  they are about action. so your worrying about what a athlete says is your own emotional issue

your emotionally hurt by what they say or claim. why?

if i recall, when you turn on a game on tv or are in a stadium watching,  you watch men run, jump, throw, dunk, cycle ect,

you dont watch them be interviewed or care what they say or think.




good post

but somehow you  get all wrapped up in their words?

also let me let you in on a little secret, sport records dont regress, because some  men want to be the best at what they do,  and they dont care what you think or your feelings,
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: tommywishbone on December 25, 2012, 01:13:23 AM
jesus fucking christ...you are beyond ignorant..

cheating is cheating...lying is lying....lying and cheating to win by deception is NOT winning...furthermore, it is not relevant to this discussion what others were doing...that being said, they were cheating as well - doesn't make it right.

the tour de france is a joke.  there are no winners...just all liars and drug cheats...fucking ugly and appalling situation...so is all professional sport for that matter....it has to said -money and big end sponsorship are the root of all evil when it comes to so called professional/elite athletes
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NO ABSENCE OF MUSCLE on December 25, 2012, 01:14:44 AM


good post
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: epic_alien on December 25, 2012, 01:21:02 AM
also in a few years when bolt is busted, will you freak out about him as well? will you be hurt?

all men who have ever run sub 9.79 have been caught doping, all

but somehow bolt has run 9.58 drug free?

the public is ignorant, thats why lance and others of his caliber care not what you think, nor a legacy that you deem important.

he rode the races, and won against others  who doped as well. so its relevant to the discussion. you saying its a non issue, and  saying doesnt make ir right that they doped too? , well who should win then? oh i forgot its not about winning to you, its about words and lies.

well bro you may as well pack it in, cause all men who have done great things lie, and this goes in all areas of life(sports, politics, academia)

there is no truth and ever will be.

Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NO ABSENCE OF MUSCLE on December 25, 2012, 02:31:43 AM
also in a few years when bolt is busted, will you freak out about him as well? will you be hurt?

all men who have ever run sub 9.79 have been caught doping, all

but somehow bolt has run 9.58 drug free?

the public is ignorant, thats why lance and others of his caliber care not what you think, nor a legacy that you deem important.

he rode the races, and won against others  who doped as well. so its relevant to the discussion. you saying its a non issue, and  saying doesnt make ir right that they doped too? , well who should win then? oh i forgot its not about winning to you, its about words and lies.

well bro you may as well pack it in, cause all men who have done great things lie, and this goes in all areas of life(sports, politics, academia)

there is no truth and ever will be.


[/quof

Firstly, i have really enjoyed reading your last couple of posts -very honest and thought provoking.  You are one of the few truly analytical, perceptive and intellectual posters that take up space here at get big.

OK, yes, i do feel cheated by those who profess to be drug free and then are exposed as drug cheats.  And yes, it these types who are put on a pedestal and lorded by the media and public at large only to ratted out years later to be part of the cheating pack.

Yes, Lance is only the tip of the iceberg.  And yet,  it is the Lance-types who take this 'holier than thou' approach -this really irks me, in a sense leaves me feeling betrayed.

I don't know what the solution is. 

Lance,   was regarded as a very average cyclist in the early part of his professional career.  Many of his peers were shocked and surprised when seemingly out of the blue he began reaping heroic wins in the tour.

  Bottom line, we are all hypocrites.... i suppose.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: The Grim Lifter on December 25, 2012, 04:43:05 AM
also in a few years when bolt is busted, will you freak out about him as well? will you be hurt?

all men who have ever run sub 9.79 have been caught doping, all

but somehow bolt has run 9.58 drug free?

the public is ignorant, thats why lance and others of his caliber care not what you think, nor a legacy that you deem important.

he rode the races, and won against others  who doped as well. so its relevant to the discussion. you saying its a non issue, and  saying doesnt make ir right that they doped too? , well who should win then? oh i forgot its not about winning to you, its about words and lies.

well bro you may as well pack it in, cause all men who have done great things lie, and this goes in all areas of life(sports, politics, academia)

there is no truth and ever will be.


[/quof

Firstly, i have really enjoyed reading your last couple of posts -very honest and thought provoking.  You are one of the few truly analytical, perceptive and intellectual posters that take up space here at get big.

OK, yes, i do feel cheated by those who profess to be drug free and then are exposed as drug cheats.  And yes, it these types who are put on a pedestal and lorded by the media and public at large only to ratted out years later to be part of the cheating pack.

Yes, Lance is only the tip of the iceberg.  And yet,  it is the Lance-types who take this 'holier than thou' approach -this really irks me, in a sense leaves me feeling betrayed.

I don't know what the solution is. 

Lance,   was regarded as a very average cyclist in the early part of his professional career.  Many of his peers were shocked and surprised when seemingly out of the blue he began reaping heroic wins in the tour.

  Bottom line, we are all hypocrites.... i suppose.


Bodybuilding related, without drugs, you arn't getting big and lean. It's just not happening. So translate that to any sport, in cycling you just arn't competing with the top guys clean.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Van_Bilderass on December 25, 2012, 07:02:45 AM
Generic comment:

"Lance doesn't care what any of you losers think, he knows he won those races"

I don't think you guys understand what kind of shit he's in and how his life changed.
Unless he's the coldest psychopath that ever lived he cares all right. You think Obama
happily takes his calls now (I read somewhere that he was friendly with Obama lol).

I don't give a shit that he "cheated", but I'm glad he was caught. It's the magnitude of the lies.
The retarded public needs this wake-up call.

I hope Bolt is disgraced similarly.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Griffith on December 25, 2012, 07:07:16 AM
Generic comment:

"Lance doesn't care what any of you losers think, he knows he won those races"

I don't think you guys understand what kind of shit he's in and how his life changed.
Unless he's the coldest psychopath that ever lived he cares all right. You think Obama
happily takes his calls now (I read somewhere that he was friendly with Obama lol).

I don't give a shit that he "cheated", but I'm glad he was caught. It's the magnitude of the lies.
The retarded public needs this wake-up call.

I hope Bolt is disgraced similarly.

What do you think Bolt is using?
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Van_Bilderass on December 25, 2012, 07:17:13 AM
What do you think Bolt is using?

I guess it's possible he's using some high-tech shit we don't know about, but I
think he does the usual low dose steroids, probably designers, testosterone (possibly "natural" variant that doesn't trigger the isotope test) and growth hormones.
There's still nothing that beats the anabolic steroids, still the most important thing. Everything is built around the steroid.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: viking1 on December 25, 2012, 07:57:17 AM
It's not so much the PED usage...   It's the fact that he was(and still is, to some degree) the leader of the cycling mafia. He had so much power to basically 'off' you from the industry/business side of it if you didn't agree to be in bed with him.

Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Mobil on December 25, 2012, 03:23:39 PM
also in a few years when bolt is busted, will you freak out about him as well? will you be hurt?

all men who have ever run sub 9.79 have been caught doping, all

but somehow bolt has run 9.58 drug free?

the public is ignorant, thats why lance and others of his caliber care not what you think, nor a legacy that you deem important.

he rode the races, and won against others  who doped as well. so its relevant to the discussion. you saying its a non issue, and  saying doesnt make ir right that they doped too? , well who should win then? oh i forgot its not about winning to you, its about words and lies.

well bro you may as well pack it in, cause all men who have done great things lie, and this goes in all areas of life(sports, politics, academia)

there is no truth and ever will be.



i agree and 80s nfl players admitted to steroid abuse and now "drug free natural athletes" in the nfl are destroying these steroid junkies from the 80s........the public... are sheep
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NO ABSENCE OF MUSCLE on December 25, 2012, 06:52:22 PM
Generic comment:

"Lance doesn't care what any of you losers think, he knows he won those races"

I don't think you guys understand what kind of shit he's in and how his life changed.
Unless he's the coldest psychopath that ever lived he cares all right. You think Obama
happily takes his calls now (I read somewhere that he was friendly with Obama lol).

I don't give a shit that he "cheated", but I'm glad he was caught. It's the magnitude of the lies.
The retarded public needs this wake-up call.




I hope Bolt is disgraced similarly.


Good post. 

Lance is hurting all right.  Public perception is everything to these types of high achievers.  Yes, i suppose Lance can easily rationalise to himself that he won those races.  However, he knows that the winning was only ever made possible by his team of doctors, managers, sponsors, union and family members who were prepared to carry the lie to its furthest extreme. 

Yes, he has been exposed and those who supported his 'winning quest' are just as guilty.  As stated earlier, Lance now has to live with the demons - he has let a gullible fanbase and easily manipulated public down -Does that play on his mind?  Absolutely, evidence by his new found dependance on psycho tropic medication.

Personally, i always thought Lance was an arrogant and concetied scum bag.  Yes, he i am glad he will be forever crucified....probably wishes ow that he had died of that ball sack cancer ?
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Primemuscle on December 25, 2012, 08:49:11 PM

Good post.  

Lance is hurting all right.  Public perception is everything to these types of high achievers.  Yes, i suppose Lance can easily rationalise to himself that he won those races.  However, he knows that the winning was only ever made possible by his team of doctors, managers, sponsors, union and family members who were prepared to carry the lie to its furthest extreme.  

Yes, he has been exposed and those who supported his 'winning quest' are just as guilty.  As stated earlier, Lance now has to live with the demons - he has let a gullible fanbase and easily manipulated public down -Does that play on his mind?  Absolutely, evidence by his new found dependance on psycho tropic medication.

Personally, i always thought Lance was an arrogant and concetied scum bag.  Yes, he i am glad he will be forever crucified....probably wishes ow that he had died of that ball sack cancer ?

It is interesting how some people, like yourself, become so invested in celebrities who are usually strangers to us, like Lance Armstrong. Frankly, I have never thought much about him, one way or the other. For example, I never noticed he was arrogant, but then I cannot say I noticed he was not either. If Lance were someone I knew personally, I might care a little more about his character.

You assessment and comments about Lance Armstrong are really harsh. I am guessing you have never met him. Can you explain to me why you feel so strongly about him? Are you a cyclist who lost a race to him or something?
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: tommywishbone on December 25, 2012, 08:54:00 PM
Lance sends Christmas greetings to all at Getbig.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: viking1 on December 25, 2012, 09:22:32 PM
looks lonely

Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NO ABSENCE OF MUSCLE on December 25, 2012, 11:40:20 PM
It is interesting how some people, like yourself, become so invested in celebrities who are usually strangers to us, like Lance Armstrong. Frankly, I have never thought much about him, one way or the other. For example, I never noticed he was arrogant, but then I cannot say I noticed he was not either. If Lance were someone I knew personally, I might care a little more about his character.

You assessment and comments about Lance Armstrong are really harsh. I am guessing you have never met him. Can you explain to me why you feel so strongly about him? Are you a cyclist who lost a race to him or something?

Yes, my assessment of Lance is harsh.  Do i personally know this scheming pathological cheat? No.

Yes, you guessed right, i have never met this lying piece of shit.  Should that matter?  Of course not.  I am entitled to my opinion.  An opinion that has  developed over a  decade of  following his career.

Was i surprised of the fall-out to his career? No. 

But to this day, i sit in shock and disgust at how this cum-stain can continue to deny any wrong doing.

 However, i am also aware that by him now declaring to the world that he is in fact guilty after making a career out of cheating would relegate him to the position of perjurer....which is indictable....And yes, this dirt bag cheat does not want to go to jail -so he continues the denial.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Primemuscle on December 25, 2012, 11:57:34 PM
Yes, my assessment of Lance is harsh.  Do i personally know this scheming pathological cheat? No.

Yes, you guessed right, i have never met this lying piece of shit.  Should that matter?  Of course not.  I am entitled to my opinion.  An opinion that has  developed over a  decade of  following his career.

Was i surprised of the fall-out to his career? No. 

But to this day, i sit in shock and disgust at how this cum-stain can continue to deny any wrong doing.

 However, i am also aware that by him now declaring to the world that he is in fact guilty after making a career out of cheating would relegate him to the position of perjurer....which is indictable....And yes, this dirt bag cheat does not want to go to jail -so he continues the denial.

And tell me, why exactly do you care?
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NO ABSENCE OF MUSCLE on December 26, 2012, 12:12:49 AM
And tell me, why exactly do you care?

I 'care' only a social and philosophical level.  I don't 'care' about the person who is Lance. 

Lance is merely  a symbol for what is endemically wrong with our society..

Regardless, doesn't change the fact that Lance is responsible for his actions.  He ultimately chose to lie and cheat.....and he is choosing to continue to lie and cheat by his denials. 

For someone who was once lorded as some kind of super-human-being is now just a shell of a man languishing in psycho tropic paralysis...

And for you primemuscle, you are just such the intellectual - you seem to NOT give a fuck about anything!
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Primemuscle on December 26, 2012, 12:36:57 AM
I 'care' only a social and philosophical level.  I don't 'care' about the person who is Lance. 

Lance is merely  a symbol for what is endemically wrong with our society..

Regardless, doesn't change the fact that Lance is responsible for his actions.  He ultimately chose to lie and cheat.....and he is choosing to continue to lie and cheat by his denials. 

For someone who was once lorded as some kind of super-human-being is now just a shell of a man languishing in psycho tropic paralysis...

And for you primemuscle, you are just such the intellectual - you seem to NOT give a fuck about anything!

I don't think I am an intellectual, but I certainly don't idolize sports figures like Lance Armstrong. Sports and the athletes in sports are nothing more than entertainment in my opinion. Therefore I class athletes along with actors and celebrities.

Lance Armstrong may be an example of what is wrong with society today, much in the same way the Paris Hilton, Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan are.

What do you suppose Lance Armstrong has to gain by admitting to the things you think he's done? I am all for being truthful, but honestly, that isn't something people today seem to hold in high regard.

Trust me, I do give a fuck about a lot of things, just not whether Lance Armstrong cheated to win the Tour de France and is lying about it, whether Lindsay Lohan gets drunk and takes a slug at someone in a club or Paris Hilton flashes her panties getting in her car. To care about this kind of nonsense gives these people power.

What is wrong with society could be that all press is good press when it comes to celebrities because people buy it thus supporting the media industry and the celebrities. Chances are Lance will end up in great shape....not that I really care.
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: NO ABSENCE OF MUSCLE on December 26, 2012, 01:27:31 AM
I don't think I am an intellectual, but I certainly don't idolize sports figures like Lance Armstrong. Sports and the athletes in sports are nothing more than entertainment in my opinion. Therefore I class athletes along with actors and celebrities.

Lance Armstrong may be an example of what is wrong with society today, much in the same way the Paris Hilton, Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan are.

What do you suppose Lance Armstrong has to gain by admitting to the things you think he's done? I am all for being truthful, but honestly, that isn't something people today seem to hold in high regard.

Trust me, I do give a fuck about a lot of things, just not whether Lance Armstrong cheated to win the Tour de France and is lying about it, whether Lindsay Lohan gets drunk and takes a slug at someone in a club or Paris Hilton flashes her panties getting in her car. To care about this kind of nonsense gives these people power.

What is wrong with society could be that all press is good press when it comes to celebrities because people buy it thus supporting the media industry and the celebrities. Chances are Lance will end up in great shape....not that I really care.

always like reading your posts bro.  cheers
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: Parker on December 26, 2012, 01:45:33 AM
I guess it's possible he's using some high-tech shit we don't know about, but I
think he does the usual low dose steroids, probably designers, testosterone (possibly "natural" variant that doesn't trigger the isotope test) and growth hormones.
There's still nothing that beats the anabolic steroids, still the most important thing. Everything is built around the steroid.
His protruding turtle belly is a cause for concern for him---it maybe a telltale sign
Title: Re: Lance Armstrong prolly didn't even have cancer either
Post by: dj181 on December 26, 2012, 02:02:28 AM
His protruding turtle belly is a cause for concern for him---it maybe a telltale sign

his turtle belly results from lordosis and not gh intake IMO