Subscribe in a reader






Buy Conservative Advertising

Wikio - Top Blogs

Find the best blogs at Blogs.com.


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


No one but the author bears any responsibility for the non-advertising content on this blog. AND PLEASE NOTE: the author neither necessarily uses nor endorses any product advertised on this blog.

« Two for Ph.D. students | Main | C'mon, really rich people don't respond to changes in their tax rates, do they? »

January 09, 2013

"Why I’m not angry at Lance Armstrong"

Washington Post reporter Sally Jenkins argues that Armstrong did substantial good

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

KevinT

And Mussolini made the trains run on time. (See: Filippo Simeoni)

Mike

When you dominate a sport that is famous for "doping" of some kind, it's unlikely you're clean.

When you dominate such a sport for many years, its less likely you're clean.

When you dominate such a sport after recovering from cancer, some of us will begin to doubt that you're doing it all on natural ability.

When multiple teammates accuse you of doping, your story sounds too good to be true.

When a former teammate becomes the sports champion and gets caught, do you start to count the red flags or are you further amazed at Lance's ability to dominate cycling while clean?


The gullibility of the press in the Lance Armstrong story never ceases to amaze. Sure he's a great cyclist but it should be extremely hard to believe that all he was doing was saying his prayers and taking his vitamins like all good Hulkamaniacs.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Powered by TypePad
Member since 07/2003

Shelfari: Book reviews on your book blog