With all of the evidence out there against him, how can people still show such blind support for Lance Amrstrong? It reminds me of people's support for George W Bush, and Tom Delay. Photographs could be published of those two burning puppies, and Conservatives would still love them.
2006-09-13 01:55:06 · 11 answers · asked by conservativeguyfromnc 2 in Sports ➔ Cycling
Because he is.
2006-09-13 01:57:14 · answer #1 · answered by fostermark_2000 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That fact that you would ask a question like this making it seem like you know Lance personally and he a EPO shooting piece of sh*t is bad enough. Then you compare him to crooked politicians that's just insane! People always hate the winner because it's not them so they make stuff up to make him look bad. Even though he's proven time and time again there all wrong!!!
Wait a minute what the hell does being a conservative have to do with loving Lance Armstrong?!?! I'm not very conservative or a republican.
2006-09-13 12:24:35 · answer #2 · answered by ozzfan_iam 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've never seen any truly compelling evidence to make me think otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
I don't count 'one-party evidence' (where someone says something that may or may not be hearsay - or complete B.S. - without any chance for the other party to respond) as compelling. If we were to start accepting that sort of evidence (again - is that you, Salem, Mass?), anyone could be guilty of anything, whether they did it or not.
You could check out the wikipedia for a footnoted analysis of the unusual physical attributes that Mr. Armstrong has which help to explain how he could do so well consistently, even without doping.
2006-09-13 09:12:30 · answer #3 · answered by CSlave 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wow. Don't compare Lance to those pieces of crap. The difference is that there really is no evidence against Lance, just accusations. Just look at Landis - when you cheat and win, people find out. Bush and Delay, on the other hand, have lots of evidence against them. And you're not paying attention if you think people still support those two - Bush's approval rating is in the basement. Only idiots still think Bush is a good president.
2006-09-13 08:58:22 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
"With all of the evidence out there against him"
Uh, unless I'm mistaken, there has been no evidence "out there". Even Andreau's strange semi-confession included a statement that he had never seen Lance do anything wrong.
BTW, why the need to inject politics? Gee, I wonder where you stand on the former Philanderer-In-Chief?
2006-09-13 09:06:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Well, Lance is innocent until PROVEN guilty.
As far as you politicizing this issue, you are just another screaming example of a misinformed lib who is just mad that your taxes aren't as high as the Dems want them to be...
2006-09-13 09:50:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm curious as to what you think Lance Armstrong is guilty of. He was investigated for drugs but was cleared of everything.
2006-09-13 09:04:47 · answer #7 · answered by xox_bass_player_xox 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
an angry rant from a disgruntled teamamtes wife is not eveidence by any standard. Lance has never done anything wrong and is innocent.
2006-09-13 12:16:32 · answer #8 · answered by Josh23232323bluejays 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, photos of them doing that HAVEN"T been published have they? I think the French who have already showed they were liars with their lil secret relationship with the middle east just can't stand the idea of an AMERICAN beating them in their race OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER &OVER & OVER. Go Lance!
2006-09-13 09:02:50 · answer #9 · answered by GrnApl 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What evidence? It's all been disproved quite legitimately as far as I know. I might not be a fan of his, but I definitely don't think he's guilty.
2006-09-13 09:55:22 · answer #10 · answered by Switch Angel 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What evidence, exactly, do you have that he's not?
2006-09-13 12:41:41 · answer #11 · answered by kalaka 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋