Originally Posted by Time Violation
Novak merely repeated what everybody else round the world is saying, it's not like he made some revelation there
If you weren't infatuated with your American hero, you'd think the same.
Oh the stupid American agruement again? I haven't heard that one since...OH YEA wait, like two pages ago.
Novak merely opened his mouth and starting talking about something he has no idea about.
obvious troll is obvious.
Who's trolling who?
Armstrong is maybe one of the best athletes the world has ever known, Novak is a punk. I mean, I don't think posting that makes me a troll.
I can see you've beefed your argument creating skills up to that point where you lose all contacts with reality.
In your own reality you created a whole new world of lies and twisted facts.
You can dwell in it for as long as you wish, I don't mind.
Care to name any specifics or are you working on your fictional short story skills?
Originally Posted by philosophicalarf
Livestrong gave up funding cancer research in 2005, they're very open about it. It was a PR
front by Nike and Armstrong, very cleverly done. Made him a ton of money - for example, look at livestrong.com. It's a commercial operation, which pays Armstrong (.org is the supposed cancer foundation).
A nice example is that Livestrong was paying lobbyists in Washington, trying to get USADA to lay off Armstrong. Why would a cancer foundation do that?
Do you also believe 9/11 was a hoax along with the recent shooting in Newtown CT?
You were not stating your opinion. You said djokvoic did no charity, no foundation to help people. The FACT is he has a charitable foundation helping young people of which he even received Centrepoint Award in London last year. These are FACTS, not opinion or perspective.
Obvious, FACTS are not something you can deal with.
And in your hero worship of Armstrong, you are so blinded that you even not recognised his charitable foundation, which is so holy in your opinion that you do not even know said foundation no longer contribute to any cancer research for many years.
And I have wasted enough time here, not just you but this thread.
What do any of those facts have to do with my argument that doping exists in tennis, Novak is a punk and Lance is the greatest? Just curious.
I can name a bunch of unrelated facts too...
FACT : It's impossible to hum while plugging your nose.
FACT : Four is the only number that has the same amount of letters as its actual value
FACT: Those stars and colours you see when you rub your eyes are called phosphenes.
I guess we can all see who won this argument now.
The article Fumus posted provides as an argument to support the idea that "Armstrong is the greatest cyclist who ever lived" the following:
1) "In a sport where so many of the good ones were doping, Armstrong was competing on a field that was more or less level. No one was in his category."
2) "There has never been a cyclist of his talent, stamina, perseverance."
That's it, pretty much. Somehow, Litotes arguments seem more compelling.
(Incidentally, the journalist who wrote the piece is neither a specialist in cycling nor any other sports.)
Yes it was great read wasn't it? I'm glad it's not just us stupid Americans who believe he was the greatest ever.
Jesus Christ... get a clue.
Here's a clue, post less watch tennis more.