Pretty close call.
I dont imagine the vote will go too much in one direction or the other.
Talk about 2 people who sold a lie for years.
Both wrote books declaring they did not do what they were accused of.
Both did hundreds of interviews saying they did not do what they were both accused of.
But ultimately both of them in the end got caught after living a lie for years and years.
Which one of these was the worst?
You can make a case for either one.
Lance Armstrong was the least surprising. Heck probably every person who finishes in the top 10 of the toure de france takes PED's of some sort or another.
But the length's he went through to tell people he was the exception was almost just as bad as the deed itself.
He may have told more people and lied in more interviews then even Pete Rose did.
It has almost got to the point where Armstrongs lie is almost as bad as the actual deed.
Not only has he lied to millions, he has spent millions to cover it up.
And after all that he will finally go on Oprah to tell everyone he has been living a lie the last 10 years.
Now we have Pete Rose.
If I had to grade which sin was worse Pete Rose would win.
Although I dont think he ever bet against his own team. If that were ever proved to be the case I would have no sympathy for him at all.
Gambling on baseball as a manager much worse IMO then taking PED's if you are a cyclist.
But at the same time Pete Rose did not go to near the same trouble fighting for his lie as Lance Armstrong.
Also Pete Rose accomplished just about everything he did in his career on his own.
You can easily say Pete Rose had a HOF career without ever needing to bet on baseball.
On the other hand you can make the case that Lance Armstrong may not have won a single Tour De France without taking PED's.
I think these are the 2 biggest lie's in sports of the last 50 years besides OJ lying about not killing two people.
But im not going to waste my time putting that piece of shit in the poll.
I dont imagine the vote will go too much in one direction or the other.
Talk about 2 people who sold a lie for years.
Both wrote books declaring they did not do what they were accused of.
Both did hundreds of interviews saying they did not do what they were both accused of.
But ultimately both of them in the end got caught after living a lie for years and years.
Which one of these was the worst?
You can make a case for either one.
Lance Armstrong was the least surprising. Heck probably every person who finishes in the top 10 of the toure de france takes PED's of some sort or another.
But the length's he went through to tell people he was the exception was almost just as bad as the deed itself.
He may have told more people and lied in more interviews then even Pete Rose did.
It has almost got to the point where Armstrongs lie is almost as bad as the actual deed.
Not only has he lied to millions, he has spent millions to cover it up.
And after all that he will finally go on Oprah to tell everyone he has been living a lie the last 10 years.
Now we have Pete Rose.
If I had to grade which sin was worse Pete Rose would win.
Although I dont think he ever bet against his own team. If that were ever proved to be the case I would have no sympathy for him at all.
Gambling on baseball as a manager much worse IMO then taking PED's if you are a cyclist.
But at the same time Pete Rose did not go to near the same trouble fighting for his lie as Lance Armstrong.
Also Pete Rose accomplished just about everything he did in his career on his own.
You can easily say Pete Rose had a HOF career without ever needing to bet on baseball.
On the other hand you can make the case that Lance Armstrong may not have won a single Tour De France without taking PED's.
I think these are the 2 biggest lie's in sports of the last 50 years besides OJ lying about not killing two people.
But im not going to waste my time putting that piece of shit in the poll.
