| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
tuho12345
4482 Posts
On August 24 2012 12:11 Colour wrote: Good. Cheating is lame. his teammate said Armstrong used doping, but no one has any proofs, the USADA believed in that bullshit and LA sued them. But now he's tired and doesn't give a shit about it anymore. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
I'm inclined to believe that if he was innocent he would fight harder. Of course the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming anyway (beating known cheaters consistently, teammates cheating, teammates claiming he was cheating). | ||
|
peidongyang
Canada2084 Posts
| ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On August 24 2012 15:43 tuho12345 wrote: his teammate said Armstrong used doping, but no one has any proofs, the USADA believed in that bullshit and LA sued them. But now he's tired and doesn't give a shit about it anymore. There's WAY more evidence than that: http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/you-jury | ||
|
fishjie
United States1519 Posts
On August 24 2012 13:06 Benjamin99 wrote: Doping is cheating buddy no matter how many others was using as well. You going to use the same argument for murder if everyone was doing that? Armstrong is not a hero he is a disgrace to the sport and if he had any dignity he would have admitted it years ago doping != murder bad argument doping != cheating either. it hardly makes you into a super soldier. all it does is make it so that you can train harder and stronger. and since everyone is already doping (just not everyone gets caught), they might as well just ban sports in general. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
Of course it is. How else would you define cheating than breaking the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage? And yes, competitive sport dominated by doping is a joke. You've excluded a good 90% of the possible competition who are unwilling to engage in doping for moral reasons or because they are worried about their health. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
Ofc he doped. If he didn't dope he would have been back of the field. It does kind of tarnish his achievements, but only slightly. | ||
|
werynais
Germany1780 Posts
| ||
|
Majynx
United States1431 Posts
So, if he did dope, he beat a bunch of other cyclists who were also doping; if he didn't, he still beat a bunch of cyclists that were doping. | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On August 24 2012 15:46 yeint wrote: There's WAY more evidence than that: http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/you-jury I read that and it basically says there is no evidence against Armstrong. No eyewitnesses saw him doping, and if they did it's almost always he said/she said. In the absence of positive tests, you have to say he was clean. /shrug | ||
|
Hanakurena
105 Posts
On August 24 2012 15:21 krews wrote: Some people are more talented at things than other people. I don't mean by just a little bit either. Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky.. you get the idea. It's great that you think he doped because he's good at what he does, but he has already proven many times he didn't cheat. It doesn't work that way in cycling. He plateaued before he got his cancer. Whe know his results in mountain stages and time trails before he got ill. He was already 25 at that time. His time train was strong, but not elite. His climbing on long mountain stages wasn't great at all. He was a classics rider, not even close to a grand tour contender. Yeah he was a rider that could win races, which is a feat in itself, but even at that point he was probably already doped, as many riders were. We know his personal doctor, the infamous doping doctor Ferrari, said according to people like Landis that he was worried the doping caused the cancer. He came back for his first tour after the tour of 1998, where police busted a whole team for using EPO. You need to understand EPO allows you to just cycle away from non-EPO users on the flat road. EPO boosts performance by an incredible amount for an elite sport. The result was that the peleton was split in half in the 90's where you had the epo users and the super talented freaks of nature that might be clean (but why would they?) just ride away from the clean part of the peleton. Average cycling speeds just went up and clean riders were just dropped on the flat roads. Not even talking about HC climbs here. We know all these tour winners doped EPO. And not just a tiny bit, which should be safe. No, they doped up to dangerous levels, making the blood stacked with red blood cells, leaving it extremely thick. So in 1999 riders were scared and many stopped using EPO. In fact, many riders don't want to cheat. Few want to put their health on the risk to cheat a win. No, most just wanted to stay a pro cyclist. They wanted to just keep their job. Riding clean made that impossible. So with the Festina EPO bust they hoped for a cleaner sport. Then comes Armstrong... Go watch the footage of how he drops people. Then go read what Bassons wrote about that. People like Bassons who wanted a clean sport were bullied by the peleton. In the end Bassons was forced to quit cycling because you can't be saying you want cycling to be clean. You need to understand this omerta culture. This is why Schleck wasn;t mad at Contador when Contador lost his title because of getting caught blood doping. It's like thieves honour. That's also why Nadal stupidly defended Contador. They all dope themselves so they go out in the media and defend a caught doper. Armstrong's performance in 1999 made many people start doping again. There was a point where cycling could have developed into a clean sport. But thanks to Armstrong, it didn't. Armstrong didn't cheat any more than Ullrich or Pantani. But he did win and that's why he got famous and that's why doping remained after 1999 until today. In the mean time quite a few people died because of doping. Also, Armstrong may never have tested positive, ignoring possible cover up postives, we know his 1999 urine did test positive for EPO. They happened to use his anomynous urine sample to test the EPO test when they finally did develop an epo test in 2004. They got some positives from the unnamed urine samples. Then someone at the lab leaked some ID numbers to a journalist. So the journalist just called up the UCI, who can match the name to the ID and requested some documents from Armstrong's negative doping tests that tour. When he got them in the mail the documents had the same id and he could match the ID to the name. Looking at performances on HC climbs and seeing the watts/kg you can also see Armstrong probably cheated. It is possible for there to be one rider that can do near superhuman things. But when suddenly many riders pump out 6.4 watt/kg or more, you know they are doped. You just can't be sure Armstrong isn't that one super rare freak of nature. But of course we have a lot of evidence now that it was the doping, not extreme freak genes. When an athlete suddenly gets a huge increase in performance after seemuingly have plateaued out, an explenation is needed. Armstrong has always accepted that. His explanations were that he lost quite a bit of weight and dropped to 72 kg and that he improved his pedalling efficieny by a large amount. Both are lies. He lied about his weight. He never dropped those 6 kg, which would help him climb a lot better. At most it was 4 but probably closer to 2. He never rode at 72 kg. And the pedalling efficiency is a myth. Dr. Ed Coyle did some research on it and indeed publiced those numbers, but exercise physiology researchers all want this paper retracted because his methodology is flawed at many essential points. The old consensus was that you can't improve pedalling efficiency even by a very small margin. In other tests elite riders and normal people have the exact same efficiency. Yet Dr. Ed Coyle and Armstrong claimed to have gained 8% improvement in efficiency. That's absolutely huge. A whole generation of cyclists has tried to somehow also improve their pedalling efficiency and gain that 8%. But never again has an improvement of efficiency ever measured. Not even half a percent. So yeah, he cheated and all not in denial at this point are willing to accept that if they didn't already knew those years he was winning. But that's still an amazing feat and he should get a lot of respect for that. The big problem is his attitude. He has always been so brash about being clean while all his competitors, who initially had more talent as grand tour riders, admitted to doping. He build up this whole empire around himself, making it impossible for him to admit. So he had to keep lying. Not good when you say you want a career in politics. If Armstrong never won he would have admitted long ago and this story wouldn't be so sad. Being a 7 times toyur winner, it is hard to keep clean. There's a lot of pressure to keep up the deception. Many riders today are doping but want the sport to keep a clean image. But if we want a clean cycling we can't do with this huge elephant in the room. This 7 times winner who obviously doped but gets the keep his titles. So yes finally finally please strip these titles. Strip all of them in the EPO and Armstrong era. And don't give them to the second place, third place, fourth place, fifth place spots, because they were just as doped. Then we can try again and try to make cycling a cleaner sport. So hopefully not another superior doping doctor (like Ferrari was) will come along with an outlier responder to doping (which is why Armstrong won) and start a whole new generation of doping. That's why it is also so sad Contador wasn't made to admit to blood doping before he could ride again. Because we know he did and he kinda got away with it. | ||
|
Arachne
South Africa426 Posts
I won't say that the WADA ppl have no case, but with no one being able to hear it in a reputable environment it actually hurts them. Lance Armstrong becomes the guy who was persecuted until he was forced to cave in by the emotional and mental strain, and ppl lose faith in WADA. That Australian a few years back, Marion Jones?, was never found guilty of a doping test, iirc, until she confessed. Seems like they are trying to find a high profile case to restore faith in them. Seems dodgy. Also, if he still refuses to admit guilt, but doesnt want to fight it, SHARE the information with the public, don't just go "well,. we hunted the guy into submission. We now don't ever need to prove anything!" | ||
|
EvE-1988
Germany26 Posts
| ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On August 24 2012 15:21 krews wrote: Some people are more talented at things than other people. I don't mean by just a little bit either. Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky.. you get the idea. It's great that you think he doped because he's good at what he does, but he has already proven many times he didn't cheat. This comparison is so wrong. You compare a sport based on endurance and strength to skill based games where a player with less stamina and strength can still do wonders just by being very technical and good at the specific sport. | ||
|
Hanakurena
105 Posts
This is close, but not quite, an admission of doping. Let's just hope that Armstrong has the wisdom to admit to doping the coming year. Otherwise, I'd lose the final bit of respect I have for him. And that's not because of the doping itself, because they all did, but because of his disrespect to his fans. Stop the deception ffs. We aren't morons. Just come clean. And yes, cycling is all about wattages and 0% about technique. That's why doping is so huge. In running or rowing or cross country skying, there is the technique element. In cycling you just plateau out at your genetic level and that's it. You can't do more unless you decide to cheat. It's frustrating for some to have to come to accept they are just genetically not going to win no matter how hard they train. | ||
|
FireSA
Australia555 Posts
On August 24 2012 15:46 yeint wrote: There's WAY more evidence than that: http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/you-jury Have you actually read what you linked? A whole lot of heresay, noone supporting any of the allegations against him, and the fact that there is no tangible evidence stands. A lot of hate going on in this thread, and for no reason. Innocent until proven guilty. | ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
| ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On August 24 2012 16:23 Hanakurena wrote: USADA loses very few cases. We already know Armstrong doped. The issue was proving it in court.USADA would have won that case. We now also know Armstrong and his lawyers hold this view, otherwise they wouldn't have given up. This is close, but not quite, an admission of doping. Let's just hope that Armstrong has the wisdom to admit to doping the coming year. Otherwise, I'd lose the final bit of respect I have for him. And that's not because of the doping itself, because they all did, but because of his disrespect to his fans. Stop the deception ffs. We aren't morons. Just come clean. If the USADA has a real case it would be nice if it could go public. Everything they've said sounds like BS/hearsay. I read your earlier post also, so this is a serious question: How did he go 7 in a row? Surely he would have killed himself doping if he was doing it that hard, or someone should have beaten him if they were all doing it. You said it yourself that he had peaked much earlier in life and that there was no way he could accomplish this increase in performance. Surely a "Michael Phelps" of cycling would have come along in that time, doped up, and beat him. | ||
|
fishjie
United States1519 Posts
On August 24 2012 16:04 hypercube wrote: Of course it is. How else would you define cheating than breaking the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage? And yes, competitive sport dominated by doping is a joke. You've excluded a good 90% of the possible competition who are unwilling to engage in doping for moral reasons or because they are worried about their health. doping is hardly a god mode cheat code. all it does is give you a slight performance boost. if you think its that great then please by all means dope and FINISH a tour de france, let alone win one. as for 90% hahahahahahahahaha. at the highest level everyone knows everyone else dopes, and even though its a slight edge, they need every edge they can get. there is no reason doping should be illegal. | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On August 24 2012 16:28 fishjie wrote: doping is hardly a god mode cheat code. all it does is give you a slight performance boost. if you think its that great then please by all means dope and FINISH a tour de france, let alone win one. as for 90% hahahahahahahahaha. at the highest level everyone knows everyone else dopes, and even though its a slight edge, they need every edge they can get. there is no reason doping should be illegal. Wrong wrong wrong. If you legalize doping you still have to police it, otherwise everyone will literally kill themselves and or it becomes a competition between who can get the best drugs. That is just as stupid, if not more stupid, than what we have now. The answer IS to keep it illegal, but to create a culture where it is no longer acceptable and a reality where it is actually enforceable. If you have ever had anything to do with the legal system anywhere, you will know what a clusterfuck it is. Not fighting is not the same as admitting guilt. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
Epic.LAN
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
RSL Revival
Classic vs Trap
herO vs SHIN
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
IPSL
Bonyth vs Ret
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
