|
On August 24 2012 12:16 ElvisWayCool wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 12:09 Al Bundy wrote:
"Regardless if he did or not, it's still a huge accomplishment"
no no no no you got it all wrong. accomplishments while under the effect of doping are worth nothing. If "he did", these accomplishments don't exist. No no no no you got it all wrong. It's still a lot of amazing accomplishments. You dope and win 7 Tours. I double dog dare you!
So you would respect me if I won a bunch of SC2 tournaments with maphack? Yeah, using maphack alone isn't enough to beat pro players, but are you seriously going to respect a cheater??
As for the topic, if he isn't guilty, this shit is ridiculous. If he is guilty, fair game.
|
On August 24 2012 12:09 Al Bundy wrote:
"Regardless if he did or not, it's still a huge accomplishment"
no no no no you got it all wrong. accomplishments while under the effect of doping are worth nothing. If "he did", these accomplishments don't exist.
This. There is no accomplishment in cheating to win.
|
On August 24 2012 16:29 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 16:28 fishjie wrote:On August 24 2012 16:04 hypercube wrote:On August 24 2012 15:53 fishjie wrote: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 != cheating either. 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. 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.
we tried making drugs illegal
it was a miserable failure. jails are overcrowded, gang violence in the USA and drug lord violence in south america is off the charts. if people want to take drugs then they should every right to, they are adults and can deal with the consequences of their own actions. drugs need to be legalized yesterday. period.
|
Just my two cents, imo he has been doping hardcore during his prime, but that is just my believing.
The sad thing is that people that placed 2dn when he won have been convinced/suspected of doping... (Zulle, Ullrich etc...).
...
|
We don't know for sure what doping he used. But, no he wouldn't kill himself and it's not just doping why he won. They had a good team with strong riders that all doped and responded well. They had team spirit. Bruyneel was a good tactician. Armstrong was extremely focussed and intelligent in his training for the tour only. And Ferrari was probably the no.1 cycling doctor during these years. Both for doping and non-doping issues, having a very skilled doctor that can prepare you the right way is absolutely huge.
He may not have had his secret doping. But if he had it was probably hemassist, a oxygen vector developed for trauma patients that had huge blood loss. But that drug never left the testing phase as it had bad results. But it would probably have worked very well for cycling.. Maybe US Postal got their hands on a stash of that while all other teams just couldn't.
I don't like this theory that much. I want more evidence before I accept it. It's quite shady.
Even if they are all doping, one of them still has to win. You can't just say that the person that has the best doping or dopes the most wins. I don't believe Armstrong did even crazier lvls of EPO than Pantani and Riis. They already had the max value for most (but not all) at 50. I also don't believe he had for sure a better way to cheat than Ullrich. More likely Armstrong was fighting with equal weapons. But when you all ride clean and when you all ride doped, talent is different. If you have a naturally high hematocrit you have a big advantage riding clean. But when you all use EPO you suddenly lose that genetic advantage completely. I believe that the main reason that Armstrong managed to win 7 times is that his body responded better to doping.
|
On August 24 2012 16:34 fishjie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 16:29 Bigtony wrote:On August 24 2012 16:28 fishjie wrote:On August 24 2012 16:04 hypercube wrote:On August 24 2012 15:53 fishjie wrote: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 != cheating either. 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. 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. we tried making drugs illegal it was a miserable failure. jails are overcrowded, gang violence in the USA and drug lord violence in south america is off the charts. if people want to take drugs then they should every right to, they are adults and can deal with the consequences of their own actions. drugs need to be legalized yesterday. period.
dont derail the thread please.
thing is, if they officially make doping legal in cycling it's going to be absolutely doomed. no organization wants to sponsor, host or take responsibility for events and teams full of druggies who are actively shovelling their own graves
|
|
|
On August 24 2012 16:37 FliedLice wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 16:34 fishjie wrote:On August 24 2012 16:29 Bigtony wrote:On August 24 2012 16:28 fishjie wrote:On August 24 2012 16:04 hypercube wrote:On August 24 2012 15:53 fishjie wrote: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 != cheating either. 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. 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. we tried making drugs illegal it was a miserable failure. jails are overcrowded, gang violence in the USA and drug lord violence in south america is off the charts. if people want to take drugs then they should every right to, they are adults and can deal with the consequences of their own actions. drugs need to be legalized yesterday. period. dont derail the thread please. thing is, if they officially make doping legal in cycling it's going to be absolutely doomed. no organization wants to sponsor, host or take responsibility for events and teams full of druggies who are actively shovelling their own graves
like i said though pretty much everyone dopes at the top levels. let's look at all the people who have gotten busted for it (let alone suspected). are you telling me that 100% of all dopers are JUST the ones that are caught? statistically unlikely. so sponsors are already sponsoring druggies. and like i said doping is not some super soldier serum that makes you a god. all these outraged people here would never even complete a tour de france even if they doped, so dont be ridiculous. you still have to train ridiculously hard.
|
Usually doping isn't a super serum. But with cycling using epo or not using epo when you could freely use it did instantly shaves many minutes off your HC climbs. So in that respect EPO is quite different from almost all other types of doping.
|
Noone doesnt cheat at cycling. They should a) allow it or b) ban everyone. The sport is dead and I lost interest since everyone was cheating like most others.
|
As someone who has followed this for a while now:
Lance Armstrong doped 100%, we know this because he didn't pass all his doping tests and for other reasons. The line "most tested athlete" is a lie, also the line "passed all of my doping tests" is a lie. He had a positive for corticoids and EPO, he had absurdly high testosterone scores and blood values. A lot of the suspicious blood values that experts say are "only consistent with blood doping" are from the 2009 and 2010 tours! So it's not about digging up things way from the past, the guy only retired in 2011 mind you.
Another reason we know that Armstrong doped 100% is that no rider can actually be as good as he was. His climbing times are ridiculous and are minutes faster than anything anyone can do nowadays. He was faster than all of his competitors, most of which have been proved to or suspected of doping.
And of course outside from all of this there are testimonies from teammates, doctors etc. that saw him doping. Maybe it's all a conspiracy and they're all lying, who knows. *cough*a
USPOSTAL had one of the most far-reaching extensive doping programs, with the best doctors and the most preparation. They made a mockery of the tour de france and should be punished and held up as a disgrace for the sport. It is absolutely not about real competition, it's just not true that doping merely gets you on a level playing field. Not everyone responds equally well to dope, not everyone can afford Michele Ferrari to come up with his own personalized doping program, not everyone has the lack of ethics to succumb to the lure of dope. Not everyone survives putting dangerous substances in your body, and so on.
Btw, all the doping that Armstrong used gives you an increased chance to get cancer. After he recovered from cancer he continued doping, yet he holds himself up as this hero for cancer survivors. He is only when you look at the surface of his wins, but under any further scrutiny he is just a thug that helped institutionalize doping programs and he had to lie, bribe and threaten people to keep all of this under wraps.
|
On August 24 2012 16:28 fishjie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 16:04 hypercube wrote:On August 24 2012 15:53 fishjie wrote: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 != cheating either. 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.
I said 90% of possible competition. A lot of people refuse to even consider competing professionally because they know what's involved. Or they try but never reach the "highest level". Of course everyone dopes at the highest levels. That's what makes them the best (plus training, but it's not like non-dopers train less hard)
Doping won't allow the average person to win. But even talent and hard work won't allow anyone to compete against dopers.
|
Well I dont really care if he loses his titles or not, the damage has been done already. Cycling has a really bad reputation for some reason when during the scandal tour of 07 more track athletes got caought doping than cyclists. Track is waaay dirtier but not even close to football. Would be hilarious if they implemented blood passports in football as in cycling and XC skiing. With doping it's money+benefit that cause usage. If there is lot of money to be had if you have a little better endurance then there will be blood doping.
When everyone was doping (mainly 92 and onwards, it started with epo in 88 but took a while until it really got going) the mountainstages were funnier coz mountain specialists would beat the GC contenders but now there are almost no pure climbers. The reason for this is that only the top riders can afford to dope, a much cleaner sport obvously but currently at a bit of loss when it comes to entertainment.
When it comes to Armstrong the biggest reason that I dislike him is that he made Tour de France big. It's the flattest and most boring (still awesome to watch of course) of the grand tours but du to Lance it became the most popular.
Well I'm going to watch the Vuelta in a couple of hous and dream about when they catch some footballers. But I guess that sport is too big to fail.
|
So this might be a silly question. But the most common cycling doping is just taking someones blood, then re injecting it later on to get a higher red blood cell count right?
So how can you tell if someone uses that over a hyperbaric chamber, or just happened to train at high altitudes prior to the event? Wouldn't the test results come back pretty similar? I mean is that even considered cheating, but blood doping is? I've never really understood it.
|
FREEAGLELAND26782 Posts
|
|
|
On August 24 2012 17:03 haffy wrote:
So this might be a silly question. But the most common cycling doping is just taking someones blood, then re injecting it later on to get a higher red blood cell count right?
So how can you tell if someone uses that over a hyperbaric chamber, or just happened to train at high altitudes prior to the event? Wouldn't the test results come back pretty similar? I mean is that even considered cheating, but blood doping is? I've never really understood it.
If you take someone elses blood, you will get caught. You need to inject your own blood, which is more dangerous because it can't be fresh. Yes, you will have more blood so the body will reduce the plasma. But the rbc can't be removed so you will have a higher rbc count.
There is a 50% hematocrit cutoff. You aren't supposed to have higher unless you have proven you have freak genes that give you higher htc (which does actually happen).
Well you can't ban riders that naturally have higher than 50% htc and you can't ban riders that live at higher altitudes, can you? But does that mean you should allow blood doping? It's a bit of an issue but the line they draw is pretty clear.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
That statement is FREAKING LONG. It's him over and over again saying the WADA are witch hunting him and he has done nothing wrong. Why he not sum it up >.<
And i agree with what i read on SkySports site, it's quite unusual for USA to go so hard after one of their own athletes with no proof, American is normally a country which revels in it's success of it's athletes. Quite a strange case indeed, guess now we will never know if it is true or not, unless one of his coaches/trainers blurt it out in their investegations
|
On August 24 2012 17:00 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 16:28 fishjie wrote:On August 24 2012 16:04 hypercube wrote:On August 24 2012 15:53 fishjie wrote: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 != cheating either. 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. I said 90% of possible competition. A lot of people refuse to even consider competing professionally because they know what's involved. Or they try but never reach the "highest level". Of course everyone dopes at the highest levels. That's what makes them the best (plus training, but it's not like non-dopers train less hard) Doping won't allow the average person to win. But even talent and hard work won't allow anyone to compete against dopers. Well since the late 90's they started to but roofs on hb and/or hematocrit levels so you can actuallt compete a bit better than before. Thats why the finns used plasma expanders in Lahti (XC skiing World Champs) and got caught for that. If you really want to see the difference look up the results for swedish XC skiiers from 92 to ~99 or something like that. They went from a top nation to absolutely rubbish and then mysteriously back again when the roof was implemented.
But yeah prettymuch everyone dopes, like it's hilarous when you read tabloids about some moviestars superbody and you go like "yep thats roids" and most people have no idea.
|
France12911 Posts
I don't understand, weren't almost all cyclists doped anyways?
If everyone does it it's still a huge accomplishment to win that much.
Sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
