|
On August 24 2012 17:10 Poopi wrote:
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.
1. not everyone doped, some people refused to and lost their chance at a career
2. not everyone responds equally well to doping
3. not everyone can afford the best doping expertise
4. not everyone survives experimenting with doping
5. not everyone institutionalizes criminalized practices including test-evasion, bribery, drugs smuggling etc.
6. not everyone uses their ill-gotten success to become a world-wide celebrity
7. not everyone gets cancer and then after recovery proceeds to engage in risky doping practices (that can increase chance of cancer) only to then parade around as a hopeful story to cancer victims
|
On August 24 2012 12:54 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +
The 40-year-old Armstrong walked away from the sport in 2011 without being charged following a two-year federal criminal investigation into many of the same accusations he faces from USADA. The federal probe was closed in February, but USADA announced in June it had evidence Armstrong used banned substances and methods -- and encouraged their use by teammates. The agency also said it had blood tests from 2009 and 2010 that were "fully consistent" with blood doping.
Included in USADA's evidence were emails written by Armstrong's former U.S. Postal Service teammate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after a positive drug test. Landis' emails to a USA Cycling official detailed allegations of a complex doping program on the team.
USADA also said it had 10 former Armstrong teammates ready to testify against him. Other than suggesting they include Landis and Tyler Hamilton, both of whom have admitted to doping offenses, the agency has refused to say who they are or specifically what they would say.
From the second article. They claim to have blood tests from 2009/2010 that show blood doping.
I don't get it ... if this really is the case why wasn't Armstrong kicked out of the 2009 & 2010 Tour de France and stripped of his 3rd place in 2009? Or are these new discoveries made via more advanced testing methods?
|
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.
I do not think this is accurate, Tour de France was allready the most popular Tour before Armstrong. What changed was that he was the best cyclist and was the first one who chose to compete only at Tour de France and no other races, which made other Tour looked like sub-races
|
There is a reason that the official winner of 1996 does not exist! Every rider in the top 5 has been caught doping it up or has admitted to using. Cycling is severely damaged by doping, but it has moved from something organised by the teams and toward something induvidual riders do because of some severe consequences for the teams. Also a certain kind of EPO was marketed as untraceable, but the producers had cut a deal with the anti-doping bodies and a few riders were caught on that account. The problem is however, that EPO is so last year. Today you see primarily blood-doping. But some riders are stupid enough to just pump it straight and they end up with high levels of clenbuterol, testosterone or other markers that had not been sufficiently separeted when the plasma was removed. Today the best dopers use a combination of diuretics and blood doping. Diuretics? Hot drinks,and several other natural sources that nobody would ever test for. Someone was stupid enough to use an illegal diuretic at the tour this year...
The problem of doping will never be solved, but as soon as the testing-technologies gets up to only be 4-years behind it might be possible to postwin ban enough riders to make it worth a lot less to win since you have to fight the doping-ghost and end your carrier so shortly after your win.
|
I'm very sceptical towards Armstrong's statements about how there's no proof at all. If he really is innocent and the accusations are as ludicrous as he makes them out to be, it is terribly stupid to give up the fight. In the first place because it will be easy to win the case and secondly because it will prevent this sort of thing from happening to someone else.
Also the fact that he never got caught in no way means he didn't do it. Everyone knows doping tests are always lagging behind the new stuff. Plenty of athletes have confessed without having been caught. Also several of his former teammates are confirmed doping users, which greatly increases the odds he did as well. Use your common sense.
All in all, this ordeal basically confirms the suspicions. But of course his fans will never come around to accepting this.
|
On August 24 2012 17:34 Wyvernspur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 12:54 karpo wrote:
The 40-year-old Armstrong walked away from the sport in 2011 without being charged following a two-year federal criminal investigation into many of the same accusations he faces from USADA. The federal probe was closed in February, but USADA announced in June it had evidence Armstrong used banned substances and methods -- and encouraged their use by teammates. The agency also said it had blood tests from 2009 and 2010 that were "fully consistent" with blood doping.
Included in USADA's evidence were emails written by Armstrong's former U.S. Postal Service teammate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after a positive drug test. Landis' emails to a USA Cycling official detailed allegations of a complex doping program on the team.
USADA also said it had 10 former Armstrong teammates ready to testify against him. Other than suggesting they include Landis and Tyler Hamilton, both of whom have admitted to doping offenses, the agency has refused to say who they are or specifically what they would say.
From the second article. They claim to have blood tests from 2009/2010 that show blood doping. I don't get it ... if this really is the case why wasn't Armstrong kicked out of the 2009 & 2010 Tour de France and stripped of his 3rd place in 2009? Or are these new discoveries made via more advanced testing methods?
It was an anomynous urine sample for a rider from the tour of 1999 tested in 2004. Someone made a mistake and gave out an internal ID number. Together with the leak from the lab it turned out to be Armstrong's urine. He never tested positive as a legal person. It wasn't an official doping test. But there was EPO in his urine samples.
Also, there is the story of the test he allegedly had in the tour of Switserland where he had to pay off the UCI.
|
Ignorant to believe the sport can exist without doping. The most surprising thing to me has been that some people actually believed him to be clean. Time to leave alice behind and move out of wonderland. He'll always be considered the true winner, no matter how much they change the records.
|
Let me get this straight, this guy "doped or not" can win the tour de france SEVEN TIMES and yet he is tired of court proceedings?
Seems like he realized that going to court would completely expose his cheating and he has settled out of court to save face.
|
Uhm if it was me and I knew I was innocent I would fight this as far as I could. Just bending over and accepting the fact that you lose all your achievements and medals tells me he probably cheated. If he didn't all they would have are other competitors saying he did, which shouldn't be enough.
|
Ive read this guys autobiography back at high school
and had to write some essay on it. The impression of him i got
is that he is a great sportsman, but an asshole as a person. It seems
i was wrong
|
damn... makes you think about if there are any real inspirations out there left for the younglings in the world
|
I don't know what to make of the evidence. There seem to be a whole lot of irregularities, accusations, and general dodgy shit. But none of it is very damning or conclusive on its own. Well maybe the positive test for EPO is, but I don't know if that is even admissable. The fact that he seems to have given up the fight is extremely dodgy, he has never given up fighting before.
I would be very sad if it turns out he was a cheater all this time. The man has been a hero to me for so long.
|
Hahaha, I remember when Jan Ullrich got caught and everyone sounded like most guys in this thread. First denial, then excuses. "Everyone's cheating, so it's still an accomplishment", "Just allow doping, so they don't have to hide it".
Seriously, abolish all the competition for this brainless sport, let people do it for fun and get themselves killed by the time they're 30 years old. It's a joke and it's a dangerous example for young people who are always inclined to strive for fame and glory. Lance Armstrong being made out as some sort of hero, or a tragic hero now, is the completely wrong signal to send out. How about telling it like it is? Here's a dude who dominated a competition that's not only been known but proven to be just outright fake, because EVERYONE is cheating, but people still loved him, because people like winners and the poor guy got cancer from cheating probably harder than anyone else and lost one of his balls LOL. If you leave out all the pathos the media and ofc Armstrong himself created around his story, it really sounds like sb you should laugh and tell your kids about, so they can see there is no point in cheating, unless you're scum who doesn't care about ethics and dignity. And your balls.
|
So anyway, did Jan Ullrich just win the Tour de France 3 times this night? 
|
On August 24 2012 18:03 DwD wrote:
Uhm if it was me and I knew I was innocent I would fight this as far as I could. Just bending over and accepting the fact that you lose all your achievements and medals tells me he probably cheated. If he didn't all they would have are other competitors saying he did, which shouldn't be enough.
They have about half of his former teammates and friends lined up to witness against him afaik. No matter how big a hole you are, being exposed by your friends in a courtroom and having to find dirt on them to even have a change of walking is a tall order He has emptied all of his possibilities for getting the case stopped.
|
On August 24 2012 18:16 Mvrio wrote:
damn... makes you think about if there are any real inspirations out there left for the younglings in the world
Usain Bolt. Oh no wait...
Just a reminder: 84% of the Tour de France winners in the past 50 years have been convicted of doping at least once in their careers.
|
The man is one of the biggest Hypocrits alive... I don't get why so many seem shocked at these revelations...
Btw: Tennis and Football seem kinda clean. Search your heroes there ^^
|
Still, this guy has always been clean through all the drugtests he did and the only 2 cyclists named as to who wants to testify are dopers where landis certainly had a personal vendetta with Armstrong.
The arbitral panel of usada would have to dismiss all the drugtests Armstrong passed and base its decision on former teammates, so its not just a politically motivated action, the witnesses have it out for Armstrong. So Armstrong tried to get it to court instead, was struck down and had to deal with an unfair trial.
Live strong
|
Not all riders are dirty. For instance, people suspect Greg LeMond of being clean and he's won a lot.
|
Medals dont mean much they should get all money back aswell.He didnt deserve to win the money if he cheated.I think this motivates people to cheat still.If I knew I can getaway using doping for years and win lots of money and only drawback is someday I will be banned and and my medals would be taken I would cheat without hesitation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
