EPTdon't really feel bad that he will lose his titles as pretty much everyone involved in sports is guilty of this in some manner
Lance Armstrong to lose Titles, Banned - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
fortheGG
United Kingdom1002 Posts
don't really feel bad that he will lose his titles as pretty much everyone involved in sports is guilty of this in some manner | ||
|
Twelve12
Australia268 Posts
On August 24 2012 18:25 FliedLice wrote: They seem clean, but they definately aren't. Probably 90% (I obviously pulled that out of my ass) of competetive athletes are doping one way or the other. I agree that a lot of power or endurance sports would have this kind of thing happening behind the scenes (like cycling), but there are a lot of sports where you would think doping would not give you nearly the same advantage and I would assume there would be much less doping there. I'm thinking of things like archery (i can't really see how doping could help you there) and other skill or strategy based sports. I think football is possibly quite clean just because skill seems much more important than strength or power (just look at Messi). | ||
|
Sneakyz
Sweden2361 Posts
On August 24 2012 18:52 Hanakurena wrote: Uuh, that makes no sense.You are not allowed to dope. As of today he was proven to dope so he got banned. It is not fair? Indeed, cheating isn't fair for those that decided to ride clean. Many riders had to quit because they wanted to ride clean only. Many riders didn't ever get a shot at winning when they were extremely hard working and talented but just not willing to dope. Is that fair? We want a fair and clean cycling sport. We have this known doper that is the biggest name in the sport that only retired a few years ago and that won the biggest race 7 times in a row. And we let him go unpunished when he was proven to have doped? How is that fair? Many other people got their title stripped as well with much less evidence. Are we going to give Ricco back his title? It is only fair? Isn't it? If you want to change the nature of cycling and make it clean for the future, the first thing yuou need to address is the elephant in the room and that's Lance and his 7 wins. That is now finally out of the way. Finally. It took such a long time. Yes, if he finished 50th all those tours it wouldn't be such a big issue for obvious reasons and it wouldn't have come to it. But for cycling to be clean we have to accept that all those past winners indeed doped and strip the titles and condemn what they did. How can you tell a young talent to ride clean when we still have Armstrong up there being allowed t winn though doping? Either you ban Armstrong or you ban cycling as a professional sport. No one got the 1996 Riis title. No one will get the titles Lance got stripped off. Banning him and stripping him from his titles is probably good for the sport, indeed. But sports will never be even close to clean until they start testing athletes every day, which is most likely neither financially or practically possible. Even then there will likely exist substances which we don't know how to detect. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On August 24 2012 18:48 Sneakyz wrote: I don't see what's so fair about stripping Armstrong's titles when everyone he's competing against is using too... I think you would have a hard time finding a top 10 athlete in ANY sport who's not on drugs. It's been part of sports for like 50 years, it won't go away. Either bust them all or let them do their thing. I don't think you can say that for every sport. Some of the biggest stars in the world have seperated themselves from their competition since they were basically kids. It would be a bit deluded to think that their talent and success is just a result from using doping. If it's that widespread, even if the testing methods are far from perfect, we probably would have A LOT more people getting caught in a lot of sports. Those kinds of statements have absolutely no basis in facts other than people think that must be the case. Many sports rely on skills that would hardly be affected by most doping, and it would be foolish to think all people that have the talent and work ethic to get good at their sport would jeopardize that for little gain. Sure there are absolutely sports where that might be the case but looking down at all of them doesn't seem very fair. Also just curious, what doping was used 40-50 years ago? | ||
|
FliedLice
Germany7494 Posts
On August 24 2012 19:00 Twelve12 wrote: I agree that a lot of power or endurance sports would have this kind of thing happening behind the scenes (like cycling), but there are a lot of sports where you would think doping would not give you nearly the same advantage and I would assume there would be much less doping there. I'm thinking of things like archery (i can't really see how doping could help you there) and other skill or strategy based sports. I think football is possibly quite clean just because skill seems much more important than strength or power (just look at Messi). Even the archers have been accused of using downers and stuff. Reverse doping you could say.  And professional football needs a shitton of endurance, somehow in some way there are always (illegal) medical ways to improve your performance. | ||
|
tekos44
France280 Posts
On August 24 2012 19:00 Twelve12 wrote: I agree that a lot of power or endurance sports would have this kind of thing happening behind the scenes (like cycling), but there are a lot of sports where you would think doping would not give you nearly the same advantage and I would assume there would be much less doping there. I'm thinking of things like archery (i can't really see how doping could help you there) and other skill or strategy based sports. I think football is possibly quite clean just because skill seems much more important than strength or power (just look at Messi). It's really useful to be able to run at the same pace from the first to the last minute of a football game, every game of the year (Messi plays something like 65 games per year). Juventus did it, Marseilles did it, Puerto, Ferrari were helping footballers as well as riders; it has existed, it probably still exists. But yeah, Platini agrees with you so there will not be any serious anti-doping actions taken in the near future | ||
|
Sneakyz
Sweden2361 Posts
On August 24 2012 19:02 nam nam wrote: I don't think you can say that for every sport. Some of the biggest stars in the world have seperated themselves from their competition since they were basically kids. It would be a bit deluded to think that their talent and success is just a result from using doping. If it's that widespread, even if the testing methods are far from perfect, we probably would have A LOT more people getting caught in a lot of sports. Those kinds of statements have absolutely no basis in facts other than people think that must be the case. Many sports rely on skills that would hardly be affected by most doping, and it would be foolish to think all people that have the talent and work ethic to get good at their sport would jeopardize that for little gain. Sure there are absolutely sports where that might be the case but looking down at all of them doesn't seem very fair. Also just curious, what doping was used 40-50 years ago? Ofcourse you need to be talented to be a successful athlete, it's not like you take a drug and become the best in the world. You can probably place decently high with good genetics/talent but to become the best you're pretty much required to used PED's. You should view it as an Ace card. Sure there are sports where it's close to useless, but they are few. Testosterone and Dianabol were used as early as late 1950's. | ||
|
nanaoei
3358 Posts
kind of surreal that 2 days after reading up on those things, armstrong loses his finest acheivement in whole. | ||
|
Stuv
Netherlands942 Posts
| ||
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
| ||
|
Hanakurena
105 Posts
On August 24 2012 19:02 nam nam wrote: I don't think you can say that for every sport. Some of the biggest stars in the world have seperated themselves from their competition since they were basically kids. It would be a bit deluded to think that their talent and success is just a result from using doping. If it's that widespread, even if the testing methods are far from perfect, we probably would have A LOT more people getting caught in a lot of sports. Those kinds of statements have absolutely no basis in facts other than people think that must be the case. Many sports rely on skills that would hardly be affected by most doping, and it would be foolish to think all people that have the talent and work ethic to get good at their sport would jeopardize that for little gain. Sure there are absolutely sports where that might be the case but looking down at all of them doesn't seem very fair. Also just curious, what doping was used 40-50 years ago? Messi and Ronaldo are probably also using PEDs just because it is so easy and because it helps with recovery from injuries. Injuries are extremely common in football. They also play many games a week. So the doping is what allows you to play so often at 100% of your fitness. It doesn't allow you to win. Messi is a clear example of raw talent and tons of pratice as a child. Now he probably also was treated for being too short and not growing too much. But it is completely different from cycling where it is all about what wattage you can produce and for how long and basically nothing else. Messi would be a big star if he didn't dope and everyone else did. Ronaldo did undergo a transformation a few years ago, becoming extremely fit. It wasn't quite the same as what we saw with Overeem and it might actually have been genetics and finally starting on a real strength training program. But that is unlikely. The big problem for football is match fixing. Not doping. Steroids have been around for a very long time. Blood transfusions is also an old trick. People have often use amphetamines, but they may actually be detrimantal to performance. Only with epo came the huge performance boost and doping kinda became mandatory in cycling. On August 24 2012 19:14 T0fuuu wrote: If he has never been caught then he has never cheated. This witch hunt is pathetic. He got caught as of today. It 10 people tesify they saw you commit a murder is that a witch hunt if they find you guilty? So 10 people is not enough? How many people do you need? Not to mention the blood values and whatever other new evidence they found but now can't present because Armstrong gave up. Then there's also the 1999 urine samples. That wasn't a real doping test formally. But in practice it was and there was EPO in his urine on I think 5 out of 6 samples. And as of today he kinda admitted himself he doped anyway. Armstrong very rarely claimed he never doped. He always says he never tested positive and that he followed all the rules. Anyawy, this article paints a good picture about what would have happened in the arbitration Armstrong was so anxious to prevent from happening that he just gave up his 7 tour wins and an olympic medal without a fight. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/sports/cycling/hincapie-an-armstrong-teammate-seen-as-reluctant-but-reliable-witness.html?_r=1&ref=lancearmstrong He is now banned from Ironman competitions but not yet from triathlons. It's kinda sad for him he can't even compete in such events as an amateur anymore. But he almost single handedly set back the clock on cycling by a decade. | ||
|
CursedRich
United Kingdom737 Posts
Its just laughable that by his own admission he has fought every case against him since 96 but now gives up at the last case to answer, his only remaining accusers have got new evidence in his mind he will probably be trying to justify it as it will hurt his charity which has some good intentions but the reality is very clear | ||
|
Flamingo777
United States1190 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
On August 24 2012 17:52 Trok67 wrote: 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 It was only slightly bigger than the giro in the 90's. During Lance it exploded, but seems we can agree on the reason. The result however was Lance-->more sponsors ect--->more pricemoney--->better field--->repeat. On August 24 2012 18:18 [DUF]MethodMan wrote: 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. Yes because cycling is the only sport where people dope. Nowadays it's more like cycling and XC skiing are the only sports where people get caught. If we apply you logic we should ban all competitive sports. I compete in cycling for fun and I'm turning 31 in november, how do you explain that? Obvously I suck and get dropped on the flat but thats beside my point. | ||
|
happyft
United States470 Posts
http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armstongs-statement-of-august-23-2012 | ||
|
Eufouria
United Kingdom4425 Posts
That said the fact that he's giving up makes me actually question him when I never have before. Surely his reputation and Tour wins are worth fighting for, he's dedicated decades of his life to winning those and I would think he would fight to the death for them unless he knows there is evidence that will see him convicted of doping anyway. Also does anyone know what makes the US anti-doping agency suspect him so heavily of doping, it can't just be his achievements I know a couple of ex-teammates have claimed he has, is that it or is there something else? | ||
|
PooLsharK
Germany179 Posts
| ||
|
Domus
510 Posts
I do think however that his medals should be taken. We should at least do our very best to get sports clean of doping because doping forces anyone who wants to compete to use doping. | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
On August 24 2012 19:14 T0fuuu wrote: If he has never been caught then he has never cheated. This witch hunt is pathetic. this attitude is rediculous. Never getting a positive test doesn't mean you're not guilty. Doping testing is not a simple yes/no thing, there are many things you can only see hints off but can't say conclusively out of tests. Testimony of teammates is important evidence as well, only thing I'm worried about is that some riders are testifying to save themselves from punishment as well which is less reliable. Either way the doping agency isn't doing this out of spite, why would they? If the guy doped, he doped and should be punished for it. Doesn't matter if it's years after the fact. For every doping winner there is some other guy who didn't win and will hardly be remembered. | ||
| ||
