|
On August 24 2012 21:05 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 20:57 Gogleion wrote:On August 24 2012 20:44 Grumbels wrote:On August 24 2012 20:39 gTank wrote:On August 24 2012 20:31 Fenrax wrote:
Armstrong was obviously doped. On top of the indications and evidences the fact that he has regularly beaten heavy dopers like Ullrich and Pantani speaks for itself. I can feel for his fans though, I was in denial about Ullrich's doping for too long, too. Just accept reality, nothing but a dirty cheater who gets some of what he deserves. A shame that he can keep the money. What evidence? And because someone is faster than a guy that dopes, it doesn't mean he doped himself. There is no positive test and he still gets accused guilty. This sport is a farce, nothing more. Even wrestling is closer to the truth than cycling these days... 1. positive tests 2. blood data consistent with blood doping and nothing else 3. accusations and witness reports of former team mates 4. his inhuman riding times 5. him beating a field of people that all doped 6. his sudden improvement only consistent with doping 7. his association with doping doctor Ferrari, or with other people involved in doping 8. apparently he is willing to part with 7 tour titles because he's tired of fighting back? but sure, it's a witch hunt... Aren't #1 and #2 in that list the same thing? It's also supposed positive tests that the USADA has but hasn't shown anyone. Everyone that's testifying against him was proven guilty, and on his team. So how did Lance escape this scrutiny that put everyone else down? Inhuman riding times? He solely focused on the TDF. He would be there practicing all the climbs for weeks ahead of time, when the rest of the field was racing other races. He only got to that point when he had enough money and popularity that he didn't need to do those races. So that's why there is 'sudden improvement'. It's been 16 years since they've kept this case strong, ruined his image, all without a positive blood test. This whole trial is a load of crap. If it were a real case, a lot of things would happen differently. First, USADA would publish results of incriminating tests. Second, there would be more basis to the case, but instead it is just about the three things that every outsider thinks of the sport: Lance Armstrong, the Tour de France, and doping. Finally, if it were a real case, the investigation wouldn't spark up every single year around the TDF, and die down for the winter months and earlier season. #1 and #2 are just things that come to mind. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashendens-view-on-armstrong-doping-allegations is about epo, http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-06-15/news/32239818_1_blood-doping-blood-bags-tests is about his blood values, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong#Allegations_of_doping has general information, http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/06/news/usada-letter-paints-dark-picture-of-armstrong-era_223925 about testosterone there is lots more, one thing I especially want to stress is "maybe he really was that much better that he could perform so well even without drugs". First of all, that's statistically unlikely, second of all, his times were inhuman, and third of all, nobody can even come close to those times anymore and fourth, if someone would run the 100m sprint in 9.40 or something, would you think he's just "that much better" or would you suspect foul play? And would you take seriously people that call him just hypertalented?
Yes. Because obviously his times were not inhuman. Because as you can plainly see using your optical spheres - Lance Armstrong is quite verily a human. I will bet large amounts of money on the stupefying gamble that Armstrong is - as I am - a primate species of the Planet - Earth in the System - Sol of the Galaxy - Milky Way specifically referred to as Homo Sapiens Sapiens. And the brain is what makes us powerful my friend - so I suggest you employ it's capacity.
Let us think for a moment of a thought experiment in which one must determine the guilt or innocence of an organism species Lance Armstrong in the act of ingesting chemicals to alter his physical chemostructure.
We shall exclude the obvious - Aspirin, caffeine, food, etc - and certainly allow for more powerful alterations in some cases i.e. Injury, Cancer - medical reasons.
We find Lance Armstrong does indeed take what could be some performance enhancing drugs -
+ Show Spoiler +"A 1999 urine sample showed traces of corticosteroid in an amount that was not in the positive range. A medical certificate showed he used an approved cream for saddle sores which contained the substance." "In October 2005, in response to calls from the International Olympic Committee and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for an independent investigation, the UCI appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman to investigate the handling of urine tests by the French national anti-doping laboratory, LNDD. Vrijman was head of the Dutch anti-doping agency for ten years; since then he has worked as a defense attorney defending high-profile athletes against doping charges. Vrijman's report cleared Armstrong because of improper handling and testing. The report said tests on urine samples were conducted improperly and fell so short of scientific standards that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest they "constitute evidence of anything." The recommendation of the commission's report was no disciplinary action against any rider on the basis of LNDD research. It also called upon the WADA and LNDD to submit themselves to an investigation by an outside independent authority. The WADA rejected these conclusions stating "The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical." The IOC Ethics Commission subsequently censured Dick Pound, the President of WADA and a member of the IOC, for his statements in the media that suggested wrongdoing by Armstrong. In April 2009, Dr. Michael Ashenden said that "the LNDD absolutely had no way of knowing athlete identity from the sample they're given. They have a number on them, but that's never linked to an athlete's name. The only group that had both the number and the athlete's name is the federation, in this case it was the UCI." He added "There was only two conceivable ways that synthetic EPO could've gotten into those samples. One, is that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the '99 Tour. The other way it could've got in the urine was if, as Lance Armstrong seems to believe, the laboratory spiked those samples. Now, that's an extraordinary claim, and there's never ever been any evidence the laboratory has ever spiked an athlete's sample, even during the Cold War, where you would've thought there was a real political motive to frame an athlete from a different country. There's never been any suggestion that it happened." Dr. Michael Ashenden's statements are at odds with the findings of the Vrijman report. "According to Mr. Ressiot, the manner in which the LNDD had structured the results table of its report – i.e. listing the sequence of each of the batches, as well as the exact number of urine samples per batch, in the same (chronological) order as the stages of the 1999 Tour de France they were collected at – was already sufficient to allow him to determine the exact stage these urine samples referred to and subsequently the identity of the riders who were tested at that stage." The Vrijman report also says "Le Monde of July 21 and 23, 1999 reveal that the press knew the contents of original doping forms of the 1999 Tour de France" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong#Allegations_of_doping
I just don't feel like that is evidence to suggest our organism has been significantly altering itself for physical gain.
Also in this experiment I would consider the following. We accept that ingesting some chemicals can have a positive effect over time on human physiology.
Aspirin is good for you in small doses over long periods of time - promoting stuff like cortisol growth.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin#Effects_upon_hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal_activity)
and it has other uses besides "head hurt - crush bark!"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirin#Other_uses)
What if chemicals that boosted performance had positive effects in very small doses over time for your organism. Would it be acceptable to ingest them then - in said quantity?
hmmm.
|
That's your defense that "nobody cares"? That being on the frontpage of every newspaper is meaningless? Every person in the Western hemisphere knows who Lance Armstrong is and will hear about this.
Armstrong without a shadow of a doubt used doping. There are so many testimonies as well as scientific evidence. How would the legal system ever survive if apparently arguing that your defendant is a freak of nature with a massive conspiracy targeting him would be enough to acquit? Just because you don't care that he cheated himself to victory to become a world-wide celebrity does not mean it's meaningless. Yes, he won and I guess people like winners, but so what? He was merely the best cheater, not the best athlete.
A lot of people are not willing to use PEDs or if they do they are very unhappy with their use of this. Armstrong essentially set back the cycling sport by a decade with his massive doping program and all the criminality and money associated with keeping up appearances. He is a villain and his demise is a good thing.
edit: and lol, I'm getting very tired of arguing with people who don't know the facts and feel content to dismiss positive urine samples and the like. Or who think there is just this massive conspiracy where a dozen former team members are all out to get him. It is impossible to ride as fast as Armstrong has done in a tour de france mountain stage without use of PEDs, we know this because in this generation nobody can even come close to these times. And in past generations nobody could either. However, magically, between 1995-2005 just about everyone could. Such a talented generation...
|
Cheating will always come back to haunt you in the end, doesn't matter how popular you are.
|
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
It's obviously a big deal because of the whole cult of personality and the Livestrong movement that gained such traction precisely because Armstrong's personal story was so inspirational. I for one applaud the USADA for going after him, it would have been far easier to just remain silent, given the massive amounts of money Armstrong has raised for charity.
There's a great book on the culture of pro-cycling at the time by the British cyclist (and former doper) David Millar called Racing Through the Dark. For those interested in the whole doping culture of pro-cycling, it's a really worthwhile read. I'd imagine he's regretting his timing, releasing it before Wiggins won the tour and now this news!
|
On August 24 2012 21:42 Grumbels wrote:
That's your defense that "nobody cares"? That being on the frontpage of every newspaper is meaningless? Every person in the Western hemisphere knows who Lance Armstrong is and will hear about this.
Armstrong without a shadow of a doubt used doping. There are so many testimonies as well as scientific evidence. How would the legal system ever survive if apparently arguing that your defendant is a freak of nature with a massive conspiracy targeting him would be enough to acquit? Just because you don't care that he cheated himself to victory to become a world-wide celebrity does not mean it's meaningless. Yes, he won and I guess people like winners, but so what? He was merely the best cheater, not the best athlete.
A lot of people are not willing to use PEDs or if they do they are very unhappy with their use of this. Armstrong essentially set back the cycling sport by a decade with his massive doping program and all the criminality and money associated with keeping up appearances. He is a villain and his demise is a good thing.
Just because people recognise his name and know who is doesn't mean they care, you are wrongly equating knowing something to caring about it.
Scientific evidence can be manipulated to show whatever you want, especially years after a crime and a doping one.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
USADA is bullshit. Armstrong would have had a tough time getting a fair hearing under the arbitration proceedings of a organization that has clearly postured to make example of him. Armstrong is on message, repeatedly identifying the case as a witch hunt.
That's not to say that Armstrong is clean at all. The guy is slippery as an eel and all the circumstantial evidence points to doping. Anti-Doping organizations are simply pathetic.
|
On August 24 2012 21:49 mememolly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 21:42 Grumbels wrote:
That's your defense that "nobody cares"? That being on the frontpage of every newspaper is meaningless? Every person in the Western hemisphere knows who Lance Armstrong is and will hear about this.
Armstrong without a shadow of a doubt used doping. There are so many testimonies as well as scientific evidence. How would the legal system ever survive if apparently arguing that your defendant is a freak of nature with a massive conspiracy targeting him would be enough to acquit? Just because you don't care that he cheated himself to victory to become a world-wide celebrity does not mean it's meaningless. Yes, he won and I guess people like winners, but so what? He was merely the best cheater, not the best athlete.
A lot of people are not willing to use PEDs or if they do they are very unhappy with their use of this. Armstrong essentially set back the cycling sport by a decade with his massive doping program and all the criminality and money associated with keeping up appearances. He is a villain and his demise is a good thing. Just because people recognise his name and know who is doesn't mean they care, you are wrongly equating knowing something to caring about it. Scientific evidence can be manipulated to show whatever you want, especially years after a crime and a doping one.
So do you think he's guilty or innocent?
|
On August 24 2012 21:51 TanGeng wrote:
USADA is bullshit. Armstrong would have had a tough time getting a fair hearing under the arbitration proceedings of a organization that has clearly postured to make example of him. Armstrong is on message, repeatedly identifying the case as a witch hunt.
That's not to say that Armstrong is clean at all. The guy is slippery as an eel and all the circumstantial evidence points to doping. Anti-Doping organizations are simply pathetic.
The goal os the USADA is to catch US dopers. Also, it is a fair trial. Why do you postulate it is no fair. If the USADA had insufficient evidence Armstrong would just win the case and be one of the few people ever making USADA lose a doping case.
There are apparently 10 witnesses. Some people say his most loyal collegues and friends are among them. Why did Armstrong choose to give up all his titled, which he worked so hard for, to prevent this evidence from coming out if it doesn't amount to anything?
Yes, he is a slippery eel. That's why he dodged the evidence from being presented. This was his only escape. He would have been humiliated in trial. His friend and reculant witness Hincapie would have spilled the beans with 9 others. There is now no way to make Hincapie repeat under oath what he said in paper. It would have been a confrontation of the two long time friends and then Hincapie saying the same thing as Hamilton and Landis. Then also blood values come in and some doping or blood expert testifies that can only happen from doping. And who knows what other unknown evidence the USADA also has?
|
This is actually incredibly unacceptable. They'll need to prove that he was drugging for every single 7 of the medals he was awarded for them to remove something of that caliber. Just because he might be guilty for this one offense does not inherently make him guilty for something he may or may not have done in the past.
|
On August 24 2012 22:08 Butterednuts wrote:
This is actually incredibly unacceptable. They'll need to prove that he was drugging for every single 7 of the medals he was awarded for them to remove something of that caliber. Just because he might be guilty for this one offense does not inherently make him guilty for something he may or may not have done in the past.
They claim they can. But Armstrong has the right to force them not to provide the evidence. Of course that means he accepts he is guilty. And that's what he did. This means they can't put all his team mates under oath. If the case doens't hit court they can't provide the evidence.
They basically got all his team mates lined up and willing to say they saw Armstrong dope. Armstrong doesn't want that so that's why he rather give up his titles right now than go through the humiliation first and have the same result anyway.
|
On August 24 2012 22:08 Butterednuts wrote:
This is actually incredibly unacceptable. They'll need to prove that he was drugging for every single 7 of the medals he was awarded for them to remove something of that caliber. Just because he might be guilty for this one offense does not inherently make him guilty for something he may or may not have done in the past.
Please read up on the case before you say such things. There is witness testimonies that says he used during all 7 tours he won and in the case against him he willingly gave up on defending himself.
|
every tour winner in the last 30 years was doping. so whats the big deal^^
|
On August 24 2012 22:14 Finrod1 wrote:
every tour winner in the last 30 years was doping. so whats the big deal^^
You are not allowed to dope. And when you get caught you are fucked. Armstrong got caught. It's just another tripped title. Big deal? Maybe not.
|
leave lance alone! woinnnnn
|
How can the head of the US anti-doping agency take away TOUR DE FRANCE titles? Isn't there a committee in Europe for that?
|
On August 24 2012 21:59 Hanakurena wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 21:51 TanGeng wrote:
USADA is bullshit. Armstrong would have had a tough time getting a fair hearing under the arbitration proceedings of a organization that has clearly postured to make example of him. Armstrong is on message, repeatedly identifying the case as a witch hunt.
That's not to say that Armstrong is clean at all. The guy is slippery as an eel and all the circumstantial evidence points to doping. Anti-Doping organizations are simply pathetic. The goal os the USADA is to catch US dopers. Also, it is a fair trial. Why do you postulate it is no fair. If the USADA had insufficient evidence Armstrong would just win the case and be one of the few people ever making USADA lose a doping case. There are apparently 10 witnesses. Some people say his most loyal collegues and friends are among them. Why did Armstrong choose to give up all his titled, which he worked so hard for, to prevent this evidence from coming out if it doesn't amount to anything? Yes, he is a slippery eel. That's why he dodged the evidence from being presented. This was his only escape. He would have been humiliated in trial. His friend and reculant witness Hincapie would have spilled the beans with 9 others. There is now no way to make Hincapie repeat under oath what he said in paper. It would have been a confrontation of the two long time friends and then Hincapie saying the same thing as Hamilton and Landis. Then also blood values come in and some doping or blood expert testifies that can only happen from doping. And who knows what other unknown evidence the USADA also has?
You might want to refer back to my posts about how the banlist is forever changing and all it takes is a good chemist to change one molecule to make a mixture safe.
I'm going to repeat this for you. There are a lot and I do mean a lot of athletes taking stuff. Once again you change one molecule and it would come out as a negative test.
Therefore is practically impossible to police and the lists are always changing.
It's pretty farcical.
|
I think this is a witch hunt and a conspiracy to take down Lance Armstrong.
After all, witch hunts happen all the time to innocent people. Most of my family members and close friends have been falsely accused of various crimes through the years. In most of these cases, it will be 4 or 5 different people coming out of the woodwork with extraordinarily detailed descriptions of my family members' wrongdoings.
Just because there is testimony from people like Lance's masseuse, whom he told to dispose of needles and to conceal marks on his skin, or from a number of former teammates who gave detailed descriptions of his routine blood transfusions, or the fact that he worked with a notoriously controversial trainer. These are not damning facts. Unless you have video evidence of Lance using steroids, I refuse to believe such a thing. You see, I am incapable of putting 2 and 2 together.
|
On August 24 2012 22:24 Thenerf wrote:
How can the head of the US anti-doping agency take away TOUR DE FRANCE titles? Isn't there a committee in Europe for that?
He can't. Only the UCI (Union Cyclicte Internationale) can do so. But it's pretty sure that they'll do so since Armstrong's abandoning of the process will more or less count as evidence of him doping.
|
I dont see how the accusers have any ground to stand on. He has passed 23242543423 drug tests his career.
|
On August 24 2012 22:33 Lockitupv2 wrote:
I dont see how the accusers have any ground to stand on. He has passed 23242543423 drug tests his career.
It's easy to pass tests when you perform blood transfusions and use masking agents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
