|
On August 24 2012 23:00 shabby wrote:
The world is so naive. There are people that use drugs, and then there are people that don't get caught using drugs. In almost every sport it is almost expected if you want to win, and it is very, very common. Let it go and let people use what the hell they want to use.
Exactly. I find it hilarious when people talk of "clean cycling" because all that means to me is more lies and dishonesty than is already present.
|
This is ridiculous. The part that really pisses me off is that they are saying that his refusal to go on with the arbitration process is an admission of guilt. Since when was it law in any civilised country that to stay silent about something concerning yourself was an admission of guilt? Innocent until proven guilty.
The vast majority of the media outcry against Lance was started in the 90s, when the French media were positively disgusted that an American could possibly win the Tour de France. They threw all sorts of negative comments about doping and about his private life onto the front pages, and all the ones that Lance contested withdrew their allegations. Now its come round to the USADA believing he did it, not having concrete evidence and forcing themselves to constantly harass him because if they don't get a conviction they're going to look really bad for hounding a man for over ten years.
To all those saying "surely if he didn't do it he'd fight to keep his titles". He has fought, for over ten years. You're telling me that if a government agency harassed and pursued you for that length of time and kept on at you like this, that even though you're in the right you wouldn't eventually give up, if only for the peace and quiet? Just because something is right doesn't mean that a person wants to spend their whole life fighting a rumour. It's much more worth his time to be focusing on the work that his charitable organisation does.
|
On August 24 2012 22:48 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 22:45 IPSVarekk wrote:
even if its harsh,if you clearly get caught cuz of doping,you should be banned for lifetime.
Tour de France nowadays is just Tour de Doping,its annoying.. it's the case since the 50's at least. No evidence before WWII but it'd be surprising if it wasn't the case. And when you compare nowadays to the 90's, you see that it's not that bad.
One issue is to identify a specific doping as a banned practice. I think we can agree that even the cleanest cyclist will do everything allowed to enhance his performance.
The official definition - you are doping if:
- you use a banned substance
- a banned substance or its byproducts is detected in your blood or urine sample
- you refuse or avoid to provide such a sample when it is requested
The first list of banned substances was provided in 1963, which would mean everything was implicitly allowed before that. The list is updated regularly when new products are identified. For example, EPO synthesis has been available since 1985. EPO was added as a banned substance in 1990. From a regulation standpoint, taking EPO from 1985 to 1990 wasn't banned.
Going back a bit more, 1904 marathon: when the leader could not go on, his coach gave him a strychnin injection to keep him going. This wasn't considered a fault at the time (even if identified as "doping"). Taking performance increasing drinks/drugs wasn't as clearly rejected as it is today.
1940/1950, back to business, with interesting questions as to where the limit should be : is taking vitamins doping ? How far can the nutrition of an athlete be controlled without it to be doping ? Shouldn't training be considered a form of doping ? Maybe specific training ? How about altitude training ? Training in an altitude simulation room ? Is shaving legs and chest hair for swimming doping ?
Back to the initial question, yes : before WWII doping did exist. Runners took what they believed would help them, although a modern scientific evaluation would probably not consider all drugs as enhancing. First well published case for the Tour de France was Maurice Garin, winner in 1904. He used wine instead of water ... Although some sources state his victory also had to do with his boarding a train with his bike to bypass some of the difficulties.
|
On August 24 2012 23:41 Robellicose wrote:
This is ridiculous. The part that really pisses me off is that they are saying that his refusal to go on with the arbitration process is an admission of guilt. Since when was it law in any civilised country that to stay silent about something concerning yourself was an admission of guilt? Innocent until proven guilty.
He is proven guilty. You are very confused. The person on trial has rights. Which in this case includes the right to accept the punishment to skip the presenting of the evidence. Armstrong used his right to block the evidence from being released. He doesn't want Hincapie and all the others to tell the judge under oath and with reculance that they saw Armstrong inject EPO.
He doesn't want the blood values to be released, etc etc.
The vast majority of the media outcry against Lance was started in the 90s, when the French media were positively disgusted that an American could possibly win the Tour de France.
Lies. The issue is that all his teammates and opponents confessed to doping but Armstrong didn't. Armstrong is a 7 time winner. So USADA went after him and build up overwhelming evidence.
It's just pretty sad to see you fall for Armstrong's deception. You really truly believe what you are parroting? I don't think you do.
BTW, substances don't need to be on a list to be disallowed. Doping is disallowed. It doesn't matter if it's good old stanozolol or some exotic designer doping molecule what only one doctor actually know the molecular formula for and that doesn't even have a name.
|
On August 24 2012 23:36 jdsowa wrote:
So by the logic of some posters here, we shouldn't bother to prosecute the murderers we catch because plenty of them go uncaught, and since we can't catch em all it just wouldn't be fair. And besides, that stuff 'happens all the time' so I don't see why anybody cares.
Yeah and also when 10 people say they saw the murderer commit the murder, including his best friend who is very reculant to witness against him, that is not enough because we need a video of the murder being committed.
There is no real 'punishment' for Armstrong. He already got super famous and super rich from his cheating and he has many fans that will support him. Armstrong only fights in the court of public opinion. What law or science says is irrelevant. He knows his best bet is to block all these testimonies and blood values and possibly finally actually positive tests from coming out.
|
Here's what I can reason.
Lance probably cheated. Slim chance he didn't.
However:
Considering the positive effect his charity work is bringing and considering that it is based off his reputation, his decision to not go into arbitration is probably the best he could have made. He can still claim he didn't cheat, and even if his medals are stripped away he still can continue his charity.
It's a very smart move by lance if you ask me. If he didn't cheat, it's a less smart move but still an option.
|
With that many people people willing to testify as to his doping, it's either a conspiracy or (as Occam's Razor would suggest) simply because he was doping.
|
On August 24 2012 12:05 Verator wrote:
Regardless if he did or not, its still a huge accomplishment, and they couldn't convict while he was competing. Any conviction now is just spite or greed.
Are you serious? Thats like saying spades nearly beating Lucifron was a huge accomplishment...
|
Funfact:
If Armstrong loses his tour-titles, Jan Ullrich receives for every 2nd tour-finish (with Armstrong winning the tour) a title. That would make 3 tour de france victories if I´m not mistaking. And other than Armstrong, Ullrich was found guilty of doping.
What a fucked up "sport" cycling is :D
|
On August 25 2012 00:23 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 12:05 Verator wrote:
Regardless if he did or not, its still a huge accomplishment, and they couldn't convict while he was competing. Any conviction now is just spite or greed. Are you serious? Thats like saying spades nearly beating Lucifron was a huge accomplishment...
The point the guy was trying to make is it's no different than beating or just losing to a guy who was taking other stuff as well.
|
This is ridiculous. The part that really pisses me off is that they are saying that his refusal to go on with the arbitration process is an admission of guilt. Since when was it law in any civilised country that to stay silent about something concerning yourself was an admission of guilt? Innocent until proven guilty.
are you serious? next time i commit a crime, i just will not show up or say anything to the allegations and no one can proove my guilt.-(
To all those saying "surely if he didn't do it he'd fight to keep his titles". He has fought, for over ten years. You're telling me that if a government agency harassed and pursued you for that length of time and kept on at you like this, that even though you're in the right you wouldn't eventually give up, if only for the peace and quiet? Just because something is right doesn't mean that a person wants to spend their whole life fighting a rumour. It's much more worth his time to be focusing on the work that his charitable organisation does.
are we talking about the same guy? a guy who over and over threatend people who accused him of doping, a guy who right after his decline of this process said something like "he would hold the USADA to account, if they claim to impose a sanction to him etc."
but sure he was just sick of fighting against these unjustified rumours
|
On August 25 2012 00:30 dude_2 wrote:Show nested quote +This is ridiculous. The part that really pisses me off is that they are saying that his refusal to go on with the arbitration process is an admission of guilt. Since when was it law in any civilised country that to stay silent about something concerning yourself was an admission of guilt? Innocent until proven guilty.
are you serious? next time i commit a crime, i just will not show up or say anything to the allegations and no one can proove my guilt.-( Show nested quote +To all those saying "surely if he didn't do it he'd fight to keep his titles". He has fought, for over ten years. You're telling me that if a government agency harassed and pursued you for that length of time and kept on at you like this, that even though you're in the right you wouldn't eventually give up, if only for the peace and quiet? Just because something is right doesn't mean that a person wants to spend their whole life fighting a rumour. It's much more worth his time to be focusing on the work that his charitable organisation does. are we talking about the same guy? a guy who over and over threatend people who accused him of doping, a guy who right after his decline of this process said something like "he would hold the USADA to account, if they claim to impose a sanction to him etc." but sure he was just sick of fighting against these unjustified rumours
after proving yourself innocent multiple times, at what point would you get fed up and say "fuck it, i'm retired anyways"
|
You can't be proven innocent, ever. You can only be proven guilty.
If you block the evidence from being presented you are guilty even if you are actually supposed to be innocent. Why would Armstrong admit to doping if he never doped? He can just say "bring on the evidence" but he didn't.
|
after proving yourself innocent multiple times, at what point would you get fed up and say "fuck it, i'm retired anyways"
If i am innocent i would fight my whole life for it and i am pretty sure most people would do so.
|
I pity all the riders who competed clean while the likes of armstrong, ullrich, pantani etc dominated. For the people who think armstrong didnt use PEDs, lawl.
|
How are they going to prove he used drugs? Aren't those cleared out of his system by now?
|
i don't think very many of you even understand what they are claiming he was doing. the claim is that he was taking his own blood that had been drawn prior to an intense workout, and injecting it after said workout. this comes after a decade of attempting to get him on every other possible test.
mind you, the blood doping is something that they were actively looking away from at the time, due to it's wide-spread use. so even if he was doing what they said, i'm not sure why he needs to be used as the example. it's not like it is going to clean up the sport at this point, nor is it going to do anything but ruin a legacy that was earned on fair terms, regardless of doping. everyone was on the same level, he was just better. that seriously upsets some people... they happen to mostly not be from america and tend to be from a certain area in europe. go figure...
|
As stated above, I don't get why the USADA claims that Armstrong's refusal to go into arbitration is an admission of guilt. He is innocent until proven guilty. At this stage, the USADA has not proved their allegations in a court of law. They have not shown evidence that will stand in court or in this case in a tribunal. Here it is the USADA's duty to prove their allegations and not Armstrong's duty to prove his innocence.
|
Even if he did use PEDs, they need to let it go. Its strange how there seems to be a constant battle to prove he used drugs. Lance was able to prove his innocents before, why do they think this time will be different? I truly believe that he is tired of spending all that time in court. As some have mentioned, he already made is millions, there is nothing more to gain from this.
|
On August 25 2012 00:40 dude_2 wrote:Show nested quote +
after proving yourself innocent multiple times, at what point would you get fed up and say "fuck it, i'm retired anyways"
If i am innocent i would fight my whole life for it and i am pretty sure most people would do so.
You should check out my post on the other page about someone's psyche.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
