EPTLance Armstrong to lose Titles, Banned - Page 20
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
| ||
|
Tiegrr
United States607 Posts
| ||
|
cari-kira
Germany655 Posts
On August 25 2012 00:24 My.Row wrote: 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 no, this won't happen. as you said, Ulrich was doping so the first one that wasn''t convicted in the list would get the titles. dont know how far they have to go back in the drivers list though, could be very far. | ||
|
Agathon
France1505 Posts
On August 25 2012 01:01 cari-kira wrote: no, this won't happen. as you said, Ulrich was doping so the first one that wasn''t convicted in the list would get the titles. dont know how far they have to go back in the drivers list though, could be very far. 1999 : Fernando Escartin 2000 : Daniele Nardello 2001 : Andrei Kivilev (Dead during Paris - Nice) 2002 : José Azevedo 2003 : Haimar Zubeldia 2004 : Andreas Klöden 2005 : Cadel Evans (!!!!) From (in french sadly): http://contre-pied.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/08/24/qui-a-vraiment-gagne-le-tour-depuis-1999/ Considering that they could get caught too, it might change in the next years btw ^^ | ||
|
multiversed
United States233 Posts
On August 25 2012 01:07 Agathon wrote: Considering that they could get caught too, it might change in the next years btw ^^ haha, i was waiting for that. | ||
|
IrOnKaL
United States340 Posts
 | ||
|
Zaqwert
United States411 Posts
Most drugs make people healthier or stronger, that's what they do. If you wake up today with a horrible cold and take some cold medicine so you can make it to work and do you job, technically you just took a "performance enhancing drug" What's natural is being sick, having bad eye sight, tearing up your knee and having it forever be gimpy, etc. Athletes now a days have access to the best doctors, surgeons, trainers, technology, etc. It's call progress. Steroids, if taken responsibly, are actually pretty safe and very effective. Obviously if they are abused or taken recklessly they can have really bad side effects. But you know what else is like that? EVERY DRUG EVER. | ||
|
Chunhyang
Bangladesh1389 Posts
| ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On August 25 2012 01:17 Zaqwert wrote: Sports needs to get over this idiocy when it comes to "performance enhancing drugs" Most drugs make people healthier or stronger, that's what they do. If you wake up today with a horrible cold and take some cold medicine so you can make it to work and do you job, technically you just took a "performance enhancing drug" What's natural is being sick, having bad eye sight, tearing up your knee and having it forever be gimpy, etc. Athletes now a days have access to the best doctors, surgeons, trainers, technology, etc. It's call progress. Steroids, if taken responsibly, are actually pretty safe and very effective. Obviously if they are abused or taken recklessly they can have really bad side effects. But you know what else is like that? EVERY DRUG EVER. While I agree that fighting it across the board seems to be futile, taking the approach you seem to be advocating goes down a dangerous road. If the practice is legal, what incentive do athletes have to use steroids responsibly, rather than recklessly? If they dope a little more than their competitors, they'll get an edge back. Sure it might be rough on their body, but the pressure from their manager, their teams, and their fans means that they need to be the best they can be. An extra dose won't make that much of a difference, right? Your analogy is poor because a person with a cold taking sinus medicine is enhancing their performance so that they can operate at normal capacity, not an increased capacity. A more proper analogy would be someone taking speed or adderall so that they can get more work done than their coworkers, which most people would tell you is unhealthy and unusual in most workplaces. Would you rather the success of athletes be focused on their training regimens, coaches, and hard work, or their drug regimens, doctors, and commitment to destroying their body? The last thing I want to hear when a popular athlete wins a race/event/game is "Well first I'd like to thank my doctor for putting me on this new drug cocktail, it really did the trick." Obviously that's an exaggeration, but when you encourage 'responsible' drug use to enhance performance in athletic events, that is the end result. On-topic: Lance Armstrong passed every drug test he was ever required to take, and his refusal to have his life be further disturbed by these morons is not an admission of guilt. The fact that they still won't let go and want to strip him of all his accomplishments as a result is laughable at best, and despicable at worst. | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On August 25 2012 01:17 Zaqwert wrote: Sports needs to get over this idiocy when it comes to "performance enhancing drugs" Most drugs make people healthier or stronger, that's what they do. If you wake up today with a horrible cold and take some cold medicine so you can make it to work and do you job, technically you just took a "performance enhancing drug" What's natural is being sick, having bad eye sight, tearing up your knee and having it forever be gimpy, etc. Athletes now a days have access to the best doctors, surgeons, trainers, technology, etc. It's call progress. Steroids, if taken responsibly, are actually pretty safe and very effective. Obviously if they are abused or taken recklessly they can have really bad side effects. But you know what else is like that? EVERY DRUG EVER. Even if steroids were "legal," you would have to regulate otherwise everyone would kill themselves. It's stupid for sport to be a competition between doctors and scientists. | ||
|
RetroAspect
Belgium219 Posts
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? Indeed, the UCI has already confirmed USADA does not have the authority to take his medals away. Imo it's just a personal crusade against Lance for reasons which im not gonna speculate on here. Im not saying he didn't dope btw, in my opinion it's obvious that he did. | ||
|
multiversed
United States233 Posts
On August 25 2012 01:30 RetroAspect wrote: Indeed, the UCI has already confirmed USADA does not have the authority to take his medals away. Imo it's just a personal crusade against Lance for reasons which im not gonna speculate on here. Im not saying he didn't dope btw, in my opinion it's obvious that he did. i will. it's a struggle to stay relevant that entirely backfired in that it cements that they have absolutely no authority over anything. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On August 25 2012 01:17 Zaqwert wrote: Sports needs to get over this idiocy when it comes to "performance enhancing drugs" Most drugs make people healthier or stronger, that's what they do. If you wake up today with a horrible cold and take some cold medicine so you can make it to work and do you job, technically you just took a "performance enhancing drug" What's natural is being sick, having bad eye sight, tearing up your knee and having it forever be gimpy, etc. Athletes now a days have access to the best doctors, surgeons, trainers, technology, etc. It's call progress. Steroids, if taken responsibly, are actually pretty safe and very effective. Obviously if they are abused or taken recklessly they can have really bad side effects. But you know what else is like that? EVERY DRUG EVER. I agree that doping controls are nonsensical, but... Most drugs are just the lesser of two evils. They cause problems even if used responsibly, but smaller problems than the condition they treat. Using drugs without any disease to treat is unhealthy as they are basically all bad for you. A lot of doping methods to achieve performance in sport are in long term killing you. Steroids even in small quantities are extremely bad idea to use. You should only use steroids if the medical condition you have is worse than problems you will have by using them. | ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
Just because he (Lance) refused to participate in that trial doesn't mean he is guilty of using banned substances. All in all, this smells like a rotten fish :S | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
| ||
|
Burns
United States2300 Posts
| ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On August 25 2012 01:17 Zaqwert wrote: Sports needs to get over this idiocy when it comes to "performance enhancing drugs" Most drugs make people healthier or stronger, that's what they do. If you wake up today with a horrible cold and take some cold medicine so you can make it to work and do you job, technically you just took a "performance enhancing drug" What's natural is being sick, having bad eye sight, tearing up your knee and having it forever be gimpy, etc. Athletes now a days have access to the best doctors, surgeons, trainers, technology, etc. It's call progress. Steroids, if taken responsibly, are actually pretty safe and very effective. Obviously if they are abused or taken recklessly they can have really bad side effects. But you know what else is like that? EVERY DRUG EVER. Yea, pumping steroids into your body is not natural or healthy in any way, shape or form. As already healthy people, steroids would be a very bad idea to give to athletes willy nilly. Where would you get such insane ideas like this..? | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
Yes most probably all the others cheated, too. But still this means that he made most of his money by lying constantly. Hundreds of interviews, statements etc during which he lied to be able to make money. It is fraud, pure and simple. Fraud that will leave him as a millionaire, even if his titles are revoked. So why would anyone feel sorry for him? In contrast, there are many cyclists that did the same as him but were less clever, got caught and had to end their career without earning much. Why not feel sorry for those instead? | ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:00 Redox wrote: I have a really hard time believing that some people here support Armstrong in this. Especially even after acknowledging that he cheated. Yes most probably all the others cheated, too. But still this means that he made most of his money by lying constantly. Hundreds of interviews, statements etc during which he lied to be able to make money. It is fraud, pure and simple. Fraud that will leave him as a millionaire, even if his titles are revoked. So why would anyone feel sorry for him? In contrast, there are many cyclists that did the same as him but were less clever, got caught and had to end their career without earning much. Why not feel sorry for those instead? Wait a second bro! Care to link any articles where he acknowledged that he cheated ? You just made me curious about it. | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:03 HomeWorld wrote: Wait a second bro! Care to link any articles where he acknowledged that he cheated ? You just made me curious about it. I meant people here were acknowledging that he cheated and stated that they support him regardless. Thats what I dont get. And lets be honest for a second, really noone with the least bit of knowledge doubts it. | ||
| ||
