| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Darkwing Duck
5 Posts
Now, some might say it becomes a matter of who has the best doctors and what not, but neither Armstrong, Ullrich or Pantani were caught in their prime time so I'd say they've all had pretty much equally good doctors helping them. In the end, you don't just go win The Tour by using doping if you're not already a very good rider and so I think it's fair to say that Armstrong would still have won if everyone had been clean. | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
| ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:21 Grumbels wrote: Not being caught does not mean they are innocent. The testing regime in football is very lax and therefore doping offers substantial benefits. If an entire team is fit 90 minutes per game for 70 games a year with all their best players, they will have better results, regardless of football being more of a technical sport and not a purely physiological one like cycling. The same goes for tennis. Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, Serena Williams, Real Madrid and Barcelona are just some of the teams or players under suspicion for doping usage. Because the testing regime is a joke they won't ever be caught, but there certainly is a very high chance they use doping. What happened to "guilty until proven innocent" thing ?! Oh wait, it's the other way around. Let me be quite clear, you cannot blame a procedure (be it sloppy and laxed) just to make your case against a person that you suspect of cheating (example : a geiger counter showing no radiation levels at Fukushima plant, yet you run like a decapitated chicken from that area just because you think there might be some radiation hazard there - I know, that's an extreme comparison). If a person was found negative on test while using banned substances, it's not our fault, or his fault, it's the tester fault for not doing his job properly. Ofc any further incrimination on the "tested person" are equal to 0, the proofs went down the drain (sewage or should I say toilet) | ||
|
Trok67
France384 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:25 Mr Showtime wrote: Unbelievably fucking stupid. He's been harassed non-stop, and he finally gives in. Now they are going to take them away EVEN THOUGH THERE IS STILL NO EVIDENCE. He'll get them back. This is far too moronic for him not to get them back. no evidence ? 10 american teammates or so, most of them ready to testify under oath, saying that he was using PEDs along with the US-postal team. He got tested positive by a test on TdF 1999 tested back in 2005 (but the test was supposed to be anonymous so didnt count) and some positive blood test that they were about to reveal. There is so much proof that he preferred to avoid the trial because he had absolutely no chance to get away with it It is strange to see how many american people are still defending him. You guys usually are known to give a very strong value to the law and how people should respect it in any circumstances. And yet one can hear "it is no big deal other were doing it also", "it is still a great performance he should get away with it", "he won tour de france 7 times he shouldnt get harras like that", "thats so long ago they should just drop it...". The law is the law period and you can't just let people get away with it. It broke the rules and he has to pay for it. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:35 jdsowa wrote: That so many people come to Lance's defense in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt is a wonderful illustration that sound and measured reasoning yet elude a great segment of the population. I admire Lance because he won against his "deadly" condition. Other than that, he's just an ordinary human (well more than that). Care to show us the overwhelming evidences of his guilt ?! Going your way, I can say that the overwhelming evidences of USA gov hiding the alien tech at area 51 is overwhelming. See ?! That was overwhelmingly easy  | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:39 HomeWorld wrote: What happened to "guilty until proven innocent" thing ?! Oh wait, it's the other way around. Let me be quite clear, you cannot blame a procedure (be it sloppy and laxed) just to make your case against a person that you suspect of cheating (example : a geiger counter showing no radiation levels at Fukushima plant, yet you run like a decapitated chicken from that area just because you think there might be some radiation hazard there - I know, that's an extreme comparison). If a person was found negative on test while using banned substances, it's not our fault, or his fault, it's the tester fault for not doing his job properly. Ofc any further incrimination on the "tested person" are equal to 0, the proofs went down the drain (sewage or should I say toilet) Or just plain up corruption since UCI/ASO covered Armstrong since 1999 because he was the guy supposed to sumbolyze the renewal of the Tour after EPO days... 1999/2005 negatives tests where ultimately shut down by the UCI. | ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
As has been said, at some point you'll end up tired of fighting such accusations. Apparently, for Lance Armstrong that point is right about now. Many sportsmen are accused of cheating and despite having their names cleared over and over, people keep accusing them - senselessly and baselessly. I don't know if it's about jealousy or if it's just the simple belief that Lance Armstrong couldn't have been that good naturally, for some reason, but either way I think it is outrageous. No, I do not believe Lance Armstrong is guilty of anything, and I think USADA is at fault here. Other cycling organizations are calling out USADA for breaking several of their own rules. I mean, honestly - if there is anything suspicious here, it is not Lance Armstrong but rather USADA's behaviour. | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:44 Zealously wrote: I'll repost what I posted on another forum earlier today; As has been said, at some point you'll end up tired of fighting such accusations. Apparently, for Lance Armstrong that point is right about now. Many sportsmen are accused of cheating and despite having their names cleared over and over, people keep accusing them - senselessly and baselessly. I don't know if it's about jealousy or if it's just the simple belief that Lance Armstrong couldn't have been that good naturally, for some reason, but either way I think it is outrageous. No, I do not believe Lance Armstrong is guilty of anything, and I think USADA is at fault here. Other cycling organizations are calling out USADA for breaking several of their own rules. I mean, honestly - if there is anything suspicious here, it is not Lance Armstrong but rather USADA's behaviour. the UCI covered Armstrong twice but they're the good guy? | ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:40 Trok67 wrote: no evidence ? 10 american teammates or so, most of them ready to testify under oath, saying that he was using PEDs along with the US-postal team. He got tested positive by a test on TdF 1999 tested back in 2005 (but the test was supposed to be anonymous so didnt count) and some positive blood test that they were about to reveal. There is so much proof that he preferred to avoid the trial because he had absolutely no chance to get away with it It is strange to see how many american people are still defending him. You guys usually are known to give a very strong value to the law and how people should respect it in any circumstances. And yet one can hear "it is no big deal other were doing it also", "it is still a great performance he should get away with it", "he won tour de france 7 times he shouldnt get harras like that", "thats so long ago they should just drop it...". The law is the law period and you can't just let people get away with it. It broke the rules and he has to pay for it. Ten peoples ready to jump from a bridge is not an evidence of that said bridge being deadly. Suffice to say, we should wait for those 10 american teammates to testify first then jump to conclusions. | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:46 HomeWorld wrote: Ten peoples ready to jump from a bridge is not an evidence of that said bridge being deadly. Suffice to say, we should wait for those 10 american teammates to testify first then jump to conclusions. 1999/2005. that's all it have to be said. Not mentionning the fact some blood test were supposed to be reaveled in case of a trial. they can't testimate since Armstrong refused the trial, you trapped yourself with ignorance here mate. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On August 24 2012 12:09 Al Bundy wrote: "Regardless if he did or not, it's still a huge accomplishment" no no no no you got it all wrong. accomplishments while under the effect of doping are worth nothing. If "he did", these accomplishments don't exist. While he is probably guilty of doping, I don't really think it diminishes his accomplishments much at all. Literally everyone at that time was doping, and Lance doing so just helped put him on a level playing field which he still proceeded to smash. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
Poll: Do you think Armstrong is innocent? No (37) Yes (10) 47 total votes Your vote: Do you think Armstrong is innocent? | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:48 L_Master wrote: While he is probably guilty of doping, I don't really think it diminishes his accomplishments much at all. Literally everyone at that time was doping, and Lance doing so just helped put him on a level playing field which he still proceeded to smash. Not everyone doped the same way... He was probably the best in the early 2000's tho but it's impossible to say it. | ||
|
Hyperionnn
Turkey4968 Posts
And doping was VERY common in cycling in 1900-2005, probably all of the top 10 is doping in those years but Armstrong put this on a ridiculous level with his whole of the team going crazy on mountains. (It was like 6-7 USPS guys remaining in the group when there are only 20-25 riders who can survive the pace in mountain stages) Edit: Pre-cancer, he was mostly a one day racer (Which is a VERY VERY VERY different art compared to stage racing) suddenly he became the craziest time trialist (he was always good at though) and crazy climber as well | ||
|
Trok67
France384 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:46 HomeWorld wrote: Ten peoples ready to jump from a bridge is not an evidence of that said bridge being deadly. Suffice to say, we should wait for those 10 american teammates to testify first then jump to conclusions. they will probably never testify because Armstrong denied the trial (because he did not want to be put in the position where he is being charged by all his teamates + others blood test evidences). and 10 witnesses is quite a large level of proof, for most kind of trial 1 or 2 eye witness will even be enough to get you convicted | ||
|
LaNague
Germany9118 Posts
The organisation was about to start an official hearing and had like 10 witnessess lined up who were all going to testify that he used doping, plus other evidence. Since its not a real court of law, armstrong was free to wave his defence and ignore them, which he chose to do. he is NOT on a morale highground, he basically admitted to doping. | ||
|
Kazius
Israel1456 Posts
On August 24 2012 12:09 Jumbled wrote: I'd say the goal of a conviction now is to show cyclists that they can't get away with it, and that they will eventually be caught. Nothing to do with "spite or greed". They have all the blood and urine samples from when he was competing - he may very well be the most tested person in the history of sports already, since the French got really pissed off at him winning all the titles at the time. So now, after years of testing, while he's retired, they still want to bug him to go over and do more tests. He tells them "enough is enough", and now he's the bad guy, and obviously as guilty as "they" (being the people who have tested him extensively for the last decade or so) have always said. Because dammit, a decade of testing is still not enough to be 100% sure. Not a single athlete in any international sport, EVER, has been subject to the level of scrutiny Armstrong has. Are you saying we should test every multiple winner for a decade, or else take away their medals, records and achievements? Now tell me that this is not out of "spite or greed". Tell me this is perfectly reasonable. You want unreasonable? Try Bolt's records, they should test him forever, and shouldn't have given him the medal since obviously what he did was impossible, until they check some more. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On August 25 2012 02:44 Zealously wrote: I'll repost what I posted on another forum earlier today; As has been said, at some point you'll end up tired of fighting such accusations. Apparently, for Lance Armstrong that point is right about now. Many sportsmen are accused of cheating and despite having their names cleared over and over, people keep accusing them - senselessly and baselessly. I don't know if it's about jealousy or if it's just the simple belief that Lance Armstrong couldn't have been that good naturally, for some reason, but either way I think it is outrageous. No, I do not believe Lance Armstrong is guilty of anything, and I think USADA is at fault here. Other cycling organizations are calling out USADA for breaking several of their own rules. I mean, honestly - if there is anything suspicious here, it is not Lance Armstrong but rather USADA's behaviour. This is where I call BS. No competitor with an ego like Lance just gives up and caves in- unless he is about to be nailed by dozens of respected colleagues, teammates, coaches, physios, etc. Nope, if you've been wronged, you fight. You fight to the death. I highly believe he knows a bunch of damning, or at least not supportive evidence, is about to come out and this is the convenient way out. He can just say he got tired of fighting it, and then non of the official testimonies or test results ever come out. I strongly believe he is just trying to make the best PR decision possible that minimizes his fallout. On August 25 2012 02:53 Kazius wrote: They have all the blood and urine samples from when he was competing - he may very well be the most tested person in the history of sports already, since the French got really pissed off at him winning all the titles at the time. So now, after years of testing, while he's retired, they still want to bug him to go over and do more tests. He tells them "enough is enough", and now he's the bad guy, and obviously as guilty as "they" (being the people who have tested him extensively for the last decade or so) have always said. Because dammit, a decade of testing is still not enough to be 100% sure. Not a single athlete in any international sport, EVER, has been subject to the level of scrutiny Armstrong has. Are you saying we should test every multiple winner for a decade, or else take away their medals, records and achievements? Now tell me that this is not out of "spite or greed". Tell me this is perfectly reasonable. You want unreasonable? Try Bolt's records, they should test him forever, and shouldn't have given him the medal since obviously what he did was impossible, until they check some more. He isn't retired. He came back to compete in triathlon, and it is in part because of some suspicious marker levels they found recently that this entire thing resurfaced. The irony of this all is had Lance just stayed retired and not returned to competitive athletics this entire situation would never have occurred in the first place. | ||
|
Hyperionnn
Turkey4968 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
