EPTSpades is good showing you can do it in SC2.
I say if you can get away with it do it!
Lance Armstrong to lose Titles, Banned - Page 28
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
EggYsc2
620 Posts
Spades is good showing you can do it in SC2. I say if you can get away with it do it! | ||
|
Kazeyonoma
United States2912 Posts
On August 25 2012 08:18 EggYsc2 wrote: Cheating can get you far in life. Spades is good showing you can do it in SC2. I say if you can get away with it do it! wut? it didn't get him anywhere except on some smaller foreign teams, where he posted low results in every tournament. I don't wanna dig up this shit because I can't judge Spades character on my own, but why use that analogy as well as claiming getting away with cheating is the way to go. -_-' people lack integrity these days. | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On August 25 2012 07:33 Grumbels wrote: "Ayotte does not question whether the new type of analysis is correct; rather she questions the ethics of long-delayed test results." that's your best source? Rather than addressing the actual quote on question that actually pertains to the discussion, you try and shift the argument away because your whole entire argument just got blown up. A head of a doping agency blatantly pretty much stated that that test should have been basically impossible in the condition it was in, because the synthetic EPO (if it was present originally at the time) should have degraded severely to the point where it is basically untestable or it just simply doesn't exist anymore. Thank you come again for your weekly ownage. On August 25 2012 07:55 dude_2 wrote: that's wrong. ullrich for example was never tested positive (i don't count this amphetamine thing, because he was not banned for it). they just caught him, because of his connection to fuentes. basso the same and no one believes they were not doped. here is a funny story. armstrong once said that ullrich was the far more talented cyclist (~2003/2004) i know it's no proof or anything, but just listen to your common sense. do you really think a clean armstrong defeated a doped ullrich? Both Basso and Ulrich were caught with proof having received illegal drugs into their system by Fuentes. There was REAL and SOLID proof that both cheated. Not circumstantial evidence. They BOUGHT the drugs (records), there are records of them going to Fuentes, there are records of their blood at Fuentes' office with the drugs in them. | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On August 25 2012 08:49 Grumbels wrote: superstartran, I have no idea what you're talking about. If they found synthetic EPO in the urine then it did not magically appear there, it was either already present or the urine was spiked. I'm not a biochemist and I'm not going to tell you how the exact process of testing works, I'll just tell you that if in 2009 Ashenden says he is convinced without a shadow of a doubt that these samples contained synthetic EPO consistent with doping, then all your counter arguments become ridiculous, because Ashenden is a respected scientist. Do you really think that if there was no way for EPO to survive in urine, that he would be convinced in 2009? I don't know exactly how you are wrong, because I'm not going to bother with the details of this chemical test, but you are obviously wrong as you would easily see if you would look at these findings in context. ? A well respected scientist that works for the WADA and has put away a well known cheater like Floyd Landis just said that test was basically ridiculous because EPO disappears after a few months even if the urine is frozen. Get over it; you're wrong. EPO is a biodegradable substance; the fact that WADA protocols were not followed, along with various other things means that it could have been an easily tampered experiment. Anyone attempting to utilize that 1999 "retest" is just digging themselves a hole. | ||
|
Gofarman
Canada646 Posts
If he is guilty then the international body will decide that when the evidence is shared, if not then this will all be remembered as a mere hiccup in his legacy. Deciding not to fight is not the same as failing to win, when the cost is too great concessions must be made. | ||
|
ContrailNZ
New Zealand306 Posts
At least anti doping technology has caught up a bit and can be used retrospectively. That might scare a few drugs cheats away, though I doubt many. Of course there is also the many witnesses who saw Armstrong. I'm sure they just felt like making big made up stories independently, or is it a big conspiracy? For people that point to the fact that someone passes drug tests previously as proof if innocence...... some drugs cheats were never caught, but only admitted it later eg Marion Jones. Every is innocent until proven guilty, but when its proven, no matter how late, that person's accomplishments mean nothing. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On August 25 2012 14:44 ContrailNZ wrote: Good result. Armstrong is obviously a drugs cheat, but I'll wait for the official announcement after the drug agency completes its work. Hopefully they will release all the evidence. I guess that is Armstrong's hope now, that by no longer fighting perhaps they won't show all of the evidence. At least anti doping technology has caught up a bit and can be used retrospectively. That might scare a few drugs cheats away, though I doubt many. Of course there is also the many witnesses who saw Armstrong. I'm sure they just felt like making big made up stories independently, or is it a big conspiracy? For people that point to the fact that someone passes drug tests previously as proof if innocence...... some drugs cheats were never caught, but only admitted it later eg Marion Jones. Every is innocent until proven guilty, but when its proven, no matter how late, that person's accomplishments mean nothing. It was never proven. USADA wanted to take it to arbitration, a process where the organization (who contracts the arbitrators in the first place) have a huge advantage. It's not something where concrete evidence is needed, but where speculation and backdoor deals are made. | ||
|
Hanakurena
105 Posts
On August 25 2012 07:59 madsweepslol wrote: Hasn't he passed literally hundreds of drug tests? Didn't the USADA refuse to share it's so called 'evidence' with the international cycling governing body? Yeah, this smacks of bullshit. All famous dopers passed all tests and were never positive. Armstrong cut off USADA from releasing the evidence. No court case, no legal way for USADA to present the evidence. Armstrong knows the evidence is so overwhelming, he decided it is best for his image to prevent it from happening. Imagine a teary Hincapie confessing to doping himself and that Armstrong made him do it. Then Armstrong being drilled on many essential points and lies. Then that will be on tv for several day. Bye Armstrong as a brand. Ending it this way his disciples will still follow him. Nike can still back him without getting the backlash they would get if they defended Armstrong after the case and all the evidence. The evidence is what destroys Armstrong, not the stripping of titles.And btw they do have jurisdiction. It's an American athlete, not a French one. UCI and ASO signed to follow the WADA code. They have to strip or break the doping rules. It's impossible for them to have spiked anomynous urine samples in such a way that almost all of Armstrong's urine samples showed up positive. Never before was it proven that a doping sample was spiked. If someone truly did spike a sample of some athlete tomorrow, that athlete is fucked and he will be banned. Unless you can give evidence that Armstrong's urine sample was spiked, there is no court on the planet that would even start to compare the probabilities of both theories. | ||
|
dude_2
Germany22 Posts
Both Basso and Ulrich were caught with proof having received illegal drugs into their system by Fuentes. There was REAL and SOLID proof that both cheated. Not circumstantial evidence. They BOUGHT the drugs (records), there are records of them going to Fuentes, there are records of their blood at Fuentes' office with the drugs in them. correct and i never doubted this, but you made an argument that armstrong was never tested positive and the same goes for ullrich and basso. they only caught, because they got fuentes. as hanakurena mentioned all famous dopers passed all tests. your argument he passed all tests doesen't proove his innoncence. again, do you really think a guy like armstrong would take the risk of losing all his titles, if he is innocen? you gotta be pretty naive to think this. | ||
|
Flamingo777
United States1190 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On August 25 2012 10:56 superstartran wrote: ? A well respected scientist that works for the WADA and has put away a well known cheater like Floyd Landis just said that test was basically ridiculous because EPO disappears after a few months even if the urine is frozen. Get over it; you're wrong. EPO is a biodegradable substance; the fact that WADA protocols were not followed, along with various other things means that it could have been an easily tampered experiment. Anyone attempting to utilize that 1999 "retest" is just digging themselves a hole. Oh my god. You found one sentence in a press release where she does not even question the scientific validity of the result. When Armstrong attacks these tests he says that they are spiked, not that they must have been impossible. Respected scientists take these tests seriously and years later see them as proof of Armstrong's doping use. This is like arguing with a creationist. | ||
|
ninini
Sweden1204 Posts
| ||
|
Boblhead
United States2577 Posts
| ||
|
Billner
Canada8 Posts
| ||
|
Yuljan
2196 Posts
| ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
Why not make doping legal? Well, the answer is that many kinds of doping have a higher effect at a higher dose. If you want a real advantage from doping you have to take more of it. EPO and blood transfusions give blood as thick as syrup and the chance of clotting is high. Testosterone and anabolic steroids have other side effects like infertility, mood swings and at higher dose I imagine there are other far more serious side effects, Escalating doping-use will for sure kill athletes in the future. Michael Rasmussen was excluded prematurely from Tour de France. However, he had evaded several dopingtests by not telling the trueth about where he was. I think it is safe to say that he was hiding something. | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On August 25 2012 19:42 radiatoren wrote: Negative doping tests mean absolutely nothing. The anti-doping tests are ~10 years+ behind the dope being used. As soon as the number of years they are behind gets lowered to ~5 years we are talking a possibility for preserving samples and retesting to catch the cheaters post succes with enough certainty. As some people in this thread alludes to, it is not even close to optimal, but I am trying to make the point that it is the only way... Why not make doping legal? Well, the answer is that many kinds of doping have a higher effect at a higher dose. If you want a real advantage from doping you have to take more of it. EPO and blood transfusions give blood as thick as syrup and the chance of clotting is high. Testosterone and anabolic steroids have other side effects like infertility, mood swings and at higher dose I imagine there are other far more serious side effects, Escalating doping-use will for sure kill athletes in the future. Michael Rasmussen was excluded prematurely from Tour de France. However, he had evaded several dopingtests by not telling the trueth about where he was. I think it is safe to say that he was hiding something. Well Rasmussen came from a pure climber unable to get a decent TT to a solid contender for the whole thing after hiding the fact that he trained in Mexico. (Contador was following him in moutain at this time btw, that was so ridiculous :D) | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On August 25 2012 20:26 sAsImre wrote: Well Rasmussen came from a pure climber unable to get a decent TT to a solid contender for the whole thing after hiding the fact that he trained in Mexico. (Contador was following him in moutain at this time btw, that was so ridiculous :D) http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3040786 Danish cyclist Michael Rasmussen, kicked out of the Tour de France by his team, had traces of a blood-boosting substance in his system when tested during the race, the French sports daily L'Equipe reported Friday. The French lab conducting the tests sent a letter to cycling's world governing body noting Rasmussen's samples showed signs of Dynepo, an EPO-like substance made from human cells, L'Equipe said. Rasmussen was pulled out of the Tour by his Dutch team Rabobank for allegedly lying about his whereabouts to avoid out-of-competition doping tests before the Tour. He was leading the Tour when he was expelled. "If the information [in L'Equipe] is correct, the case will be passed on to UCI," Jens Evald, chairman of Anti-Doping Denmark, said in a TV interview. There was no immediate comment from the UCI. Rabobank manager Henri van der Aat said the team would look into the new allegations. | ||
| ||
