|
Always been a strong advocate of "fair play" and punishing thoose who cheat but not happy with this.
Lance armstrong been a hero for me since the day he became world champion and loved watching him perform in the tour.
It just does not feel right to go after him after so manny years, cycling has been flooded with doping since as long as i can remember and nearly all athletes in the top used doping, it was just how things went in that era.
To now pick only him out so manny years later just does not feel right, i also dont see how this would make current situation anny better.
Let our heros from the past rest and let them stay hero,s
|
On August 25 2012 06:00 fbs wrote:
Long overdue. Have been following this for years. The guy is such a fraud and has created such a bullshit aura about him people just refuse to accept he cheated regardless of all the evidence, any defense of him just comes across as mindless trolling. Credit to the USADA for not being bullied into giving up in their pursuit of him. It is a great shame they will come under criticism for doing what was right.
Agreed...I give only props to the USADA for doing their jobs. Armstrong is obv a very smart guy. You can see just by this thread that his followers will love him regardless and a trial will only hurt him more in the public eye. If there is no evidence why quit right before the trial? Or is it that the evidence is so damning that only the blindest Lance fans will be able to ignore. Which one makes the most sense. When u think logically its a no brainer but you have to give props to Lance for how he played it.
|
If you dont follow the sport, then Lance Armstrong deserves your respect for beating cancer
If you do follow the sport, then you know 100% that he cheated on a massive scale, the whole community knows it and kudos to the governing body to actually pursue him even to this day. Nothing made any sense regarding his "sporting career" it was all hidden in a bunch of smoke and mirrors
|
Serious question because I'm unfamiliar with this, but what are the direct biological effects of doping?
|
On August 26 2012 04:04 Magic_Mike wrote:
This is a joke. I'd like to see actual physical evidence of doping taking place before stripping this guy of all his titles. He's passed tons of tests of all different types, including random ones and there isn't a single shred of evidence from those that he did it. I will believe he is innocent until I see this information and not a group of guys whose moral integrity is already suspect for having been convicted of it themselves. To me it sounds like a bunch of jealous guys who want to tear someone down because he could do something they couldn't. Of course I have just as much evidence of this theory as they have of Armstrong cheating. None. It's just a theory. They need to be 100% sure before doing something like this.
They have enough evidence for a case to get him convicted. Armstrong not wanting to defend himself is the reason the evidence will not be presented.
On the subject of doping tests. These are but one option to prove doping. Its for instance similar to finding stolen goods at a burglars house. Its immediate prove of involvement/guilt. Other methods are available and come available years after races (due to the time needed having to catch up on the newest drugs out there) that can prove doping use. Such as blood values being extremely high, similar for instance to eyewitnesses seeing a burglar leave a house, fingerprints/hair in the house, etc, indirect evidence of involvement/guilt. USADA obviously has such evidence or they wouldnt want to start a case.
I follow cycling for about 23 years now, Lemond/Fignon is approx my first Tour watched. To me it doesnt matter they dope, I know a lot of them do (I have always been sure of Armstrong using f.i.), it doesnt make the sport any less impressive and entertaining for me. However when there is clear evidence that someone used they should be banned and stripped of titles.
In the end I still think Armstrong is a great cyclist, even if he used doping, you dont just go and win the biggest race of the year, one of the most challenging sport events out there 7 times in a row without being extremely good. He still should be banned though. The sad part for me is the amount of money and fame he has made thanks to cheating.
...edit: see below, better answer then what was here.
|
On August 26 2012 05:29 Evangelist wrote:
Serious question because I'm unfamiliar with this, but what are the direct biological effects of doping?
The 3 biggest types.
Blood Doping: You can take out some of your red blood (or use a donor's blood), have it stored, and then have it reinfused at a later date.
This will increase your blood volume, as well as your Hematocrit (% Red blood), which will let your heart pump more bood/oxygen to muscles, increasing oxygen delivery. Furthermore, during a long stage race (the Tour de France) red blood cell levels naturally decrease from the strain. During a race, it increases performance.
EPO Doping: Similar to Blood Doping, but it is a hormone that tells your body to make more red blood cells. Same benefits, but without the performance drawback of losing red blood. During training, it increases performance, which will let you train harder, and therefore get even better.
Testosterone (Anabolic Steroids): Increases recovery. Endurance athletes don't take it at the same levels as strength athletes, which is why they don't get hyooge, but it does allow for them to train harder (as what would have overtrained them they can now handle).
All 3 are detectable, all 3 were almost definitely used during the offseason, and Blood Doping was probably used during the regular season. Cycling is an extremely dirty sport, everyone cheats. I knew a very good 16 year old European cyclist, he said doping was common even at his age.
That being said, Armstrong still deserves respect for his accomplishments. Everyone is doping, but not everyone wins 7 TDFs.
|
On August 26 2012 05:29 Evangelist wrote:
Serious question because I'm unfamiliar with this, but what are the direct biological effects of doping?
Which type? There are many types of illegal performance enhancing drugs, and they all have different effects.
EPO for example stimulates red blood cell production, this means your body is able to transport more oxygen. It also makes the blood much thicker, which can be very dangerous.
Steroids and Human Growth Hormone stimulate muscle growth and recovery, and can also cause a whole range of problems
Blood transfusions can be used to tap oxygen rich blood, and transfer it back at a later time when you need to perform.
There are literally hundreds of different methods
|
Everyone used in that era and before armstrongs time, before epo was invented people used doping.
I dont like that cycling is a dirty sports (or hopefully was) but to go after single high profile athletes so manny years after feels pointless and unfair, since "everyone" used in that time.
They all got pushed by team doctors and sponsors to get results and they just did what they got told and what "everyone" did,it was the culturue of thoose days.
Because they could not detect epo (at that time) they made this rule, that you could not have 50% + of red blood particles in your body
Every top cyclists took doping to raise the lvl to just below 50%
Before there was doping people went training in high altitude areas to naturally raise the lvl.
To call armstong a cheater amongst saints would be far beside the truth,he was a cheater amongst cheaters and as such i dont feel its fair to go after him after so manny years and only pick him out.
People who dont understand cycling should let this rest  they just ruining a great sports.
@ below,From the wiki below:
"At present there is no accepted method for detecting autologous transfusions (that is, using the athlete’s own red blood cells"
They can not detect that method.
Also from the same wiki article:
Military use
In 1993, U.S. Special Forces commanders at Fort Bragg started experimenting with blood doping, also known as blood loading. Special forces operators would provide two units of whole blood, from which red blood cells would be extracted, concentrated, and stored under cold temperatures. Twenty-four hours before a mission or battle, a small amount of red blood cells would be infused back into the soldier. Military scientists believe that the procedure increases the soldiers' endurance and alertness because of the increase in the blood's capability to carry oxygen.
|
Russian Federation748 Posts
Very interesting. How can they detect the first two, given that in one case it's one's own blood, in the other case a hormon naturally found in the body ? Is the EPO level after doping that unusually high that you can clearly assess there's been a scam ?
|
On August 26 2012 05:43 Kyrillion wrote:
Very interesting. How can they detect the first two, given that in one case it's one's own blood, in the other case a hormon naturally found in the body ? Is the EPO level after doping that unusually high that you can clearly assess there's been a scam ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_doping#Detection_of_blood_doping
|
On August 26 2012 05:42 Rassy wrote:Everyone used in that era and before armstrongs time, before epo was invented people used doping. I dont like that cycling is a dirty sports (or hopefully was) but to go after single high profile athletes so manny years after feels pointless and unfair, since "everyone" used in that time. They all got pushed by team doctors and sponsors to get results and they just did what they got told and what "everyone" did,it was the culturue of thoose days. Because they could not detect epo (at that time) they made this rule, that you could not have 50% + of red blood particles in your body Every top cyclists took doping to raise the lvl to just below 50% Before there was doping people went training in high altitude areas to naturally raise the lvl. To call armstong a cheater amongst saints would be far beside the truth,he was a cheater amongst cheaters and as such i dont feel its fair to go after him after so manny years and only pick him out. People who dont understand cycling should let this rest they just ruining a great sports. @ below,From the wiki below: "At present there is no accepted method for detecting autologous transfusions (that is, using the athlete’s own red blood cells" They can not detect that method. Also from the same wiki article: Military use In 1993, U.S. Special Forces commanders at Fort Bragg started experimenting with blood doping, also known as blood loading. Special forces operators would provide two units of whole blood, from which red blood cells would be extracted, concentrated, and stored under cold temperatures. Twenty-four hours before a mission or battle, a small amount of red blood cells would be infused back into the soldier. Military scientists believe that the procedure increases the soldiers' endurance and alertness because of the increase in the blood's capability to carry oxygen.
Isn't it even more unfair to not label him when 60% of the rest of top 10 the years he won has been blamed and shamed? Fairness is a tricky thing but I would not call having him labeled as clean when he was not for fair. I still respect his achievements, but let justice for the dopers be met and let the results from these years count as a warning, that it is becoming increasingly normal to get caught if you try to cheat! 60% of the people using doping getting caught is not that bad! If you are a young cyclist it is telling a story of a sport where there has been a severe doping-use, but also a sport where a lot of the riders get caught for it. I see that as a good thing.
Edit: If you look at what people say about Armstrong: He is not just doing as he is being told. He is being portrayed as a leader and a guy who pushed his team to use more and better biochemical preparation to help him. Also his agressive stance of trying to sue before getting sued is a sign of a man who knows what he wants.
|
Russian Federation748 Posts
Thanks for the link. I notice they don't have an official way yet to detect self-transfusions, too bad.
|
I'm happy he loses his titles.
From everything I have read, he is a horrible person and only managed to get through with intimidation, threats, abuses of power and expensive lawyers.
He is not more of a great athlete than all those jokes from ex-esatern Germany. He is just a cheater.
|
The french can hate him all they want (and not only the french btw,he does not seem widely popular unfortunatly), he will still be the greatest cyclist of all time.
|
|
|
On August 26 2012 06:22 Rassy wrote:The french can hate him all they want (and not only the french btw,he does not seem widely popular unfortunatly), he will still be the greatest cyclist of all time.
Well, the greatest cheater, yeah for sure.
I guess he deserves credit for no going to jail.
In all seriousness, admiring Lance Armstrong and saying he is a legend is basically like saying someone who has won many poker championship with cheating by having aces in his pocket is a great player and deserves admiration. I guess every average athlete can do very well with massive dopping.
|
Why are people defending him? I don't get it :o
|
On August 25 2012 22:47 Jarree wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2012 22:26 Silidons wrote:
i saw on the news that every single top 2nd & 3rd place on all 7 of his titles also failed their tests multiple times, so they have no idea who they're going to give the titles to.
the only reason they went after lance is because he is the most popular. kinda like going after mark mcguire/barry bonds/roger clemens etc ![[image loading]](http://www.cyclingtipsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/armstrong1150px.jpg) As you can see in this picture, pretty much everyone has busted.
This is actually hillarious.
|
What exactly were the indicators of doping for Lance Armstrong? While doping may be ubiquitous, a nurse I know is rather disappointed with the decision, as she works with cancer patients, and points out that cancer treatments often carry side effects that seem similar to doping symptoms. Steroids are a common treatment in fighting cancer, and blood transfusions are constant in the need to replenish the cancerous body as malignant cells destroy themselves from the inside. Of course, this is secondary knowledge and I myself am not too familiar with human biology, but some food for thought that Armstrong's guilt is not as clear cut as it might seem...
|
Why is it that cycling is so dirty compared to others sports, right now it seems like at the top of tour cycling there are those who get caught doping and those who haven't been caught yet.
Is it that a lot of people in cycling don't really think its cheating or is it that because everyone else is doing it you have to if you ever want to be competitive. Or is it that its just not possible to complete the courses without being doped up?
Also how do cyclists who are doping pass so many tests? Is it only possible to get caught if you make a mistake in your attempts to hide your doping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
