|
On August 26 2012 07:27 Eufouria wrote:
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.
It is because dopping is so critical in cycling. It's really all about physical performance.
Compare with tennis and football: of course dopping helps but it won't transform you into Federer or Zidane. And of course other sports where it's as critical as cyclism such as sprint etc are or have been terribly dirty too.
|
On August 26 2012 07:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 07:27 Eufouria wrote:
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. It is because dopping is so critical in cycling. It's really all about physical performance. Compare with tennis and football: of course dopping helps but it won't transform you into Federer or Zidane. And of course other sports where it's as critical as cyclism such as sprint etc are or have been terribly dirty too.
So its because its a sport where technique or skill is less important than being a better, stronger human than the others. Sort of how in Formula 1 most of the drivers on poorer teams could probably win if they had the car that the richer teams are driving.
|
Are there actually any cylistist that don't dope? It seems to be all people talk about when it comes to cycling, is doping.
|
On August 26 2012 07:27 Eufouria wrote:
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.
Multi-stage cycling such as the Tour de France is one of the, if not THE, most physically demanding professional sports a person can do. The general demands placed on the body during a mountain stage and recovering in time for the next stage is particularly important. A very slight advantage from a drug may not be worth the risk for an athlete that just has to perform on a single day, but this slight advantage quickly aggregates over the many stages for a cyclist.
Someone just posted and interesting interview on page 30 about how Armstrong supposedly avoided getting caught. It involves blood transfusions and injections to mask suspicious values, and swapping urine in the bladder. It is in French but you can use Google translate.
|
On August 26 2012 05:19 Rassy wrote:
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
So just because you like this guy we shouldn't drug test him? You are not very rational to say the least.
And just because the week is about Armstrong does not in any way mean that they are only picking on him.
|
On August 24 2012 12:15 TommyP wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 12:12 Infernal_dream wrote:On August 24 2012 12:10 TommyP wrote:
Well kids what did we learn?? We can cheat, make god knows how much money and all we have to do is give up our medals. Yay!!
Could someone explain why he would give up his 7 titles and accept a ban if he didnt do it? Except you know, they don't really have proof? That's why this is happening after god knows how many years of harrassing the man. Because they couldn't convict him during the races. Edit: Seems like a lot of people posting without knowing anything that actually happened then or even reading the article. But why would he tarnish his name and give up his achievements if he didnt do it? I mean its cool hes saying that he didnt do it and was just tired of being bugged, but honestly if you win 7 tour de france titles and have a great legacy you dont give it up for any reason.
He said there was a toll on his loved ones and on himself...
I don't think anyone in this thread has been scrutinized so extensively for 10 years, not fair to say this. He's not cycling for anyone besides himself anyways, I doubt he would want medals with so much of a scandal behind them, because he KNOWS he's not wrong and that he's won those titles fair and square.
Not fair of you to judge him like that.
|
The USADA clearly decided that they needed to send a message that they are intent on trying to clean up cycling as a sport.
It makes sense that (in a field that is doping without exception) they would have to go to Lance Armstrong - if they just expose the less idolised cyclists, people will continue to think "if I can just get away with it for long enough, I'll become immune to scrutiny".
It's a shame for Lance that he's had to be the one in this position, but at least he can (eventually) be proud to have played his part in the eradication of doping from cycling, even if it's not quite how he would have liked it.
If I had the choice between allowing one person to maintain his personal pride, and forcing every future professional cyclist to dope just to be able to compete, I'd take away Lance's medals every day.
|
The obvious solution is to allow doping as part of the sport. People will do it anyways and this will make it safer.
|
On August 26 2012 09:02 Luepert wrote:
The obvious solution is to allow doping as part of the sport. People will do it anyways and this will make it safer.
Most people are not comfortable with allowing a doping arms race to unfold. It would mean the death of many people, a very messy thing during a sporting event. It would also be a bit like a game of chicken, how close do you dare to get to death?
So, no. It would not be safer.
|
On August 26 2012 06:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
In a sport full of drug abusers it seems that getting 7 TDF after battling cancer because you were on some drugs which boosted your red blood count (which 2 of 4 are legal, he just chose the illegal ones allegedly) it seems like he still has a lot to be proud of, bitch all you want but not many people can say "I doped and won 7 times" ^^
|
On August 26 2012 07:56 superjoppe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 05:19 Rassy wrote:
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 So just because you like this guy we shouldn't drug test him? You are not very rational to say the least. And just because the week is about Armstrong does not in any way mean that they are only picking on him.
and if you win the tour 7 times straight it doesn't leave a lot of other people to go after lol
|
On August 26 2012 07:56 superjoppe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 05:19 Rassy wrote:
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 So just because you like this guy we shouldn't drug test him? You are not very rational to say the least. And just because the week is about Armstrong does not in any way mean that they are only picking on him.
He's had over 500 tests. Not one during his career was positive...
|
It saddens me that professional sports has basically come to a "who can get away with doping" contest. Even more sad is that if someone is really successful, it is automatically assumed they are doping. Unfortunately, more often than not they in fact do turn out to be doping (Mark McGwire, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds)
|
On August 26 2012 10:41 Seam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 07:56 superjoppe wrote:On August 26 2012 05:19 Rassy wrote:
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 So just because you like this guy we shouldn't drug test him? You are not very rational to say the least. And just because the week is about Armstrong does not in any way mean that they are only picking on him. He's had over 500 tests. Not one during his career was positive...
Got caught positive in 1999, but it was buried at the time. had at least 20min to prepare for each control on tour de frane until 2009 since he was warned/stalled for time/didn't let the agency know his hotel beforehand every time so they couldnt control him unaware. (see french itw on page 30)
|
On August 26 2012 07:54 Benjef wrote:
Are there actually any cylistist that don't dope? It seems to be all people talk about when it comes to cycling, is doping.
I think everyone is hoping like hell that Bradley Wiggens is clean, but yeah, nearly every runner up in the Tours that Armstrong won has since been caught doping. I wonder if it might not be better to just stop testing and say "Most cyclists are probably doping, make of that what you will." Because even if you don't buy the USADA evidence against Armstrong it's hard to figure how you could consider him any cleaner than any other cyclist who hasn't been caught doping yet -- ie, not very :\
|
Why the fuck is anyone talking about this. Let's point out the whole he's a huge philanthropist. I don't give a shit if he doped or not he's raised 500 MILLION DOLLARS for cancer research. If you think doping tarnishes his image you need to look at the things in life that actually matter...
|
On August 26 2012 07:27 Eufouria wrote:
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.
There is a culture of doping in cycling, doping is an accepted part of the sport. Just look at the legendary riders of the sport, you will notice they have positive tests to their names, and it does not change how they are viewed. Pantani is still celebrated in Italy even though he was the most outrageous EPO user, all because he rode with a pleasing style.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fausto_Coppi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Pantani
etc.
|
On August 26 2012 11:07 iSiN wrote:
Why the fuck is anyone talking about this. Let's point out the whole he's a huge philanthropist. I don't give a shit if he doped or not he's raised 500 MILLION DOLLARS for cancer research. If you think doping tarnishes his image you need to look at the things in life that actually matter...
I think it does matter quite a bit. 500 million dollars is great and everything, but people remember him primarily because of the immense amount of personal effort required to win the Tour de France seven times. That's inspiring for many people, and solidifies him as one of the greatest cyclists of all time (if not the greatest of all time). You can't say that it doesn't matter when all of his accomplishments are removed and he is labelled as a cheater, clearly that has an impact on people and while you may not appreciate it as much, I think it would be reasonable to at least acknowledge that it does matter to many other cyclists who look up to him as a hero; a testament to what a person can achieve if they work hard and are dedicated to a sport.
|
On August 26 2012 11:29 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2012 11:07 iSiN wrote:
Why the fuck is anyone talking about this. Let's point out the whole he's a huge philanthropist. I don't give a shit if he doped or not he's raised 500 MILLION DOLLARS for cancer research. If you think doping tarnishes his image you need to look at the things in life that actually matter... I think it does matter quite a bit. 500 million dollars is great and everything, but people remember him primarily because of the immense amount of personal effort required to win the Tour de France seven times. That's inspiring for many people, and solidifies him as one of the greatest cyclists of all time (if not the greatest of all time). You can't say that it doesn't matter when all of his accomplishments are removed and he is labelled as a cheater, clearly that has an impact on people and while you may not appreciate it as much, I think it would be reasonable to at least acknowledge that it does matter to many other cyclists who look up to him as a hero; a testament to what a person can achieve if they work hard and are dedicated to a sport.
Pretty sure I just explained why this is wrong.
|
Let's look at this:
no doping > he doesn't win > he's not famous > he doesn't raise 500 million dollars for cancer research.
Which is more important to society, fair play in recreational competitions or curing cancer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
