EPTLance Armstrong to lose Titles, Banned - Page 37
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
Kleinmuuhg
Vanuatu4091 Posts
| ||
|
Hanakurena
105 Posts
On August 30 2012 00:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I don't even understand why Blood doping isn't allowed... It's (to me at least) like arguing these performance enhancers can't be permitted but protein (which is its own performance enhancer) is allowed... Also 2 of the 4 major blood enhancers are allowed while 2 are not, like the whole thing is a shit show. I never understand why people want to legalize doping. Blood doping is quite dangerous. Probably the most dangerous form of doping. Yes, if it is legal and can be done with proper facilities, the problem is much less, but still. Protein is a performance enhancer? Let me guess the other allowed blood enhancer is, water. Why isn't water banned? Let them cycle for 3 weeks 200 km a day over both theAlps and Pyrenese with an average speed of like 38 km/h in 34 degrees without drinking a single drop of water. I mean, if we allow the blood enhancer water we might just as well allow the blood enhancer epo. Then we can truly see who wants to win the most. If you aren't willing to dope up to 70 hematocrit you don't deserve to win. We will have riders blood doping each day, upping the hematocrit up to who knows how high, unlimited steroids and growth hormone. New novel medicine to boost meat production in horses? Sure why not try it? Also, some cocaine can't hurt. (btw protein doesn't boost performance by even a percent point. Being protein deficient does. But when you have to eat 9000 kcal worth of carbs, it's hard to be protein deficient.) | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On August 30 2012 18:10 Grumbels wrote: "USADA ignores the possibility that Lance Armstrong won seven Tours by what distinguishes America – pure determination and willpower." I read this in a comment somewhere... this kind of comment is so blindingly idiot that it's making me want to puke. Especially when I look at the "boss" attitude Lance had, and the threats many cyclists suffered from during those tours. | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
| ||
|
CursedRich
United Kingdom737 Posts
On August 30 2012 00:19 Shikyo wrote: Weird bump ;S However considering it's impossible to succeed in cycling without doping and I'd be willing to bet anything that all the top finishers of every tournament do doping and that with the current laws it's basically all about how well you hide it and nothing else... I of course find this laughable =P Especially the "without proof" part. Yes you're right I should have quoted the guy that I was responding to | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
The Secret Race isn’t just a game changer for the Lance Armstrong myth. It’s the game ender. No one can read this book with an open mind and still credibly believe that Armstrong didn’t dope. It’s impossible. | ||
|
Zenbrez
Canada5973 Posts
On August 27 2012 12:52 DDie wrote: It's not cheating if everyone does it, you heard me, every elite athlete do roids, be it in cycling, swimming, track, etc. They pass tests because the ''performance enhancement drug'' business is ALWAYS a step ahead over anti-doping agencys (see balco scandal for reference). Drugs alone WON'T make you win 7 tours, you still need talent, will, and balls to the roof dedication, it's a life of commitment, you don't just take a shot and out of nowhere goes wooohhoooggwpnuubz. Oh... God.. surely you're not serious.. | ||
|
Soulstice
United States288 Posts
| ||
|
Martijn
Netherlands1219 Posts
| ||
|
hns
Germany609 Posts
| ||
|
Ethereal_Starcraft
United States78 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On September 03 2012 02:33 hns wrote: I think what most people defending the likes of Armstrong or Ullrich tend to ignore is that actually no one or nearly no one argues that they won ONLY because they were doping, or that they are no good cyclists or whatever. That's very probably not true, I'd even say that in a perfect world without doping these two would probably have won anyway. However, that makes doping in itself not better. When a guy gets caught cheating in an exam in which he would have passed anyway he is still being punished, and that's how it goes. Stop doing that. If you have actual evidence to support Armstrong's probable victory in a clean sport then please say so, but more likely than not you're just parroting Armstrong spin about how it was an 'equal playing field'. Armstrong had the best doping doctor and responded very well to doping, there is nothing in his pre-blood doping days that indicates he had the potential to win a tour. On September 03 2012 02:41 Ethereal_Starcraft wrote: The problem that I find here is that when Lance was doping, it wasn't illegal. This means that there wasn't any reason for him to not be doing it besides moral benefits, and so for all of his victories to be stripped of him and even his ability to competitively race to be withheld seems completely radical. This is likely just another case of humans making someone an idol, only to tear them down with pleasure. This is bizarre thinking. You cheat an organisation and then the organisation says it will remove your name from their records and will not allow you to participate in events organised by them. That's not radical, that's common sense. Armstrong is getting what he deserves, he cheated the system and now he has to pay for it. That's not a vendetta or a witch hunt, it's not about some philosophical babble about our lust for destruction. All the evidence simply finally caught up to him. | ||
|
LuckyLuke43
Norway169 Posts
Personally, I don't see how he could lose the lawsuit, even if he was. Its also fairly ridiculous the lengths they're going to get a conviction, harassing him for over a decade. Regardless if he did or not, its still a huge accomplishment, and they couldn't convict while he was competing. Any conviction now is just spite or greed. You're fucking trolling, right? RIGHT!? I mean if this isn't a troll statement, then I wonder what sports is for you.. The man led the whole universe to believe he was the best cyclist in the history of cycling. He stood there, smiling from ear to ear, time after time - the 7 titles mentioned here don't account for the countless times he's been on that podium - and we swallowed it raw. Why wouldn't we? But GUESS WHAT, it was all a fraud. The bastard(shoot me, I have no respect for Lance anymore; this coming from a devoted fan of many years) used illegal substances in order to win... In order to win a fucking cycling competition? Whatever you say about sports - and I'm a sports fanatic by definition - it's still just that, a sport. It's about measuring yourself with others, it's about TEAM(...)spirit and competition. When you used doping substances, you are instantly putting yourself at an advantage. Which in turn means you participating makes no sense. It's like running a 200m sprint against zonic the hedgehog.. Screw Lance. T And wtf: "harassed him for decades"?? Yeah, and he STILL DIDN'T ADMIT IT! He had countless chances to admit his wrongdoing, for "decades". That just illustrates even more to me what kind of person he _really_ is. How can you defend him keeping his titles? That makes absolutely no sense to me.. No sense at all. "Oh you cheated, but we didn't find out until after the race was over, so it's ok" - wtf? | ||
|
KuKri
Germany168 Posts
On August 30 2012 19:30 Acritter wrote: Well, this is kind of pathetic. I hate seeing people forced into backing down by persistent pressure. It's so fucking lame. It's not like they wanted their hero to be guilty. He was, he only backed down from the process because he and his armada of lawyers knew the evidences before court proceedings and knew that he had no chance. Oh, and he knows about the truth. | ||
|
triforks
United States370 Posts
"The one thing Hamilton repeatedly emphasized is that he wasn't just accusing Armstrong, he was accusing himself, his other teammates, and pretty much every significant rider in cycling world. It now seems clear that every major team and rider in competitive cycling used some form of doping to improve performance, which both lends weight to his story and makes it incredibly unlikely that a clean rider could dominate the tour the way Armstrong did for nearly a decade." Hey I just read this in another article. Doesn't this just mean that Lance was like the best of the doped up riders? And considering everyone was using it, he is still the best. Also, it seems like it wasn't even thought of to be cheating if everyone was doing it. Seems like the playing field was fair at the time..... http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-05-22/sports/29996169_1_international-cycling-union-tyler-hamilton-clean-rider | ||
|
Oleo
Netherlands280 Posts
On September 03 2012 02:41 Ethereal_Starcraft wrote: The problem that I find here is that when Lance was doping, it wasn't illegal. This means that there wasn't any reason for him to not be doing it besides moral benefits, and so for all of his victories to be stripped of him and even his ability to competitively race to be withheld seems completely radical. This is likely just another case of humans making someone an idol, only to tear them down with pleasure. How exactly was it not illegal? He doped, he got caught, he lost his titles. Its common sense to punish cheaters. | ||
|
Mallard86
186 Posts
On September 03 2012 02:33 hns wrote: I think what most people defending the likes of Armstrong or Ullrich tend to ignore is that actually no one or nearly no one argues that they won ONLY because they were doping, or that they are no good cyclists or whatever. That's very probably not true, I'd even say that in a perfect world without doping these two would probably have won anyway. However, that makes doping in itself not better. When a guy gets caught cheating in an exam in which he would have passed anyway he is still being punished, and that's how it goes. Your analogy is flawed. Armstrong did not get caught cheating in exam. He is being punished based on testimony extorted from teammates. Its also a bad analogy in this regard. Suppose Armstrong did cheat in his exam. He did so with professor who winked and nodded while stating that no notes or books should be referenced during the exam, which he left the room while it was administered, and while the entire rest of the class referred to their notes and books during the exam. Even if he did cheat, which there is no direct evidence he did, he still dominated his cheating competitors like no one ever has. How exactly was it not illegal? He doped, he got caught, he lost his titles. Its common sense to punish cheaters. We like to back statements such as those with factual evidence. Please post a reference showing clear evidence that Armstrong was caught doping. | ||
|
Hanakurena
105 Posts
In 1994, Armstrong was in the top 10 after the prologue TT. But then in stage finishing on Hautacam where he loses 13 minutes or so. Then after 2 mountain stages and 2 flat stages, just before 4 more Alps stages, he drops out. The mountains aren't for him. Someone looked up all the results: http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=296833.480 He wasn't anywhere near a GT contender. His time trail was good, but not anything near top 10 in a TdF. His HC climbing was just bad. He was a classics runner. He only won flat stages with luck and tactics. And we know that even back then he was doping. And that probably increased his odds of getting cancer. If Armstrong didn't dope harder than his competition, he would never have finished in the top 20, ever. Armstrong was nothing without doping. Not to mention that Armstrong single handedly turned back the clock on cycling by 20 years and he might have destroyed it. In 1999 many people wanted to stop doping. But when Armstrong came out doped to the gills and the UCI didn't pull him out, all lights were green again for everyone to dope again. That's why overall the 1999 TdF was so slow compared to the others with 1998 being the EPO police raid tour. Oh and btw UCI doping tests should have detected his cancer. Armstrong said that looking back he had symptoms back in 1993. But if he had testicular cancer, it would show up in his urine. http://missoulian.com/sports/olympics/positive-drug-test-saved-beach-volleyball-player-s-life/article_0b03c0da-dac0-11e1-be1e-001a4bcf887a.html Yet he didn't even test positive in his 1996 tour where he dropped out. Either he used fake urine or UCI didn't even bother to test the drug samples. Yeah, so much for this lie he never tested positive in 600 tests, or whatever number Armstrong cooks up. Yeah Armstrong did beat Ullrich. But Ullrich trained during only 4 months of the year. Pantani didn't have the physique for a fast TT and in the mountains it was just Pantani vs a whole doped to the gills team US Post. Those were actually not such hard tours to win. No real competition. Armstrong is one of the biggest hoaxers of all time. But this isn't about Armstrong. Armstrong thinks this is some kind of witchhunt because he is so so important. It isn't. An Armstrong delusion once more to think it is. It is about UCi corruption and the future of clean cycling. Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen need to get caught. And btw Armstrong should count his blessings and thank the USADA that they only stripped him of his wins and banned him for life. He should be in jail, imo. Ooh and to all these people who claim USADA is wrong in convicting Armstrong, here a list for you: http://www.usada.org/sanctions/ There must be more people that are innocent. Why not stand up for them? Many people get banned for THC use. That's alright. Armstrong gets banned for ruining a sport for decades, doping a whole team to the gills with all substances known, funding doping doctors, forcing his teammembers to dope and thus put their health on the line so he can cheat others out of the glory of winning. But he is innocent and the victim of a witch hunt? Maybe he should have offered USADA more money. It always worked before. Why was the USADA suddenly so incorruptible? It's not like he didn't have the money. That's where he had his so-called anti cancer fund for. On September 03 2012 12:29 Mallard86 wrote: We like to back statements such as those with factual evidence. Please post a reference showing clear evidence that Armstrong was caught doping. How can you not know yet after so many pages? TdF 1999 corticosteroid, trick used to make it disappear, getting UCI to accept a fake back-dated prescription. TdF 1999 EPO, there was no drug test yet TdS 2001 EPO, pay UCI to make the positive disappear. TdF 2008-2009, blood transfusions, UCI didn't act, like they don't do on any biological pasport values that are indicative of blood transfusion and/or EPO dosing. See suspicious list. Barredo was pulled by his own team. Contador was caught by accident but let off. And that's it. USADA used the same data and Armstrong got caught. But officially Armstrong was banned for analytical positives. There's so many witness testimonies against him, he doesn't need to test positive. Same with any other trial. If 10 people saw you commit a murder, they don't need the murder weapon to know you are guilty. | ||
|
hns
Germany609 Posts
On September 03 2012 02:42 Grumbels wrote: Stop doing that. If you have actual evidence to support Armstrong's probable victory in a clean sport then please say so, but more likely than not you're just parroting Armstrong spin about how it was an 'equal playing field'. Armstrong had the best doping doctor and responded very well to doping, there is nothing in his pre-blood doping days that indicates he had the potential to win a tour. No I'm by no means talking about some equal playing field or whatever. I just tried to say that this isn't about whether LA was/is a pretty talented cyclist or not, but this is about doping because a crapload of arguments coming from pro-LA guys is like "OMFG ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY HE WASN GOOD AT CYCLING???". However, I didn't think of LA just being very responsive to doping yet, which kind of negates my point, so yeah, that's also a possibility, and probably the most shameful for LA of all.. | ||
| ||
