|
On September 03 2012 02:18 Martijn wrote:
The bias in the article and here are kind of disgusting. We all love our "heroes", but if he cheated (and yes, doping is cheating) he does not deserve the titles. This isn't the first time that evidence comes up long after the fact. You're all welcome to make up your own minds, but more knowledgable people than us have been looking at it and especially the USADA wouldn't want to burn what is practically an American cult hero in a sport dominated by foreigners.
Especially the USADA WOULD want to burn what is practically an American cult hero who has long been investigated regarding doping.
Of course they would, because it would get someone promoted, draw attendion to the administration, and secure further funding. It's all about proving that the station isn't useless.
|
Armstrong would have won nothing or almost nothing major outside the US without doping.
He doped before and after het got cancer. His doping history goes way back. He won the world championship in 1993 because it was a crazy race. Bad weather, crashes, many people quit the race, chaos, 50 people out of 200 actually finished. because of the crazy rain.
He didn't win the big races he won because he could just put out more power. If you watch the 1993 WC you can see the chase group was unorganized and the roads were extremely slippery so they couldn't go fast through the corners anyway. Armstrong could time trial pretty decently and his steering skills certainly helped as well.
He certainly had talent. Just not as a grand tour winner.
Of course if he didn't dope and nether did anyone else, Armstrong would have quickly given up on competing in the TdF and would have picked other races he did have a shot at at winning.
But if he was clean and others were doping, which they were but just not as well and heavily as Armstorng, he probably wouldn't have won anything.
|
There is a witchunt after Armstrong because he had terrible sportmanship. He was an arrogant guy that no other cyclists really liked. He is a dick, and I think that plays into all the hate.
|
On September 03 2012 18:31 Hanakurena wrote:
Armstrong would have won nothing or almost nothing major outside the US without doping.
He doped before and after het got cancer. His doping history goes way back. He won the world championship in 1993 because it was a crazy race. Bad weather, crashes, many people quit the race, chaos, 50 people out of 200 actually finished. because of the crazy rain.
He didn't win the big races he won because he could just put out more power. If you watch the 1993 WC you can see the chase group was unorganized and the roads were extremely slippery so they couldn't go fast through the corners anyway. Armstrong could time trial pretty decently and his steering skills certainly helped as well.
He certainly had talent. Just not as a grand tour winner.
Of course if he didn't dope and nether did anyone else, Armstrong would have quickly given up on competing in the TdF and would have picked other races he did have a shot at at winning.
But if he was clean and others were doping, which they were but just not as well and heavily as Armstorng, he probably wouldn't have won anything.
Not true, if he can win a tour de france doped, he can also do pretty well in them without doping, doping gives just like a 5% boost. And of course everyone dopes, so even the best and hardest working have dope, to have equal chances.
|
It was rather convenient in a way...while Lance Armstrong was dominating and being a good figurehead for the sport, no one cared.
It feels pretty ridiculous also that medals can be taken away from so many years previous. Is it so hard to do the testing immediately before/after the race and get the results within a certain time-frame? Let's say a month or something? I dunno..
|
On September 03 2012 18:49 StoRm_res wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 18:31 Hanakurena wrote:
Armstrong would have won nothing or almost nothing major outside the US without doping.
He doped before and after het got cancer. His doping history goes way back. He won the world championship in 1993 because it was a crazy race. Bad weather, crashes, many people quit the race, chaos, 50 people out of 200 actually finished. because of the crazy rain.
He didn't win the big races he won because he could just put out more power. If you watch the 1993 WC you can see the chase group was unorganized and the roads were extremely slippery so they couldn't go fast through the corners anyway. Armstrong could time trial pretty decently and his steering skills certainly helped as well.
He certainly had talent. Just not as a grand tour winner.
Of course if he didn't dope and nether did anyone else, Armstrong would have quickly given up on competing in the TdF and would have picked other races he did have a shot at at winning.
But if he was clean and others were doping, which they were but just not as well and heavily as Armstorng, he probably wouldn't have won anything. Not true, if he can win a tour de france doped, he can also do pretty well in them without doping, doping gives just like a 5% boost. And of course everyone dopes, so even the best and hardest working have dope, to have equal chances.
It's more like 20%. Also, at the end of 3 weeks the difference between no.1 and no.10 in the TdF are often like 10 to 20 minutes. You lose a couple of minutes to 10 minutes on a HC mountain if you perform 5 to 20% less wattages.
Also we saw what he did with a less effective doping program. He did terrible for a GT contender, losing 10 minutes or so on the first mountain stage every time.
|
On September 03 2012 16:47 Hanakurena wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Before his sucessful doping program, Armstrong competed in 4 TfD's. His best finish was 36th in 1995 with 1 hour and 30 minutes behind. In the others he was climbing in the bus. He dropped out the other 3 times after like the first mountain stage. 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=296833.480He 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.htmlYet 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.
And I had this nice post written out telling people to shut up unless they can show proof and explain how he doped, despite not failing a single drug test. Your post has given me a lot of insight into this matter, and a lot to think about. Obviously I don't know how truthful what you say is, so I'm in the process of looking it up myself 
However I disagree with your murder analogy. First, eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable kind of testimony. Obviously I'm not denying that a guy is most likely guilty if 10+ people saw him murder someone. But this is different, you're talking about people who might have ulterior motives, and are recounting things from the past. Greed, fame, envy, jealousy, grandeur, etc... take your pick.
|
On September 03 2012 18:14 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 02:18 Martijn wrote:
The bias in the article and here are kind of disgusting. We all love our "heroes", but if he cheated (and yes, doping is cheating) he does not deserve the titles. This isn't the first time that evidence comes up long after the fact. You're all welcome to make up your own minds, but more knowledgable people than us have been looking at it and especially the USADA wouldn't want to burn what is practically an American cult hero in a sport dominated by foreigners. Especially the USADA WOULD want to burn what is practically an American cult hero who has long been investigated regarding doping. Of course they would, because it would get someone promoted, draw attendion to the administration, and secure further funding. It's all about proving that the station isn't useless.
Yes, because the best PR you could wish for comes from attacking a famous cancer survivor..
|
On September 03 2012 19:16 Jugan wrote:And I had this nice post written out telling people to shut up unless they can show proof and explain how he doped, despite not failing a single drug test. Your post has given me a lot of insight into this matter, and a lot to think about. Obviously I don't know how truthful what you say is, so I'm in the process of looking it up myself
If you can't source some of these back to wikipedia or some reliable news site, I'll point them out for you.
However I disagree with your murder analogy. First, eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable kind of testimony. Obviously I'm not denying that a guy is most likely guilty if 10+ people saw him murder someone. But this is different, you're talking about people who might have ulterior motives, and are recounting things from the past. Greed, fame, envy, jealousy, grandeur, etc... take your pick.
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. In science a eyewitness testimony isn't worth anything. But in law it is very much respected.
We are talking about Hincapie, his long time friend and loyal helper who was there every tour win he had and who never tested positive himself. We don't know for sure what he testified on paper. But I would love to have seen a teary Hincapie, an unwilling witness, confirm what Landis and Hamilton have said on every point.
Then Armstrong being cross-interrogated to the point where he breaks down. All this in a public hearing.
Right now Hincapie won't be testifying against Armstrong because of what Armstrong did. Maybe some of it will still come out with the case against Bruyneel and the others.
And we don't know if USADA has any more aces up their sleves. They rarely lose cases and they never lost against a cyclist. Just too bad the FBI probe was forced to shut down. And the day before the superbowl, to bury it quickly. Surely Armstrong still has friends in high places. Talking about a fair playing field...
It's funny people say USADA are after Armstrong for some mysterious reason. Only reason people say that is because Armstrong keeps suggesting it because he can't do better. At least with the French at least it made a bit of sense.
Normally doping authorities protect their national heroes. When they stop doing that you know they stop being corrupt.
|
|
|
On September 03 2012 12:29 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
This thread is about the case of USADA vs Armstrong, where Armstrong doesnt want to defend himself. Because of no defence, he has been convicted. So he is guilty and lost his titles Wait a few weeks, USADA should report soon to the UCI, perhaps that will be an open report, than there is your reference.
|
I like how after fighting cancer, winning multiple trophies, becoming a national hero, and various other acts of grandeur, armstrong stil lgets harrassed out of hs mind. There are still people like Hanakurena? I thought those trolls went away a long time ago after they were butthurt when he originally won his titles. The people who say all government is corrupt, and that when they attack national heroes they are somehow no longer corrupt.. Wtf is that kind of rationale? Seriously, are you stupid or something? They are attacking armstrong because they can and because they want the PR, bad PR at that. Armstrong will go down in history as a martyr now, much to the chagrin of anyone who has hated on him. When he dies, you can bet their will be a TON of homage paid to him, and he will go down as the martyr to end all sports martyrs. So to people like Hanakurena (including yourself) have fun hating, he'll be remembered posthemously by the rest of us.
|
Oh this is just heart-wrenching...T-T
|
On September 03 2012 21:47 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2012 18:14 Qwyn wrote:On September 03 2012 02:18 Martijn wrote:
The bias in the article and here are kind of disgusting. We all love our "heroes", but if he cheated (and yes, doping is cheating) he does not deserve the titles. This isn't the first time that evidence comes up long after the fact. You're all welcome to make up your own minds, but more knowledgable people than us have been looking at it and especially the USADA wouldn't want to burn what is practically an American cult hero in a sport dominated by foreigners. Especially the USADA WOULD want to burn what is practically an American cult hero who has long been investigated regarding doping. Of course they would, because it would get someone promoted, draw attendion to the administration, and secure further funding. It's all about proving that the station isn't useless. Yes, because the best PR you could wish for comes from attacking a famous cancer survivor..
They're in the news all over the world so apparently it worked perfectly.
|
Okay guys. Been lurking here for a while, and finally I made an account.
With all due respect for the tremendous feat it is to win tour de france and be such a dominant leader in a sport for a long time, I just wanna say that from personal experience - there was nobody who wasnt on some kind of performance enhancing drug when people are even considered for national competitions etc. So it doesnt come as a surprise at all that these things are now "discovered". He is still a great athlete, and I wanna say that just because he is under the radar right now, it doesnt mean by any chance that he is the only one, its more like: They all do it to some extent, his physique, pain threshold and perhaps his doctors have just been better.
If you dont believe or disagree, these 2 arguments might help:
1. Just think about it, this is perhaps the only sport where its like "oh no, not another doping case again" and this athlete can legimately not cooperate and still find support - come on, any sport where doping is a real issue would take this way more seriously including the sportsman himself. The fact is, they all use, and thats why Marco pantani died 35, why Bjarne Riis was named "mr 60%" etc etc, there are numerous cases.
2. The nature of the sport - for those who dont know much about it (im not saying i am an expert) - is that when you ride in the big field (pursuing group) you can save a lot of energy, there are scientific breakdowns of how much energy is saved. So, in order to outrun (be a part of a run-away group) the field, you have to be better than the worlds best people who are also not using so much energy as you. So in order to run away from the field, you have to pick a good spot for running away, which is usually when noone in the field "feels" likely to want to close the gap, meaning when everybody are in pain and suffering... So this is in other words a rather one-dimensional sport where physical strength translates more or less directly into tactical advantages. So the motivation to increase performance is very large. Its quite common you can choose to believe or not, to use drugs while training to improve faster, and go off drugs in a (timewise) safe distance to drugtests. Which you can see some interesting patterns here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France All bikers know that if they win, they are going to be tested. But the off-competition tests are actually quite revealing, which is why the require riders to always be ready to have a test.
You know what, its so hard to test these doping riders because noone knows how an non-doped rider would look if he competed on that level...they never existed my friends. + Show Spoiler +well that and the fact that most doping is based on chemical processes already happening in the body
TL:DR
Lance? Guilty!
All bikers?
Guilty! Sport? Well the sport started out with doping being accepted, this modern anti-doping stuff is just hilarious.
So stop any ideas that people riding on bicycles in these competitions are NOT on doping one way or the other. And personally i think its bullshit to strip medals trying to make the sport clean, just open up doping - lets see some crazy monsters riding 80 km/h the whole way before dieing from heart attack - it would sure up the entertainment alot.
edit: damn spelling, im blind.
|
On September 04 2012 02:27 -Hitman- wrote:
Guilty! Sport? Well the sport started out with doping being accepted, this modern anti-doping stuff is just hilarious.
So stop any ideas that people riding on bicycles in these competitions are NOT on doping one way or the other. And personally i think its bullshit to strip medals trying to make the sport clean, just open up doping - lets see some crazy monsters riding 80 km/h the whole way before dieing from heart attack - it would sure up the entertainment alot.
Very poor argument. Let's force people to kill themselves to compete? It's a freaking bike race.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html
An extension of the above is the realization that Armstrong was tested many times without failing the convenient test that we have created as a requirement for a doping positive. People take that to mean that anti-doping is useless and irrelevant.
Not so, for a few reasons. First, as I explain above, the anti-doping landscape has evolved, and this is a paradigm shift people need to make. There was a time that we were looking for "smoking guns". That is, to convict an athlete of doping, we needed a blood or urine sample with the drug in it. It's the equivalent of needing to catch a thief on camera with his hand in the bank vault or cash register.
That was naive. Those days are long gone. The sophistication of doping has forced a rethink, and there has been a paradigm change which many people are sadly unaware of. The paradigm change really began in the 1980s, when out-of-competition testing was first introduced. Prior to this, athletes were tested only at events, which meant they could dope liberally until just before the event, and still get the benefit without the risk of being caught.
The advent of out-of-competition testing forced performances to drop almost overnight, and was the first illustration that doping control exists to deter doping as much as it does to catch it. Take note of that - doping control is there not only to catch dopers, but to deter them from doping in the first place.
If that is working, then you'll see two things. Fewer people will dope ("We can't get away with it"). And, those who do dope will dope less, with smaller doses ("We can still get away with it, but we have to be extra careful"). That is what brings the performance level down, and hopefully ensures that everyone has a realistic shot of competing without doping. I'd go so far as to say that the best we can hope for is that doping control is so tight and difficult to avoid, that doping is squeezed to the point where it makes no significant impact on performance. Even though it happens, it's ineffective. That would be good enough, in my opinion.
...
And in cycling, the 90s and 2000s were affected by a generation of "pharmacological fraud", because the deterrent value was not high enough. Cyclists doped with EPO and blood doping because they could do so with relative impunity - it wasn't totally unpoliced, but it was certainly not effective. As I explained above, the tests either did not exist, or were not frequent or powerful enough to catch dopers.
Then came the passport, and the paradigm shift that said "we will look for the effect of the drug, and not its presence". Now, all of a sudden, it became feasible to catch athletes without finding a banned substance in their body. Lance Armstrong's Tour wins did not have this obstacle to overcome - nobody did until 2007, and that's when the deterrent qualities of anti-doping became clear, as I explained in this post - when the EPO test was introduced, it "forced" a shift in behavior that saw blood doping take over as the method of choice. Then the biological passport squeezed doping down to the point that the Tour slowed down. It doesn't eradicate doping, but it changes the behavior, and that's what it must do.
This is so valuable because ultimately, the point of doping control is to protect those who do not wish to dope. Those individuals, like Christophe Bassons, who wish to compete without doping, are the purpose of doping control, and so we should not look at catching people as much as deterring them. Catching cheats is only part of it.
So to those who are saying that this current USADA-Armstrong case indicates the futility of the sport, I would ask that they recognize the bigger picture, and the history of doping control. We cannot simply give up because we are not yet 100% perfect. The biological passport is not perfect, and anyone who claims it is wrong. But it's a step by step process, that has to catch up on years of cheating. There was a time where the dopers were so far ahead that it was a mismatch. The cynics may say it still is, but improved sophistication has narrowed the gap, and that has to keep the momentum going.
|
On September 04 2012 03:07 JackDT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 02:27 -Hitman- wrote:
Guilty! Sport? Well the sport started out with doping being accepted, this modern anti-doping stuff is just hilarious.
So stop any ideas that people riding on bicycles in these competitions are NOT on doping one way or the other. And personally i think its bullshit to strip medals trying to make the sport clean, just open up doping - lets see some crazy monsters riding 80 km/h the whole way before dieing from heart attack - it would sure up the entertainment alot.
Very poor argument. Let's force people to kill themselves to compete? It's a freaking bike race. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.htmlShow nested quote +
An extension of the above is the realization that Armstrong was tested many times without failing the convenient test that we have created as a requirement for a doping positive. People take that to mean that anti-doping is useless and irrelevant.
Not so, for a few reasons. First, as I explain above, the anti-doping landscape has evolved, and this is a paradigm shift people need to make. There was a time that we were looking for "smoking guns". That is, to convict an athlete of doping, we needed a blood or urine sample with the drug in it. It's the equivalent of needing to catch a thief on camera with his hand in the bank vault or cash register.
That was naive. Those days are long gone. The sophistication of doping has forced a rethink, and there has been a paradigm change which many people are sadly unaware of. The paradigm change really began in the 1980s, when out-of-competition testing was first introduced. Prior to this, athletes were tested only at events, which meant they could dope liberally until just before the event, and still get the benefit without the risk of being caught.
The advent of out-of-competition testing forced performances to drop almost overnight, and was the first illustration that doping control exists to deter doping as much as it does to catch it. Take note of that - doping control is there not only to catch dopers, but to deter them from doping in the first place.
If that is working, then you'll see two things. Fewer people will dope ("We can't get away with it"). And, those who do dope will dope less, with smaller doses ("We can still get away with it, but we have to be extra careful"). That is what brings the performance level down, and hopefully ensures that everyone has a realistic shot of competing without doping. I'd go so far as to say that the best we can hope for is that doping control is so tight and difficult to avoid, that doping is squeezed to the point where it makes no significant impact on performance. Even though it happens, it's ineffective. That would be good enough, in my opinion.
...
And in cycling, the 90s and 2000s were affected by a generation of "pharmacological fraud", because the deterrent value was not high enough. Cyclists doped with EPO and blood doping because they could do so with relative impunity - it wasn't totally unpoliced, but it was certainly not effective. As I explained above, the tests either did not exist, or were not frequent or powerful enough to catch dopers.
Then came the passport, and the paradigm shift that said "we will look for the effect of the drug, and not its presence". Now, all of a sudden, it became feasible to catch athletes without finding a banned substance in their body. Lance Armstrong's Tour wins did not have this obstacle to overcome - nobody did until 2007, and that's when the deterrent qualities of anti-doping became clear, as I explained in this post - when the EPO test was introduced, it "forced" a shift in behavior that saw blood doping take over as the method of choice. Then the biological passport squeezed doping down to the point that the Tour slowed down. It doesn't eradicate doping, but it changes the behavior, and that's what it must do.
This is so valuable because ultimately, the point of doping control is to protect those who do not wish to dope. Those individuals, like Christophe Bassons, who wish to compete without doping, are the purpose of doping control, and so we should not look at catching people as much as deterring them. Catching cheats is only part of it.
So to those who are saying that this current USADA-Armstrong case indicates the futility of the sport, I would ask that they recognize the bigger picture, and the history of doping control. We cannot simply give up because we are not yet 100% perfect. The biological passport is not perfect, and anyone who claims it is wrong. But it's a step by step process, that has to catch up on years of cheating. There was a time where the dopers were so far ahead that it was a mismatch. The cynics may say it still is, but improved sophistication has narrowed the gap, and that has to keep the momentum going.
Man, they offer you drugs in late junior years, and you see the competition all of a sudden racing away, so its: DO start drugs or DONT compete at that level. Until they change exactly that, everything else anti-doping related is just a farce - thats what Im trying to say. Its like body building lol, train for 5 years doing all sorts of crap drugs, then start to join tournaments with a clean record, only having to stay cut.
|
In response to the, "everyone was doing it so he is still the best" idea that has been thrown around a lot:
This is a terrible line of thinking. It is true that pretty much everyone (everyone good anyway) was doping. HOWEVER, there are vastly different levels of doping. If your doping methods are more sophisticated and your doctors are better (Lance's trainer had a history of being at the forefront of doping technology) then you can dope more heavily without getting caught. Doping isn't binary (you did it or you didn't) there is a wide spectrum of doping levels. Not to mention that a lot of Lance's top competitors got caught (probably because they didn't have the funding Lance did) and hence were serving suspensions and such. Cycling is about who is best on the bike, not who has the best doctors. Not to say that Lance wasn't the best anyway. He very well might have been. However, we can't know for sure now because he also had the best doctors.
In response to the idea that, "it doesn't matter now, it was so long ago":
Part of me wants to tell these casual cycling fans to fuck off, but I will try to be nicer about it.
Yes, cycling has an ugly history, and yes you have to go down many riders in the finishing list to find one above doping suspicion. AND YET, any sport is defined by its heroes. When you think of baseball you think of Babe Ruth, basketball you think of Michael Jordan, Hockey you think of Wayne Gretzky, and etc. The legacy of these athletes means a whole lot to the future of the sport.
It was a while ago, but Lance's legacy is still very much alive in the sport of cycling. If he is the defining figure we hold onto, even when the vast majority of people truly connected to the sport think he doped, then it will forever haunt the sport. If Lance is who he is accused of being, cycling can never move forward until they purge him from the record books.
And to the idea that we should just allow cyclists to dope:
Others have already addressed this, but this isn't casual stuff we are talking about. The primary goal of doping in the sport of cycling is to boost your hematocrit so high that your blood is far thicker than normal. If your hematocrit gets too high, you risk heart failure due to the inability to pump your abnormally thick blood. If we make this legal, it becomes a game of chicken where cyclists are boosting into more and more dangerous hematocrit levels until people are dying. No joke. Additionally, it makes it much harder for people to enter into the sport. Hm, you want me to risk my health to be an elite cyclist? No thanks I will try running instead.
|
On September 04 2012 04:13 petered wrote:
And to the idea that we should just allow cyclists to dope:
Others have already addressed this, but this isn't casual stuff we are talking about. The primary goal of doping in the sport of cycling is to boost your hematocrit so high that your blood is far thicker than normal. If your hematocrit gets too high, you risk heart failure due to the inability to pump your abnormally thick blood. If we make this legal, it becomes a game of chicken where cyclists are boosting into more and more dangerous hematocrit levels until people are dying. No joke. Additionally, it makes it much harder for people to enter into the sport. Hm, you want me to risk my health to be an elite cyclist? No thanks I will try running instead.
The Enter barriers you talk about are already there. I like cycling, but stopped taking the doping/not-doping rhetorics seriously. They are all using doping. Its winning races. Its dangerous. Why not go all out on this. Lets agree on 65% hematocrit so we can beat that 83 H time Lance set :-)
|
Sorry, sorry, sorry, but I just read the article and am not sure I understand. He has never been proven guilty of cheating and has passed "hundreds" of drug tests, and then decided to quit and says, "enough is enough," so they take that as him admitting to it and they ban him and take away his titles?
... Is that legal? Is it even LOGICAL?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
