|
That doesn't make sense because that's not what happened. Either you read what Armstrong said or you read wrong.
Ill post it again:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html
Basically Armstrong said he can never win. This is because he judges the evidence will be too strong. But his PR line is is that the trial will be rigged and is unconstitutional (judge rejected this absurd argument).
USADA never lost a case vs a cyclist and all his teammates are lined up to testify. Plus they may have figured out all the strange things that happened during Armstrong's career doping-wise and they might have even more.
His whole conspiracy might have been unraveled.
By conceding Armstrong tried to prevent the trial from happening, and thus the evidence from being presented.
But there are still cases against Bruyneel et al.
|
On September 04 2012 05:18 Shebuha wrote:
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?
If you know cycling it should be enough to say everybody is a cheater in normal anti-doping terms, and once the eyes of judgement are fixed upon you, its better to run.
All that have confessed doping so far have been shamed by all - sponsors, home country, fans, the sport you name it. There is absolutely no benefit admitting anything, so of course he wont say anything.
"guilty or not" rhetorics is for media and press. He is guilty of course, like the rest of all cycling pros, they just want him to admit it, so they can feast upon his corpse. Lance is a super guy, his battle with Ullrich (my fav) was probably the most entertaining part of my tour experience, doping or not 
|
^ Thanks for clarifying! It's really sad how they want to screw him so badly... It's not like he's some evil asshole who eats babies, he has a charity for goodness sakes. :\
|
His cancer foundation can't be considered a charity. It barely donated any funds. It's not quite a fraud but it must be one of the worst performing fundraising foundations in the world.
And yes, Armstrong single handedly created a new age of doping when the first EPO age seemed to be over. Armstrong is everything that is so rotten about cycling and he may have caused most of it. He may have been the person that corrupted the UCI by buying the off which then was a green light for everyone to once again dope.
Also, if you know anything about his person you'll know he is very unpleasant and probably has no moral compass. If he had he would have confessed long ago. Almost everyone confesses. Armstrong never did. That makes him a breed apart from normal people.
|
On September 04 2012 05:51 Shebuha wrote:
^ Thanks for clarifying! It's really sad how they want to screw him so badly... It's not like he's some evil asshole who eats babies, he has a charity for goodness sakes. :\
You say that he isn't an evil asshole, but what do you base it on (besides owning a charity, which hardly means much when you have as much money as Lance does)? From my perspective he cheated, then lied, threatened, bribed, and bullied to keep it a secret (and I do have evidence for all those things, just let me know if you want me to take the time to list it all out)
That makes me suspect he is, in fact, an evil asshole. Most people simply buy into the media's portrayal of him, but we have ample evidence that the media doesn't actually dig that much, they just regurgitate what people want to hear about a person (see: Tiger Woods, Brett Favre, etc.)
|
On September 04 2012 05:51 Shebuha wrote:
^ Thanks for clarifying! It's really sad how they want to screw him so badly... It's not like he's some evil asshole who eats babies, he has a charity for goodness sakes. :\
No problem.
Regarding the black and white people who either wants to free him or lynch him, its not as black and white even for Lance himself.
Many years ago he started doing cycling and found he was really good at it.
Then at some point you get into doping before you go full pro, everybody within the sport knows. You have to train hard as hell, but also have to stay on drugs in order to compete.
We are blessed to be in the situation where we can look from afar and say "whoa this is really good/bad".
I bet it was never armstrongs decision, but a decision of his coaches, managers and doctors as well. Like tyler has stated, that he himself was never put to the question to do it or not, it was just there and he was a part of it. And from my experience it happened the same way at youth training. Trainer comes and says "hey man you are doing great, you have to start taking this from now on, its completely normal everybody does this". And then if you do it, you can get great improvements in lap times etc, but the funny thing is that you will still be tied with that guy you were tied with before that.
So people need to direct their pitchforks against managers and doctors etc, which we are getting better at. But its sad to see all this ad hominem attacks, implying all sorts of things like he was morally aware of this and still had a cancer foundation and bla bla. You can argue he should have been aware but to be honest - its not even his job, he has managers for that like the rest of the industry has, so stop stripping medals from a talented individual and if all of this "energy" comes from a belief that cycling was clean at some point, then you have to rethink a lot - go back to formula :-)
|
On September 04 2012 05:51 Shebuha wrote:
^ Thanks for clarifying! It's really sad how they want to screw him so badly... It's not like he's some evil asshole who eats babies, he has a charity for goodness sakes. :\
He had an awful attitude towards other people he didn't like, or who took a no-doping stance publicly etc... It's been said countless times by countless people who were involved. He was basically a mob boss during tour de france... Nevermind the charity, it's easy to buy yourself a conscience when you have the money. He was very good at manipulating the public opinion to gain support. A very, very smart person, but not always in a good way.
Maybe if he can't win, that's also because he might be guilty, you know ?
|
On September 04 2012 19:46 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 05:51 Shebuha wrote:
^ Thanks for clarifying! It's really sad how they want to screw him so badly... It's not like he's some evil asshole who eats babies, he has a charity for goodness sakes. :\ He had an awful attitude towards other people he didn't like, or who took a no-doping stance publicly etc... It's been said countless times by countless people who were involved. He was basically a mob boss during tour de france... Nevermind the charity, it's easy to buy yourself a conscience when you have the money. He was very good at manipulating the public opinion to gain support. A very, very smart person, but not always in a good way. Maybe if he can't win, that's also because he might be guilty, you know ?
No he was not a like mob boss. Yes he is guilty, so are all cycling pros.
Look at it this way: If they are all doped one way or the other, its pretty hypocritical to be a cycling pro and condemn doping.
So maybe thats the angle he chose, we dont really know.
|
He definitly behaved like a mob boss, see Bassons, Simeoni etc...
|
So now I'm confused, are you saying that every pro wheeler basically uses doping and every now and then they want to lynch someone for it?
|
Lance vs ulrich (who was heavily doped as well) was my favorit as well, i always expected ulrich to finally beat him but he somehow never managed to
So now I'm confused, are you saying that every pro wheeler basically uses doping and every now and then they want to lynch someone for it?
Hmm this would be one way to put it.
|
On September 04 2012 21:13 Rassy wrote:Lance vs ulrich (who was heavily doped as well) was my favorit as well, i always expected ulrich to finally beat him but he somehow never managed to So now I'm confused, are you saying that every pro wheeler basically uses doping and every now and then they want to lynch someone for it? Hmm this would be one way to put it.
Rainy day on the last single start race bro that was it, Ullrich fell and Lance didnt. Remember it like yesterday hehe
On September 04 2012 21:11 B.I.G. wrote:
So now I'm confused, are you saying that every pro wheeler basically uses doping and every now and then they want to lynch someone for it?
Yup, this is classic hypocritic lynch mob mostly media driven as usual.
|
They have the blood tests and a number of witnesses.
Some of the witnesses have nothing to gain by fingering him.
He is guilty as sin and an embarrassment.
|
On September 04 2012 20:52 Boblion wrote:
He definitly behaved like a mob boss, see Bassons, Simeoni etc...
Bassons was really out there with doping talks. Involved in FestinaGate as well. You cant really rule out that Lance thought of this as being hypocritical and thus tried to do something. And if I find myself in a position where I cant rule out a motive that could speak the opposite for a person, I cant really pass judgement on that. Up to you what to do, but things are rarely so clearcut. Bassons behaviour was very outspoken, that always divides people on controversial subjects. Let him rest in pieces.
Hamilton we could choose to believe, since he is rather honest about the doping and has some beautiful evidence speaken for him (he won stage 16 in 2003, 142 km getaway with a broken collar bone) lol.
|
On September 04 2012 21:49 YourOldBuddy wrote:
They have the blood tests and a number of witnesses.
Some of the witnesses have nothing to gain by fingering him.
He is guilty as sin and an embarrassment.
Everybody is on doping. Wanna blame some? Blame the sport and the history of it. 1903 to 1940 for example 37 years of super duper doping allowed.
|
The sole reason doping is being persecuted is because it poses a huge risk to a person's health. We don't want that.
Racecars could be much faster if drivers/constructors neglected safety standards. However, doing so is not allowed because it puts unfair pressure on those who actually care about their lives.
Doping is not banned because its inherently unfair. Anything that gains you an advantage is ok, better bicycles, a better training schedule, more money to buy better teammates etc. All these things don't put your health at risk. Doping does. Therefore it's banned. We don't want children/youth cyclists to grow up in a world where doping is ok as long as they don't catch you. Letting Armstrong get away with what he likely did can not be tolerated. Talk about _greed_ inside the Anti-Doping Agencies is just uneducated emotional talk, lol. Those people work for money and/or maybe the spirit of clean sports, not because they envy successful athletes.
|
On September 04 2012 21:57 illu23 wrote:
The sole reason doping is being persecuted is because it poses a huge risk to a person's health. We don't want that.
Racecars could be much faster if drivers/constructors neglected safety standards. However, doing so is not allowed because it puts unfair pressure on those who actually care about their lives.
Doping is not banned because its inherently unfair. Anything that gains you an advantage is ok, better bicycles, a better training schedule, more money to buy better teammates etc. All these things don't put your health at risk. Doping does. Therefore it's banned. We don't want children/youth cyclists to grow up in a world where doping is ok as long as they don't catch you. Letting Armstrong get away with what he likely did can not be tolerated. Talk about _greed_ inside the Anti-Doping Agencies is just uneducated emotional talk, lol. Those people work for money and/or maybe the spirit of clean sports, not because they envy successful athletes.
Sennas car was pretty cool tho
Mechanic doping
|
On September 04 2012 21:11 B.I.G. wrote:
So now I'm confused, are you saying that every pro wheeler basically uses doping and every now and then they want to lynch someone for it?
The rules are the same for everybody. When there's proofs, there's sanctions. And Armstrong is far to be the first. All this drama around him is just because he's an "american hero", like Contador is a "spanish hero".
Every player who violate the rules is lynch. Armstrong is not a special case.
|
On September 04 2012 22:40 Agathon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 21:11 B.I.G. wrote:
So now I'm confused, are you saying that every pro wheeler basically uses doping and every now and then they want to lynch someone for it? The rules are the same for everybody. When there's proofs, there's sanctions. And Armstrong is far to be the first. All this drama around him is just because he's an "american hero", like Contador is a "spanish hero". Every player violate the rules. Armstrong is not a special case.
Fixed that for you Lynch away!!
|
On September 04 2012 22:47 -Hitman- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2012 22:40 Agathon wrote:On September 04 2012 21:11 B.I.G. wrote:
So now I'm confused, are you saying that every pro wheeler basically uses doping and every now and then they want to lynch someone for it? The rules are the same for everybody. When there's prooves, there's sanctions. And Armstrong is far to be the first. All this drama around him is just because he's an "american hero", like Contador is a "spanish hero". Every player violate the rules. Armstrong is not a special case. Fixed that for you Lynch away!!
You're right, but USADA or any other cycling federation can't do anything without prooves (fortunately). We can't blame them for respecting the justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
