|
If anyone has a shadow of a doubt after reading the Reasoned Decision I am very surprised.
- One million dollars to Ferrari? The case ends here basically. Much of it after he claims to have stopped working with him? (and the evidence is real, as in bank statements, journal entries and emails in addition to key witnesses).
- UCI showing plenty of times that it can be bought and that it has no interest whatsoever in what happens in cycling related to doping. There is also actual evidence here in correspondence and bank transfer of 100.000$.
- Most if not all of the witnesses knew that coming forward ment UCI and Armstrong would threaten and bully you around, if not simply end your career. Much of this is easily provable through television (lol) or text messages again in addition to witnesses.
- Retesting shows he is guilty, and the only complaints about the retesting is about A/B-testing protocols, nothing physically wrong was done with the samples.
- Most of Armstrong's "I am the most tested in the world <inline derail about cancer here>" is basically not true. He has repeatedly denied USADA results from UCI in addition to this.
And this is all in addition to retesting, his positive cortison test, his lies about Actovegin, sending highly detailed schedules to Ferrari (long after he supposedly stopped working with him), but not to USADA and many, many, many other incidents.
If he had not backed down USADA would have gained more witnesses and more test to assert their standpoint. Please give me one reason to believe that Armstrong is hiding results from USADA other than he is guilty.
edit: removed TLDR, it sucked
|
|
|
Are there still people who think that there's anyone who won anything in cycling during the past 30 years who was not pumped full of illegal substances?
It's baffling to me how big of a "reveal" this is made up to be. Of course he was doped, as is every other pro cyclist.
The fact that people believe(d) that a seven time consecutive winner of the biggest cycling tour in the world was clean makes me LOL.
I do understand the "Innocent until proven guilty" concept, and of course to convict someone you need solid proof. To me it was always abundantly clear that he (and everyone else) doped heavily.
|
You would have to go down the leaderboards VERY FAR to maybe find a teams' watercarrier who wasn't doped and is therefore the legitimate winner of the Tour.
|
On October 11 2012 20:13 SACtheXchng wrote:You would have to go down the leaderboards VERY FAR to maybe find a teams' watercarrier who wasn't doped and is therefore the legitimate winner of the Tour.
You are probably quite right about that. But this makes me curious, how can you lead such a career of lies and be proud of it?
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On October 11 2012 21:05 Doppelganger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 20:13 SACtheXchng wrote:You would have to go down the leaderboards VERY FAR to maybe find a teams' watercarrier who wasn't doped and is therefore the legitimate winner of the Tour. You are probably quite right about that. But this makes me curious, how can you lead such a career of lies and be proud of it?
He probably thinks it's ok since 'everyone' does it. That and the timeless classic greed for money, power, fame, and all that jazz.
Also guys like these:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165
|
On October 11 2012 21:05 Doppelganger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 20:13 SACtheXchng wrote:You would have to go down the leaderboards VERY FAR to maybe find a teams' watercarrier who wasn't doped and is therefore the legitimate winner of the Tour. You are probably quite right about that. But this makes me curious, how can you lead such a career of lies and be proud of it?
Never underestimate the ability to lie to yourself. We all do it all the time every day. The real question is how serious can you take a competitive sport that is in such a state.
|
Poland3772 Posts
On August 24 2012 12:16 ElvisWayCool wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 12:09 Al Bundy wrote:
"Regardless if he did or not, it's still a huge accomplishment"
no no no no you got it all wrong. accomplishments while under the effect of doping are worth nothing. If "he did", these accomplishments don't exist. No no no no you got it all wrong. It's still a lot of amazing accomplishments. You dope and win 7 Tours. I double dog dare you!
It's not an accomplishment. It's cheating. He is way worse hero for cycling than sAviOr was for Brood War. At least sAviOr won his titles and his games without ceating and "just" loose on purpose. Lance Armstrong wins are - aparently - just a fraud. If that's the case he deserves all the punishment and more.
|
Wtf lol, i accidentally quoted someone without contribution while reading
Sorry for the spam :/
|
On October 11 2012 21:28 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 21:05 Doppelganger wrote:On October 11 2012 20:13 SACtheXchng wrote:You would have to go down the leaderboards VERY FAR to maybe find a teams' watercarrier who wasn't doped and is therefore the legitimate winner of the Tour. You are probably quite right about that. But this makes me curious, how can you lead such a career of lies and be proud of it? Never underestimate the ability to lie to yourself. We all do it all the time every day. The real question is how serious can you take a competitive sport that is in such a state.
I think we need to take into consideration that he has more to lose than the other riders. Although he has less power now over other cyclists, what about UCI, Nike and Livestrong? We know he can behave like a bully, but we don't know what kind of pressure he gets in return from old friends that are scared now.
How many others will turn their backs and start talking if he really steps down from his lies and coverups. Or perhaps more interesting, how many others (in UCI for instance) will fall if Armstrong starts talking? And his own choice of always dragging charity, cancer and livestrong into his defense may backfire him and set him up as a prime target for a lot of brokenhearted fans.
|
I wonder those who were doping and using whatever to gain advantage while cycling Tour de France. Tip top shape and then Lance Armstrong comes and wins you with many minutes. No doping right  Worst part you cant say anything because then you get caught too. But later on nobody believes you if you say he doped, world is weird.
|
On October 11 2012 22:16 Too_MuchZerg wrote:I wonder those who were doping and using whatever to gain advantage while cycling Tour de France. Tip top shape and then Lance Armstrong comes and wins you with many minutes. No doping right Worst part you cant say anything because then you get caught too. But later on nobody believes you if you say he doped, world is weird.
People don't like to admit that they got fooled.
|
On October 11 2012 03:28 ParkwayDrive wrote:
so sad man. first tiger woods and jim tressel. now this man. 3 of the sports heroes i looked up to most in my childhood. all frauds. cant say im quite happy about it but they all deserve what they get. especially lance, if what im reading is true he was doing just awful things. o well, at least they cant take away the money hes raised for cancer, even if it was all a lie.
Tiger woods wasn't a fraud, he just banged a lot of women
|
On October 11 2012 20:13 SACtheXchng wrote:You would have to go down the leaderboards VERY FAR to maybe find a teams' watercarrier who wasn't doped and is therefore the legitimate winner of the Tour.
Alex Zülle, Jan Ullrich, Andreas Klöden and Ivan Basso have all been implicated or caught.
Joseba Beloki is the only non-controversial winner of this bunch. (Please correct me if I;m mistaken)
|
On October 11 2012 22:58 DropBear wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 03:28 ParkwayDrive wrote:
so sad man. first tiger woods and jim tressel. now this man. 3 of the sports heroes i looked up to most in my childhood. all frauds. cant say im quite happy about it but they all deserve what they get. especially lance, if what im reading is true he was doing just awful things. o well, at least they cant take away the money hes raised for cancer, even if it was all a lie. Tiger woods wasn't a fraud, he just banged a lot of women
This lol. You can't look up to tiger woods because he had a "sex addiction" problem. they should of left him how he is now he can't play for shit tt
|
On October 11 2012 21:34 nimdil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 12:16 ElvisWayCool wrote:On August 24 2012 12:09 Al Bundy wrote:
"Regardless if he did or not, it's still a huge accomplishment"
no no no no you got it all wrong. accomplishments while under the effect of doping are worth nothing. If "he did", these accomplishments don't exist. No no no no you got it all wrong. It's still a lot of amazing accomplishments. You dope and win 7 Tours. I double dog dare you! It's not an accomplishment. It's cheating. He is way worse hero for cycling than sAviOr was for Brood War. At least sAviOr won his titles and his games without ceating and "just" loose on purpose. Lance Armstrong wins are - aparently - just a fraud. If that's the case he deserves all the punishment and more.
Well, like I said, I never fooled myself. I follow cycling for something like 25 years now. I liked it then, and I still like it now. I like the tactics and strategy involved. I just don't fool myself and think, or even hope, that the sport is "clean".
If you win a big race, you are full of substances, period. I just don't think that takes away from your accomplishments. Each and everyone - no exception - who got 2nd and 3rd places behind Armstrong these seven times were so full of drugs that the substances almost spilled out of their ears. As was Armstrong.
We can now argue whether or not he had access to better drugs, and won because of those, but that's hard to prove or disprove. I think it's a great accomplishment nonetheless to win The Tour seven times in a row against hundreds of riders who are as much pumped full of drugs as you are yourself.
|
On October 11 2012 23:48 SACtheXchng wrote:
We can now argue whether or not he had access to better drugs, and won because of those, but that's hard to prove or disprove. I think it's a great accomplishment nonetheless to win The Tour seven times in a row against hundreds of riders who are as much pumped full of drugs as you are yourself.
All he accomplished was demonstrating that he was good at taking drugs. If you read the pdf you'll see he let other ppl win often just so he wouldn't look suspicious, he was a league above every1 else. and that is only because he paid his doctor 1m$.
|
If it was so easy why is he the only man in the history to have done so ?
I mean every single pro is on drug period. This is not a debate.
I've always supported him, and I always will. I knew he was on drug, they ALL are.
Did anyone watch the tdf since armstrong left ?
It's boring and lame as shit, the only storyline is Contador vs the Schlecks and it sucks dick.
Contador is on drug, one of the Schlecks is on drug ... so much for the "new and clean tdf" that they try to make us believe every single year.
Does anyone seriously believe that Wiggins doesn't do drugs ?
Yeah Lance used to takes drugs but god at that time watching it was AWESOME, I mean does anyone one remember the 2005 tdf ? It was soooooo good.
|
The final USADA report seem decisive
|
On October 11 2012 23:15 Rustug wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 20:13 SACtheXchng wrote:You would have to go down the leaderboards VERY FAR to maybe find a teams' watercarrier who wasn't doped and is therefore the legitimate winner of the Tour. Alex Zülle, Jan Ullrich, Andreas Klöden and Ivan Basso have all been implicated or caught. Joseba Beloki is the only non-controversial winner of this bunch. (Please correct me if I;m mistaken)
Beloki is a doper, I'm 99% sure about that and here is my guess about best clean guys that I posted a few months ago
On August 25 2012 07:10 Hyperionnn wrote:
Lets try to guess which was the highest clean rider in 1999-2005 tdf?
My picks:
99 Heulot, 13th
00 Robin, 19th
01 Simon, 6th
02 Moncoutie, 13th
03 Sastre, 9th
04 Sastre, 8th
05 Cadel, 8th
edit: Changed one of my picks, missed Sastre when I initially looked upon results
I know that in 2002 Sastre was better than Moncoutie but I love him and I want to see him in maillot jaune
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
