|
Lance Armstrong beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, who beat a guy who was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, who beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids.
So TECHNICALLY he still won all those races, cause he was better than everyone else.
Just a funny quote my friend posted.
Why is steroid so prevalent in cycling and baseball O.o? It's a shame that people have to resort to cheating to win.
|
On October 24 2012 01:24 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +Lance Armstrong beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, who beat a guy who was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, who beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids.
So TECHNICALLY he still won all those races, cause he was better than everyone else. Just a funny quote my friend posted. Why is steroid so prevalent in cycling and baseball O.o? It's a shame that people have to resort to cheating to win.
Because drugs are everywhere. the rest just doesnt look as hard for it.
|
On October 24 2012 01:24 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +Lance Armstrong beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, who beat a guy who was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, who beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids.
So TECHNICALLY he still won all those races, cause he was better than everyone else. Just a funny quote my friend posted. Why is steroid so prevalent in cycling and baseball O.o? It's a shame that people have to resort to cheating to win.
I dont know much about cycling so i could be wrong. But I imagine its like bodybuilding, its not much about technique but just stamina, and training stamina, your gonna hit a wall that you cannot pass no matter how much you train. Then you can only advance by doping.
I might be totally wrong, as i said, dunno much about cycling.
|
Why is steroid so prevalent in cycling and baseball O.o? It's a shame that people have to resort to cheating to win.
I can't speak for cycling, but in baseball a huge amount of strength basically makes swinging a bat as an athlete like swinging a toothpick for you and I. When you get to that level of strength, a huge percentage of your hits that would have been caught by an outfielder will now be home runs. Also, stamina--which can disappear when going roid-crazy and turning into the hulk--is not terribly important in baseball. Baseball is all about short bursts of energy and loooong periods of inactivity.
|
On October 24 2012 01:24 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +Lance Armstrong beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, who beat a guy who was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, who beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids.
So TECHNICALLY he still won all those races, cause he was better than everyone else. Just a funny quote my friend posted. Why is steroid so prevalent in cycling and baseball O.o? It's a shame that people have to resort to cheating to win.
it's prevalent in all sports
|
On October 24 2012 01:52 thirtythree wrote:Show nested quote +Why is steroid so prevalent in cycling and baseball O.o? It's a shame that people have to resort to cheating to win. I can't speak for cycling, but in baseball a huge amount of strength basically makes swinging a bat as an athlete like swinging a toothpick for you and I. When you get to that level of strength, a huge percentage of your hits that would have been caught by an outfielder will now be home runs. Also, stamina--which can disappear when going roid-crazy and turning into the hulk--is not terribly important in baseball. Baseball is all about short bursts of energy and loooong periods of inactivity.
Cycling is a different type of steroids. Not muscle building ones like baseball and football players use, it's mostly testosterone in cycling. not a scientist but I think is has to do with how testosterone affects your muscles ability to clear acid and thus have more stamina.
Anyways. The whole thing is a joke. Basically Lance said he's done appealing/fighting the daily charges and even after hundreds and hundreds of tests showed he's clean.
Imagine if GSL stripped MVP of his 4 GSL titles because a bunch of people said he was on adderall... without any evidence or tests what so ever...
The french are just pissed off that an American won the Tour 7 times and all their riders are sucking wind...
The whole thing is total BS, imo.
I will support Lance 100%
Pretty ridiculous that records in baseball continue to stand despite positive drug tests and actual admittance of using performance enhancing drugs by those players, yet an American icon of his time is stripped of records for never failing a drug test once in his entire life...
|
I love how you are all saying it was unfair.
Do you guys not understand that all his competition was doping/taking steroids as well... He is and always will be regarded as one of the best. It's not like he didn't train... He trained harder than most, doped etc. If you don't do these things you wont get anywhere in cycling.
|
He stopped fighting the charges because he knew that people would always have that doubt hanging over his career about whether or not he cheated. He didn't want to hold onto a legacy that was going to be tainted. He'll always have Livestrong though, and in my mind he's still a champion
|
On October 24 2012 02:09 mokumoku wrote:
I love how you are all saying it was unfair.
Do you guys not understand that all his competition was doping/taking steroids as well... He is and always will be regarded as one of the best. It's not like he didn't train... He trained harder than most, doped etc. If you don't do these things you wont get anywhere in cycling.
Yeah this is the sad thing
a few frustrated/very ambitious athletes start doing it and then do well and others join in and at some point everyone wants to do it if you wants to do well
this really can kill a sport
|
Latest I read on the Armstrong thing it sounds like he is pretty much fucked. The evidence is now looking pretty strong against him and he could potentially lose out on $150 million over the course of his lifetime PLUS payback millions that he received in bonuses already
Yesterday, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) announced that it is standing behind a report previously published by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) alleging that seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong oversaw the most sophisticated doping program in the history of sport. If you took this news as an indication that the embattled cyclist has finally hit rock bottom, no one would think you foolish.
After all, in the two weeks since the USADA released nearly 1,000 pages of evidence -- including damning testimony from 15 former teammates -- fingering Armstrong as the mastermind behind the U.S. Postal Service team's systematic use of performance enhancing drugs, Armstrong has been banned from cycling for life, stripped of his seven tour titles, and fired from endorsement deals with Nike, Trek, and Anheuser Busch that some pundits have estimated will cost Armstrong $150 million over the remainder of his life.
Armstrong congratulates Keegan Swirbul (Aspen/Snowmass) Perhaps even more damaging, the USADA report has cost Armstrong his credibility and integrity, forcing him to step down as chairman of his Livestrong Foundation and reducing his future earning power as a motivational speaker to nearly nil. It can't get any worse than that, can it?
Oh yes it can. The UCI's decision was more than ceremonial, as the organization was the only one with the power to formally strip Armstrong of his Tour titles. And while Armstrong is likely to continue to profess his innocence -- his legendary oversized ego barring him from admitting guilt until someone can produce a picture of him ascending the Alpe d'Huez with an IV bag full of tiger blood dangling from his femoral artery -- his adamant denials are no longer enough to protect him. With his victories wiped clean from the record books, race organizers and former sponsors can now begin the process of recovering payments previously made to Armstrong for winning those events.
For illustrative purposes, let's look to Armstrong's most notable achievement: his consecutive Tour titles spanning from 1999 to 2005. During this run of dominance, Armstrong received bonuses from Tour officials for each stage win, each day he wore the leader's yellow jersey, and of course, each overall victory. These payments are rumored to have totaled nearly $5 million over the seven-year period.
Armstrong's compensation wasn't limited to race winnings, however. The U.S. Postal Service, Armstrong's team sponsor during each of his tour victories, paid Armstrong over $12 million in performance bonuses during that span. Particularly worthy of note was a $5 million reward the USPS agreed to pay Armstrong upon winning his fifth consecutive title in 2004. The payment was covered by an insurance policy the Postal Service had taken out with SCA Promotions, who initially balked at paying the bonus amidst rumors that Armstrong's victories had been fueled by drug use. The case eventually went to arbitration, where SCA was forced to pay $7.5 million to Armstrong, representing the original $5 million bonus and $2.5 million in interest and attorney fees.
Now that Armstrong's titles have been officially vacated, it's extremely likely that Tour officials are placing hurried calls to their legal department to start the process of recovering the $5 million in winnings previously paid to Armstrong. For its part, SCA Promotions will quickly stake their place in line, as they were angered during the arbitration process by what they viewed to be arrogant, dismissive behavior by the cyclist's legal team.
Should all of these claims come to fruition, Armstrong may be cutting a lot of checks in 2013. Which begs the question: What will be the tax consequence if Armstrong repays race winnings and bonus amounts that were previously included in his taxable income as compensation?
The issue is not one of deductibility. Because the bonuses were originally earned in Armstrong's trade or business of being a cyclist, any repaid compensation should be deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense. Rather, the problem Armstrong faces is one of tax benefit.
If the doomsday predictions surrounding Armstrong's future income stream are to be believed, it's possible Armstrong may pay out more in bonus restitution during 2013 than he takes in as income. As a result, he may not be able to reap the full tax benefit of the deductions related to his repayments. And even in the event Armstrong is able to fully utilize his deductions in the current year, he may have been subject to a higher tax rate when the bonuses were originally earned -- particularly during the pre-Bush tax cut years of 1999-2001 -- than he is today. In either scenario, Armstrong would likely enjoy a larger tax benefit if he could travel back in time, exclude the bonus payments from income in the year they were received, and redetermine his prior years' tax liability.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/potential-tax-implications-lance-armstrongs-113039311.html
^ If you want to read the whole article
|
On October 24 2012 03:26 kmillz wrote:Latest I read on the Armstrong thing it sounds like he is pretty much fucked. The evidence is now looking pretty strong against him and he could potentially lose out on $150 million over the course of his lifetime PLUS payback millions that he received in bonuses already Show nested quote +Yesterday, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) announced that it is standing behind a report previously published by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) alleging that seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong oversaw the most sophisticated doping program in the history of sport. If you took this news as an indication that the embattled cyclist has finally hit rock bottom, no one would think you foolish.
After all, in the two weeks since the USADA released nearly 1,000 pages of evidence -- including damning testimony from 15 former teammates -- fingering Armstrong as the mastermind behind the U.S. Postal Service team's systematic use of performance enhancing drugs, Armstrong has been banned from cycling for life, stripped of his seven tour titles, and fired from endorsement deals with Nike, Trek, and Anheuser Busch that some pundits have estimated will cost Armstrong $150 million over the remainder of his life.
Armstrong congratulates Keegan Swirbul (Aspen/Snowmass) Perhaps even more damaging, the USADA report has cost Armstrong his credibility and integrity, forcing him to step down as chairman of his Livestrong Foundation and reducing his future earning power as a motivational speaker to nearly nil. It can't get any worse than that, can it?
Oh yes it can. The UCI's decision was more than ceremonial, as the organization was the only one with the power to formally strip Armstrong of his Tour titles. And while Armstrong is likely to continue to profess his innocence -- his legendary oversized ego barring him from admitting guilt until someone can produce a picture of him ascending the Alpe d'Huez with an IV bag full of tiger blood dangling from his femoral artery -- his adamant denials are no longer enough to protect him. With his victories wiped clean from the record books, race organizers and former sponsors can now begin the process of recovering payments previously made to Armstrong for winning those events.
For illustrative purposes, let's look to Armstrong's most notable achievement: his consecutive Tour titles spanning from 1999 to 2005. During this run of dominance, Armstrong received bonuses from Tour officials for each stage win, each day he wore the leader's yellow jersey, and of course, each overall victory. These payments are rumored to have totaled nearly $5 million over the seven-year period.
Armstrong's compensation wasn't limited to race winnings, however. The U.S. Postal Service, Armstrong's team sponsor during each of his tour victories, paid Armstrong over $12 million in performance bonuses during that span. Particularly worthy of note was a $5 million reward the USPS agreed to pay Armstrong upon winning his fifth consecutive title in 2004. The payment was covered by an insurance policy the Postal Service had taken out with SCA Promotions, who initially balked at paying the bonus amidst rumors that Armstrong's victories had been fueled by drug use. The case eventually went to arbitration, where SCA was forced to pay $7.5 million to Armstrong, representing the original $5 million bonus and $2.5 million in interest and attorney fees.
Now that Armstrong's titles have been officially vacated, it's extremely likely that Tour officials are placing hurried calls to their legal department to start the process of recovering the $5 million in winnings previously paid to Armstrong. For its part, SCA Promotions will quickly stake their place in line, as they were angered during the arbitration process by what they viewed to be arrogant, dismissive behavior by the cyclist's legal team.
Should all of these claims come to fruition, Armstrong may be cutting a lot of checks in 2013. Which begs the question: What will be the tax consequence if Armstrong repays race winnings and bonus amounts that were previously included in his taxable income as compensation?
The issue is not one of deductibility. Because the bonuses were originally earned in Armstrong's trade or business of being a cyclist, any repaid compensation should be deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense. Rather, the problem Armstrong faces is one of tax benefit.
If the doomsday predictions surrounding Armstrong's future income stream are to be believed, it's possible Armstrong may pay out more in bonus restitution during 2013 than he takes in as income. As a result, he may not be able to reap the full tax benefit of the deductions related to his repayments. And even in the event Armstrong is able to fully utilize his deductions in the current year, he may have been subject to a higher tax rate when the bonuses were originally earned -- particularly during the pre-Bush tax cut years of 1999-2001 -- than he is today. In either scenario, Armstrong would likely enjoy a larger tax benefit if he could travel back in time, exclude the bonus payments from income in the year they were received, and redetermine his prior years' tax liability. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/potential-tax-implications-lance-armstrongs-113039311.html ^ If you want to read the whole article
If they can push that to court, I am excited to see the FUD from Armstrong. Will it be "The cycling world envy me! (arrogance)", "Corruption is stealing my money. (attacking)" or "The witchhunt has been stepped up a notch by the conspirators! (aka. Tinfoilhat-answer)". He simply has to fight it in court after Nike kicked him from the sponsored list and he stepped down from Livestrong. It is impossible for him to pay back so many millions.
On the other hand, it is hard to proove unless there is a specific clause in the rules about doping and refunding after being found guilty of doping. I cannot see it getting through court.
On October 24 2012 02:12 DavoS wrote:
He stopped fighting the charges because he knew that people would always have that doubt hanging over his career about whether or not he cheated. He didn't want to hold onto a legacy that was going to be tainted. He'll always have Livestrong though, and in my mind he's still a champion
Many of his competitors cheated too, so it is still an amazing feat to win the tour seven times. Unfair advantage or not, he was an excellent bike rider.
On the other hand, he has built a carreer on doing, something he knew would taint his legacy. It is not really a question of him being wrongfully convicted. The amount of evidence is plenty and I cannot see how people can hold on to the illusion that he is innocent. If only people could be so realistic that they at least accept that he did take doping,
I can see good reasons for being leniant on the punishment and not overreact like the above story, given that it is close to ancient history it happened (even 5 years is a long time today!).
|
Reading this thread is painful. People repeating again and again misconception. It would be really nice if people read a few sources before posting here. Especially, they should read about:
1. Armstrong actually having positive tests twice in his career
2. His elaborate plans how to avoid being tested
3. Effects of doping
4. Armstrong's attempts to threaten people to stop accusations including threats to Greg LeMond.
Let me just say that the argument that because everyone doped and he still won means that he was the best. NO, IT DOES NOT. People have different tolerance for performance enhancing substances and these substances have different effect depending on an individual. So we will never know who would have won had everyone was clean.
Armstrong is a cheater and I'm happy he was finally caught. I'm surprised though how many people still support him despite him being a cheater, super arrogant, and someone who played really dirty just so that nobody learns the truth about him cheating.
|
On October 23 2012 23:24 DreamChaser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 22:04 humblegar wrote:In the wake of the huge case built against Armstrong, Steffen Kjærgaard finally admits doping. This is already looking to be Norway's biggest scandal regarding doping. Nobody really believed him when he said he never watched anyone use doping, but many hoped he might be clean himself. He was probably "rider-19" in the documentation from USADA, and in this brutal world his wikipedia is already updated  Was he pressured at all into this? Or is he sort of backing up Armstrong, to sort of make a point that many people do dope in the sport.
Well, he (Kjærgaard) has served us so many lies through the years so who knows. It is not to support Armstrong, that is for sure. Was he afraid that USADA-effect would simply expose even him (Kjærgaard) in the end? He denies this, but that is an obvious speculation that has been mentioned.
He might be rider-19 in the report, and who knows what happens if for instance Armstrong starts talking. Maybe Kjærgaard talked to get it off his chest. Maybe he talked because he figured he could benefit from talking before the evidence was too great to ignore (one could argue this is already the case).
There are also talks of Kjærgaard discussing these issues with Anti-Doping Norway. Things are moving fast and there are already other names mentioned in Norwegian press.
|
On October 24 2012 01:24 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +Lance Armstrong beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, who beat a guy who was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids, who beat a guy that was on steroids, that beat a guy that was on steroids.
So TECHNICALLY he still won all those races, cause he was better than everyone else. Just a funny quote my friend posted. Why is steroid so prevalent in cycling and baseball O.o? It's a shame that people have to resort to cheating to win.
Because the nature of the sport, basicly its to hard for the human body.
Steroid (or rather epo) give an incredible advantage,compared to not using it, this difference is verry large in cycling.
Epo would give relativly small advantages for example when playing football, because a well trained body can easily recoup from 1 match every 3 days and other aspects (like agility) are more important.
Doping is prevalent in some other sports as well, where you can gain large advantages by using it.
For example weightlifting, where it comes down to pure mussle weight (wich can be pumped with steroid) has had numerous doping afairs as well.
Didnt knew it was prevalent in baseball and now i realy wonder why, i cant see anny huge advantages from using either epo or steroids when playing baseball.
|
Just face the fact that everyone is doping in pro sports!
|
On October 24 2012 03:26 kmillz wrote:Latest I read on the Armstrong thing it sounds like he is pretty much fucked. The evidence is now looking pretty strong against him and he could potentially lose out on $150 million over the course of his lifetime PLUS payback millions that he received in bonuses already Show nested quote +Yesterday, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) announced that it is standing behind a report previously published by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) alleging that seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong oversaw the most sophisticated doping program in the history of sport. If you took this news as an indication that the embattled cyclist has finally hit rock bottom, no one would think you foolish.
After all, in the two weeks since the USADA released nearly 1,000 pages of evidence -- including damning testimony from 15 former teammates -- fingering Armstrong as the mastermind behind the U.S. Postal Service team's systematic use of performance enhancing drugs, Armstrong has been banned from cycling for life, stripped of his seven tour titles, and fired from endorsement deals with Nike, Trek, and Anheuser Busch that some pundits have estimated will cost Armstrong $150 million over the remainder of his life.
Armstrong congratulates Keegan Swirbul (Aspen/Snowmass) Perhaps even more damaging, the USADA report has cost Armstrong his credibility and integrity, forcing him to step down as chairman of his Livestrong Foundation and reducing his future earning power as a motivational speaker to nearly nil. It can't get any worse than that, can it?
Oh yes it can. The UCI's decision was more than ceremonial, as the organization was the only one with the power to formally strip Armstrong of his Tour titles. And while Armstrong is likely to continue to profess his innocence -- his legendary oversized ego barring him from admitting guilt until someone can produce a picture of him ascending the Alpe d'Huez with an IV bag full of tiger blood dangling from his femoral artery -- his adamant denials are no longer enough to protect him. With his victories wiped clean from the record books, race organizers and former sponsors can now begin the process of recovering payments previously made to Armstrong for winning those events.
For illustrative purposes, let's look to Armstrong's most notable achievement: his consecutive Tour titles spanning from 1999 to 2005. During this run of dominance, Armstrong received bonuses from Tour officials for each stage win, each day he wore the leader's yellow jersey, and of course, each overall victory. These payments are rumored to have totaled nearly $5 million over the seven-year period.
Armstrong's compensation wasn't limited to race winnings, however. The U.S. Postal Service, Armstrong's team sponsor during each of his tour victories, paid Armstrong over $12 million in performance bonuses during that span. Particularly worthy of note was a $5 million reward the USPS agreed to pay Armstrong upon winning his fifth consecutive title in 2004. The payment was covered by an insurance policy the Postal Service had taken out with SCA Promotions, who initially balked at paying the bonus amidst rumors that Armstrong's victories had been fueled by drug use. The case eventually went to arbitration, where SCA was forced to pay $7.5 million to Armstrong, representing the original $5 million bonus and $2.5 million in interest and attorney fees.
Now that Armstrong's titles have been officially vacated, it's extremely likely that Tour officials are placing hurried calls to their legal department to start the process of recovering the $5 million in winnings previously paid to Armstrong. For its part, SCA Promotions will quickly stake their place in line, as they were angered during the arbitration process by what they viewed to be arrogant, dismissive behavior by the cyclist's legal team.
Should all of these claims come to fruition, Armstrong may be cutting a lot of checks in 2013. Which begs the question: What will be the tax consequence if Armstrong repays race winnings and bonus amounts that were previously included in his taxable income as compensation?
The issue is not one of deductibility. Because the bonuses were originally earned in Armstrong's trade or business of being a cyclist, any repaid compensation should be deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense. Rather, the problem Armstrong faces is one of tax benefit.
If the doomsday predictions surrounding Armstrong's future income stream are to be believed, it's possible Armstrong may pay out more in bonus restitution during 2013 than he takes in as income. As a result, he may not be able to reap the full tax benefit of the deductions related to his repayments. And even in the event Armstrong is able to fully utilize his deductions in the current year, he may have been subject to a higher tax rate when the bonuses were originally earned -- particularly during the pre-Bush tax cut years of 1999-2001 -- than he is today. In either scenario, Armstrong would likely enjoy a larger tax benefit if he could travel back in time, exclude the bonus payments from income in the year they were received, and redetermine his prior years' tax liability. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/potential-tax-implications-lance-armstrongs-113039311.html ^ If you want to read the whole article
Wow. Almost makes me feel bad for the guy. Almost.
Here's the thing though ... everyone else cheats. Should we strip all of the other winners' titles as well as recouping bonuses paid to them? That would only be fair.
I forgot who conducted the survey/interview, but someone found that all the top cyclists agreed that if there was a way to catch doping 100% of the time and punish, they'd all gladly give up doping. But it's only because someone else does it that they know they have to do it too. Quite sad.
And just saying everyone else cheated too doesn't mean Armstrong is the best. If you're playing Starcraft and everyone has cheat codes on, the game is no longer about who has the better micro/macro but who has the better cheatcodes. So all it means is that Armstrong is the best doper.
|
On October 24 2012 08:12 Rassy wrote:
EPO would give relatively small advantages for example when playing football, because a well trained body can easily recoup from 1 match every 3 days and other aspects (like agility) are more important.
You would be wrong, because the advantage of EPO in football is realized with team wide doping, which means the team will be more fit in the second half of the game and the second half of the season. Having to play a lot of matches actually does wear many players out. Juventus had a blood doping program in the 90's (that we know of) and they were quite successful with it. Any club that uses the complete arsenal of the medical profession to assist their players can more often play with their top players and they will also perform better and therefore they can expect to do quite a bit better than competing teams.
On October 24 2012 08:12 Rassy wrote:
I didn't know it was prevalent in baseball and now I really wonder why, i cant see any huge advantages from using either EPO or steroids when playing baseball.
If you are stronger you can throw faster and hit harder, all of these have obvious advantages. Steroids also allow your muscles to recover more easily, I think that could make you less vulnerable to some injuries. I imagine you're thinking of the game depending on your sense of timing for hitting a ball, but you can simply select on those players who have a good sense of timing and then give them steroids to ensure that every time they do hit the ball it would be a homerun.
|
On October 24 2012 08:26 happyft wrote:
Wow. Almost makes me feel bad for the guy. Almost.
Here's the thing though ... everyone else cheats. Should we strip all of the other winners' titles as well as recouping bonuses paid to them? That would only be fair.
We do. Lance isn't the first, to get caught, or be punished.
He is the most successful, though, and to quote the report, "a "serial" cheat who led the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen".
|
On October 24 2012 07:09 Lebesgue wrote:
Reading this thread is painful. People repeating again and again misconception. It would be really nice if people read a few sources before posting here. Especially, they should read about:
1. Armstrong actually having positive tests twice in his career
2. His elaborate plans how to avoid being tested
3. Effects of doping
4. Armstrong's attempts to threaten people to stop accusations including threats to Greg LeMond.
Let me just say that the argument that because everyone doped and he still won means that he was the best. NO, IT DOES NOT. People have different tolerance for performance enhancing substances and these substances have different effect depending on an individual. So we will never know who would have won had everyone was clean.
Armstrong is a cheater and I'm happy he was finally caught. I'm surprised though how many people still support him despite him being a cheater, super arrogant, and someone who played really dirty just so that nobody learns the truth about him cheating.
Can you provide sources for ANY of the things you said or you just hatin' like so many others?
|
On October 25 2012 09:54 ParanoiaDHerO wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 07:09 Lebesgue wrote:
Reading this thread is painful. People repeating again and again misconception. It would be really nice if people read a few sources before posting here. Especially, they should read about:
1. Armstrong actually having positive tests twice in his career
2. His elaborate plans how to avoid being tested
3. Effects of doping
4. Armstrong's attempts to threaten people to stop accusations including threats to Greg LeMond.
Let me just say that the argument that because everyone doped and he still won means that he was the best. NO, IT DOES NOT. People have different tolerance for performance enhancing substances and these substances have different effect depending on an individual. So we will never know who would have won had everyone was clean.
Armstrong is a cheater and I'm happy he was finally caught. I'm surprised though how many people still support him despite him being a cheater, super arrogant, and someone who played really dirty just so that nobody learns the truth about him cheating. Can you provide sources for ANY of the things you said or you just hatin' like so many others?
Yeah, I'm sure the UCI that was much further on Armstrong's side immediately after the USADA released its report is "hatin'" now for no reason, rofl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
