EPTAll PEDs have side effects.
Armstrong deserves to go to jail. And he also broke the law so he probably will go to jail. Hope cops are there to arrest him.
Lance Armstrong to lose Titles, Banned - Page 50
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Tadatomo
84 Posts
All PEDs have side effects. Armstrong deserves to go to jail. And he also broke the law so he probably will go to jail. Hope cops are there to arrest him. | ||
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
The worst thing about Lance was that he made the most boring Grand Tour more popular than the others and he also made it even more boring to watch with the way that he rode. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
Why do they ban everything and not just things that are dangerous? Can you imagine if being a cyclist and competing on top meant you had to spend thousands of dollars on safe drugs to marginally improve your performance. Have to sleep to a pressurized chamber, and be doping blood all the time, and the list goes on. Like someone said, for the sport, the athletes need to feel human, and look human, not some weird science experiments. Think Formula One, they put limitations on the formulas, as early as 1980 (banning the use of turbo's), why? Initially it was to improve the safety of the racers, later it was to decrease costs (such as engines only being able to last one race). Recently they removed things like traction control from the cars, so the car involves more skill to drive, giving the focus to the person opposed to the machine. Same things goes for cycling, would you rather they drugged them while they raced so they would feel no pain, offered severe punishments for not winning to improve motivation, and whatever else? It's not what sports are about. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On January 12 2013 07:10 Grumbels wrote: Quibbling about a few of the drugs on the list is just a pointless distraction. The list exists for two reasons: 1. to stop needless medicalization of the sport and 2. to protect the athletes from having to kill themselves. Whether some of the drugs on it are mostly harmless is besides the point, which is that sports are a game for which we set rules, those rules being to avoid needless medicalization. You'll notice that basically everything that you can find in food is allowed and things that you can find in medication are not. Blood doping via transfusion is not allowed, and is one of the most advantageous cheats a cardiovascular athlete can use. What about that? | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On January 12 2013 07:13 farvacola wrote: Blood doping via transfusion is not allowed, and is one of the most advantageous cheats a cardiovascular athlete can use. What about that? ?? See point one on my list. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
Yeah well you are basically making a blanket appeal to authority, that the rules have been set with athletes interests in mind and we ought to simply accept them. If athletes are deciding that "needless medicalizations" are actually needed, then something in regards to those rules or the manner in which they are enforced is not working correctly. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On January 12 2013 06:47 Grumbels wrote: You people need to get over this idea that Armstrong is a sacrificial lamb. He cheated, so the anti-doping organization made a case against him. He should be made an example of, he was the most successful cheat and one of the people most responsible for the doping epidemic. He associated with all the wrong people and he intimidated and bullied all the people that wanted to have a cleaner sport. He is not the only bad egg in the sport, for obvious reasons, so more needs to be done, but this was the most necessary step that needed to be taken. He was the highest profile person in cycling. If there was a map hack problem in SC2 and many pro players would use map hacks, then if the most successful one of them was revealed, would you call this a witch hunt? The term witch hunt for taking action against legitimate cheaters has to be one of the most cynical things in the world. Might as well do away with the concept of justice then. Your analogy is lacking. Here's a better one: Everyone in NASL, GSL, MLG and ESL is maphacking. ESF goes after one maphacker, gets 10 other maphackers to witness against him in exchange for some leniency. Spends all of their time and budget on that one player. Maphacker loses wins and endorsements. GSL winner also caught maphacking but gets to keep title. Everyone in all the other leagues keeps maphacking. Great win there. Ok, Lance deserved to get boned, but we don't pay USADA to go on vendettas. What could they have done with that time and money other than chase their white whale? | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On January 12 2013 07:22 farvacola wrote: Yeah well you are basically making a blanket appeal to authority, that the rules have been set with athletes interests in mind and we ought to simply accept them. If athletes are deciding that "needless medicalizations" are actually needed, then something in regards to those rules or the manner in which they are enforced is not working correctly. Of course athletes will try to get every advantage possible, even if they have to cheat. Being able to enforce the rules is a real concern, but it doesn't invalidate the idea behind the rules. I recall an anecdote of riders basically begging the authorities to come up with a test for heterogeneous blood transfusions because it was such a dangerous practice, even if they were engaging in it at the time. Basically every athlete accepts the premises of these rules, it's not controversial. Only the difficulty in enforcing it is a concern that might force the rules to have to change. On January 12 2013 07:27 Jerubaal wrote: Your analogy is lacking. Here's a better one: Everyone in NASL, GSL, MLG and ESL is maphacking. ESF goes after one maphacker, gets 10 other maphackers to witness against him in exchange for some leniency. Spends all of their time and budget on that one player. Maphacker loses wins and endorsements. GSL winner also caught maphacking but gets to keep title. Everyone in all the other leagues keeps maphacking. Great win there. Ok, Lance deserved to get boned, but we don't pay USADA to go on vendettas. What could they have done with that time and money other than chase their white whale? The most obvious reason why your posts are dumb is the following: Contador is a Spaniard, Armstrong is American. Go annoy the Spanish anti-doping agencies for not going after Contador, don't blame the American one for going after Armstrong. The second reason is this notion that if you go after one person, you can't go after another person. Keep in mind that part of the Armstrong investigation were several teams, team doctors, team managers. Third reason is that Armstrong is the most important person to go after. In your analogy (which doesn't work, btw) it would be like if there would be one person that had won 9 out of 10 GSL's and it was obvious he had cheated, but you couldn't go after him because that would be unfair to the guy that also cheated and had won 1 GSL. He is also not only a successful rider, he is also part team owner and all around face of cycling, the person most responsible for the image of cycling, the one who made the most money out of it. | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
| ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On January 12 2013 07:38 Telcontar wrote: His move to be interviewed on Oprah is very clever. She'll avoid asking real tough questions, and with a few well-timed tears, most of the people watching the show will see him as a pitiful by-product of a sick culture. I, for one, will not be swayed. How do you know this will happen...does Oprah never ask tough questions or something (I don't really watch Oprah, at all)? Its not like she's secretly in league with Lance Armstrong or anything. Who knows what will happen on the show! | ||
|
RetroAspect
Belgium219 Posts
Edit: i am serious about this, Congress should even make a law especially for him to forbid his mounting of a bicycle!! | ||
|
Hug-A-Hydralisk
United States174 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/9/2008/10/ban_hammer.jpg) | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On January 12 2013 07:22 farvacola wrote: Yeah well you are basically making a blanket appeal to authority, that the rules have been set with athletes interests in mind and we ought to simply accept them. If athletes are deciding that "needless medicalizations" are actually needed, then something in regards to those rules or the manner in which they are enforced is not working correctly. There is something wrong with the rules since they are practically unenforcable (as Armstrong is proof of.). The future will likely be a far smaller list of doping agents with a preference for the camouflaging compounds , but far more medical tests. The blood passport is a step in that direction. It, however, clear that the old method of banning drugs is not yet out, though. The biggest problem for anti-doping measures is the lack of sufficient knowledge about the human body and it has always been so. I saw an article noting tens of thousands of compounds having signaling properties in the human body of which about 300 are relatively well understood. (Don't force me to pick those heavy books on biochemistry and physiology up to confirm it)! Combine that with the receptors and how broad ranges of compounds receptors react to and we are even further from the needed understanding in biochemistry to make indirect guesses as to dangers of doping. There is a very brief history of what individual cases have prompted anti-doping measures here. As you can see it is a question of anti-doping always being far behind the doping and their problematic effects. Blood doping is probably one of the least dangerous compounds in itself though thick blood is a precursor to blood clots ao., but the procedures for donating it, storing it and using it has to be strictly controlled and errors in those procedures can be fatal. Knowledge of long-term effects of blood doping is also lacking afaik. | ||
|
JeanLuc
Canada377 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 12 2013 11:37 JeanLuc wrote: I was against Armstrong during the height of his popularity (the masses sporting livestrong bands) but now that he is being unfairly singled out I only feel sympathy for the man. Singled out alongside tens of other dopers. My little heart bleeds :l | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On January 12 2013 08:35 RetroAspect wrote: Armstrong should NEVER be allowed to ride a bicycle again, not even in his free time Edit: i am serious about this, Congress should even make a law especially for him to forbid his mounting of a bicycle!! This would be exactly the kind of thing we are looking for. I mean, what else does the US congress have going on that's more important than riding bikes? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
He's only been 'singled out' as his offences gave him so many tangible benefits in later life. It's not just himself that was affected either, read the testimony of his teammates or indeed a (relatively) impartial observer like David Millar in his excellent biography and what he has to say about Lance. The guy was a complete fraud, but not only that, he didn't use his position to help the anti-doping movement at all. Lance Armstrong had the potential influence to help clean up cycling, and instead used his position to reinforce the doping culture. Have no idea why the guy gets any sympathy at all, at least a David Millar when caught seemed genuinely remorseful and did their best to subsequently ride clean and also expose the doping culture in cycling. Look at the tangible benefits of having a peloton member like David Millar, who, while a world class cyclist in his own right, has a mere fraction of Armstrong's potential positive influence for why Armstrong's behaviour is so egregious. | ||
|
MyNameIsAlex
Greece827 Posts
On January 12 2013 07:27 Jerubaal wrote: Your analogy is lacking. Here's a better one: Everyone in NASL, GSL, MLG and ESL is maphacking. ESF goes after one maphacker, gets 10 other maphackers to witness against him in exchange for some leniency. Spends all of their time and budget on that one player. Maphacker loses wins and endorsements. GSL winner also caught maphacking but gets to keep title. Everyone in all the other leagues keeps maphacking. Great win there. Ok, Lance deserved to get boned, but we don't pay USADA to go on vendettas. What could they have done with that time and money other than chase their white whale? could not been said better. LMAO there are still people that believe top athletes do not take drugs. | ||
|
Grimmyman123
Canada939 Posts
And I don't care if he admits it or not. He won those titles - every other person in the top 50 had the same advantage and were doping as well - some got caught, a lot didn't. The PAIN endured to win is insane, that's enough for me. | ||
|
Xivsa
United States1009 Posts
| ||
| ||
Their diet is very well supplemented, both for performance and health reasons so they can train as hard as they do. My point was that it is not just because of the safety of the runners, because there are a lot of things that are banned that aren't inherently dangerous. Or things like that it is OK to sleep in a pressure chamber, but you can't inject to get the exact same physiological change. The line is vague, and as stated above, if you want to ban everything that isn't "natural", then you have to change most of their diet, the stuff they drink during their runs, their medical treatments, their beds etc.
