|
It's tragically hilarious how much we idolise sports personalities/celebrities (to the point of considering them infallible divine beings) and are (for some reason) still shocked when there's a possibility or rumour that the person may have used drugs (of any sort, narcotics, performance enhancers, etc)
Regardless of whether or not Armstrong did cheat, the fact that we keep stories like these "shock" us makes me ask the question: Are we actually this naive or do we simply pretend to be?
Personally, I watch Tour De France for the scenery and pileups. It's like an elegant version of NASCAR. The fact that there are people that can cycle for thousands of kilometers is admirable enough. The importance of winning is for those desperate to prove something.
|
It's fine.
Everyone dopes in cycling. Might as well just wipe everyone's medals and start the sport anew, and do that every 5 years.
|
Mercxk, Hinault, etc. all doped. Everyone does it...the whole peloton. But at the end of the day it's cycling. It doesn't matter how hard you train the human body isn't meant to do that many miles as often as they do. It's required to dope just to stay with the pack let alone win. But even with this he's still Lance Armstrong and his legend will never be taken away. Even if he did dope doing what he did is insane not counting everything that was going against him.
|
On August 24 2012 14:43 Womwomwom wrote:
They already do. Some cyclists have to wake up in the night to peddle around so their cardiovascular system doesn't shut down. Their blood is so thick that they need to do this.
Can you explain the thing with the thick blood or give me an link to read it up, please !
|
On August 24 2012 12:10 TommyP wrote: Well kids what did we learn?? We can cheat, make god knows how much money and all we have to do is give up our medals. Yay!!
Could someone explain why he would give up his 7 titles and accept a ban if he didnt do it?
Well one of two things imo, either
A) he did dope and cheat and admits it basically by doing this B) He just doesnt wanna deal with the stuff around it.
|
Personally, I never considered him to be legitimate.
In my view, there is no way in hell you can destroy everyone so clearly in a sport dominated by doping, without being on the juice yourself.
|
the only reason he's stopping is because he knows that if he just accepts his defeat in court - that people will believe he is clean and was unrightfully stripped of his medals (he deserves the medals anyway IMO since everyone dopes) so that he will have 0 chance of actually being a proven doper, as the longer it's in the courts the more evidence that comes out.
|
On August 24 2012 15:05 Silidons wrote: the only reason he's stopping is because he knows that if he just accepts his defeat in court - that people will believe he is clean and was unrightfully stripped of his medals (he deserves the medals anyway IMO since everyone dopes) so that he will have 0 chance of actually being a proven doper, as the longer it's in the courts the more evidence that comes out. Exactly.
I should have just stand up and say:
"Yes i doped! i doped from the frist to the last day of my carrier, but i deserve the medals because there was not a single guy that did not do the same!"
I would have respected that. But not this "i try to sneak out the back-door and hope people just forget..."
|
Another logical question one could ask. If he didn't cheat how in gods name did he beat all the other riders who did cheat?. Because at the time pretty much everyone was doping. So how do a normal person out perform other riders who used performance enhanced drugs that basically made them into super-humans?
So unless Lance Armstrong is secretly wearing a cape and flying around doing heroic feats its simply not possible to win a Tour´ De France at the time without using doping. And defiantly not 7 in a row.
|
even if he did dope seven titles? u know how much you have to condition to achieve any kind of success like that. you cant just take drugs and win, his dedication alone proves to me he didnt need drugs.
|
On August 24 2012 12:10 Cornstarched wrote: This is politically motivated and won't stand up to any normal mans scrutinity.
The "normal man" is not qualified to scrutinize this. Unless you're an MD with access to appropriate data, you have no reasonable reason to disagree with experts and courts.
|
On August 24 2012 15:11 lastprobeALIVE wrote: even if he did dope seven titles? u know how much you have to condition to achieve any kind of success like that. you cant just take drugs and win, his dedication alone proves to me he didnt need drugs.
Or else he just had better drugs then the others
|
Its been proven (almost conclusively) that he was not doping. But these people still pursued him. Who is really at fault here T_T
|
On August 24 2012 15:14 Benjamin99 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 15:11 lastprobeALIVE wrote: even if he did dope seven titles? u know how much you have to condition to achieve any kind of success like that. you cant just take drugs and win, his dedication alone proves to me he didnt need drugs. Or else he just had better drugs then the others
lol lance armstrong looking like tyrone biggums
|
On August 24 2012 15:14 GhandiEAGLE wrote: Its been proven (almost conclusively) that he was not doping. But these people still pursued him. Who is really at fault here T_T
What are you talking about nothing has been proven that Lance Armstrong wasn't doping. Because when Tyler Hamilton goes out and say Lance was on the juice I got no reason not to believe him considering how a stand up guy Tyler has been. Tyler manned up and admitted he was doping and gave away his Olympic gold medal even though he also passed 99% of his drug test. See that's a man that cares for the sport
Also USADA got more witnesses then Tyler and blood samples that proves he was doping
|
On August 24 2012 15:11 Benjamin99 wrote: Another logical question one could ask. If he didn't cheat how in gods name did he beat all the other riders who did cheat?. Because at the time pretty much everyone was doping. So how do a normal person out perform other riders who used performance enhanced drugs that basically made them into super-humans?
So unless Lance Armstrong is secretly wearing a cape and flying around doing heroic feats its simply not possible to win a Tour´ De France at the time without using doping. And defiantly not 7 in a row.
Some people are more talented at things than other people. I don't mean by just a little bit either. Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky.. you get the idea. It's great that you think he doped because he's good at what he does, but he has already proven many times he didn't cheat.
|
On August 24 2012 15:21 krews wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 15:11 Benjamin99 wrote: Another logical question one could ask. If he didn't cheat how in gods name did he beat all the other riders who did cheat?. Because at the time pretty much everyone was doping. So how do a normal person out perform other riders who used performance enhanced drugs that basically made them into super-humans?
So unless Lance Armstrong is secretly wearing a cape and flying around doing heroic feats its simply not possible to win a Tour´ De France at the time without using doping. And defiantly not 7 in a row. Some people are more talented at things than other people. I don't mean by just a little bit either. Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky.. you get the idea. It's great that you think he doped because he's good at what he does, but he has already proven many times he didn't cheat.
Talented lol? Are you kidding me. No amount of talent can compete vs the largest drug companies in the world. And we talking about cycling not ice hockey/basketball where other factors gets involved like skill etc. You cant really call riding a cycle a skill even a child can do that to perfection. Nahh cycling is about human conditioning and endurance.
So there is no way a normal athlete can beat or even compete against other medical enhanced athletes in any form of human conditioning and endurance sport.
|
On August 24 2012 15:21 krews wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 15:11 Benjamin99 wrote: Another logical question one could ask. If he didn't cheat how in gods name did he beat all the other riders who did cheat?. Because at the time pretty much everyone was doping. So how do a normal person out perform other riders who used performance enhanced drugs that basically made them into super-humans?
So unless Lance Armstrong is secretly wearing a cape and flying around doing heroic feats its simply not possible to win a Tour´ De France at the time without using doping. And defiantly not 7 in a row. Some people are more talented at things than other people. I don't mean by just a little bit either. Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky.. you get the idea. It's great that you think he doped because he's good at what he does, but he has already proven many times he didn't cheat. You are not aware of how big the diffrence is in endurance and strength. Most people underestimate this drugs. Both ways, in health danger and in power.
A athlete and doctor once did a self test. He drove the hardest part of the tour without drugs and than again, after a 2 week epo injection. For the first run, he needed 70 minutes. At second doped run, he had rain and wind against him but did the same tour in 66 minutes...
|
Russian Federation748 Posts
Oh wow, is it actually happening? There was a huge shitstorm going down in that one Tour de France blog and in the Olympics discussion thread :X ruh-roh.
Why did I read Yu-Gi-Oh ?
|
Look, here's the possible scenarios:
A - One guy is lying about using hard-to-detect drugs, because that would illegitimize his entire career. Motive: wants to win events in a sport dominated by doping.
B - Entire organizations, across the globe, hold such a grudge against Armstrong that they're fabricating evidence intercontinentally, and multiple former athletes and people who worked with Armstrong are involved in the conspiracy, perjuring themselves and destroying their own reputations in the process. Motive: ARGLE BARGLE ROSICRUCIANS.
Seriously, people. The gullibility is nearly pathological in here.
|
|
|
|