HEY. It's cycling. Nobody gives a shit
-
Comment -
I personally don't really care. Granted I am pro-doping, but I still think it's kind of ****** that he loses all of this over their cat and mouse game.
Is this a country where you're guilty until proven innocent? This might make more sense that way.
Regardless bankers take coke to stay up all night, truck drivers do meth, 8-5ers take caffine or w.e. marketed product is out ( 5hrnrg ). Don't really care if cyclists take dope. Still takes hard work to get to number 1.Comment -
Slightly amused how many people are surprised by this.
Did anyone really think he wasn't doping? The guy won seven Tours in a row, in a doping team, surrounded by team-mates who all doped, with doping doctors, and nearly everybody he beat has also been since caught doping (not just 2nd, but pretty much everybody in the top10, every single year).
Retests of Armstrong's blood from 99 showed he had EPO in his bloodstream, but as this wasn't a formal sanctioned drug test, he got away with it. He was offered the chance to have this retested, to clear his name, but again - he refused.
US anti doping also have dozens of blood samples from recent years they were going to bring out in arbitration - it's probably this why Armstrong decided not to even challenge it. There's no way he was going to be reprieved, just far far too much evidence.Comment -
If he passed every test, just like those he competed against, he is good. Who's to say the second place guy was doing any less? It's a ridiculous witch hunt the tax payers get to fund. Should we dig up Babe Ruth and test him too for something that wasn't banned? How about Ted Williams, should we unfreeze the fuk?Comment -
Completely agree.
But today, all of our local and national sportstalk syndicates are all over this and trying to make the sports world, yet, dumber, once again.
Glad to see somebody on the forum isn't fooled by the media's bullshit.
Now I can get back to capping sports that matters.Comment -
Double Jeopardy?Comment -
I haven't followed all that close, but if he passed all the tests when they were administered, how exactly can they go back now and make these charges?Comment -
I still don't understand. He won the races, he was tested, he passed the tests. I don't see how they can come in now and challenge everything. Just seems very very wrong. I don't know if he was doping or not, but procedural fairness comes into play. Ryan Braun gets off scott free because the tester kept the sample a day too long, but Armstrong has his titles taken away years later like this?Comment -
Oh well ...no one cares about cycling .....Comment -
Of course, I'm not challenging anybody on the internet with a virtual encyclopedia of info a couple of clicks away.
Seriously, How many people do you know that could name 2 cyclists not named Lance Armstrong?
How many people can tell you how many stages in the Tour de France?
What channel it's on?
Where are the preliminaries?
Where else do they compete?
But everybody fuckin cares about the integrity of cycling now, Right!!!!!
Comment -
drugs are great , it gets the job done .Comment -
Armstrong a liberal dem from Texas.
Again....Fukk him.Comment -
Tests are meaningless, it's easy for them to either mask the drugs, or they use such short-acting stuff there's no way to detect it. Marion Jones never tested positive once, for example. Only idiots really get caught by tests - the really high profile athletes, who have millions to win, will employ the best doctors who will make sure they never get caught.
Or at least, all the above has been the case till now. The US anti-doping agency weren't solely relying on the testimonies of 10 people who'd seen him doping (not a new thing, eg in 2003 the women who bought his drugs talked about it). They've also caught direct bloodtest evidence of his doping from his comeback period, so it seems Pharmstrong's old methods from ten years ago no longer work.Comment -
Well technically the USADA cant strip him of the titles he won, only the Tour de france committee can do that. All USADA can do is keep him from working in any sport or owning or sponsoring any sport that they govern. Basically he is blackballed mush like Pete Rose used to be from the sport. Except in Armstrongs case he is black listed from not only cycling but ANY sports the USADA governs, which I think is all of them.
So what happens now is USADA will take the 'evidence' and give it to the relevant committees to have them decide whether or not he will lose any of his titles or have his records removed.
I say it isnt a slam dunk. They have really only stripped a couple guys, Floyd Landis and that Spanish guy. But then again Armstrong is pretty much universally hated so it is probably 99% that he gets destroyed.Comment -
If he never tested positive, I don't see how the cycling federation can find him guilty of doping. I am not saying he was clean all of those years (I am sure they all were doping), but if you couldn't catch him in the act then you shouldn't be able to convict him....The shame is his charity, which does a ton of good work, is hurting because of this. Sad!Comment -
no reason to think babe ruth or whoever took anything. Armstrong actually did flunk a testComment -
More than once, but until now managed to wriggle out of it somehow....
1999: tests positive for steroids. They write him a doctor's prescription AFTERWARDS
2001: caught again. Bribes UCI with $250k, and it's covered up.
2005: research project, they retest Armstrong's 99 samples and find EPO also
2009/10?: USADA's own testing, caught for blood doping multiple times. This is probably why he refused to fight the charges.
Let's face it, Armstrong had 2 choices here:
1) Fight the charges
2) Not fight the charges, which means he automatically loses all his titles, and is known forever as a doper.
Why would anyone not do 1? Reason: he's guilty, there's an overwhelming flood of evidence to prove it, and more would come out in the arbitration to totally discredit him.Comment -
He needs to come out and say he was doing the same thing as everyone else. Doing it for a purpose.
I know armstrong things that his cancer drugs that contained steroids, and prescribed hgh shouldn't count as he never went off the stuff.
Plus he simply isn't a good guy. Ive been hearing about this cancer research stuff for 36 years. Nothing has changedComment -
its not because of money from research
They don't want to cure cancer, in fact, its been proven, they only want to control it
Cure key wordComment -
issue is lance, not cancer , make a new thread and call me out if u want to talk about that. Im not doing any research for a moron like you. your still around, your so 2009Comment -
People who say they don't care about cycling or Lance continue to post here with their comments. That alone greatly hurts their credibility. If you don't care about the subject and/or have a minimal amount of knowledge in it, why are you here?
It's true that most of the people on this forum do not care about cycling as a sport. I'm in the minority because I have been following the sport for close to 10 years.
And, yes, I can name more than 2 cyclists not named Armstrong. I can also name races that are just as - if not - more difficult than the Tour de France.
I will also debate - and pawn - anyone why the winner of the Tour de France (whether clean or not) really isn't the best cyclist in the world but just the most famous. This is similar to calling the winner of Wimbledon the best tennis player in the world; the true tennis fans and historians will find that laughable.
I do see alot of grown men and women who cling onto the notion of a pure saintly athlete when the laws of logic and good old fashion common sense state otherwise. This inability to let go and see the world with an objective mind is another example why most posters on this forum just cannot get in the black long term with their books.Comment
