If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sports Illustrated) NewsFlash Lance Armstrong's time in France rubs off as he surrenders to U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, loses Tour titles   (sportsillustrated.cnn.com) divider line 524
    More: NewsFlash, United States Anti-Doping Agency, United States, International Cycling Union, Floyd Landis, U.S. Agent, Tour de France, blood doping, EPO  
•       •       •

4116 clicks; posted to Sports » on 23 Aug 2012 at 11:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

524 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-24 02:13:24 AM  

Darth Hater: Lance Armstrong cheated?!? I'm so hurt by this. How dare he cheat the system, become famous, and then raise a shiat load of money to fight cancer. Cancer deserved a fair fight. Shame on you Lance...SHAME ON YOU!!!


i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-24 02:14:14 AM  
Someone should sue the USDF on his behalf. It's a crock.

They burnt their witch.
 
2012-08-24 02:14:29 AM  

JK47: JohnBigBootay: Just google George Hincapie. He was on every team and considered to be his number one lieutenant and extremely loyal and honest to a fault. Never tested positive for anything either. He certainly has no reason to lie about lance and every reason to lie for lance. Anyway, that's whose testimony I want to see.


Well if Armstrong conceding the case is an admission of guilt that he doped then Hincapie's outright admission to the USADA that he doped should be proof enough that he isn't honest to a fault and he tested positive at some point. The fact that he is implicating Lance in exchange for a lenient 6 month ban (in a case devoid of anything other than purchased testimony) should tell you that he has every reason to lie.


You can explain away Landis if you want. And Hamilton even. But now you have to add Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Zabriskie, and Hincapie. There's nobody left man. At what point do you say 'wait a minute... are all of these guys lying? Maybe I've been wrong about this and it's just this one guy who's lying?'

The legacy is gone man. At the very, very best every one of his tours is grossly tainted by the simple fact that virtually his entire team has admitted to doping now. There's simply no way in hell the farking winner of the damn thing was surrounded by this many dopers without knowing what was going on. It was his farking team.
 
2012-08-24 02:15:56 AM  
Chuck Norris once challenged Lance Armstrong in a "Who has more testicles?" contest. Chuck Norris won by 5.
 
kab
2012-08-24 02:19:40 AM  
Actually, reading his full statement, I definitely can't blame him.

USADA is basically deciding that they're the governing body in a race that they have nothing to do with.
 
2012-08-24 02:22:10 AM  

WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: Its cycling and people pay attention to maybe one race a year and even then its only a curiosity at best.

That's only the case in America, in Europe? Not so much. Also there are plenty of Americans who follow cycling quite closely.

Rev.K: Seven times.

Armstrong won his first tour in 99, Landis wasn't even in the race until 02, and was nowhere near the front riders his firs two Tours. And in 06, the last time Armstrong won, Landis finished 9th, over 12 minutes behind Armstrong.


Just curious, how long have you been following professional bicycle racing? Have you ever raced? Do you ever cycle? Thanks.
 
2012-08-24 02:26:29 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Kouvre: Boy, I'm really glad our tax dollars were used to prove that Lance Armstrong cheated when he competed in cycling, instead of funding less important things like education and curing AIDS.

Only a small part of the USADA's budget comes from federal funds.


$1 of federal funding to this joke of an agency is too much.
 
2012-08-24 02:29:43 AM  

dandude28: So out of 600 tests, all passed, they somehow still think he doped? Sounds very much like a witch hunt


236 tests, 233 passes.

His entire team was going to line up and testify against him.

Marion Jones never failed a drug test either...
 
2012-08-24 02:30:28 AM  

Account Created To Respond To Your Idiocy: how long have you been following professional bicycle racing?


I've been following it a good 25 years now, granted not as much in the early days since there wasn't as much on TV to watch and no internet, but back when LeMond won his Tours I was already a big fan. I never did race though I used to ride a bunch, at 15 I was riding a good 220 to 300 miles a week, depending a bit on the weather and I had no problem riding at a nice clip. And I really did want to race, alas the velodrome in the area wasn't exactly close to where I was growing up and getting my parents to agree to take me there a few times a week would've been a hard sell. And at the time wasn't very much in the area for road racing either. Though there was some stuff, tour rider Christian Vande Velde grew up not very far from where I did and he's just two years younger than I am. Then again his dad was a former rider, so wasn't like he had to ponder asking his parents if he could race.
 
2012-08-24 02:31:37 AM  

kab: Actually, reading his full statement, I definitely can't blame him.

USADA is basically deciding that they're the governing body in a race that they have nothing to do with.


Yeah, not sure he's giving you the whole scoop there. He sort of falls to mention the 09/10 blood they claim to have. Or that four brand new teammates who have not written books or been positive in the past are ready to roll on him. I'd have declined the hearing too. What would you rather be? Seen as guilty and be done with it? Or be seen as guilty while you and a million other people closely scrutinize your shame as scientists reveal their damning results right before you watch your closest friend and longest loyal teammate expose you on the witness stand?
 
2012-08-24 02:34:32 AM  

echo5juliet: LIVEWRONG

/too soon?


too late
 
2012-08-24 02:36:31 AM  

WhyteRaven74: relaxitsjustme: #1 is the fact that he held the TdF ITT record for years

If you mean the speed record, he stills has it. Also LeMond rode in an era where you were allowed to time trial on a bike where the front wheel was smaller than the back wheel which would put the rider in fairly aerodynamic body position. Interestingly LeMond didn't always use such a bike for time trials, but here's a pic from one time trial when he did

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 550x361]


I'm not going to get into a big pissing match about whether LeMond doped but he put 58 seconds into a confessed doper. So to me it's the same thing as the people saying Armstrong is clean while beating a bunch of dopers.
 
2012-08-24 02:38:27 AM  

WhyteRaven74: at 15 I was riding a good 220 to 300 miles a week


300 miles?
 
2012-08-24 02:46:04 AM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: 300 miles?


Yeah, not hard to do over the course of a week, even riding just 5 days during the week. Just average of 60 miles a day for each day riding, not a big deal. I rode over 80 miles in a single ride here and there.
 
2012-08-24 02:46:20 AM  
I certainly know guys who do that. I would if I could but that's a good month for me. Then again I suck.
 
2012-08-24 02:48:19 AM  

WhyteRaven74: BobNesta420: Everyone is suspect.

There really wouldn't be a reason to suspect Indurain given what was widely known and circulated about his physiology that provided him advantages as is that couldn't be gotten by taking any sort of performance enhancer.


But isn't there some story about Armstrong having an enlarged heart that gives him some physiological advantages? And Michael Phelps having double jointed ankles, or something like that? These guys may have some natural advantages over other typical super athletes that they were competing against, but in this era of rampant doping, it seems to make sense that if everyone else is doping, that these guys who already have a natural advantage would have a leg up to put them over the top if they were doping too. But if these naturally gifted athletes weren't given an advantage because their competitors were doping, wouldn't they be on somewhat equal footing? So why wouldn't it be possible that Indurain could have been doping just because everyone else was, to make him that much better?

If everyone is doping, then the guys with the natural advantages could be put on an equal footing to capitalize on their natural advantages to put them in a position that they were better than the rest. So, if a non-doping Indurain is better equipped than any other non-doping cyclist, then a doping Indurain would be better than other doping cyclists. Same is true with Armstrong, I would guess. I'm no professional in this matter, by any stretch, but I'm still inclined to think that in an era when so many people are doping, how can we assume that the best athletes aren't also doping just to capitalize on their natural physiological advantages. So, if we assume Armstrong was doping with his natural advantages, how can we not assume that someone else wasn't? 

There are just too many questions to assume that Armstong was definitely doping, but Indurain or LeMond wasn't. It hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Armstrong was doping, and it hasn't been proven that those other guys weren't. So it still seems very arbitrary that we go after Armstrong and strip his titles, but the other guys get a pass. As far as I'm concerned, everybody probably was, and these guys were just better than the rest during this tainted period.
 
2012-08-24 02:53:07 AM  

JosephFinn: So he doesn't admit guilt, but just stops fighting the witch hunt. I'm OK with that.


The bastards have dogged Armsrong for so many years it is ridiculous. Despite constant litigation and "charges," Armstrong has consistently prevailed. At this point his options are go bankrupt paying lawyers to fight another round or just throw in the towel. He doesn't get a public defender in this Kafka-court. As far as I'm concerned, this is not "justice" or anything of the kind.

They should all just drop it.
 
2012-08-24 02:56:17 AM  
I think a lot of what I see is an anger / denial thing going on here. And I'm still shocked that do many believe an innocent Armstrong would quit on the eve of the last time he'd have to deal with this investigation. He didn't quit because he thinks the evidence is trumped up. He quit because he doesn't want to sit there at an ugly varnished oak table in a hard chair whilst they parade it in front of him. oh, and watch all his former teammates tell everyone he's a juicer and spill specifics.

Best case he's a criminally negligent dolt who was literally surrounded by dopers despite the fact he hired the coaches and trainers and was, as has been so painstakingly detailed by so many writers, completely in charge of everything. It simply strains credibility that he did not know anything.
 
2012-08-24 02:56:41 AM  

BobNesta420: But isn't there some story about Armstrong having an enlarged heart that gives him some physiological advantages?


There was some stuff like that, but Indurian's lung capacity was almost 30% bigger than average and his resting heart rate was in the neighborhood of 30 to 32 beats a minute. They did the usual performance tests on him and his body just wasn't taxed the same way other riders' bodies were. It was why he did so well in time trials. His body didn't have to work as hard as other riders to get oxygen to where it needed to go, which in cycling is a huge advantage.
 
2012-08-24 03:00:31 AM  
From the article I read, they hadn't stripped him yet, and they don't have the actual power to strip him of his titles. They can claim 'banned for life' and 'stripped of titles', but their jurisdiction in the matter isn't being recognized by the international community, and rightly so from what I gather.

It's a shiat storm.

I believe the most telling thing is that the criminal case didn't find evidence, yet this shiat is still going through.
 
2012-08-24 03:01:27 AM  
god damnit.
 
2012-08-24 03:03:55 AM  
thumbnails.hulu.com
It's time
 
2012-08-24 03:18:22 AM  
When I was a kid, the Tour was a big thing to watch... we only had like 30 channels back then. But now... I'd never even have known about the last Tour except for minute blips on SportsCenter. Maybe this is just an effort to draw more attention to an event that's fallen by the wayside.
 
2012-08-24 03:19:27 AM  
WHOA WHOA WHOA. I just read the SI article. Jesus, that was vicious in comparison to the regular CNN site article - which provided much more information. That thing was just spewing hatred from the pages.
 
2012-08-24 03:20:30 AM  

mbuna: fallen by the wayside.


in Europe it's still one of the biggest things in sports. Part of the problem in the US has been the coverage has been all over the place, hard to keep a good following when the coverage is a mess, though this year's was pretty darn good.
 
2012-08-24 03:26:14 AM  

DeathByGeekSquad: I just read the SI article.


If it's the same one I'm reading right now, the author can't even manage to get what Armstrong is accused of doing right. Guy says steroids, but Armstrong isn't accused of using steroids, but rather EPO, which boosts red blood cell counts and of using transfused blood to up his red blood cell count. Which actually for a rider in the Tour is more help than steroids really would be.
 
2012-08-24 03:28:26 AM  

mbuna: the Tour was a big thing to watch.


and thanks :)
 
2012-08-24 03:33:50 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Account Created To Respond To Your Idiocy: how long have you been following professional bicycle racing?

I've been following it a good 25 years now, granted not as much in the early days since there wasn't as much on TV to watch and no internet, but back when LeMond won his Tours I was already a big fan. I never did race though I used to ride a bunch, at 15 I was riding a good 220 to 300 miles a week, depending a bit on the weather and I had no problem riding at a nice clip. And I really did want to race, alas the velodrome in the area wasn't exactly close to where I was growing up and getting my parents to agree to take me there a few times a week would've been a hard sell. And at the time wasn't very much in the area for road racing either. Though there was some stuff, tour rider Christian Vande Velde grew up not very far from where I did and he's just two years younger than I am. Then again his dad was a former rider, so wasn't like he had to ponder asking his parents if he could race.


Cool. I've been riding and following racing, for like 30 years now myself. I used to race criteriums mostly, and some road races. I used to kill it on an MTB until the bike got stolen. Just today, I rode at the BMX park for a session.... So I'm really getting a kick....

I'm saying that Lance doped, like the whole peloton did during that time. Surely you remember Lance before cancer when he was a great one day racer, like Kelly was. He didn't do too well in his first tours, still a great one day racer- won the greatest one-day race; the pro worlds. Suddenly the cancer survivor John Wayne American Cowboy starts winning the tour and it starts making cycling popular again with potential boatloads of money to be made off of the American market. It stands to reason that the UCI would then benefit from the increase of popularity of racing by looking the other way to certain racers doping. If you recall, the USADA's letter alleges corruption coming from the UCI and I believe that the USADA was very willing to name names within the UCI as well. Recall that two of the allegations against Lance are that he a got a back-dated TUE for a steroid cream while leading the tour in 99 and making a so called donation to the UCI to cover up a positive test after the tour of Switzerland. They also claim blood doping in samples of 2010 and 2011 from the last comeback, evidence of which they claimed would be revealed at arbitration. Arbitration that Lance chose not to fight. What does this mean? Well, this isn't a criminal trial. What this seems like to me is that the USADA is part of the WADA, which governs international competition sports. Pro cycling signed on to the WADA code to be recognized as an international competition sport. USADA, as part of the WADA rules the UCI signed off on, has stated that they have evidence to disqualify his results, and are in fact doing so. Lance has recourse to address the arbitration panel and refute their claims, publicly if he chooses to do so. Looks like he choose not to show up and defend himself. To me this is more easily understood as like a job dispute. Imagine if Lance was a contractor, and he got caught cutting corners on materials or billing hours or something, and the licensing board says "don't trust anything built by this guy," and also he is never allowed on job site again- i.e., no more competing in any WADA sport- triathalon. They just kicked him right in the nut in front of the whole world and gave himself a chance to fight back and he did not. Seems odd, don't you think?

Been drinking and may not reply until tomorrow.....

Cheers. Ride on.



Suck it Lance. DOPER
 
2012-08-24 03:39:13 AM  
LIVESTR*NG

/amidoinitrite?
 
2012-08-24 03:50:24 AM  
"LIESTRONG"
 
2012-08-24 03:56:21 AM  
I think that for the month prior to the Tour de France, all competitors should be confined in a big building, with 24-hour surveillance.

That way, any effects of doping will have worn off
 
2012-08-24 03:57:07 AM  

Account Created To Respond To Your Idiocy: I rode at the BMX park for a session..


heh I actually want to get a BMX bike myself.

As for Armstrong and doping, he may well have done it, my issue is with how things are being handled. If there is a positive test result, there's no point in trying to line up people to testify and all the rest, you have physical proof of cheating and that ends it. Also there's issue of when the positive test result is from, if it's from 09 but they can't haven't turned up anything in his earlier samples, of which they would have lots, then the punishment is a bit hinky. But mostly I'm just a bit displeased with how the USADA is handling things.
 
2012-08-24 04:02:49 AM  
Maybe cycling as a whole should be investigated, how could he have passed the tests when he was actually racing if they had samples that show he was cheating? Good thing Americans don't actually care about cycling as a sport.
 
2012-08-24 04:04:03 AM  

rga184: CommieTaoist: I don't really care but there still has been no clear evidence that he doped, the only thing they have is Landis who is hardly an impartial witness. This reeks of "everyone thinks he's guilty so he must be guilty" which is fine in the court of public opinion but not in anything that actually matters. They keep on investigating, investigating and investigating until finally anyone would have enough. Don't get me wrong, I'm not say he absolutely didn't dope but there has been no conclusive evidence released and you know damn well that the French would have been all over the media if there was any clear evidence.

Agreed, every single allegation came from a cyclist who just happen to be selling a book.

I would not be at all surprised if they found concrete evidence of his doing, but neither do I take his wins against former dopers as de facto proof of cheating. The guy had arguably the best tour de france teams assembled specifically to help him win. Look at his first victories against Ulrich. Armstrong had two out three guys pulling him up the mountain long after Ulrich's lieutenant had left him alone. That makes a hell of a difference.

I actually met a guy who tested lance a an amateur. His VO2 max from that test is still the highest ever measured. Is it just possible the guy was just a statistical outlier?


In addition he produces less lactic acid than the average person. Ohhhh......lactic acid build up is something that you don't experience in front of the computer btw....no matter which particular porn you are fapping to.

An article describing his physical characteristics through the eyes of a researcher:

Link

If he was doping, I would have thought that would have come out during the 7 years he was winning, not now. Show me the positives for any of the Tours that he won. That's all I need to see. Until then, I really don't give a fark what the USADA has to say.
 
2012-08-24 04:05:53 AM  
I'm not sure who they want to give the titles to if Lance is stripped. Basso, Ullrich, Klöde, Pantani? All of the 2nd and 3rd placers were dopers. Is anyone going to Spanish Inquisition those guys if they get handed a title they allso don't deserve?
 
2012-08-24 04:10:07 AM  

HaywoodJablonski: That way, any effects of doping will have worn off


For what the big thing is among cyclists, wouldn't need that long. EPO which is used to boost red blood cell production doesn't provide benefits for long at all once you stop taking it. The body returns to its usual red blood production and count drops pretty fast unless you happen to be up at altitude. In the case of transfusions to bump red blood cell count, that disappears even faster. In the case of testosterone it's in and out real fast, in the 06 Tour when Floyd Landis got caught with too much, his test the day before came back with normal testosterone levels, then after the sixteenth stage he wasn't even close to what's acceptable and a test a day later would have him pretty well back to acceptable levels unless he took some more. Landis was a case of a performance that just raised eyebrows. On the sixteenth stage of the Tour he didn't just ride badly he looked like he utterly fell apart. The next day he just flat out blew by everyone, which raised some eyebrows. It's not unusual to see a rider ride not well one day and ride well the very next, but you don't see them go from riding just badly one day to having an all time awesome ride the next day. There was some talk that he had been using synthetic testosterone all along and just screwed up that one day with whatever he would've done to mask the levels, but given his performance that doesn't seem all that plausible.
 
2012-08-24 04:20:41 AM  
Here is what would be awesome....if Lance is stripped of his titles, and all of the cyclists declined to accept the rank promotion. Imagine, no Yellow Jersey for those years.
 
2012-08-24 04:30:34 AM  
Yet another example of motorists screwing with innocent bicycle riders.
 
2012-08-24 04:56:14 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Account Created To Respond To Your Idiocy: I rode at the BMX park for a session..

heh I actually want to get a BMX bike myself.

As for Armstrong and doping, he may well have done it, my issue is with how things are being handled. If there is a positive test result, there's no point in trying to line up people to testify and all the rest, you have physical proof of cheating and that ends it. Also there's issue of when the positive test result is from, if it's from 09 but they can't haven't turned up anything in his earlier samples, of which they would have lots, then the punishment is a bit hinky. But mostly I'm just a bit displeased with how the USADA is handling things.


I pretty much agree with this, from my perspective this certainly is a witch hunt because of the number of times they've gone after him for the same thing and in fact, even the same races. There was even a criminal investigation that didn't go anywhere.

I know this isn't the real judicial system, but there has to be a limit of the number of times you can put someone on trial for the same presumed offense, otherwise everything is more or less politically motivated to some degree or another.
 
2012-08-24 04:59:19 AM  
On the issue of the there being a lot of people doping, during one of the big climb stages this year they compared the times on one of the climbs this year to those of the past, and even the very best climbers this year couldn't match what had been done 8 years ago or even 15 years ago. Indeed in the late 90s the times just dropped like a stone, then two years ago shot back up back to roughly what they used to be. So either all of a sudden the best climbers in the world got way better and then got way worse, all at the same time mind you, or something was up.

And because it's come up Greg LeMond's record for fastest speed in a Tour time trial isn't actually so odd, it was the last stage of the Tour, so no point in holding back at all and LeMond was a very good time trial rider to begin with. It wasn't exactly shocking he could cruise along at 36 mph given such speed was not beyond what he had already shown himself capable of. Plus it was a fairly short time trial, just over 15 miles which means even less concern with holding back. And also the speed comes down to a part of cycling that doesn't get talked about much, gear ratios. LeMond rode a 54x12 almost the whole way, that's 54 teeth in the chain ring up front and 12 for the gear in back. He did shift as he came up the Champs Elysees to an easier gear, 54x13. By way of comparison a regular road bike you can get at a local bike shop might have a top gear of 50x14 or if it's a bit more performance oriented 52x12, and while it doesn't seam like there's much different between a 50x14 and a 54x12, there's a good amount of difference. Also the average mere mortal will have their quads begging for mercy if they tried to really push a 54x12.
 
2012-08-24 05:00:51 AM  
Those pointing out that "eveyone else was on drugs so awarding the titles to someone else doesn't solve the problem" are in some way correct. However, the argument also somewhat condemns Armstrong as to suggest one clean guy could beat everyone else who was doped has always troubled me.

I recently read David Millar's autobiography (which I recommend) and his view of Armstrong is interesting as is his relationship with him through the book. In short, towards the end of his book, Millar basically makes the same suggestion - eveyone else was doing it so it is almost impossible to believe Armstring didn't.

As for the testing issue, the way I undertsand EPO doping (mostly from Millar's book) is that if done methodically in training it will never be picked up in a race and that was all the testing there was then. If you want to know about doping in cycling read Millar's book.

I'd like to believe that he was clean but balance of probablilities is against it.
 
2012-08-24 05:12:17 AM  
long live Greg Lemond
 
2012-08-24 05:15:04 AM  

Brigandaca: is that if done methodically in training it will never be picked up in a race and that was all the testing there was then


Well if it's done right it can work out that way, but the UCI is coming out with something called a blood passport that's going to make it a lot harder. Basically they'll take random samples of blood and urine and beyond checking for EPO they'll also check red blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels and establish they are within the rules. Then this will be used as a baseline for subsequent testing, you know what each riders' baseline counts are, so if they get tested during the season and all of a sudden their counts are off, it makes it easier to spot EPO use or transfusion based doping.
 
2012-08-24 05:25:53 AM  
I have just one question: whether he doped or not, why should I give a fark?
 
2012-08-24 05:51:23 AM  
But on the bright side, OJ Simpson just got a long-awaited golf partner.
They're perfect for each other.
 
2012-08-24 05:57:55 AM  
The man has never failed a banned substances test. So why have various persons kept hounding him, looking for something, anything, to get him on? Why do they want so badly for it to be true that he used banned substances? And why is it that he can be stripped of his gold metal, Seven TourDeFrance wins and prize money since 1998 even though his accusers have not proven anything?
 
2012-08-24 05:58:34 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Brigandaca: is that if done methodically in training it will never be picked up in a race and that was all the testing there was then

Well if it's done right it can work out that way, but the UCI is coming out with something called a blood passport that's going to make it a lot harder. Basically they'll take random samples of blood and urine and beyond checking for EPO they'll also check red blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels and establish they are within the rules. Then this will be used as a baseline for subsequent testing, you know what each riders' baseline counts are, so if they get tested during the season and all of a sudden their counts are off, it makes it easier to spot EPO use or transfusion based doping.


Then & now. This just didn't exist at the time in any sort of regulated fashion. The creastion of the Garmin Slipstream team was the start of cleaning things up and Sky went further. Again, all covered in excellent detail in Millar's book.
 
2012-08-24 05:59:39 AM  
Adding to my last post, do his accusers have something to gain? Or is it "I don't understand how he can be doing so well and not be using banned substances, so he must be using banned substances!"
 
2012-08-24 06:01:25 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: The man has never failed a banned substances test. So why have various persons kept hounding him, looking for something, anything, to get him on? Why do they want so badly for it to be true that he used banned substances? And why is it that he can be stripped of his gold metal, Seven TourDeFrance wins and prize money since 1998 even though his accusers have not proven anything?


Not failing the tests is only as good an argument as how extensive the testing was and at the time the testing was poor. In essence, you could do anything you liked outside of a race especially if you lived in Spain or Italy rather than France.

That said, as everyone else was doing it too - does one drug cheat beating other drug cheats invalidate the result?
 
2012-08-24 06:09:55 AM  

doglover: I consider doping to be acceptable


I know you're just trolling, but over breakfast we got a chuckle imagining what it would be like if there was an Olympics just for drug cheats - any and all doping would be mandatory.

Imagine the thrills, the broken records, the popped veins, the epic rages on the medal stands, and the the unfortunate deaths during the events. Admit it, the ratings would make Rollerball and Death Race 2000 look like Captain Kangaroo.

Hell, why we're at it, why not do the same for children's sports? It'd be HILARIOUS to watch kids play to WIN!
 
Displayed 50 of 524 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report