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.

(Huffington Post)   Chicago Marathon won't let Lance Armstrong run in their race because they heard he's a doper   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 30
    More: Sad, Chicago Marathon, Chicago, half marathons, U.S. Anti-Drug Agency, triathlons, United States Anti-Doping Agency, World Anti-Doping Agency, Bo Jackson  
•       •       •

1032 clicks; posted to Sports » on 08 Sep 2012 at 5:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-08 12:21:18 AM
Dear Lance -
Heard you're not busy Oct. 7. I've got a poker game going at my house and you are cordially invited.
Sincerely,
Jose Canseco

P.S. BYOB, and not that Michelob Ultra shiat
 
2012-09-08 01:32:53 AM
Well, that;s just a shame

/I'm sure he would have had a ball
 
2012-09-08 02:02:36 AM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-08 07:40:22 AM
Or rather "Lance Armstrong banned from all competitions sanctioned by US Track & Field, or any other governing body that works with USADA/WADA". Drugs bans are drugs bans, and they cover any sport where drugs sanctions are imposed by the same sanctioning body.
 
2012-09-08 08:04:11 AM
Way to go, numbnut.
 
2012-09-08 08:13:04 AM
If ever professional athlete who was doping admitted it hopefully people would realize the USADA is a sham and we'd be able to make realistic rules.
 
2012-09-08 09:01:47 AM
They told him to take his ball and go home...
 
2012-09-08 10:21:35 AM
Band from Tri-Athalon also.
 
2012-09-08 10:43:41 AM
Chuck Norris and Lance Armstrong entered a contest to see who had the most balls.

Chuck won by five.
 
2012-09-08 11:26:33 AM
Yeah, THIS is where you need to put your foot down and take a stand, you shiatty city
 
2012-09-08 11:28:19 AM

gwowen: Or rather "Lance Armstrong banned from all competitions sanctioned by US Track & Field, or any other governing body that works with USADA/WADA". Drugs bans are drugs bans, and they cover any sport where drugs sanctions are imposed by the same sanctioning body.


A drug ban based on a lack of evidence. They have no proof he actually used drugs.
 
2012-09-08 11:45:25 AM

stoli n coke: Way to go, onenut.


FTFY


deadcrickets: A drug ban based on a lack of evidence. They have no proof he actually used drugs.


I have wondered why the USADA kept hounding him even though he's never failed a drug test
 
2012-09-08 11:54:51 AM

deadcrickets: gwowen: Or rather "Lance Armstrong banned from all competitions sanctioned by US Track & Field, or any other governing body that works with USADA/WADA". Drugs bans are drugs bans, and they cover any sport where drugs sanctions are imposed by the same sanctioning body.

A drug ban based on a lack of evidence. They have no proof he actually used drugs.


Apart from all the positive tests and witnesses, no proof.
 
2012-09-08 11:54:58 AM
They are trying to use Lance as an example in an effort to get PEDs out of sport.. This is a message to other athletes "Look, if we will string Lance up with no evidence of substance, you can bet your sorry ass we will do it to you too. Toe the line biatches".
 
2012-09-08 12:18:57 PM
who cares?
what a great Vuelta Espana this year, Contador won, but Valverde and Rodriguez gave him a great fight!
 
2012-09-08 12:40:35 PM

spawn73: deadcrickets: gwowen: Or rather "Lance Armstrong banned from all competitions sanctioned by US Track & Field, or any other governing body that works with USADA/WADA". Drugs bans are drugs bans, and they cover any sport where drugs sanctions are imposed by the same sanctioning body.

A drug ban based on a lack of evidence. They have no proof he actually used drugs.

Apart from all the positive tests and witnesses, no proof.


You mean positive tests given by the witnesses, right?

Every single one of them is a tested and caught doper. He's been convicted by testimony of the jailhouse snitch in a sham arbitration where he got to neither see the evidence nor cross examine.

Rick Reilly lays it out
 
2012-09-08 12:45:10 PM

spawn73: Apart from all the positive tests and witnesses, no proof.


If they had a positive test, they'd have produced it. As for the witnesses, what deal were they offered? We know that Lance Armstrong was offered a deal for co-operating.

"We have a test and we can reduce the time of the ban, if you've got something on Lance Armstrong"
"Oh, yeah, Lance was definitely doping, I saw it with my own eyes"
"sign this document".

Whether you think Lance Armstrong did it or not, the process sucks. It's a kangaroo court.

No evidence has been produced
No witnesses have been produced

The USADA has offered Lance Armstrong the arbitration option, but guess who chooses the arbitrators? Oh yeah, the USADA. You can see why he didn't bother with it. Not only would they have found him guilty, but participating in the process would have made it look legitimate "the arbitrators agreed with us" would have been the USADA statement afterwards.

Personally, I say bring on the drugs. Athletes do all sorts of things to improve their body with science, diet, so why not let them fill up on EPO? We might start seeing some more athletics world records, for starters.
 
2012-09-08 01:11:24 PM

TheZorker: spawn73: deadcrickets: gwowen: Or rather "Lance Armstrong banned from all competitions sanctioned by US Track & Field, or any other governing body that works with USADA/WADA". Drugs bans are drugs bans, and they cover any sport where drugs sanctions are imposed by the same sanctioning body.

A drug ban based on a lack of evidence. They have no proof he actually used drugs.

Apart from all the positive tests and witnesses, no proof.

You mean positive tests given by the witnesses, right?

Every single one of them is a tested and caught doper. He's been convicted by testimony of the jailhouse snitch in a sham arbitration where he got to neither see the evidence nor cross examine.

Rick Reilly lays it out


Yeah the witnesses were all caught for doping. Their testimony still amounts to evidence, though you're free to discredit it based on whether you feel the witnesses are credible.

Lance Armstrong was tested positive for EPO in 6 urine samples from the 1999 tour. The A samples are no longer available (they stem from the time before you could detect EPO), but the B samples are.

With only the B samples available it doesn't fulfill the requirements for a conviction.


But, when people claim he hasn't tested positive, they're either lying or illinformed, because he has been tested positive.

Please don't think I personally want to see him convicted, because I don't. I don't care that he was doped, because it doesn't matter to me. I don't think it taints his victories either, given that every single serious competitor to him has either been found to have doped as well, or likely were doping.
 
2012-09-08 01:20:01 PM

spawn73: TheZorker: spawn73: deadcrickets: gwowen: Or rather "Lance Armstrong banned from all competitions sanctioned by US Track & Field, or any other governing body that works with USADA/WADA". Drugs bans are drugs bans, and they cover any sport where drugs sanctions are imposed by the same sanctioning body.

A drug ban based on a lack of evidence. They have no proof he actually used drugs.

Apart from all the positive tests and witnesses, no proof.

You mean positive tests given by the witnesses, right?

Every single one of them is a tested and caught doper. He's been convicted by testimony of the jailhouse snitch in a sham arbitration where he got to neither see the evidence nor cross examine.

Rick Reilly lays it out

Yeah the witnesses were all caught for doping. Their testimony still amounts to evidence, though you're free to discredit it based on whether you feel the witnesses are credible.

Lance Armstrong was tested positive for EPO in 6 urine samples from the 1999 tour. The A samples are no longer available (they stem from the time before you could detect EPO), but the B samples are.

With only the B samples available it doesn't fulfill the requirements for a conviction.


But, when people claim he hasn't tested positive, they're either lying or illinformed, because he has been tested positive.

Please don't think I personally want to see him convicted, because I don't. I don't care that he was doped, because it doesn't matter to me. I don't think it taints his victories either, given that every single serious competitor to him has either been found to have doped as well, or likely were doping.


Citation requested.

I've seen that claim put forth more than once. But every time I actually see Lance in the paper (whether it's Rick Riley or the guy I can't remember from the Tribune) says "No Positive Samples".

SO where is it coming from?
 
2012-09-08 01:39:12 PM

deadcrickets: A drug ban based on a lack of evidence. They have no proof he actually used drugs.


Personally, I consider sworn witness statements to be evidence. If they're good enough to John Gotti, it's good enough for Lance Armstrong. And George Hincapie, Dave Zabriskie, Levi Leipheimer, Christian vand de Velde, Frankie Andreu and Emma O'Reilley are way more credible that Sammy "The Bull" Gravano.
 
2012-09-08 01:40:24 PM
Aw nut(s)...
 
2012-09-08 02:01:31 PM
TheZorker

Every single one of them is a tested and caught doper. He's been convicted by testimony of the jailhouse snitch in a sham arbitration where he got to neither see the evidence nor cross examine.

Rick Reilly lays it out. Quote from that below.

Fine. If he cheated, wipe him out of the record book. Make him pay back the first-place money he won all those years. He gave it all away to his teammates anyway. There's some irony for you. Plenty of those guys -- George Hincapie, Landis, Tyler Hamilton -- were suspected of, or admitted, using banned substance too. 


Hincapie and Frankie Andreu were teammates, I don't think either you or Rick understand how grand tours work. Armstong's domestiques were doped and they didn't get caught and if they did it would be impossible for Lance to win the tour with no team. Grand tours are team events, yes Lance wins the Yellow Jersey, his team does all the work. His team was doped, even if by the slim chance he wasn't doping (my opinion is that he was), how do you reconcile his team was doped to the gills. None of them failed a test at that time. Hell, Marion Jones never failed a drug test....so by that rationale....

Check This.
 
2012-09-08 02:17:44 PM

spawn73: deadcrickets: gwowen: Or rather "Lance Armstrong banned from all competitions sanctioned by US Track & Field, or any other governing body that works with USADA/WADA". Drugs bans are drugs bans, and they cover any sport where drugs sanctions are imposed by the same sanctioning body.

A drug ban based on a lack of evidence. They have no proof he actually used drugs.

Apart from all the positive tests and witnesses, no proof.


Apart from the fact that he was a professional bicycle racer. Crookedest sport in history. Pro wrestling has more credibility.
 
2012-09-08 02:29:52 PM

TheZorker: spawn73:

Yeah the witnesses were all caught for doping. Their testimony still amounts to evidence, though you're free to discredit it based on whether you feel the witnesses are credible.

Lance Armstrong was tested positive for EPO in 6 urine samples from the 1999 tour. The A samples are no longer available (they stem from the time before you could detect EPO), but the B samples are.

With only the B samples available it doesn't fulfill the requirements for a conviction.


But, when people claim he hasn't tested positive, they're either lying or illinformed, because he has been tested positive.

Please don't think I personally want to see him convicted, because I don't. I don't care that he was doped, because it doesn't matter to me. I don't think it taints his victories either, given that every single serious competitor to him has either been found to have doped as well, or likely were doping.

Citation requested.

I've seen that claim put forth more than once. But every time I actually see Lance in the paper (whether it's Rick Riley or the guy I can't remember from the Tribune) says "No Positive Samples".

SO where is it coming from?


http://tinyurl.com/d2pa34x mentions it. But it was all over the news when it occured, especially since Armstrong was still active then.


Basicly it's from the labatatory of Châtenay-Malabry. Though the B-samples alone can't be used to ban someone from misuse of doping due to formalities, they're not less positive though.
 
2012-09-08 04:15:56 PM
Playing the Devil's advocate. In this instance, if he did it or not doesn't matter. Just talking about the legal battles.


Let's say Lance fought this case to the bitter end. And he won.

Yay, he's vindicated himself this time!

How long until the next case is brought against him? The next accusation? How much time, effort, and money is he supposed to put in to defending himself against the endless accusations?

He survived cancer that could (and some would say should) have killed him. There comes a point when the fight doesn't matter anymore, and you just want to live your life. That's the point he finally reached. I can't say I blame him, either.
 
2012-09-08 06:55:45 PM
What a kick to the ball
 
2012-09-08 10:13:57 PM

spawn73: Lance Armstrong was tested positive for EPO in 6 urine samples from the 1999 tour. The A samples are no longer available (they stem from the time before you could detect EPO), but the B samples are.


I don't understand this statement. You say he tested positive for EPO in samples from 1999, but that it was before you could detect EPO. Do you just mean that years after 1999 they still had B samples sitting around, ran them, and found them positive for EPO?

/no horse in this race, although I think that they should have either banned him at the time of the races or they should offer the evidence more openly.
 
2012-09-08 11:20:34 PM

Tuco'sTacos: They told him to take his ball and go home...


He survived being blackballed before...
 
2012-09-09 12:24:23 PM

skrame: spawn73: Lance Armstrong was tested positive for EPO in 6 urine samples from the 1999 tour. The A samples are no longer available (they stem from the time before you could detect EPO), but the B samples are.

I don't understand this statement. You say he tested positive for EPO in samples from 1999, but that it was before you could detect EPO. Do you just mean that years after 1999 they still had B samples sitting around, ran them, and found them positive for EPO?


Yes.
 
2012-09-09 08:21:16 PM

skrame: spawn73: Lance Armstrong was tested positive for EPO in 6 urine samples from the 1999 tour. The A samples are no longer available (they stem from the time before you could detect EPO), but the B samples are.

I don't understand this statement. You say he tested positive for EPO in samples from 1999, but that it was before you could detect EPO. Do you just mean that years after 1999 they still had B samples sitting around, ran them, and found them positive for EPO?

/no horse in this race, although I think that they should have either banned him at the time of the races or they should offer the evidence more openly.


They don't just have B samples 'sitting around' they are stored in the assumption that as the technology improves we will be able to accurately test for more things (as has happened in this case). The idea is, the testing agencies tell the athletes, we may not catch you today but if you think you are taking something undetectable or you have found the perfect masking agent, it is only a matter of time before we work out how you did it and find a way to test for it.
Because, lets face it, the cheats move faster than the folks testing for it. So, having this hanging over their heads hopefully gives them a few sleepless nights as they lay on their beds of money and gold medals.

/not all cheats get the money
//it is cheats all the way down in some sports
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report