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.

(CBC)   Armstrong stripped of Tour de France titles, Moon Landing   (cbc.ca) divider line 483
    More: News, Tour de France, UCI, Court of Arbitration for Sport, Johan Bruyneel, Contador, Andy Schleck, Floyd Landis, Pat McQuaid  
•       •       •

7319 clicks; posted to Sports » on 22 Oct 2012 at 8:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-22 09:55:26 AM
But he did win 7 Tour de France victories and they can never take that away....oh, wait...
 
kab
2012-10-22 09:55:45 AM

maddermaxx: I mean, these people, many famous cyclists in their own right admitted to doping themselves in order to testify against Lance Armstrong.


More than a few of them tested positive themselves, and were either removed from races or stripped after the fact.

If the Armstrong investigation level of effort and scrutiny were applied to every other tour winner since '65, I wonder how many 'legitimate' winners you'd actually end up with.

The sport needs to, at some point, draw a conclusion that if you win, and a year or so goes by with no testing proof otherwise, then you stay in the record book and the sport just moves on.

Otherwise, you get the current situation that who gets busted for dope is bigger news than who actually wins, which is very bad for the sport.
 
2012-10-22 09:55:59 AM

BeesNuts: Carth: Oh no he used steroids in a sport where everyone used steroids! So officially no one won all those years since?

That is in fact their official position at the moment. Yes. It's retarded.

If everyone is "cheating", couldn't we just call that "training"?


Exactly. If the goal of anti-doping rules is to create a level playing ground, but all the top athletes are doping anyways we still have a level playing ground just not the one the officials wanted.
 
2012-10-22 09:56:31 AM

maggoo: I've remember when the french cycling federation accused Lance Armstrong for using performance-enhancing drugs, a horde of americans quickly came up with a bunch of conspiracy theories and repeatedly insulted France.

Now the US anti-doping agency points out the exact same conclusions and I hear no apology being given to France and the french.


Because they had no evidence.


dr_blasto: Why ban Armstrong for life, but give Floyd Landis and Contador a comparative break?


Didn't they admit it?
 
2012-10-22 09:57:35 AM

Mose: The moral framework is- you agree to a set of rules before competing. If you deliberately break these rules and enable, encourage and coerce others to do so while you actively avoid being caught by people trying to enforce these rules, then you are immoral.


But if you don't get caught, it's a W in the Spartan playbook.
 
2012-10-22 09:57:38 AM
RCA tried to take his patents about FM from him.

upload.wikimedia.org

Eventually, the courts ruled in his favour.
 
2012-10-22 09:57:47 AM

Carth: BeesNuts: Carth: Oh no he used steroids in a sport where everyone used steroids! So officially no one won all those years since?

That is in fact their official position at the moment. Yes. It's retarded.

If everyone is "cheating", couldn't we just call that "training"?

Exactly. If the goal of anti-doping rules is to create a level playing ground, but all the top athletes are doping anyways we still have a level playing ground just not the one the officials wanted.


Yeah but who cares what enhanced people can do? I think the anti-doping measures are because we want to see what a human can do without outside help, it's inspiring. What isn't is knowing I can take a 20 to mexico and get a shortcut to athletic prowess.
 
2012-10-22 09:57:55 AM
1) Lance was never hated by France, in fact he was the only cyclist to speak to the audience at the finish line in 2005.
2) NOT EVERY GT WINNER DOPED!
3) im deleting his WC on wiki win because according the UCI he is to be ignored!
 
2012-10-22 09:57:57 AM

maddermaxx: tomWright: maddermaxx: kregh99: destrip: How can they accuse him of cheating if he never failed a doping test?

And we're done.
(not really, but we should be.)

All of the evidence is circumstantial at best. Guilt by association is not evidence. If he used, I'm all for stripping his titles. But come up with better evidence than disgruntled non-winners and "because he was around other users, he must have used" crap.

There's quite a few witnesses who were on his own cycling team who also testified against him, 11 of them apparently. These aren't a few disgruntled losers, they're his team mates, and the number of them testifying against him would make it a pretty unlikely conspiracy.

absolutely.. We all know how quantity of testimony improves its truthyness.

Just look at the inquisition, Salem witch trial, mcmartin pre-school, the billions who testify to the truth of various scriptures. All that testimony that physically impossible things happened means they did occur!

Who, precisely, would you believe then?

I mean, these people, many famous cyclists in their own right admitted to doping themselves in order to testify against Lance Armstrong. Seriously, your analogy doesn't work at all because these people aren't just saying lance did something bad, they are admitting, painfully, that they did too, and they will suffer setbacks for that themselves.


believe the tests. If they are insufficient, make better tests in the future. And do not go back and restest after someone passes using the rules in place at the time.

But like all wars on drugs, perhaps we should realize prohibition does not work, and set up a system where everyone that chooses to use these drugs can do so safely under supervision.

It might take a lot of the mythology out of it. I suspect a lot of the belief these drugs do a lot is mythology due to being a black market activity. Some work, most do not. Open information will show which work, which do not, and how safe or dangerous any are.
 
2012-10-22 09:58:36 AM

BeesNuts: Carth: Oh no he used steroids in a sport where everyone used steroids! So officially no one won all those years since?

That is in fact their official position at the moment. Yes. It's retarded.


This is precisely why sanctioning bodies shouldn't write rules they cannot enforce.
 
2012-10-22 09:58:43 AM

max_pooper: Here is a list of all the non-circumstantial and non-hearsay evidence against Armstrong:


So eye-witness testimony from his teammates is now circumstantial or hearsay?? I suspect you don't know what either of those words mean. If a large number of his domestiques, soigneux and assistants say "We took EPO with Lance Armstrong, and he arranged for regular testosterone, EPO and blood transfusions for us and the team", that's not circumstantial, and its not hearsay. It's eye-witness testimony. If you don't understand the difference, I hope I'm never on a jury with you.

Carth: What place do you need to go back to in Lances Tour de France wins to find someone who was still believed to be clean? Were there any in the top 10 or top 20?


It depends. Sometimes there's a probably-clean rider on the podium, sometimes you have to look in 10th place or beyond.
 
2012-10-22 09:59:18 AM
I hope they at least let him keep his gold records.
 
2012-10-22 09:59:28 AM

Carth: BeesNuts: Carth: Oh no he used steroids in a sport where everyone used steroids! So officially no one won all those years since?

That is in fact their official position at the moment. Yes. It's retarded.

If everyone is "cheating", couldn't we just call that "training"?

Exactly. If the goal of anti-doping rules is to create a level playing ground, but all the top athletes are doping anyways we still have a level playing ground just not the one the officials wanted.


For one thing, it wasn't a level playing ground because different teams had varying levels of access to PEDs and they were used to widely varying effectiveness based on the organization and the money available.

And the goal of anti-doping rules isn't only to create a level playing ground.
 
2012-10-22 09:59:40 AM
275 drug tests, Zero failures.

This is an awesome day for haters and America bashers - every frog knows no American can be a champion without cheating! No evidence? No problem. We have heresay and jealousy enough to wipe out his entire career!
 
2012-10-22 10:03:09 AM
cdn4.spiegel.de
 
2012-10-22 10:03:17 AM

Private_Citizen: 275 drug tests, Zero failures.

This is an awesome day for haters and America bashers - every frog knows no American can be a champion without cheating! No evidence? No problem. We have heresay and jealousy enough to wipe out his entire career!


But it is nice to know there are some great cyclist who did not need the blood or needle to win, as in Greg Lemond.
 
2012-10-22 10:03:27 AM
There's too much money in all professional sports for any of them to stay uncorrupted for long. There's just too much incentive to cheat.

How about we stop throwing buckets of money at these over-rated, unproductive leeches? They're just playing a game, FFS.
 
2012-10-22 10:03:33 AM
Lance Armstrong beat an entire field of dopers, seven times in a row by drinking eagle tears and wearing a red, white and blue speedo under his shorts.

His American exceptionalism allowed him to simply rise above the gallons of HGH in the field behind him.
 
2012-10-22 10:03:42 AM
This just in: If you are sponsored by a government agency and are even suggested to have been engaged in illegal activity or any possible impropriety during that time, expect to have the hammer come down, and with a lot of money and energy being invested in said hammer.

But, yeah this all just an anti-cancer witch hunt or something.
 
2012-10-22 10:05:23 AM

Girion47: Carth: BeesNuts: Carth: Oh no he used steroids in a sport where everyone used steroids! So officially no one won all those years since?

That is in fact their official position at the moment. Yes. It's retarded.

If everyone is "cheating", couldn't we just call that "training"?

Exactly. If the goal of anti-doping rules is to create a level playing ground, but all the top athletes are doping anyways we still have a level playing ground just not the one the officials wanted.

Yeah but who cares what enhanced people can do? I think the anti-doping measures are because we want to see what a human can do without outside help, it's inspiring. What isn't is knowing I can take a 20 to mexico and get a shortcut to athletic prowess.


Racers at this level are already spending tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in training and equipment. The average cyclists who might compete in one or two races a year never has a chance to reach the level they are at. Blood transfusions and EPO might make a difference when competing with the top .01% but if they wanted a real "level playing field" normal people could compare themselves to they'd mandate what equipment and training regiments the competitors could use.
 
2012-10-22 10:05:32 AM

maggoo: I've remember when the french cycling federation accused Lance Armstrong for using performance-enhancing drugs,...


No, you don't.

You probably remember some French newspapers accusing him, after some English/French journalists wrotea tell-all book (L.A. Confidentiel), which has been proven almost entirely true. You may even remember Lance's bullying of Christophe Bassons for his writing in "Le Parisien", but the French Cycling Federation (in common with the UCI) never did anything at all.
 
2012-10-22 10:06:11 AM

Mose: BeesNuts: EyeballKid: Skarekrough: You missed the point though. What has Greg done for the sport of cycling lately and how does it compare to what Lance's influence has been upon it over the past decade or so?

When you're a sport nearly devoid of "rock stars" it's stupid to take one down any earlier than absolutely necessary, especially when his presence has advanced it as much as it has.

Without Greg Lemond, there's no precedent for Blackball Armstrong to become the "rock star" of his sport.

Skarekrough: Yeah, he cheated, big farking deal.


It's disturbing how prevalent this line of thinking is. Are there really this many self-centered, shiatty parents?

Explain.

What did he do to cheat? Should it be considered cheating and why? Given all he accomplished both personally and for his sport and surrounding organizations, can we establish a moral framework in which to judge him or others who "cheat" in this way?

I'm going to do a bad just at this but... if the testimony of all is teammates is to be believed he cheated by himself taking substances banned by the governing body under which he was racing and engaging in the organization of a doping program for his team. It should be considered cheating because it was against the rules of fair play, it was deceitful and manipulative, and gave an unfair edge against clean cyclists.

The moral framework is- you agree to a set of rules before competing. If you deliberately break these rules and enable, encourage and coerce others to do so while you actively avoid being caught by people trying to enforce these rules, then you are immoral.


Ignoring the tautology of the argument of why it should be considered cheating, this is a valid argument. I think that's a little too black and white for my own liking, but I can accept it as reasonable.

Now for the governing bodies complicity in the cheating that they themselves defined. Specifically the involvement of Hein Verbruggen. The dude allegedly accepted bribes from Armstrong for nearly 10 years. And at the time, was one of the most vocal opponents to the claims made by Landis in 2010. In fact, when asked about it as recently as May 2011, he said:

"There is nothing. I repeat again: Lance Armstrong has never used doping. Never, never, never. I say this not because I am a friend of his, because that is not true. I say it because I'm sure."

Meanwhile, sponsors, like Nike, were dumping money on the order of half a million dollars into the UCI expressly because of Lance's popularity and his ability to sell merchandise. Surely this would have no bearing on UCI's leadership during this period of unprecedented popularity.

/The ENTIRE ORGANIZATION from top to bottom was complicit in this. Frankly, I think the doors should be opened, the effects of steroids and HGH studied fully and the sales of these drugs brought into the light of day. Stop the use of additional illicit "masking agents" with contraindicative uses. Have team doctors monitor health and wellness (mental/physical) on people in the open.
//Same with baseball, football, soccer, swimming, sprinting, farkin.. jai alai...
 
2012-10-22 10:07:50 AM

Killer Cars: This just in: If you are sponsored by a government agency and are even suggested to have been engaged in illegal activity or any possible impropriety during that time, expect to have the hammer come down, and with a lot of money and energy being invested in said hammer.

But, yeah this all just an anti-cancer witch hunt or something.


This is exactly why we see so many fines and prison sentences for: politicians who take illegal contributions, illegal trades in financial institutions that receive government funding and fraudulent billing from defense contractors. But really tell me how important it is to investigate cycling and baseball.
 
2012-10-22 10:07:54 AM
*shrug* almost any professional athlete you see on television has doped at some point in their lives. If you think otherwise, you are naive. Everyone knows the deal, and everyone knows when the testing happens. You can only detect these things while they're active in your system... and its not like you need to be on it all the time. You bulk and train during the opposite season as testing occurs.

Why do you think the player unions oppose HGH testing so much? Or they agree to things like only testing in the off season.

Of course, this is any field that requires extreme physical performance. You think green berets bulk up to 240 lbs of beast, go off into the field and burn/lose 60 pounds in 3 weeks, then come back and bulk back up to their 240 weight for the text exercise a month or two later naturally too? Hah... hah.... hah....

/I'm not saying I know these things from first hand experience, but I know these things from first hand experience.
 
2012-10-22 10:08:32 AM

Molavian: EyeballKid: 3 time Tour de France winner and former Taco Bell pitchman Greg Lemond may beg to differ.

Who?


Greg LeMond was an incredible athlete with a near-superhuman VO2Max, as well as an all-around great guy with a reputation for fairness and honesty. He won the world's most grueling sporting event three times, apparently without doping. Incidentally, one of these victories was an all-time classic moment in sporting, when he won the 1989 tour on the final day by 8 seconds (in a three-week race!)

Therefore, nobody remembers him.

Compare to douchebag extraordinaire Lance Arminjectionstrong, who not only doped (like many others at the time), but also strong-armed (eh!) some of his team-mates into doping. That is an entirely different level of douchebaggery.

Compare also to Ultimate Epic Douchebag Floyd Landis (remember him?): when LeMond was called to testify against him, Landis' manager called LeMond, in Landis' presence, and threatened to disclose the fact that LeMond had suffered sexual abuse as a kid - a fact that LeMond had revealed to Landis in confidence in a previous discussion while encouraging him to come clean.

Now Armstrong and Landis will go down in history for all the wrong reasons, and LeMond for all the right ones. Good to see that, for once, assholes didn't finish first.
 
2012-10-22 10:09:25 AM
Armstrong stripped of Tour de France titles, Moon Landing

This headline is a real Stretch.
 
2012-10-22 10:11:02 AM

Rev.K: Lance Armstrong beat an entire field of dopers, seven times in a row by drinking eagle tears and wearing a red, white and blue speedo under his shorts.

His American exceptionalism allowed him to simply rise above the gallons of HGH in the field behind him.


He did not, and he only raced in JULY!
 
2012-10-22 10:11:22 AM

Private_Citizen: 275 drug tests, Zero failures.


This is the great Armstrong lie. Lance tested positive for testosterone during the Tour de France in 1999. So he created a back dated prescription for a completely fake "saddle sore" dermatitis, that the UCI accepted as justification. (Note, this isn't the Tour of Switzerland / EPO post-facto fail. This was public knowledge at the time.)

Numerous people, most - like Emma O'Reilly - with nothing to gain and everything to lose. If you want to know how Lance Armstrong operated, familiarise yourself with what happened to Emma O'Reilly.
 
2012-10-22 10:11:45 AM
I knew there would be douche bags defending this guy. And lo and behold.....FARK.
 
2012-10-22 10:12:38 AM

d23: maybe doping should be mandatory.


That's MrsBallou's position. She wants an All-Drug Football League. Speedballs on the sideline and not-holds-barred on the field. If somebody rips an arm off because he's in roid-rage, well, that's just too damn bad.
 
2012-10-22 10:13:37 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: The medals will go to racers who's doping hasn't been caught yet.


Sounds like they're not giving ANY medals for those years...
 
2012-10-22 10:14:45 AM
If you don't use synthetic oil in your vehicle, you're doing it wrong.

Just sayin...as the times change, so do the ways in which we manipulate efficiency. Always has been, always will be, always should be.

Yes, I'm conservative.
 
2012-10-22 10:14:55 AM
For those who think that this should just be let go, water under the bridge and all that, think of it from a different perspective: Outing lance as a cheat is an essential part of cleaning house for the future of the sport.

If they just let it go because "it's in the past", current athletes would see that as saying "you only need to get away with it for a few years, then you're home and dry". This way the athletes will know that they will not just have to get away with it to start with, but to keep getting away with it for years to come, and if it comes out, it can ruin their reputations forever. That's a good incentive to quit doping.

Clean house for the next generation, and maybe you'll have a clean sport in the future, even if drug testing continues to lag behind new drug/masking developments.
 
2012-10-22 10:15:29 AM

BeesNuts: Mose: BeesNuts: EyeballKid: Skarekrough: You missed the point though. What has Greg done for the sport of cycling lately and how does it compare to what Lance's influence has been upon it over the past decade or so?

When you're a sport nearly devoid of "rock stars" it's stupid to take one down any earlier than absolutely necessary, especially when his presence has advanced it as much as it has.

Without Greg Lemond, there's no precedent for Blackball Armstrong to become the "rock star" of his sport.

Skarekrough: Yeah, he cheated, big farking deal.


It's disturbing how prevalent this line of thinking is. Are there really this many self-centered, shiatty parents?

Explain.

What did he do to cheat? Should it be considered cheating and why? Given all he accomplished both personally and for his sport and surrounding organizations, can we establish a moral framework in which to judge him or others who "cheat" in this way?

I'm going to do a bad just at this but... if the testimony of all is teammates is to be believed he cheated by himself taking substances banned by the governing body under which he was racing and engaging in the organization of a doping program for his team. It should be considered cheating because it was against the rules of fair play, it was deceitful and manipulative, and gave an unfair edge against clean cyclists.

The moral framework is- you agree to a set of rules before competing. If you deliberately break these rules and enable, encourage and coerce others to do so while you actively avoid being caught by people trying to enforce these rules, then you are immoral.

Ignoring the tautology of the argument of why it should be considered cheating, this is a valid argument. I think that's a little too black and white for my own liking, but I can accept it as reasonable.

Now for the governing bodies complicity in the cheating that they themselves defined. Specifically the involvement of Hein Verbruggen. The dude allegedly accepted bribes ...


Tautologies are an engineer's best friend. Why doesn't it work? Because it's broken.

Aside from that, while I agree the UCI may very welll have been complicit and the whole dutch motorcyclist thing was just creepy, WADA and USADA was also responsible for enforcement and Armstrong agreed to compete under their rules as well. No one is going to make the argument that they are complicit, so i think that strengthens my argument.
 
2012-10-22 10:16:26 AM
Sigh, I believed until the last moment.
I also think no one else was clean, let him keep his Jerseys
 
2012-10-22 10:16:29 AM
i understand he passed the piss testes. But, when literally every single one of your teammates is saying 'we were all doping', it means the guy was doping.
 
2012-10-22 10:16:39 AM

boluke01: FTA: "The agency said 20 of the 21 riders on the podium in the Tour from 1999 through 2005 have been "directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations" or other means. It added that of the 45 riders on the podium between 1996 and 2010, 36 were by cyclists "similarly tainted by doping." "

Not saying that doping is right, but after reading that, I half don't blame him. Now, the allegations about trafficking coercing people into doping should be dealt accordingly. But it almost seems silly at this point to punish willing participants in doping, when you basically had to if you were to remain competitive.

What matters now is how the UCI handles drug testing from here on out in professional cycling. If they are truly serious, they will clean house...**cue the sound of audience laughter**


Ironic how he's getting his medals stripped because he cheated, suggesting he only won because he cheated, yet he still kicked everyone else's asses and they were cheating too.
 
2012-10-22 10:16:46 AM
I think most people here are lance fans, rather than cycling fans, which i now understand.
my point is some seem shocked and angered over this and blame others the UCI, but blame lance.
he knew the risk of getting caught , and he just lied to himself so much that he believed he was clean.
 
2012-10-22 10:17:51 AM

destrip: How can they accuse him of cheating if he never failed a doping test?


Because he decided to stop fighting the allegations. He essentially said "no mas."

When Armstrong decided in August not to contest the agency's charges that he doped, administered doping products and encouraged doping on his Tour-winning teams, he agreed to forgo an arbitration hearing at which the evidence against him would have been aired, possibly publicly. But that evidence, which the antidoping agency called overwhelming and proof of the most sophisticated sports doping program in history, came out anyway.

He could have had a full hearing, but he chose not to.

Details here

Armstrong relied on the Italian doctor Michele Ferrari for training and doping plans, several riders said. Armstrong continued to use Ferrari even after he publicly claimed in 2004 - and testified under oath in an insurance claims case - that he had severed all business ties with Ferrari.

The antidoping agency noted that Armstrong had sent payments of more than $1 million to Ferrari from 1996 through 2006, based on financial documents discovered in an Italian doping investigation.


Lance Armstrong has now learned that if you're a prick to everyone, they'll all turn on you at the best opportunity. One person saying something 10 years ago wouldn't have been effective, but all these sworn statements together are quite damning.

One more thing - the whole "never failed a drug test" line is a lie.

The team's doctors came up with fake maladies so that riders could receive an exemption to use drugs like cortisone, several riders said. When Armstrong tested positive for cortisone during the 1999 Tour, Armstrong produced a backdated prescription for it, for saddle sores. Hamilton said he knew that was a lie.

He did test positive, and had to cover his tracks.
 
2012-10-22 10:17:58 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Sigh, I believed until the last moment.
I also think no one else was clean, let him keep his Jerseys


sorry
but there were alot of clean GT winners in these decades.
 
2012-10-22 10:19:12 AM

notatrollorami:
Overall his presence on earth has been positive because of the amount of cancer research his cause has funded. But make no mistake if you knew him personally you would consider him a huge dick.


Where are the details of how much has been given for research. IIRC the money raised was fore "awareness" and not research.
 
2012-10-22 10:19:38 AM

gwowen: max_pooper: Here is a list of all the non-circumstantial and non-hearsay evidence against Armstrong:

So eye-witness testimony from his teammates is now circumstantial or hearsay?? I suspect you don't know what either of those words mean. If a large number of his domestiques, soigneux and assistants say "We took EPO with Lance Armstrong, and he arranged for regular testosterone, EPO and blood transfusions for us and the team", that's not circumstantial, and its not hearsay. It's eye-witness testimony. If you don't understand the difference, I hope I'm never on a jury with you.



A judge would probably laugh you out of court if that is your "evidence". I will ask again. Please cite evidence that is not circumstantial or hearsay.

Note: eyewitness testimony of "another teammate said he overheard the team doctor say Lance took HGH" is hearsay. A teammate that says, "I was on his team and I was given steroids so that means that Lance was too" is circumstantial evidence.
 
2012-10-22 10:20:03 AM

SlothB77: i understand he passed the piss testes. But, when literally every single one of your teammates is saying 'we were all doping', it means the guy was doping.


... and yet, its astonishing how people will turn themselves inside out to deny this simple truth,
 
kab
2012-10-22 10:20:16 AM

maddermaxx: Clean house for the next generation, and maybe you'll have a clean sport in the future,


Good luck with that. Drug testing has been going on in cycling since '65.

Alone in the Snark: Greg LeMond was an incredible athlete with a near-superhuman VO2Max, as well as an all-around great guy with a reputation for fairness and honesty. He won the world's most grueling sporting event three times, apparently without doping.


I wonder what would be found if he had gone through the same level of scrutiny that Armstrong has.
 
2012-10-22 10:20:42 AM

max_pooper: machoprogrammer: max_pooper: Here is a list of all the non-circumstantial and non-hearsay evidence against Armstrong:

end

Do you know how I know that you don't know what those terms mean?

Why don't you enlighten us? Please provide all the evidence used against Armstrong that is not hearsay or circumstantial.


Well, for one thing, hearsay is defined as:
1. Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated; rumor.
2. The report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

Since these are people who claimed to personally witness him doping, that cannot be hearsay. If they said, "Soandso said he doped", that is hearsay.
 
2012-10-22 10:20:57 AM

max_pooper: Please cite evidence that is not circumstantial or hearsay.


Exhibit A: 500 passed drug tests.
 
2012-10-22 10:21:11 AM
UCI president Pat McQuaid said: "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling. He deserves to be forgotten."
McQuaid added Armstrong had been stripped of all results since 1 August, 1998 and banned for life for doping.
 
2012-10-22 10:21:16 AM

maddermaxx: For those who think that this should just be let go, water under the bridge and all that, think of it from a different perspective: Outing lance as a cheat is an essential part of cleaning house for the future of the sport.

If they just let it go because "it's in the past", current athletes would see that as saying "you only need to get away with it for a few years, then you're home and dry". This way the athletes will know that they will not just have to get away with it to start with, but to keep getting away with it for years to come, and if it comes out, it can ruin their reputations forever. That's a good incentive to quit doping.

Clean house for the next generation, and maybe you'll have a clean sport in the future, even if drug testing continues to lag behind new drug/masking developments.


That is why you won't ever get clean sports. Endorsement deals are paid yearly; if you cheat, win, and get a 2 million dollar a year endorsement it is worth getting your title stripped in 3-4 years. As long as there are millions of dollars on the line people will continue to dope. I'd much rather they test the participants to make sure they aren't doing something dangerous than force this stupid game of cat and mouse.
 
2012-10-22 10:21:59 AM

maggoo: I've remember when the french cycling federation accused Lance Armstrong for using performance-enhancing drugs, a horde of americans quickly came up with a bunch of conspiracy theories and repeatedly insulted France.

Now the US anti-doping agency points out the exact same conclusions and I hear no apology being given to France and the french.


Meh. I like France, been there several times.

But, some of us are old enough to remember them being a touch smug about the LA race riots.

Didn't hear an apology from them after their Muslims torched every Renault in Paris...
 
2012-10-22 10:22:22 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Sigh, I believed until the last moment.
I also think no one else was clean, let him keep his Jerseys


As I know you're a cyclist, I'm surprised you're not cynical and jaded.

/are up happy? there's no happiness in bike racing!
 
Displayed 50 of 483 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report