Armstrong

[elric]

he won 7 time against ppl who been doped and that had been COUGHT by the SAME test that hadnt cought him !

when i c a test he fail then i say he cheated, and i strongly believe that if the organisation really had a conclusive positiv test it 'strangely' would had been found it way to the media.

 

and in a race where it more about who push himself harder rather then who is phisically supreme -> mentality count.

[SinisterDeath]

So... how does an Athletes Trainer', unknowingly doping the athlete, factor into this debate at all? Afterall, we have that one doctor in California, thats been acused of basically killing several celeberities from over-dosing... Would it take more of an athletes legacy away, if they were caught doping, but didn't know they were?

[ironcross]

if he relly ident know, then i would say it wouldent. that said i think "i dident know" has been used as a crutch by a lot of guys who it was verry obvious that they were. barry bonds, sammy sosa, mark mcguier ect. for them it was just stupid to think they could do it and get away with it.

[Thorum]

Could we please keep this discussion in a readable version of English? Thanks.

[SinisterDeath]

I read that just fine. <_<

[Thorum]

Interesting developments in this case.

 

Looks like Armstrong DID have an unequal advantage to his competitors. Not in the fact of doping, but in the professionalism of doping.

[elric]

when the 'objective' report claim that the reason Armstrong nver been cought by testing while the 'relaiable' witness that it based on all been cought several time (using the same tact the claim Armstrong used) is becouse he WAS LUCKY !!!

or the we used a bice rider in MID RACE to supply drugs and cheat the tests but NOONE NOTICED !!!

 

i feel very certain to regard such a 'report' in VERY VERY VERY !!! limited trust.

 

for me it very simple -> produce a test that show he cheated.

[SinisterDeath]

Wouldn't the answer have been to test them both before and after?

[Thorum]

Some points:

 

How do you know if a witness is reliable?

Is a witness that, because of his account, loses his job, reliable? I think so.

 

Armstrong (and his team mates) knew every control a few hours beforehand, while it only takes a couple of bottles of water to hide the EPO in your blood. Even with that, he WAS caught once (or twice, if I remember correctly). But he bribed the then UCI president to hide that fact.

 

As to getting drugs mid-race, that's easy: the drivers drink enormous amounts during the race. It's not that hard to add a drug in between the water and coke.

 

Riders are being tested all the time (since the last years of Armstrong). A lot of controls out-of-competition, and a lot in-competition (a few teams each morning in tours, the best riders and a few random ones after every race, ...).

 

And lastly, again: please, take care to readability... Elric, I took longer deciphering your post than typing my own.

[Thorum]

So, it looks like "nobody" is gonna win seven Tour de Frances. Probably for the best.

[SBoydW]

No matter how advanced a testing procedure, there will always be a way around it. Mind you that Barry Bonds has never been caught juicing, but all you have to islook at the man and know that he did.

 

I don't fault lance for doping. As a competitor he saw all his competition doing it and knew the he needed to as well to be competitive. I also don't fault the governing body for stripping him because regardless of he reason he still broke the rules.

[elric]

there are 2 points that stick out to me.

 

a.

all the witnesses are riders who BEEN COUGHT.

 

it started when a rider been cought and his defence was -> i'm not that bad , leave me alone , look that big hero is much bigger cheater , i have a lot of HEARSAY to back it.

sorry but that not rank high on my reliablelity meter !!!

 

b.

Armstrong never been cought on testing.

sorry but i dont buy the -> yes we cought him , we swear we do , but he must have bribe the entire organization and that why we CANT PRODUCE the test result.

 

 

there was no one in history who been tested more then Armstrong!

and if he was such a 'criminal master mind' how come the witnesses who saying they used THE SAME TACT got cought and Armstrong dont ???

[MasterAblar]

there are 2 points that stick out to me.

 

a.

all the witnesses are riders who BEEN COUGHT.

 

it started when a rider been cought and his defence was -> i'm not that bad , leave me alone , look that big hero is much bigger cheater , i have a lot of HEARSAY to back it.

sorry but that not rank high on my reliablelity meter !!!

 

Neither Levi Leipheimer, nor George Hincapie had been caught. They were both teamates of Armstrong and the second also happened to be a very close friend.

 

http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/

[Thorum]

And to the other: Armstrong gave one of the most expensive tools in the main UCI doping lab, just after he was found to be JUST below the doping limit.

[elric]

so 2 witness didnt get cought.

 

can it be that they are pissed that no one know who they are and are jealous at their MUCH more famous and successful team-mate ???

 

below doping limit= NOT doped !

there is a reason why there is a doping limit, becouse sometime the body produce similar syndroms.

so the big testing proves are:

a test he supposedly failed but that no one can deliver becouse Armstrong must had bribed the entire Cycling asocoation.

and a test he come close to the limit but HADNT passed it.

hmm... so if a person drink 1 glass of whine he must be an drunk -> he come NEAR to the alcohol blood limit.

 

and this 2 test (the vanished one and the one he PASSED) out of the HUNDREDS he took are the 'sound' base of his guilt ?

[Haxorsist]

No one knows who George Hincapie and Levi Leipheimer are? They're both huge names in cycling!

[Thorum]

Elric, your reaction to the nearly-not-doped report clearly shows you haven't been following cycling for the last 20 years, and are just trying to defend someone considered a hero (by many many people). The evolution of how we catch someone doped has been a constant in this wonderful sport.

 

If nothing would have been wrong, why bribe them?

[elric]

Hax

huge names in cycling i take your word on it.

but Armstrong is an huge Name.

i admit i have little interest in any sport beside football (the REAL one not the armored rugby version) and basketball (go Levron go... :) ).

but i do know who Armstrong is.

i bet that if u ask 100 ppl 85+ will have no idea who this 2 are , but 95+ will know who Armstrong is.

and that is a base for envy.

 

Thorum:

i never had followd cycling.

i have HUGE respect for pro cycler but i found it boring as hell to watch :)))

i do consider armstrong as hero but due to his cancer activities not due to his cycling ability.

 

the way i c this all affair is:

a cycler been cought cheating -> he cut a deal blaming a much more famous name to save his skin -> so YEARS after Armstrong retire, based solely on HEARSAY there an HUGE witch hunt on him.

the only PHISICAL EVIDENCE are a test that ppl SAY had existed but SAY armstrong bribe the entire organisation to get rid off and a test he PASSED.

 

i found this evidenc plimsy at best.

if Armstrong will admit or if there be PHYSICAL evdence he cheated i will agrea with u (will still think he is an hero but an hero who cheated).

but since the evidence dont convince me i dont agrea he cheated.

 

and on a side note the way Armstrong is treated while other top cycler who BEEN COUGHT are treated (temp banishment , no title stripping) is pathetic

[MasterAblar]

so 2 witness didnt get cought.

 

can it be that they are pissed that no one know who they are and are jealous at their MUCH more famous and successful team-mate ???

 

below doping limit= NOT doped !

there is a reason why there is a doping limit, becouse sometime the body produce similar syndroms.

so the big testing proves are:

a test he supposedly failed but that no one can deliver becouse Armstrong must had bribed the entire Cycling asocoation.

and a test he come close to the limit but HADNT passed it.

hmm... so if a person drink 1 glass of whine he must be an drunk -> he come NEAR to the alcohol blood limit.

 

and this 2 test (the vanished one and the one he PASSED) out of the HUNDREDS he took are the 'sound' base of his guilt ?

 

I only named those two because those were the ones I knew of off the top of my head. It's entirely possible that other witnesses had not been caught yet.

 

And while yes it is of course possible that they were jealous, I highly they would throw away their carreers for the satisfaction of ruining his. They don't get anything out of this, but they risk losing quite a bit, not least because their statements were given under penalty of perjury.

 

 

Hax

huge names in cycling i take your word on it.

but Armstrong is an huge Name.

i admit i have little interest in any sport beside football (the REAL one not the armored rugby version) and basketball (go Levron go... :) ).

but i do know who Armstrong is.

i bet that if u ask 100 ppl 85+ will have no idea who this 2 are , but 95+ will know who Armstrong is.

and that is a base for envy.

 

Thorum:

i never had followd cycling.

i have HUGE respect for pro cycler but i found it boring as hell to watch :)))

i do consider armstrong as hero but due to his cancer activities not due to his cycling ability.

 

the way i c this all affair is:

a cycler been cought cheating -> he cut a deal blaming a much more famous name to save his skin -> so YEARS after Armstrong retire, based solely on HEARSAY there an HUGE witch hunt on him.

the only PHISICAL EVIDENCE are a test that ppl SAY had existed but SAY armstrong bribe the entire organisation to get rid off and a test he PASSED.

 

i found this evidenc plimsy at best.

if Armstrong will admit or if there be PHYSICAL evdence he cheated i will agrea with u (will still think he is an hero but an hero who cheated).

but since the evidence dont convince me i dont agrea he cheated.

 

and on a side note the way Armstrong is treated while other top cycler who BEEN COUGHT are treated (temp banishment , no title stripping) is pathetic

 

First of all, Contador was stipped of his title.

 

Secondly I don't think anybody expects you to think he's a terrible person because he doped. Everyone was doing it. While that's not an excuse, I can understand why a pro cyclist would end up doing. On the other the evidence doesn't portray him just as a follower, it portrays him as leader in the doping, even a bully who all but forced others to dope as well. That on the other hand definitely lowers my opinion.

 

That said, none of this changes his message, nor does it change the fact that he came back from fighting cancer to being a pro cyclist. His message goes beyond him, although unfortunately most people will be unable to seperate it from him.

 

Thirdly, Lance was cycling again just a couple years ago. And it's not as if he's not had allegations against him for doping for a long time. He isn't a cyclist from the 70's. He's a very recently retire pro cyclist, and most importantly he was the best of his generation. It's perfectly normal to go after him as a 7 time tour winner, more than against some guy who was finishing 50th. His doping earned him far more.

 

Lastly for the actual evidence of his doping, I'm not going to go into it, because it's just too much. I posted USADA's evidence, if you care to take a look at it. I've only read a small bit myself, but I've read more than enough articles that unambiguously state that the evidence is there, and pretty much impossible to refute, even when these same articles claim that it doesn't really matter, or that there are bigger things to be going after. I have yet to see any article that says that Armstrong did not dope. And to me one of the most convincing arguments is quite simply that, if he wasn't doping there is no way in hell he would ever have done as well as he did. Great as he was, all you need to look at is how widespread doping was on the tour at that point to realize that the chances that he wasn't partaking is nearly non-existant. All of the frontrunners on the tour were doping. All of them. And Armstrong didn't just beat them, he crushed them.

 

Admitting that Armstrong doped is not admitting that he was a bad person. It's just admitting that he did the same thing that his opponents and allies, essentially all those who surrounded him, did. If everything in that report is true, he did worse things. And his refusal to admit his guilt to me is amonst those. If he would just admit, people would forgive him. I doubt they would hold it against him. I know I wouldn't, but they've I've been convinced for a long time that he cheated, that he was no different from the rest. But perhaps that's why people don't want to accept it. Because they don't want to accept that he was no different that the rest. That he wasn't perfect.

 

 

Oh and as a fellow football fanatic, I feel obliged to say that you have great tastes in sports!

[ironcross]

you either die a hero or live to be the vilin

[elric]

sorry about the late respond.

 

Master Ablar i agrea with you on mosat thing with 2 exeptions

 

a.

i know there HUGE amount of testimony against Armstrong, but after all the tests he was put trough i need to c a test result to e convinced he cheated.

that all i request show me a test he failed in.

btw do all this 'brave' witnesses are still competing ?

do they actually risk anything now ?

 

b.

i always percieve Armstrong as the extreme case of mind over body.

he manage to defeat terminal cancer by sheer will power and mental fortidute.

i believe that was his edge,  that he was able to use this tools he develop to survive to push himself harder then his opponents.

correct me if i'm wrong but as i recall his winning and his leap from top cycler to GOAT start AFTER he recover from cancer.

yes his opponent had better (chemicly enhanced) body , but to my believe he had the better mind and pain tolarence.

[MasterAblar]

sorry about the late respond.

 

Master Ablar i agrea with you on mosat thing with 2 exeptions

 

a.

i know there HUGE amount of testimony against Armstrong, but after all the tests he was put trough i need to c a test result to e convinced he cheated.

that all i request show me a test he failed in.

btw do all this 'brave' witnesses are still competing ?

do they actually risk anything now ?

 

Some of them still compete yes: Tom Danielson, Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde, and David Zabriskie. However even those who are now retired face sanctions like the stripping of whatever titles they've won.

 

They have blood tests that are "fully consistent" with blood doping.

 

There are also record of payments of more than 1 million from Armstrong to Ferrari, whom several former riders testified was integral to organized doping within the team. That's... rather suspicious.

 

b.

i always percieve Armstrong as the extreme case of mind over body.

he manage to defeat terminal cancer by sheer will power and mental fortidute.

i believe that was his edge,  that he was able to use this tools he develop to survive to push himself harder then his opponents.

correct me if i'm wrong but as i recall his winning and his leap from top cycler to GOAT start AFTER he recover from cancer.

yes his opponent had better (chemicly enhanced) body , but to my believe he had the better mind and pain tolarence.

He was a promising cyclist before he got cancer, but yes, he won his seven tours after he survived it.

 

However, while I recognise that will power can get you far, I don't believe that it could have allowed him do what he did. Not against those he was competing against, not when you consider that they were all doped. Don't get me wrong I'd love to believe it, I prefer by far to give the benefit of the doubt to athletes even in sports so full of doping. But in Armstrong's case it's just too much, particularly when you consider all the evidence against him.

[Durinax]

However, while I recognise that will power can get you far, I don't believe that it could have allowed him do what he did. Not against those he was competing against, not when you consider that they were all doped. Don't get me wrong I'd love to believe it, I prefer by far to give the benefit of the doubt to athletes even in sports so full of doping. But in Armstrong's case it's just too much, particularly when you consider all the evidence against him.

 

if they are all doping they should ban them all. Even if that reduces the quality of the sport it brings back integrity and reduces peoples urges to commit the crime type deal.

[MasterAblar]

 

 

However, while I recognise that will power can get you far, I don't believe that it could have allowed him do what he did. Not against those he was competing against, not when you consider that they were all doped. Don't get me wrong I'd love to believe it, I prefer by far to give the benefit of the doubt to athletes even in sports so full of doping. But in Armstrong's case it's just too much, particularly when you consider all the evidence against him.

 

if they are all doping they should ban them all. Even if that reduces the quality of the sport it brings back integrity and reduces peoples urges to commit the crime type deal.

Oh, I agree if it's proven that they've doped then certainly they should be banned.

[Thorum]

That would make it easy for statistics of cycling in the late nineties: no one (not doped) started in a lot of the races.

 

It ain't like there was anybody not-doped (at least at the top).