Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Stinsok, Jun 24, 2012.
By the testimony of jealous douchebags?
They haven't. Accusations have been made, but that is not a conviction.
Because some people are still bummed about getting their asses kicked in 'their' alleged national sport.
It's a pretty awesome sport. If it didn't take so long, I'd watch it all the time.
I don't get how he's barred from competing while they continue their investigation (which could take as long as they like). He now competes in triathlons and he's prohibited from making a living along with the potential loss of sponsors.
So...he should sue for loss of income, defamation, legal costs, & punitive damages.
THIS should be his response if indeed he is not guilty of allegations.
I always thought that it was strange that the sports news world was making such a big deal about so far, unsubstantiated claims. At this point their just fanning the flames when the fire hasn't even started yet...
I think that to compete in triathlon, cycling, or any sport over which USADA has authority, you have to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions, and not to sue them.
I think bassguppy is saying he should sue whoever is bringing up these accusations.
If you think the claims are far-fetched, you haven't paid much attention to the case
And he should. This whole situation is ridiculous.
So you guys think Tyler Hamilton is a liar, that he lied to a federal grand jury? Really???
Keep in mind that he previously denied these claims.
I don't know if he's guillty or not, but I can see why people would believe it. It's simply more plausible that a man can beat repeated drugs test than it is for a 35+yr old cancer survivor to beat 20yr olds in a gueling bicycle race over and over. Not impossible, but it is improbable. For the record, I think he's guilty but I also think everyone he beat is also guilty. So he beat them fair and square. Boxing and baseball have pretty much killed my naivety (is that spelled right?) towards pro sports.
Along with pretty much every other finger-pointer. They've all been busted while trying to beat Lance.
no matter what, they will seek their pound of flesh, even after passing hundreds of doping tests, this will never die because it's the only way they can diminish him and make money at the same time. Say thank you to Greg LeMond...he started this crap
He has passed over 500 drug tests and never failed one. They should really just drop the whole thing.
He tested positive during the Tour de Suisse in 2001, but nothing ever came of that.
I think this whole debacle for Lance is utter crap. The very reason that rigorous random drug testing was conducted and continues to be conducted with even more technological precision today, is because it is the ONLY way of making a determination of a rider's guilt, with an evidence based protocol that produces quantifiable data.
Everything else, and principally the testimony of others, is just a "he said/she said" situation. Many individuals have their own agendas to tend to (and the personal profits therein), and in some cases, like those with Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis, there seems to be a true vendetta. For a guy like Landis, his situation has been reduced to a life where any press is good press. He has demonstrated a complete lack of credibility, as the evidence shows. His spiteful behavior toward Lance, and the weird side-show involvement of Greg LeMond's accusations, reference to his abused childhood, and the showdown between he and Armstrong was a theater of the absurd (just Wikipedia it if you don't know about it). This entire backstabbing bitchfest exemplifies exactly why random lab testing of all the riders' blood is the only evidence that should be considered, not only for Lance, but for every other rider.
Even if Lance did blood dope, and just figured out how to get away with it better than his competition, I really have no issue with it. To some extent, getting away with it has been a part of pro cycling ever since blood doping first came into practice. Whether ethical or not, the playing field remained level.
A lot of people don't really understand that blood doping is not about taking a performance enhancing drug during a race. It is about taking pints of blood from a rider months ahead of a big race, with or without the aid of erythropoetin injections, to then self-transfuse that same blood back into the same rider, behind closed doors, at various times during the course of a major tour race. The rider ends up with more circulating red blood cells, and thus an enhanced ability for the blood to transfer oxygen from the lungs to the muscles. Blood dopers and their facilitators are careful to not overdo it and end up with what the authorities consider to be an abnormally high concentration of red blood cells, in a given rider's blood. They play it as close as they can, without arousing suspicion.
This sort of doping was very prevalent during Armstrong's glory years at the Tour de France. If he did blood dope then, and just happened to have been crafty or lucky enough to get away with it, I say "good for him", because this was a necessary part of being successful in the sport at that time. If all of the top competitors were doing the same at that time, as many in the sport maintain was the fact, then the playing field was still level, and Armstrong's victories are absolutely legitimate in my mind.
Keep in mind also that a lot of the riders who have been busted in the past - Pantani (RIP), Hamilton, Landis, Ullrich, and even most recently, Contador - all of these guys have been busted by failing tests of their blood, with quantifiable evidence against them. For whatever reason Lance Armstrong has never failed a test, his success cannot be challenged based on the testimony of others who were complicit in whatever scheme was going on at the time.
Also, as an interesting side note, keep in mind that the greatest rider of all time, Eddy Merckx, has freely said many times that he and most of his competitors took amphetamines routinely during races. And if you read about the early history of the Tour de France, there were even a few instances of riders dying during the race from heart failure while jacked up on speed. Competitors of high profile sports, where lots of money and fame are involved, will always try to gain any advantage over their opponents they can get away with.
Whatever the circumstances were, Lance Armstrong's incredible achievements as a racer, remain untarnished to me.
Apologies in advance for the longwinded reply....
Lance did "fail" a drug test. He was able to get a "retroactive" Theraputic Use Exemption (against the rules) for the steriods he was caught using (either his first TdF or the 2001 TdSuisse). His TdF samples from '99 or so showed positive for EPO use. etc.
Armstrong has for a long time been associated with cycling's best "doping docs" and coaches.
All his top competitors from the same era have been popped for doping.
All his top teammates from his winning US Postal teams have "mysteriously" popped positive within about 18 months of leaving Lance's team.
I would love to believe Lance is clean and did it all on his own. I watch from his first TdF win in '99. The longer I follow cycling and the more I understand about the sport the more it is apparent that there has always been a culture of using PEDs to succeed. The "steriod era" of cycling has a long way before coming to an end. The odds are against Lance being an outlier and having done it clean.
The cheaters are always one step ahead of the testers in all sports (soccer, MLB, NFL, etc). Lance has done a great job marketing "Lance" and blurring the lines of fact and legend.
I do however agree, that at some point it is a waste of time and resources to keep trying to catch Lance. Cycling is healing itself and needs to move on from Lance. Similar to MLB moving past Mark McGuire, Roger Clemens etc. None of them tested positive (even Barry never tested postive he admitted it to a Grand Jury) but we all "know" they were using. Jose Canseco was one of those d-bags yet he was telling the truth about drug use in MLB. I believe it is similar in the case of Armstrong.
I do believe Lance was the best at what he did (winning the TdF) against as level a playing field as possible at the time. I believe that cycling doesn't need him anymore and would best be served to let him go. I believe Lance has done a lot more good with his LiveStrong Foundation than his alleged doping has done to damage cycling.
Let Lance ride off into the sunset, so to speak, and let him compete in triathlon. Keep testing him and hope he is doing it clean now.