O/T Lance Armstrong

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
How does he manage to go throughout his career not testing positive? All the evidence, according to Armstrong is 'circumstantial'.
 
Hessle Tiger said:
He won the Tour de France 7 times in a row, if he was up to his neck in it, surely he would have tested positive somewhere along the line. Something about this stinks.
Click to expand...

Talk about head in the sand!

Anyone who thinks Armstrong was clean might as well admit they're a creationist too - the evidence is OVERWHELMING, and Armstrong's backing-down is because he doesn't want the evidence to get a higher-profile, very public airing in a tribunal.

What he did was phenomenal - he won in a level playing field as they were all on EPO. But it was still cheating.
 
Tuckin said:
Talk about head in the sand!

Anyone who thinks Armstrong was clean might as well admit they're a creationist too - the evidence is OVERWHELMING, and Armstrong's backing-down is because he doesn't want the evidence to get a higher-profile, very public airing in a tribunal.

What he did was phenomenal - he won in a level playing field as they were all on EPO. But it was still cheating.
Click to expand...

One reason not to strip him of titles and pass one on to the likes of Ulrich.
 
Yes - as far as I'm concerned no one should be declared winner of any of those tours. They should just pretend they were war years and wipe them from cycling history!
 
glennonslastpint said:
He just seems to have a beef with Armstrong.
Click to expand...

I don't see any evidence of that - he's just a thorough scientist.

glennonslastpint said:
It's still not conclusive, I don't see why authorities should be able to apply retrospective punishment based on circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...

How conclusive does it have to get?????

glennonslastpint said:
During the periods Armstrong was successful, he passed all legally required doping tests, that in my opinion should be that.
Click to expand...

Why? EPO was banned then, and now we have the power to detect it in old samples. We MUST send a message to all current cheats that even if they beat the testers now, they might be found out one day.

I'm amazed by the reaction of some people on here. It's like kids being told that Santa isn't real and refusing to accept it.
 
Tuckin said:
Talk about head in the sand!

Anyone who thinks Armstrong was clean might as well admit they're a creationist too - the evidence is OVERWHELMING, and Armstrong's backing-down is because he doesn't want the evidence to get a higher-profile, very public airing in a tribunal.

What he did was phenomenal - he won in a level playing field as they were all on EPO. But it was still cheating.
Click to expand...

Are you really a cycling fan of any kind?

As anyone who actually knows the sport, knows the fact that Lance passed every drugs tested he was needed to pass, he has never been found positive once,that is the only evidence that matters. Any other evidence is not fact and relies on opinion. Also the rules dictate that people can only go back seven years for their cases, so this breaks that rule. The board that have banned and him have taken his titles off of him have no right to do so, and the board that has the power to do it actually back Lance in his fight agaisnt the USADA so clearly the evidence is not overwhelming and you will clearly see that you have just read media perception. And you have clearly not noticed the first four to say they will testify against him are four people who are set to benefit from this, and they are the only four who have said they have not been bribed into it.

I love the sport of Cycling and like most cycling fans i will back Lance to the hills. The most important aspect is that the fans have not turned on him, and that on numerous social networks including twitter, most fans are backing him.
 
I give up.

































I don't really give up. I just wanted you to have a couple of seconds of thinking "Oh, he's given up because he knows he's in the wrong and he's lost." Like Armstrong has.

How can you argue with these positive EPO tests from 1999? The fact that there was no test that could detect EPO at the time hardly makes him innocent, does it?
 
When the board that actually governs cycling finds him guilty, i will. As the USADA have no authority to strip him of anything. Also the allegations go back to 1996, not 1999, so not sure where you are getting your evidence as it is clearly wrong..... Also it clearly matters on the time period and the authority, as in England we have power over murders in England, we can't go finding that Breivik guilty of something in England can we. Same principal.
 
Personally, i am unsure, i do not have enough evidence, however i believe that if he was guilty as you are saying he would of been found guilty at the time, i also believe that you can't be retrospective and that you can't break your own laws, we can't instantly put the death penalty on someone. You haven't actually defeated my arguement you just keep pushing yours that i have proved flawed.

PS: Link doesn't work.
 
Sorry - here you go. Fascinating (but very long) read:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

He can't have been caught out at the time, as they didn't have an adequate test that could identify EPO - which is why everyone in cycling was using it (just see what Graeme Obree has been saying about his experiences on turning professional, and how his cycling career basically ended when he refused to join in). But EPO WAS banned at the time, and this is why samples should be kept for as long as possible - so cheats can eventually be unveiled.
 
Well lets be clear on a couple of things. WADA and USADA code states that cases cannot be brought against anyone from prior to 8 years ago. The allegations stretch to 1996, 17 years ago, the supposedly failed tests 1999, 14 years ago, the implementation of EPO was 11 years ago, in 2001. If they had tested the samples before 2007 therefore and brought the case then, Armstrong would have a case to answer, with that being 8 years after the "failed" tests. The fact is they were tested by then but the case was NOT brought then. If they thought he was so guilty why did it take FOUR YEARS to conduct the tests on his samples? While that link says that he failed tests, nothing USADA have published says he did, just they have "evidence" which they say is teammates grassing basically. Whats to say the grassing rider wasn't Paulinho, or Popovych, or Basso? All of them are convicted or alleged dopers, what if they are grassing to get money back from fines, or names cleared, and none of this is true? Are the bribes right that USADA paid people to come forward? If you're going to start ignoring code on the number of years, you might as well test everyones, Eddy Merckx, Jacques Anquetil, Bernard Hinault, you might as well go back and test the bloody lot if you're going to ignore the regulations that suit you best to ignore.
 
I'd happily test them all and sling 'em out if their samples fail! I want cheats caught, rather than getting off on technicalities.

I completely agree that some of Usada's actions have been weird, with many of their witnesses easily discreditable - and with that in mind it's surprising that Armstrong didn't think he could beat the rap.
 
If you were to strip Armstrong of his titles then you are opening a can of worms. Many, many athletes of all sports have taken performance enhancing substances since the year dot. Until recent times almost all of them will have gotten away with it.

A while back, we had a thread about that documentary on the competitors of the 1988 olympic 100 meters final. To cut a long story short, one of the lab guys responsible for testing had held on to samples from the 1984 olympics. Out of curiosity, he decided to test them using modern techniques. That many results were positive he just decided to stop and accept some things are best left in the past.

If Armstrong was a doper, he was only one of many at a time when it was part of the culture of the sport.
 
The simple fact remains that LA never failed a drugs test, and it is suggested that he is/was the most tested professional sportsman ever, the only evidence the USADA have is statements from proven drug cheats. If the USADA had a positive sample from LA the stripping of his wins and subsequent ban would be accepted by all but there just inst such a sample.
 
Tuckin said:
It's like kids being told that Santa isn't real and refusing to accept it.
Click to expand...

What the....you are one SICK ****. How the hell else do I get pressies every year? Plus, I KNOW Santa, so seriously, get ****ed.

I think the whole LA thing is ****e, and will do no one any good. The sport had managed to remove most of the stigma of this crap, which was well known, and it now has new, and hopefully clean heroes. All this does is throw the sport back to the dark days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back