I don't follow the sport and don't know much about it so I'm not going to pass judgement. All I want to point out is that his apparent decision not to fight it is not necessarily an admission of guilt. We were hammered over the Suarez case because he and the club chose not to take it further, but there could be any number of legitimate reasons for making that choice.
Actually... haven't done my fact checking.. but from what i have just read he has shown positive at various times for steroids and epos but was able to get those tests thrown out for various reasons.
Well our owners gave up and rolled over when the English press threatened to toxify their brand over the Suarez thing, even though they knew the FA were as bent as nine-bob-notes, so maybe giving up even when you're not in the wrong is an American trait.
Yeah just read that as well, apparently the tests were not inline with procedure but you can bet that was just administrative so maybe there is an abundance of circumstancial stuff out there that adds up to something more than hearsay in its totality. Thought your previous post #21 was spot on but have to disagree re Brad, just a gut feeling but sure he's clean
I hope he is clean... certainly seems a nice bloke and in many ways gentlemanly. With so many doping in the sport it takes a real miracle to win without cheating.
I couldn't have put it better. I think many people Think like you. I cannot be 100% sure he is guilty. But I believe like many others that he's guilty based on all the stories that had come out over the years. Most of the stories in the past had apparently been from ex-cyclists teammates and most had been found guilty of doping. Armstrong and his legal team have always been able to discredit them. Now apparently USADA have managed to get full testimonies from 'clean' cyclists. Also last week Armstrong and his legal team went to court to stop USADA in their investigation. The Court decided that there was a case to answer as the evidence was there. The legal testimony taken under oath from at least 10 other cyclists couldn't be dismissed. That is why Armstrong gave up fighting his case because he knew it would behis word against 10 others who didn't necessarily have anything to gain from lying. He was apparently advised by his lawyers he couldn't win.
Please stop talking **** about sports you know nothing about. All your basis for argument is "That's what the media say". Since when are they a trustworthy outlet? The sport is not riddled with cheats as someone here said, in fact 95% of cyclists are very strongly against doping. It's the same as any sport, you'll always get people who think they can bend the rules and cheat. Don't condemn the sport just because one person has allegedly been stupid. And to be honest, this wouldn't even make the news if cycling wasn't in the public eye at the moment. If Wiggo didn't win the TdF or the gold medal no-one would care about cycling except cyclists, like before both events.
I hope you are not referring to me as I have not f*****g condemned cycling in general. I have followed cycling for a very long time so you shut the f**k up please
Strange thing is, Landis and Contador were found guilty of doping and stripped of their titles within a couple of years of winning them. Armstrong won 7, and the last of them in 2005. You don't think they rigorously tested him each of those times? The only 'evidence' they have is words. Nothing that actually proves what was or was not in his blood. Odd it's taken until now to get these other cyclists to submit testimonies. If they were aware of his use of drugs between 1998-2005, why didn't they speak up at the time? Since it's allegedly up to 10 'clean' athletes, I'm sure they would've been taken seriously. Most people here have admitted they haven't seen any actual evidence, or that they can be completely sure of his 'guilt'. Why, then have those same people gone on to confess that they 'think' he's guilty?
Good question. No one wants tobe seen and fingered as a grass unless they are forced by a court to give evidence?
Well if there are up to 10 of them, I don't think they'd be too bothered. I suppose they could also issue them via a lawyer and thus not appear in person in a courtroom.
Good point so here is my view. Purely a gut feeling in my case (again) and trying to identify what feeds into that gut feeling specifically gets complicated: Probably that the whole discussion infers that these drugs give a huge performance advantage (don't know how much they actually improve your performance but get the impression its dramatic , may not be the case). So as on a number of these tours other top riders were tested and found positive yet Armstrong was consistently out performing them, maybe infers he may of been on them as well. Maybe b****** he may just be one of those natural athletes and trains hard, or the drugs don't give you a huge advantage so its bridgeable by someone good. Lots of accusations, no smoke without fire (hate that saying as its so often wrong), but lots of people seem to be coming out and speaking, don't know the details of what they have said until the report is released. Could be they are having a go in order to discredit his achievements apparently he was not well liked amongst his peers. Couple of documented cases were he failed tests but they were not performed/documented properly so not valid on a technicality. This in itself worries me that two tests that were positive deemed incorrect, if there was doping going on how high up the organisation were people involved. A few others like his arrogance in interviews, just gives the impression he can do what he wants. All in all doesn't add up to a shred of guilt/evidence that's why I caution against reading too much into him not wanting to take to much time out of his life to fight the case. and why I agree with Lucas Milk: Anyhow in conclusion. Do I know he is guilty: no Do I think he is guilty: yes Would I personally hand out punishment to him based on what +I+ know... no
On talk****e this afternoon one of the dickhead presenters said "you cant convict him if all the evidence is just hearsay", slightly different to their stance on the suarez case wouldn't you say
Lets see the evidence first. People say all sorts of strange ****, especially when they are "encouraged" to. Question: do you believe in witches?
