or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › Lance Armstrong - about time too!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lance Armstrong - about time too! - Page 2

post #19 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitleistWI View Post


I agree to a point.  The French hated the Armstrong dominated the tour and for years have been looking for any scrap of evidence to show him as a cheater.  Just as in the Braun case, you can sometimes get a false positive and all it takes is 1 positive for everyone to label someone as a cheater for life.

Armstrong doesnt do himself any favors though.  His likeability factor is almost non-existent.

Yeah, the big jerk, fighting cancer and all that! What's to like??

 

But, to be honest, I have complete sympathy with someone coming across as "unlikeable" when being hounded over this sort of crap. I know I would have a really hard time doing the PR-happy thing under those circumstances.

 

As to the allegations/etc, there's certainly a little room for these questions---as I understand it, there are methods that don't show up in tests. It really, really stretches the bounds of credibility, though. An airtight coverup takes a lot of planning. Given the rigorous testing he already passed, I just don't see any useful outcome that comes from this. Even if somehow a new test demonstrates doping, the level of scrutiny and potential conflicts of interest/political concerns involved will invalidate the results of the new test. All it would take is a little tampering with some samples and this problem could be solved, and the odds of that happening are, IMO, about equal to the confidence I'd have in a positive test result at this point.

 

Clambake's ingenious tale above is the best reason I've seen. Hell, I'd probably get on board with the investigation with that rationale.

post #20 of 139

I'm amazed given the economy our government has nothing better to do with our money than pursue PED and blood doping violations from races that occured 10 years ago or pass laws restricting the size of Big Gulps in NY.   Talk about a waste of taxpayer money. 

post #21 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty View Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lance-armstrong-faces-fresh-doping-charges-from-usada/2012/06/13/gJQAefnPaV_story.html

 

 

It's been pretty much accepted by all but the most gullible that Armstrong wasn't as squeaky clean as he liked everyone to think, but it seems that at last he's going to have to face the music seriosuly. About time.

Waste of time and waste of taxpayer money.  About time?  IF he is found guilty or whatever this agency calls it what will we gain?  His organization has raised $325 MILLION for a disease that kills millions a year.  Leave the guy alone.  Even if he did take PED's he has still done tons more good than bad.  About time my ass.  

post #22 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitleistWI View Post

Just as in the Braun case, you can sometimes get a false positive and all it takes is 1 positive for everyone to label someone as a cheater for life.

I know its OT, but just wanted to mention Braun didn't have a false positive, he got off on a technicality.

post #23 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty View Post

It's been pretty much accepted by all but the most gullible that Armstrong wasn't as squeaky clean as he liked everyone to think, but it seems that at last he's going to have to face the music seriosuly. About time.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallstreet View Post

.... Leave the guy alone.  Even if he did take PED's he has still done tons more good than bad.  About time my ass.  

 

mis·an·thrope  (mibreve.gifsprime.gifschwa.gifn-thromacr.gifplprime.gif, mibreve.gifzprime.gif-) also mis·an·thro·pist (mibreve.gifs-abreve.gifnprime.gifthrschwa.gif-pibreve.gifst, mibreve.gifzprime.gif-)  n.

One who hates or mistrusts humankind.
[French, from Greek mimacr.gifsanthromacr.gifpos, hating mankind : mimacr.gifso-, miso- + anthromacr.gifpos, man.]

short·y   (shôrprime.giftemacr.gif) Informal,  n.
See misanthrope
 
 
 
 
 
 
post #24 of 139

Oh, so like-ability should be a factor in justice?  I have followed this case from the absolute beginning, much more than most of you because I used to race myself.  You don't like Lance, therefore he's guilty.  Great way to promote justice.  I could list pages and pages of facts that would only bore you because you have already decided guilt. Facts should not get in the way, should they.  It is better to listen to the media and the accusers, who have no facts only rumor.  And I'm naive and gullible?  Please!!

 

I just pray you never get in a situation where you have facts to protect yourself, but rumor takes precedent.  That is called the Napoleonic code, that the French use.  Guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

 

If you really care to comment intelligently, read up on the incredible violations of every protocol the French Anti-doping agencies and WADA have done with Lance.  Read about the court cases that have already exonerated Lance.  Read about how Hamilton and Landis have contradicted themselves multiple times and how they will get immunity if they say Lance is dirty.  Smells funny doesn't it.  And yet with all the manipulation, all the "samples" disappearing mysteriously, all the books only written in France because they can't get sued and Lance would prove himself innocent yet again, Lance still has never, ever tested positive.

 

The Grand Irony of all of this is that when Lance was riding the Tour de France, viewership and sponsorship was double and triple what it was before and after.  They are losing money big time.  The witch hunt serves no purpose other than spite because they don't like Lance winning their precious race.

post #25 of 139

1. Name one person who was caught the only time they ever doped. Just one. There is far more money in beating the testing (and keeping quiet) than there is in the testing system.

 

2. Somebody, maybe not the 2nd place finisher or the 3rd place finisher, rode clean. They got fcuked out of some career defining victories. Explain to them and their families that the past should be forgotten because a doper is a "good guy"

 

3. There is more money in cycling now than ever before.

 

4. Its hilarious that Armstrong calls USADA a waste of taxpayer money after taking millions of dollars from the US Government via the US Postal Service cycling team.

post #26 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seis Pendejos View Post

1. Name one person who was caught the only time they ever doped. Just one. There is far more money in beating the testing (and keeping quiet) than there is in the testing system.

 

2. Somebody, maybe not the 2nd place finisher or the 3rd place finisher, rode clean. They got fcuked out of some career defining victories. Explain to them and their families that the past should be forgotten because a doper is a "good guy"

 

3. There is more money in cycling now than ever before.

 

4. Its hilarious that Armstrong calls USADA a waste of taxpayer money after taking millions of dollars from the US Government via the US Postal Service cycling team.


Show me proof that he doped, otherwise your statement just sounds like here say. Also don't go around the language filter please.

post #27 of 139

It appears a ton of money has been spent by the French to prove Armstrong doped and to date they haven't been able to.  If he's smarter than they are, then that's their problem, but it's going to take more than the word of convicted dopers like Landis to convince me that Armstrong did anything illegal. 

 

Armstrong and his team were sponsored by the US Postal Service, that's very different from carrying out a multi-million dollar witch hunt at tax payer expense to appease the whiny French government. 

post #28 of 139
Thread Starter 

I'm interested to know what George Hincapie's motivation would be for lying.

Also, the fact that Armstrong has raised millions for cancer doesn't mean that he should be excused from facing up to what he is alleged to have done.

post #29 of 139

Yeah being able to hit the ball 20 yards farther wouldn't help anyone. Being able to recover from an injury faster (or not get injuried) sure isn't an advantage either. The advantage might not be as big in other sports  but PEDs (i.e. steroids wouldn't be my #1 concern with Lance. EPO or even old school blood doping is much higher on the list) could definitely help a lot of peoples game.

 

The number of tests that Lance passed doesn't mean much other than he was using a  drug that wasn't tested for (see EPO) or that would clear before a test. There are ton of T&F athletes that never tested positive from a test. See the Balco scandal. People like Marion Jones, Regina Jacobs, Tim Montgomery, Kelli White, and the rest were tested 100s of times and never came back positive.  There is zero doubt in most peoples minds that they were dopers.

 

Is there a chance Lance is clean. Sure. We we ever know for sure if he was clean? Nope. Here is a list of tour winners and the doping allegations agains them  . Lance is getting investigate because a large number of people have accused him (something like a dozen exteam mates) and he is pretty much the last of the 90s/pre 2005 gang that hasn't been banned.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motley01 View Post

Interesting. I always kinda thought he didn't, but in the back of my mind I was always wondering.

 

Cyclists dope, baseball players dope, football players dope.

 

At least on the PGA Tour, being on steirods wont do anything for your game. LOL

post #30 of 139

I haven't seen Hincappie confirm anything that CBS claimed on 60 Minutes which was focused on Hamilton.  The fact he testified doesn't mean he testified against Armstrong. 

 

As for Armstrongs efforts to raise money for cancer, they don't excuse him any more than Jerry Sandusky's do.  Armstrong gets the benefit of the doubt at this point because this isn't the first time the French and others have tried to prove Armstrong doped and failed.  He's out of racing and it seems nothing more than a witch hunt at this point. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty View Post

I'm interested to know what George Hincapie's motivation would be for lying.

Also, the fact that Armstrong has raised millions for cancer doesn't mean that he should be excused from facing up to what he is alleged to have done.

post #31 of 139

Dopers tend to be the players, riders etc. that were average then suddenly became great.  You see it in every sport.  Armstrong, Indurain, Mercx, they were always great, from the very beginning. Armstrong was junior National Tri champ at 16, World Champ and TdF stage winner at 22.  His physical capability has always been higher that the other riders (VOmax, lactic acid uptake, etc.).  He is also a singularly focused athlete who, when others were resting or taking the month of November off, would be out training for next July.  Dopers want a easy boost.

 

So Lance Armstrong is either just a physical phenomenon, which the 500 negative tests prove or he deserves the Noble Prize in Chemistry for being the Greatest All time Master in blood masking techniques.  

 

All the other Dopers, first timers, many timers, habitual addicts, ALL get caught!  They tested positive!  And the best way for them to make themselves look better and justify their actions is to say that everyone does it.

post #32 of 139

A lot of dopers were superstars from an early age. Guys like Jan Urlich, Alex Zulle, Maroc Pantini were studs early on. In baseball guys like ARod, McGuire and Barry bonds were awesome from the start. In Track&Field Marion Jones, Jerome Young, and the Harrison twins were studs from 16 on. Maybe Lance could train in November because he was doped. The average guy might have needed 3 weeks to recover from the season while the guy with drugs could train year round without breaking down. A lot of drugs don't make you fast. They make it so you can do the training to go fast. The I have so much talent I don't need drugs defense has been used a lot. It is a load of crap.

 

what does 500 negative tests (and at least 1 positive test for corticosteroids) mean? Either your clean or you are using something they don't test for. Given for almost all of Lances career there was pretty much no test for EPO, it wasn't that hard to pass those tests. Again look at Balco for another example. None of them were caught from testing but there sure where cheating. Heck most cyclist didn't test positive from what I can tell. Their doctor get caught crossing a border and the down goes the operation.  Lance has at least that level of access.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post

Dopers tend to be the players, riders etc. that were average then suddenly became great.  You see it in every sport.  Armstrong, Indurain, Mercx, they were always great, from the very beginning. Armstrong was junior National Tri champ at 16, World Champ and TdF stage winner at 22.  His physical capability has always been higher that the other riders (VOmax, lactic acid uptake, etc.).  He is also a singularly focused athlete who, when others were resting or taking the month of November off, would be out training for next July.  Dopers want a easy boost.

 

So Lance Armstrong is either just a physical phenomenon, which the 500 negative tests prove or he deserves the Noble Prize in Chemistry for being the Greatest All time Master in blood masking techniques.  

 

All the other Dopers, first timers, many timers, habitual addicts, ALL get caught!  They tested positive!  And the best way for them to make themselves look better and justify their actions is to say that everyone does it.

post #33 of 139

You have an excellent point, but why stop there.  The was no testing for the drug-du-joir when Indurain was racing.  He was certainly at another level.  How about Fignon and LeMond?  LeMond gets shot, stinks all year yet wins the TdF in grand fashion (and claims it was tri-bars).  Hinault?  5 time champ and many one day classics.  What did he use?.  Merckx?  Greatest of all time, but must have been dirty.  They used amphetamines back then.  Anquetil and Coppi, cocaine was used back then.  Maybe WADA could dig up their bodies and run some tests.

 

How about Derek Jeter?  Nobody could be at that level for that long without HGH.  He has been tested maybe a half dozen times in his career, but I'm sure he could get around that.

 

Bottom line is that Armstrong has been tested far more times than anyone ever in cycling and possible ever in any sport.  They went out of their way to test him over 30 times in 2009 in out-of-competition testing, 30 times!.  This doesn't include the 21 tests during the TdF.  And yet he keeps passing the tests.  (the corticosteroid was from a chamois creme approved by the TdF before the start).

 

Sometimes you just have to accept the simplest solution to a question.

 

 

Quote:
Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razorLatin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.
post #34 of 139

See I use Occam's Razer to tell me that Lance doped. That is by far the simplest explanation of how beat so many dopers. What is the simplest way to pass a doping test? Use something they don't test for.  It isn't like most of the dopers are caught by tests. They are caught when their supplier gets busted. Or if you want to make it real simple? Why did Lance routinely visit a Doctor who has admited to blood doping? Because he wanted EPO from a guy that knew what he was doing.

 

I have no idea what the doping rules in cycling were in the 70s. You have to decide how it colors your opinion of them.  And yes it sucks every time you watch a track race at the olympics you have to decide is the winner clean or just a better doper. But that has been true since the mid70s. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post

You have an excellent point, but why stop there.  The was no testing for the drug-du-joir when Indurain was racing.  He was certainly at another level.  How about Fignon and LeMond?  LeMond gets shot, stinks all year yet wins the TdF in grand fashion (and claims it was tri-bars).  Hinault?  5 time champ and many one day classics.  What did he use?.  Merckx?  Greatest of all time, but must have been dirty.  They used amphetamines back then.  Anquetil and Coppi, cocaine was used back then.  Maybe WADA could dig up their bodies and run some tests.

 

How about Derek Jeter?  Nobody could be at that level for that long without HGH.  He has been tested maybe a half dozen times in his career, but I'm sure he could get around that.

 

Bottom line is that Armstrong has been tested far more times than anyone ever in cycling and possible ever in any sport.  They went out of their way to test him over 30 times in 2009 in out-of-competition testing, 30 times!.  This doesn't include the 21 tests during the TdF.  And yet he keeps passing the tests.  (the corticosteroid was from a chamois creme approved by the TdF before the start).

 

Sometimes you just have to accept the simplest solution to a question.

 

 

post #35 of 139

By using that logic, then everyone could have or did use EPO and didn't get caught so how do you decide when to end the witch hunt? 

Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

See I use Occam's Razer to tell me that Lance doped. That is by far the simplest explanation of how beat so many dopers. What is the simplest way to pass a doping test? Use something they don't test for.  It isn't like most of the dopers are caught by tests. They are caught when their supplier gets busted. Or if you want to make it real simple? Why did Lance routinely visit a Doctor who has admited to blood doping? Because he wanted EPO from a guy that knew what he was doing.

 

I have no idea what the doping rules in cycling were in the 70s. You have to decide how it colors your opinion of them.  And yes it sucks every time you watch a track race at the olympics you have to decide is the winner clean or just a better doper. But that has been true since the mid70s. 

post #36 of 139

Except the evidence that this is a witch hunt are minimal. The evidence that Lance cheated is strong enough for that. And some of that only goes back to 2010 during his latest comeback so it isn't exaclty old news.  If you feel that getting away with cheating for 10 years is fine and not worth digging up that is ok. Frank Shorter for one seemed pretty happy to learn that he was cheated out of  a gold medal in 76.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

By using that logic, then everyone could have or did use EPO and didn't get caught so how do you decide when to end the witch hunt? 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › Lance Armstrong - about time too!