Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

LANCE ARMSTRONG: Opinions Poll

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    You could also argue that Armstrong actually gets an easier ride than most other riders. I can think of a good number of riders who never tested positive, but do have a good amount of circumstantial evidence floating around them, whom people automatically assume are dopers and openly refer to them as such. Take Rasmussen. The guy lied about where he was training and missed some out of competition tests. Then an old acquaintence said he'd once got him to bring blood products to Europe for him. Why is this the standard of proof in the public eye for Rasmussen when evidence about Armstrong's activities is largely ignored or discounted?


  • Options
    #33
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    petethedrummer wrote: »
    You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people.

    And who were these people he directly told us to believe in? Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich... that tell you anything?


  • Options
    #34
    blorg
    Registered Users Posts: 15,989 ✭✭✭✭blorg


    el tonto wrote: »
    Why is this the standard of proof in the public eye for Rasmussen when evidence about Armstrong's activities is largely ignored or discounted?
    In fairness Rasmussen is a different case, he went through the full judicial procedure, was banned by his national federation and had the ban upheld by the CAS. It is necessary that deliberately avoiding a doping control is treated the same way as a positive.


  • Options
    #35
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Pity you can only tick one!!

    On the drug use thing - I'm not sure. If he used then he's obviously been the best at it because when a lot of people were being caught he wasn't. Secondly, if he was using (along with a lot of other riders) and still winning then that would probably show he was the best in his peers - if the majority of them were using. I'm open to be convinced he was using but I remain to be so.

    On the cancer thing, I think he's done loads of good there by bringing attention to an area of male health that was neglected for years - so unequivocally whether he's a good boy or a bad boy, I'd say he's been good for heightening cancer awareness in males and particularly young males.

    He also demonstrated that there is life after cancer.

    Finally, I wouldn't mind a go on his bike:-

    http://www.roadcyclinguk.com/news/article/mps/uan/3800/v/1/SP/?source=weeklyemail&attr=editorial5

    I wonder if he'd give me a crosser!!


  • Options
    #36
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,384 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    I'm not sure, undecided. I have mixed opinions about him. (Let us know what they are!)
    Caroline_ie wrote: »
    ...the fact that he is back is great for the sport, gives it a little bit of excitement that we had been missing for the past few years.
    I thought there was very little to get excited about during Armstrongs dominance of the Tour because winning it was his sole objective each year, unlike his rivals who competed year round, and the outcome of the race was almost inevitable.
    As to whether he was a doper, the fact that he left so many known cheats in his wake leaves me in little doubt as to what he was at.
    petethedrummer wrote: »
    and I'll leave the final word to Lance.

    "This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it."
    The Tour de France is a fantastic spectacle but I don't believe there is anything sporting about it anymore, if indeed there ever was.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    MCOS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,051 ✭✭✭MCOS


    Do the same poll on Michael Jackson (whether he did it or didn't do it) just to guage the levels of subjectivity :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #38
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    MCOS wrote: »
    Do the same poll on Michael Jackson (whether he did it or didn't do it) just to guage the levels of subjectivity :rolleyes:

    I don't think Michael is a very good athlete, and don't think he's taken EPO for performance enhancing reasons


  • Options
    #39
    niceonetom
    Registered Users Posts: 4,833 ✭✭✭niceonetom


    attachment.php?attachmentid=73460&d=1235485753


  • Options
    #40
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    niceonetom, you truly are a photoshopping legend!


  • Options
    #41
    cantalach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,939 ✭✭✭cantalach


    niceonetom wrote: »
    attachment.php?attachmentid=73460&d=1235485753

    I'm glad my "at least Lance isn't a paedo" type comment yesterday continues to be such a rich source of inspiration! :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    cantalach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,939 ✭✭✭cantalach


    I've voted 'undecided' in this poll. Given all that we know I can't imagine how anyone could be completely confident that he's clean.

    That said, I'd be interested to see the different results you'd get for a poll question asking about his participation in the Tour of Ireland. I don't know how to set one up but the question would be simply:

    All things considered, do you welcome Lance Armstrong's participation in the Tour of Ireland?

    With 'Yes', 'No', 'Undecided' and 'Don't Care' as the options.


Advertisement