'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

walshb

RobFowl wrote: »

USADA disagree, as do WADA and possibly even the UCI.
Nike also disagree ...

USADA disagree that he is/was an awesome athlete? That to me is ridiculous.

I am well aware of this evidence against him. I have conceded that it is strong. I am simply saying that Lance has his side too, as do those defending him.

Facts are: During the tour wins nobody convicted him or tested him positive. Only now all the rats are speaking out. He won the tours against many other riders. End of!

Lusk Doyle

No

ThisRegard wrote: »

I find your approach to anyone caught up in drugs scandals odd walshb. Didn't you imply some sort of conspiracy against Michele Smith a while back in the Athletics forum because the testers were married and that the authories were determined to get her ?

I don't know if you're just naieve or unwilling to accept scandals like this.

ohhhh, the plot thickens!

Lusk Doyle

No

walshb wrote: »

USADA disagree that he is/was an awesome athlete? That to me is ridiculous.

I am well aware of this evidence against him. I have conceded that it is strong. I am simply saying that Lance has his side too, as do those defending him.

Facts are: During the tour wins nobody convicted him or tested him positive. Only now all the rats are speaking out. He won the tours against many other vriders. End of!

No not end of. He CHEATED. End of.

Lumen

walshb wrote: »

I am simply saying that Lance has his side too, as do those defending him.

I don't even know what that means.

Do you believe he is guilty of doping or not? Yes or no.

walshb

ThisRegard wrote: »

I find your approach to anyone caught up in drugs scandals odd walshb. Didn't you imply some sort of conspiracy against Michele Smith a while back in the Athletics forum because the testers were married and that the authories were determined to get her ?

I don't know if you're just naieve or unwilling to accept scandals like this.

No, I just pointed out Michelle's case and argument. There was a U.S. led witch hunt to get her. I watched Atlanta and I heard the negative reactions from the sore losers. She still has her medals. They got her on a tampering sample. A sample that was cleared in her house as all ok. Signed off, wasn't it? Only many miles away did something go wrong! Not saying she is innocent. Just saying that she has a good case to defend herself.

buffalo

No

Lumen wrote: »

I don't even know what that means.

Do you believe he is guilty of doping or not? Yes or no.

He didn't vote in the poll, get him!

RobFowl

No

walshb wrote: »

USADA disagree that he is/was an awesome athlete? That to me is ridiculous.

I am well aware of this evidence against him. I have conceded that it is strong. I am simply saying that Lance has his side too, as do those defending him.

Facts are: During the tour wins nobody convicted him or tested him positive. Only now all the rats are speaking out. He won the tours against many other riders. End of!

He actually didn't win any tours as they have all been stripped (as have all results from 1998 onwards). He is also banned from competitive sport for life.

Forgive the language but awesome my arse...

walshb

Lumen wrote: »

I don't even know what that means.

Do you believe he is guilty of doping or not? Yes or no.

Read what I wrote. I said if I was a betting man and had to call it I would say YES, he used PEDs.

mcgratheoin

No

walshb wrote: »

Facts are: During the tour wins nobody convicted him or tested him positive. Only now all the rats are speaking out. He won the tours against many other riders. End of!

Are they the only 2 facts relevant to the issue?

Re; Michelle de Bruin, yes she had a good case to defend herself, took it to the CAS and was told that it wasn't good enough. End of!

steve9859

This is interesting. Slightly broader than the topic at hand, but it shows how and why Lance was able to build the doping structure that he did


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/sports/global/cyclings-new-path-to-a-clean-sport-must-continue.html?ref=global&_r=0

My reaction to reading it is why the hell would anyone want to be a pro cyclist. Even clean, it is such a dysfunctional sport

on_the_nickel

No

walshb wrote: »

Lovin' it.

If folks would slow down and maybe try and discuss the topic without resorting to the troll card.

If I was a betting man, yes, I would bet that he did use PEDs. I am just not ready to slate and lambast and label him as easily as some others.

There does seem to be overwhelming evidence against him; but there is also the other side. There is also a lot of positive facts that Lance and his supporters have.

The guy is an awesome athlete, PEDs or not. He competed in possibly the dirtiest sport in history as regards PEDs.

What are your thoughts on him threatening Levi Leipheimer's wife? Portraying Betsy Andreu as some kind of jealous psychopath? Or calling Emma O'Reilly a whore?

Or does the above not matter?

Hungrycol

Yes, but he's still great

Dropped by Nike and steps down from Livestrong:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19978608

Edit: Old news in this fast paced board thread it seems!

walshb

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Are they the only 2 facts relevant to the issue?

Re; Michelle de Bruin, yes she had a good case to defend herself, took it to the CAS and was told that it wasn't good enough. End of!

There is loads of facts/claims. Pity when he was riding these facts never came out. Pity he never tested positive legally or was sanctioned legally during the tour wins.

walshb

on_the_nickel wrote: »

What are your thoughts on him threatening Levi Leipheimer's wife? Portraying Betsy Andreu as some kind of jealous psychopath? Or calling Emma O'Reilly a whore?

Or does the above not matter?

Maybe she is a whore. Maybe Betsy is a jealous psychopath. What is your point?

Lumen

walshb wrote: »

Read what I wrote. I said if I was a betting man and had to call it I would say YES, he used PEDs.

That being the case, I don't understand why you are apparently defending someone you believe to be a cheat.

walshb

Lumen wrote: »

That being the case, I don't understand why you are apparently defending someone you believe to be a cheat.

Well, the thread is so so anti Lance I just thought I'd give my view. It is not near as condemning as many other views on the thread. The sport was filthy in the 80s and 90s and early 00s. He was part of the sport and he never tested positive during his success. Now all this is coming out. Where were all these people during 1999-2005?

Beasty

No

Enough is enough - I've hit my target - we now have 666 in the yes camp, so I'm going to close the thread....

...OK I'll leave it open for a bit longer then

Glass Prison 1214

No

walshb wrote: »

Maybe she is a whore. Maybe Betsy is a jealous psychopath. What is your point?

ah come on now, saying those things is rediculous, and his point is very clear

mcgratheoin

No

walshb wrote: »

Where were all these people during 1999-2005?

they were being sued by Lance

ThisRegard

No

walshb wrote: »

Pity he never tested positive legally

How can you test positive illegally ?

He did test positive, the team conspired to back date a prescription to give to the UCI in order to sweep it away.

on_the_nickel

No

walshb wrote: »

Maybe she is a whore. Maybe Betsy is a jealous psychopath. What is your point?

My point? Doesn't matter, I'm not wasting my time on you. I'm done here.

Cienciano

No

walshb wrote: »

There is loads of facts/claims. Pity when he was riding these facts never came out. Pity he never tested positive legally or was sanctioned legally during the tour wins.

Testing positive is meaningless. Read the report. It was almost impossible to test positive. As many have said before, failing a UCI drugs test was actually failing an IQ test. If you knew what you were at, you couldn't fail.

And judging by your posts, unless Lance injected a banned substance right in front of a tester, who then analysed that substance on the spot in a portable lab and found that it was indeed a banned substance, not just water in an EPO vial, you'll give a reason how we're not 100% sure lance doped.

walshb

ThisRegard wrote: »

How can you test positive illegally ?

He did test positive, the team conspired to back date a prescription to give to the UCI in order to sweep it away.

I am aware of the 1999 incident. Wow! Strip the man of all tours and lambast him all over the place. It was one incident that wasn't even legally sanctioned.

mcgratheoin

No

walshb wrote: »

I am aware of the 1999 incident. Wow! Strip the man of all tours and lambast him all over the place. It was one incident that wasn't even legally sanctioned.

you do realise that's not why he's been stripped of his tours right?

walshb

Cienciano wrote: »

Testing positive is meaningless. Read the report. It was almost impossible to test positive. As many have said before, failing a UCI drugs test was actually failing an IQ test. If you knew what you were at, you couldn't fail.

And judging by your posts, unless Lance injected a banned substance right in front of a tester, who then analysed that substance on the spot in a portable lab and found that it was indeed a banned substance, not just water in an EPO vial, you'll give a reason how we're not 100% sure lance doped.

Exactly. The sport was filty and regulated poorly, and now retroactively they are lambasting Lance. During his success he was never sanctioned, nor did they test him positive, apart form the 1999 cream incident, which went unsanctioned. Only recemtly has this exploded onto the world scene.

Chips Lovell

No

walshb wrote: »

Maybe she is a whore. Maybe Betsy is a jealous psychopath. What is your point?

Any more trolling like this and I'll issue cards. Final warning.

walshb

mcgratheoin wrote: »

you do realise that's not why he's been stripped of his tours right?

Yes! I know why USADA are punishing him.

Lumen

walshb wrote: »

Well, the thread is so so anti Lance I just thought I'd give my view. It is not near as condemning as many other views on the thread. The sport was filthy in the 80s and 90s and early 00s. He was part of the sport and he never tested positive during his success. Now all this is coming out. Where were all these people during 1999-2005?

You're not actually giving a view, though.

walshb

Lumen wrote: »

You're not actually giving a view, though.

Ok, I am giving my opinion? Thoughts? Feelings?

A P

No

David Walsh on 5 Live now