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

'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Options
1…5051535556…155

Comments

  • Options
    #1562
    mcgratheoin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭mcgratheoin


    No
    walshb wrote: »
    Yes! I know why USADA are punishing him.

    ah, your post seemed to imply that he was being punished for that one test in 1999.

    so basically you're saying you know what went on but you don't agree with the punishment?


  • Options
    #1563
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,601 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    mcgratheoin wrote: »
    ah, your post seemed to imply that he was being punished for that one test in 1999.

    so basically you're saying you know what went on but you don't agree with the punishment?

    I know what USADA allege/claim went on. Not sure my post implied that. If so, aplogies there. It was not my intention.

    Like I said about Bradley Wiggins, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence.


  • Options
    #1564
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    No
    walshb wrote: »
    Only recemtly has this exploded onto the world scene.

    In this forum alone you'll find evidence proving to the contrary. Anyone following profesional cycling would have been aware of the rumours and stories for years.

    Just because the wider public are only hearing these stories now does not make them recent.


  • Options
    #1565
    greenmat
    Registered Users Posts: 581 ✭✭✭greenmat


    No
    Quote from David Walsh on twitter,
    David Walsh‏DavidWalshST
    Just done interview for BBC 5-live, first question has words 'allegations against Lance Armstrong' - truly, if you didn't laugh, you'd cry!


  • Options
    #1566
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,601 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    In this forum alone you'll find evidence proving to the contrary. Anyone following profesional cycling would have been aware of the rumours and stories for years.

    Just because the wider public are only hearing these stories now does not make them recent.

    Yes, to those following the sport I agree it's been known. I was speaking about the general population. Should have been clearer there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1567
    corny
    Registered Users Posts: 7,806 ✭✭✭corny


    No
    You know i still don't know what your point is Walshb. You're saying lots without really saying anything.

    Armstrong doped but he has a defence is that it? And that this should temper any recrimination? Does it matter that anyone with a brain who has analysed his 'defence' has rejected it out of hand.


  • Options
    #1568
    mcgratheoin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭mcgratheoin


    No
    walshb wrote: »
    I know what USADA allege/claim went on. Not sure my post implied that. If so, aplogies there. It was not my intention.

    So is it a case that you don't believe the evidence or you don't think the punishment is appropriate?

    (if the former, can you outline roughly which bits you do and don't accept)


  • Options
    #1569
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,601 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    corny wrote: »
    You know i still don't know what your point is Walshb. You're saying lots without really saying anything.

    Armstrong doped but he has a defence is that it? And that this should temper any recrimination? Does it matter that anyone with a brain who has analysed his 'defence' has rejected it out of hand.

    Armstrong says he didn't dope. And, yes, he would say that, but where are the test results to say he doped? I am aware of the 1999 test.


  • Options
    #1570
    Undercover Elephant
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭Undercover Elephant


    One's view of cheating tends to depend to some extent on who you're cheering for. Part time football fans will ignore their own team's indiscretions, while regarding the other side advancing a football six inches over a white line as especially outrageous. The season ticket holders tend to take a more balanced view.

    Armstrong's particular problem here is that he is an obnoxious human being and a bully. This is obvious to anyone who has more than a passing acquaintance with the sport. Less obvious, unless you hang around cycling forums, is that his particular brand of cheating was in a different league from most of the others.

    If all you ever see is the highlights of Alpine stages in July, you see a rather different Lance Armstrong. He was always going to polarise opinions, and still does. But the people closest to the sport are, ultimately, right about the big question.

    On the other hand, is it really true that there is nothing in the positive column?


  • Options
    #1571
    Raam
    Registered Users Posts: 14,317 ✭✭✭✭Raam


    No
    walshb wrote: »
    but where are the test results to say he doped?

    JESUS CHRIST!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1572
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,601 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Raam wrote: »
    JESUS CHRIST!

    Is that your answer?


  • Options
    #1573
    Raam
    Registered Users Posts: 14,317 ✭✭✭✭Raam


    No
    walshb wrote: »
    Is that your answer?

    It's an exclamation of despair.


  • Options
    #1574
    Clanket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Clanket


    Yes, but he's still great
    walshb wrote: »
    Armstrong says he didn't dope. And, yes, he would say that, but where are the test results to say he doped? I am aware of the 1999 test.

    What exactly is your point? That he shouldn't be punished because there are no positive tests?

    They have other evidance that proves beyond reasonable doubt that he was a cheater. So he's been caught and imo it's only a matter of time before he comes out and admits it.


  • Options
    #1575
    mcgratheoin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭mcgratheoin


    No
    walshb wrote: »
    Armstrong says he didn't dope. And, yes, he would say that, but where are the test results to say he doped? I am aware of the 1999 test.

    Ok, so first question is are you saying that a positive lab test is the only criteria by which anybody should ever be found guilty of doping?

    Second question is, do you accept any of the testimony given to the USADA as factual? (kinda moot if your answer is yes to the first question)


  • Options
    #1576
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,601 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Raam wrote: »
    It's an exclamation of despair.

    Why are you despairing?

    Where are the positive tests to show he used PEDs?


  • Options
    #1577
    Raam
    Registered Users Posts: 14,317 ✭✭✭✭Raam


    No
    walshb wrote: »
    Why are you despairing?

    Where are the positive tests to show he used PEDs?

    Why do you want them?


  • Options
    #1578
    corny
    Registered Users Posts: 7,806 ✭✭✭corny


    No
    walshb wrote: »
    Armstrong says he didn't dope. And, yes, he would say that, but where are the test results to say he doped? I am aware of the 1999 test.

    Results from 2009 were 'fully consistent' with blood doping. Your response.


  • Options
    #1579
    Undercover Elephant
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭Undercover Elephant


    walshb wrote: »
    Where are the positive tests to show he used PEDs?

    If you find a body with thirty stab wounds in it, half a pint of the victim's blood on the defendant's shirt, the defendant's skin under the victim's fingernails, CCTV of the stabbing and a guy who says he hid the murder weapon, you don't actually need to find the murder weapon.


  • Options
    #1580
    Flandria
    Registered Users Posts: 398 ✭✭Flandria


    No
    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?

    What people? Yes, some of us knew full well what was going on but were confined to the murky corners of the internet as almost nobody wanted to hear about St. Armstrong and his doings. Bans and infractions were the order of the day on most fora for even attempting to discuss it. This thread isn't necessarily 'anti Lance' per se, it's just finally airing the truth. Yes, the sport was filthy but blocking your eyes and ears wont make it any less dirty... and PLEASE don't trot out that tired hogwash about never testing positive - it is what it always was, total, utter sh1te.


  • Options
    #1581
    Lusk Doyle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,365 ✭✭✭Lusk Doyle


    No
    walshb wrote: »

    Why are you despairing?

    Where are the positive tests to show he used PEDs?

    If you need these there is something wrong with your logic stick. Throw it away and pick up a new one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1582
    shaka
    Registered Users Posts: 1,085 ✭✭✭shaka


    No
    Can't believe there is some people still defending pharmstrong


  • Options
    #1583
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,601 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    corny wrote: »
    Results from 2009 were 'fully consistent' with blood doping. Your response.

    Can you source that please so I can read up.


  • Options
    #1584
    Glass Prison 1214
    Registered Users Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭Glass Prison 1214


    No
    shaka wrote: »
    Can't believe there is some people still defending pharmstrong

    not people, person


  • Options
    #1585
    Glass Prison 1214
    Registered Users Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭Glass Prison 1214


    No
    walshb wrote: »
    Can you source that please so I can read up.

    if you had read this thread then you would have found it posted a few days ago


  • Options
    #1586
    Undercover Elephant
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭Undercover Elephant


    corny wrote: »
    Results from 2009 were 'fully consistent' with blood doping. Your response.

    To be fair, that particular one is not very good. "Fully consistent with doping" is not the same as "inexplicable except by doping".


  • Options
    #1587
    hf4z6sqo7vjngi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,454 ✭✭✭hf4z6sqo7vjngi


    No
    Walshb how much have you read and understood of the recent summary report issued by USADA?


  • Options
    #1588
    Rofo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Rofo


    No
    LOL - from The Onion back in 2010:
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance-armstrong-wants-to-tell-nation-something-but,17973/


  • Options
    #1589
    h2005
    Registered Users Posts: 1,387 ✭✭✭h2005


    No
    walshb wrote: »
    Armstrong says he didn't dope. And, yes, he would say that, but where are the test results to say he doped? I am aware of the 1999 test.
    Do your own research its not too hard to find


  • Options
    #1590
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,161 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    No
    Undercover Elephant wrote: »
    If you find a body with thirty stab wounds in it, half a pint of the victim's blood on the defendant's shirt, the defendant's skin under the victim's fingernails, CCTV of the stabbing and a guy who says he hid the murder weapon, you don't actually need to find the murder weapon.
    Hang on, hang on - I know this one ...

    ... Colonel Mustard in the Library with the Kitchen knife??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1591
    Oryx
    Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    No
    walshb wrote: »
    Why are you despairing?

    Where are the positive tests to show he used PEDs?
    Even Lance knew when the game was up.

    Why do you reckon he didnt fight the charges then?

    Because he was being bullied? (Never put him off a good fight before)
    Because everyone was out to get him? (Finally individuals had an organisation willing to listen and do something)
    Because it was a witch hunt? (Lance would seem to have been a very wicked witch indeed based on the evidence)

    The reason there were no positive tests* was because he was very, very good at covering his tracks, and because he was very good at pr spin where he mentions the 300, 400, 500, or 600 tests he passed (the number varied depending on when you asked his legal team). Retrospective testing, peer evidence, and a thorough investigation is uncovering his tracks, thankfully.

    *there are positive tests.


Advertisement