Lance armstrong drops fight against doping charges

buck65

fishy fishy wrote: »

maybe he would prefer to spend time with his children and have a life with him.

It's all very well saying "oh I would never do that" but y'know at the end of the day, you don't know what you would do, until you are in that position.

This bandwagoning always makes me laugh.

Bandwaggoning?

For years people with half a clue about sport knew that Armstrong was dirty. I even wrote a letter to Michael Moynihan in the Examiner criticising his glowing Armstrong tribute when he competed here a few years back.
Just because you happened on this thread today doesn't mean the comments on here are coming from people who are on a bandwaggon.
It is posts like yours that lets the Armstrongs of the world get away with it.

VictorRomeo

ronan45 wrote: »

Spose you could have the "Alternative Olympics" Could actually make for some excellent viewing

I would pay good money to watch that sort of thing.... See some guy doped to the gills run the 100m in under 8 seconds.... then watch his heart explode.... Something like Death Race.... with WWE style production values.... It would be awesome....

hardCopy

fishy fishy wrote: »

it's not that simple - this has been going on for well over a decade. As I say, nobody knows except himself and the person testing him.

You're way off the mark here.

I'm quite aware that it's been going on a long time, he's been known as a doper for a long time too.

Lance Armstrong is a drug cheat and the world knows it, now it's proven.

SocSocPol

To use an old expression "They dogs in the street" have known for years that Armstrong is a cheat.The govering body for cycling also have a lot to answer for.Cycling should be dropped from the Olympics and from all Sports Council funding until the Governing Body PROVES that they have taken real steps to end the culture of cheating that is endemic in this once proud sport.

fishy fishy

hardCopy wrote: »

You're way off the mark here.

I'm quite aware that it's been going on a long time, he's been known as a doper for a long time too.

Lance Armstrong is a drug cheat and the world knows it, now it's proven.

its not actually - its only assumed that "its proven" because he made a decision about HIS life that the public don't agree with .

I'm not saying whether he is a drug cheat or not - because nobody knows - you are only working from what you are fed. you can ASSUME but you cannot know for sure.

thats all I'm saying on the matter - came to give an alternative view and I did - obviously the masses don't like it tho. but it might give people something to think about.

buck65

The only thing your comments make me think about is how gullible some people are.

fishy fishy

buck65 wrote: »

The only thing your comments make me think about is how gullible some people are.

vice versa

and whats even funnier, is that "the dogs on the street" knew he was a cheat, then why even watch? now that
could be termed as gullible.

Jerrica

V_Moth wrote: »

Except we don't really have an idea about the long-term effects of using those substances. Look at roid rage for example.

Roid rage is still very much unproven. A guy who's an asshole on gear is most likely an asshole off it. Nice guys will not turn into monsters overnight. There's a whole heap of socio economic and mental health factors at play too.

SocSocPol wrote: »

To use an old expression "They dogs in the street" have known for years that Armstrong is a cheat.The govering body for cycling also have a lot to answer for.Cycling should be dropped from the Olympics and from all Sports Council funding until the Governing Body PROVES that they have taken real steps to end the culture of cheating that is endemic in this once proud sport.

What steps though? Many sports in the Olympics are very dirty, but the steps that can be taken to eliminate drugs/ doping are limited. Sports enhancement drugs are way ahead of the testing standards, in some sports it (literally) pays to be the best so the risk: benefit ratio far outweighs the negatives of being caught. As long as the incentives to be the best are so much greater than the penalty for getting caught, and the resources available to the Governing Bodies for testing are so limited the athletes who dope will have it (relatively) easy.

GerM

fishy fishy wrote: »

it's not that simple - this has been going on for well over a decade. As I say, nobody knows except himself and the person testing him.

And the multiple people who were involved with his career and saw him doing this and/or facilitated his actions. For example, the masseuse who, as discussed on radio this morning, gave a 7 hour interview detailing specific incidents and examples of Armstrong doping right down to purchasing concealer to hide tell tale marks on his skin.

hardCopy

fishy fishy wrote: »

its not actually - its only assumed that "its proven" because he made a decision about HIS life that the public don't agree with .

I'm not saying whether he is a drug cheat or not - because nobody knows - you are only working from what you are fed. you can ASSUME but you cannot know for sure.

thats all I'm saying on the matter - came to give an alternative view and I did - obviously the masses don't like it tho. but it might give people something to think about.

And you're entitled to your view.

You're wrong though.

buck65

fishy fishy wrote: »

vice versa

and whats even funnier, is that "the dogs on the street" knew he was a cheat, then why even watch? now that
could be termed as gullible.

Lance Armstrong,Marco Pantani and Jan Ullrich turned me off the sport. I stopped watching a long time ago.

Loomis

I never followed cycling but common sense tells you what these guys do is/should be beyond man's natural abilities.
To me it's pretty obvious what and why Armstrong is doing here. He's backing out before damning evidence comes out had he fought the investigation and probably, stupidly, hoping they drop the issue without announcing findings so he can in some weird way insist he's clean cause he never tested positive etc.

The claim of never failing a test rings incredibly hollow with me since reading this recently. It made watching the Olympics a lot less exciting.

Angel Heredia (supplied Marion Jones, among other Olympians, with drugs) interview. A bit long but fascinating/depressing.
http://www.pendlayforum.com/showthread.php?t=6611

flutered

Ronin247 wrote: »

Tetrahydrogestrinone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrogestrinone Was a drug developed by the Americans which was undetectable and was known by its street name "The Clear" because when tested the results came back Clear.

Ben Johnson took part in "The Dirtiest Race In History" with most of the participants having since been implicated in some doping controversey or other.Johnson has said that he was on steroids for seven years and the only reason he was done for doping was that his sample was tampered with,this leaves the question "how could he have been tested so many times and never came up positive?"

I fear that all top athletes are at it.

ben johnson was tested positive by a vote of 11 against 10 by a committeee, linford christee was cleared by the same majority, then again the jamacian authoritys will not allow any testing of their athleats at home, this has been the case for years, in one way i do not blame armstrong for giving up, just imagine each day for 13 years hearing the same thing, recieving letters emails etc, it has to wear one down, saying that i believe the athleate with the best chemist has the best chance, take a pic of most top footballers phisique, most of them would have won a mr europe 6 or seven years ago, rugby players suddenly bulk up, and get unreal bodys, actually any one in top level sport can now be considered for finger pointing by most, pls excuse my spelling.

fishy fishy

GerM wrote: »

And the multiple people who were involved with his career and saw him doing this and/or facilitated his actions. For example, the masseuse who, as discussed on radio this morning, gave a 7 hour interview detailing specific incidents and examples of Armstrong doping right down to purchasing concealer to hide tell tale marks on his skin.

so everyone knew he was at it but kept schtum, until now. How very convenient. Wow, wonder what else they might be hiding - wouldn't trust that lot really.

drdeadlift

kneemos wrote: »

If they're all on drugs it's a level playing field,whats the problem.His team mates turning against him after all this time definitely looks suspect.

The us agency responsible for this case said it would take cases against those cyclists asked to give evidence against Armstrong if they did not comply(blackmail),.

What ****im use is a drug test if they dont need them to convict

Jerrica

fishy fishy wrote: »

so everyone knew he was at it but kept schtum, until now. How very convenient.

Probably tbh. Think about it, if these people talked, their whole careers would be on the line. There's massive money involved in sponsorship too and that filters down into the whole support team. It paid for them to keep quiet until their backs were against the wall. Not convenience, self-preservation.

buck65

Until now?
Are you serious?? This investigation has been going on since the early 2000's Armstrong has tried to block and discredit everyone involved in this for years. The USADA are just ready to finish the guy off now with their evidence.
I gave you too much credit , you haven't a ****ing clue what you're talking about.

roadrunner16

mackg wrote: »

Has he made much money? Does he get to keep that?

If the answer to both questions is yes I'm sure he'll survive.

"Armstrong’s decision, according to the World Anti-Doping Code, means he will be stripped of his seven Tour titles, the bronze medal he won at the 2000 Olympics and all other titles, awards and money he won from August 1998 forward."

also means he can't coach , or be involved in any way with competitive cycling .

GerM

fishy fishy wrote: »

so everyone knew he was at it but kept schtum, until now. How very convenient. Wow, wonder what else they might be hiding - wouldn't trust that lot really.

These interviews were conducted years ago and were freely available. Suspect your user name is a hint now! I'll graciously bow out!

buck65

Jerrica wrote: »

Probably tbh. Think about it, if these people talked, their whole careers would be on the line. There's massive money involved in sponsorship too and that filters down into the whole support team. It paid for them to keep quiet until their backs were against the wall. Not convenience, self-preservation.

Alot of these guys - Tyler Hamilton, Frankie Andreu, our own Emma O Reilly have been on the record for years giving evidence of witnessing Armstrong taking or talking about haven taken drugs.
It is just now that USADA have added a few more testimonies from athletes even closer to Armstrong that he knows he's done for.

seamus

Cycling of course isn't the only sport where this is happening, it's just been the one with the most detections historically.

It's a cyclical problem (no pun intended). While it's easy to think that doping leads to hollow victories, and so only a handful of people will cheat (e.g. not many footballers deliberately throw games), the problem is that the cheaters steal everyone else's victories.
So when you're at the top level and competing to the maximum of your abilities, yet still getting lamped out of it by the guy who's doping, then you're going to consider doping. When it turns out that all of the top guys are doping, then in essence the only way you have a hope of getting to the top tier is to start doping too. Then it's no longer cheating, it's just levelling the field, and your victories are real victories, not hollow ones.

The reason it's such a problem in cycling is that drug-taking has been endemic pretty much since the TdF started. It's an endurance event off the scale. And not only that, it's a race. So an "anything and everything" approach to keeping onesself going was normal and encouraged. It was 1965 before doping was banned, but by then it was already ingrained, and once it's in the sport it's very hard to get it out again due to the ripple effect I mention above where in order to get to the top tier, you have to compete on a dope-for-dope level.

Perhaps they need a ten-year clampdown to weed it out - weekly doping tests for every professional rider. Also require them (as a condition of membership of UCI) to agree that if they are found guilty of doping, all titles, prize money and sponsorship are forfeit. I.e. if you are found guilty of doping, you lose everything.
Some riders will still take the risk using cleverer drugs and methods, but it might be enough to scare everyone else straight.

hardCopy

fishy fishy wrote: »

so everyone knew he was at it but kept schtum, until now. How very convenient. Wow, wonder what else they might be hiding - wouldn't trust that lot really.

Who kept schtum? He's been accused by people all around him for years.

Here's a nice catalogue of the various claims: http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/you-jury

He was even being called out here on boards in 2005: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=3073607

The whole myth of being the most tested athlete on the planet is completely made up. Nobody tested him 500 times: http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/

There was also the Simeoni incident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Simeoni#Feud_with_Lance_Armstrong

maximoose

Mr. Anderson wrote: »

Angel Heredia (supplied Marion Jones, among other Olympians, with drugs) interview. A bit long but fascinating/depressing.
http://www.pendlayforum.com/showthread.php?t=6611

That was a great read, crazy stuff.

fishy fishy

Jerrica wrote: »

Probably tbh. Think about it, if these people talked, their whole careers would be on the line. There's massive money involved in sponsorship too and that filters down into the whole support team. It paid for them to keep quiet until their backs were against the wall. Not convenience, self-preservation.

ah that explains it.
Known for years but kept quiet - these lot should be stripped as well then. whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I can't believe people sat and watched this farce if they were so sure the competitors were drugged up. That was a little silly wasn't it.

Logical Fallacy

V_Moth wrote: »

Except we don't really have an idea about the long-term effects of using those substances. Look at roid rage for example.

Look at roid rage? You mean the fact that it is a myth with absolutely no evidence to support it?

Jerrica

fishy fishy wrote: »

ah that explains it.
Known for years but kept quiet - these lot should be stripped as well then. whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

yeah, you're definitely trolling. How can a team physio be stripped?

Also that was just my take on it in a very general, buck65 corrected me on the specifics of the Armstrong case (thank you buck65 )

Ted!

Ghandee wrote: »

I froze dried one of his nuts.
I keep it in a glass case now and stare at it frequently.

You kind of just reworded our joke, but...ha!

Scanlas The 2nd

flutered wrote: »

Ronin247 wrote: »

Tetrahydrogestrinone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrogestrinone Was a drug developed by the Americans which was undetectable and was known by its street name "The Clear" because when tested the results came back Clear.

Ben Johnson took part in "The Dirtiest Race In History" with most of the participants having since been implicated in some doping controversey or other.Johnson has said that he was on steroids for seven years and the only reason he was done for doping was that his sample was tampered with,this leaves the question "how could he have been tested so many times and never came up positive?"

I fear that all top athletes are at it.

ben johnson was tested positive by a vote of 11 against 10 by a committeee, linford christee was cleared by the same majority, then again the jamacian authoritys will not allow any testing of their athleats at home, this has been the case for years, in one way i do not blame armstrong for giving up, just imagine each day for 13 years hearing the same thing, recieving letters emails etc, it has to wear one down, saying that i believe the athleate with the best chemist has the best chance, take a pic of most top footballers phisique, most of them would have won a mr europe 6 or seven years ago, rugby players suddenly bulk up, and get unreal bodys, actually any one in top level sport can now be considered for finger pointing by most, pls excuse my spelling.

You do realise it's not that hard to get footballers' bodies, I wouldnt be far off and I only go to the gym two or three times a week.

Quorum

Mr. Anderson wrote: »

Angel Heredia (supplied Marion Jones, among other Olympians, with drugs) interview. A bit long but fascinating/depressing.
http://www.pendlayforum.com/showthread.php?t=6611

What a great read. He's so deadpan about it all!

fishy fishy

Jerrica wrote: »

yeah, you're definitely trolling. How can a team physio be stripped?

Also that was just my take on it in a very general, buck65 corrected me on the specifics of the Armstrong case (thank you buck65 )

why would I be trolling :roll eyes:
I;m just saying that if they all knew he was at it, and kept quiet, they are part of the problem and should be also stripped of their earnings and entitlements.
whats trolling about that. Or if having an alternative view now the equivalent of trolling?

Jerrica

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

You do realise it's not that hard to get footballers' bodies, I wouldnt be far off and I only go to the gym two or three times a week.

When people say 'footballers body' they generally mean of the Christiano Ronaldo kind. Not the chubby Ronaldo kind.

The second one anyone could have. The first is a whole other story and few could successfully achieve. You could do it clean, no problem, but it's generally a lot more difficult than only going to the gym 2/3 times a week (unless you're incredibly gifted genetically).

aloyisious

I listened to the Kimmage/Armstrong question and answer exchange and, if what was played was all there was recorded, then it's obvious Lance was intent on NOT answering the posed question. The "who are you" bit followed immediately by Lance saying why he refused to do an interview with Paul, made it obvious that he already knew who Paul was and had his "throw them off the scent" response ready. The bottom line is that Lance did not answer the question put to him by Paul from the floor.

I hope that the US cycling authorities go ahead with publicizing Lance's 2009 and 2010 test results which are rumoured to be positive for doping, whether they are positive or negative There's no point in letting any person away with doping if the evidence is there, merely because he throw's his hands up and, in effect, say's "I can't get a fair trial". There's also those who are on the US Cycling's list of witnesses. They'll forever be equally as suspect as Lance 'til the air is cleared by them stating in public what they allegedly saw/did.

As for the "strip him of his titles" bit, the US cycling authorities are to recommend that Lance be stripped of his medals. I take that to mean that it's up to L.C.L/T.D.F to remove Lance from it's T.D.F winners lists and pass the medals to the 2nd placed of those T.D.F years, as the US did not award him those. I heard on one of today's news clips that the FBI were going to investigate the matter but by Lance doing what he did, that may not proceed. I'd imagine Lance and his legal people would not like the FBI and the US D.O.J getting their teeth into him.

peejay01

For anyone that is interested in reading about scientific proof that Lance has doped in the past, read this http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

It's a bit long but very interesting.

I am involved in researching possible new methods in the detection of recombinant EPO in urine and have collaborated with Mike on a project and he saw the positive results for Lances Tour de France 99 samples. As the urine based test for EPO wasn't introduced until 2000 and the samples were tested for research purposes, they could not be used by the UCI to ban Armstrong.

From personal experience I can tell you that catching someone doping with EPO is not easy. In some cases (pre 2009), using a series of small injections (microdosing), the detection window for a positive test can be as low as 12 hours.

That was when the WADA guidelines stated that there must be at least 80% of basic isoforms in the sample. The guidelines were changed in 2009 to make the criteria more stringent. Even with these new guidelines it is still difficult to catch cheaters. New forms of recombinant EPO that are nearly identical to human EPO and molecules that mimic EPO but aren't structurally similar make detection more difficult.

I have seen some test's that a trained observer would know that there is recombinant EPO in a sample but because it doesn't satisfy WADA criteria, it has to be passed.

Every time we bring out new technology, there is a new drug or way to avoid detection waiting in the wings. To be honest, I think pro cycling and doping will go hand in hand for years to come.


My 2 cents.

Quorum

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

You do realise it's not that hard to get footballers' bodies, I wouldnt be far off and I only go to the gym two or three times a week.

I'm suddenly reminded of Homer Simpson's snow sculpture of himself as a chiselled God. :pac:

opinion guy

Jerrica wrote: »

When people say 'footballers body' they generally mean of the Christiano Ronaldo kind. Not the chubby Ronaldo kind.

The second one anyone could have. The first is a whole other story and few could successfully achieve. You could do it clean, no problem, but it's generally a lot more difficult than only going to the gym 2/3 times a week (unless you're incredibly gifted genetically).

Rubbish. Go to mainland Europe and most guys walking down the street are closer to the skinny Ronaldo than the chubby one. WE are simply accustomed to fatness in Ireland

SHOVELLER

kfallon wrote: »

He was nothing but a run of the mill team cyclist for years, I remember him getting a Stage victory for the team he rode for the day after one of their cyclists died years ago. Then he got cancer, recovered (fair play to him) and came back as Superman, it was obvious he was on drugs and tbh I'm actually delighted he's been caught. However I can never take cycling serious anymore, it seems to me they are all on something.

He was not a run of the mill team cyclist. At 21 he won the World Championships. Pictures and videos of his performance show a big muscular athlete.

After he recovered from cancer he had slimmed down knowing that his previous build would never help to win major tours.

Also he has a higher than average capacity for oxygen intake.

I'm going against the grain here by saying I still believe him.

Why would a guy who nearly died from cancer knowingly inject himself with cocktails of harmful substances?

Why would a guy with his talent and resources cheat?

Sorry I find it inconceivable that someone who has raised half a billion dollars in the fight against cancer is a cheat.

Anyway I would say Kimmage and Walsh are overjoyed.

Jerrica

opinion guy wrote: »

Rubbish. Got to mainland Europe and most guys walking down the street are closer to the skinny Ronaldo than the chubby one. WE are simply accustomed to fatness in Ireland

Where did I mention Europe? I was addressing a poster here. Go to an Irish gym and how many blokes do you see like Ronaldo there? How many of the guys you hang around with look like that?

Wibbs

peejay01 wrote: »

For anyone that is interested in reading about scientific proof that Lance has doped in the past, read this http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

It's a bit long but very interesting.

It is indeed. Thx for the link and your inside track knowledge too PJ.

I am involved in researching possible new methods in the detection of recombinant EPO in urine and have collaborated with Mike on a project and he saw the positive results for Lances Tour de France 99 samples. As the urine based test for EPO wasn't introduced until 2000 and the samples were tested for research purposes, they could not be used by the UCI to ban Armstrong.

As the chap in the above link put it;

"There is no doubt in my mind these samples contain synthetic EPO, they belong to Lance Armstrong, and there's no conceivable way that I can see that a lab could've spiked them in a way that the data has presented itself. So there is no doubt in my mind he took EPO during the '99 Tour."Emphasis mine. There you have it folks. Never failed my arse. I love how he doesn't usually say "never took drugs", but "never failed a test". Game over Armstrong(and a load of the other top placed riders).

Every time we bring out new technology, there is a new drug or way to avoid detection waiting in the wings. To be honest, I think pro cycling and doping will go hand in hand for years to come.

Ditto, especially among the big tour winners. Among the single stage winners etc I'm quite sure there are clean guys, it's when people are consistently on top I'm very suspicious. Excelling in a one day event is certainly well possible in an all out superhuman effort, but then to come back the next day and do the same 120% effort again? Eh hellooooo?

Quorum

opinion guy wrote: »

Rubbish. Go to mainland Europe and most guys walking down the street are closer to the skinny Ronaldo than the chubby one. WE are simply accustomed to fatness in Ireland

That poster likely was talking about Ireland...
And it's one thing being skinny, it's another being in shape.

opinion guy

Jerrica wrote: »

Where did I mention Europe? I was addressing a poster here. Go to an Irish gym and how many blokes do you see like Ronaldo there? How many of the guys you hang around with look like that?

My point was that in mainland Europe most guys look like that. Its not the momentous doping requiring feat you are making it out to be - the other poster was right.
I was in Paris recently and I felt obese as pretty much everyone on the street looked like skinny Ronaldo. Do you think all of Paris are doping ? No. (Unless you count coffee, cigarettes and cocaine )

Quorum wrote: »

That poster likely was talking about Ireland...
And it's one thing being skinny, it's another being in shape.

It doens't require doping in Ireland to be skinny/built if its common in France Germany etc.

The other poster was correct. It doens't take much effort to be built like a soccer player - most of them are simply skinny and not that built. Go for a dialy run, do some pushups and crunches -don't eat too much lard. No drugs required

Mossess

I think we can all agree on a few things.
1) it is a witch hunt.
2) People are being incentivised to testify in a certain way
3) The USADA are breaking many of their own rules
4) He did not test positive
5) Given the above a fair hearing/trial would not be possible.
6) The USADA does not have the power to strip him of his tour titles.
7) The USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring the charges based on its own rules

Ok, Number 5 is opinion. And my opinion is that if I was him I think I would too call it a day. Some people are saying that he was able to keep ahead of the testing. If this is the case what’s the point in testing any athlete? Why not simply accuse every single athlete who won a medal at this year’s Olympics of doping? The evidence would be exactly the same. IMO the USADA have lost all credibility. I would not let an organisation with no credibility ruin my life.

Jerrica

Jerrica wrote: »

The second one anyone could have. The first is a whole other story and few could successfully achieve. You could do it clean, no problem, but it's generally a lot more difficult than only going to the gym 2/3 times a week (unless you're incredibly gifted genetically).

opinion guy wrote: »

My point was that in mainland Europe most guys look like that. Its not the momentous doping requiring feat you are making it out to be - the other poster was right.

It doens't require doping in Ireland to be skinny/built if its common in France Germany etc.

errr.... I said explicitly that you don't need to use PEDs to get a body like that .... I said it takes some work to look like Christiano Ronaldo.

Wibbs

SHOVELLER wrote: »

Why would a guy who nearly died from cancer knowingly inject himself with cocktails of harmful substances?

The hunger for fame, money and winning.

Why would a guy with his talent and resources cheat?

see above.

And from PeeJay's link above by a world expert and tester;

"There is no doubt in my mind these samples contain synthetic EPO, they belong to Lance Armstrong, and there's no conceivable way that I can see that a lab could've spiked them in a way that the data has presented itself. So there is no doubt in my mind he took EPO during the '99 Tour."

Sorry I find it inconceivable that someone who has raised half a billion dollars in the fight against cancer is a cheat.

Why not? That seems with respect terribly naive. The two can be mutually exclusive. And let's look at the charity he heads shall we? http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/01/news/must-read-livestrong-facts-and-fiction_203023

For folks on mobies;

"Gifford did not uncover any legal misuse of Livestrong funds. That being said, he reported that, “Livestrong spends massively on adver­tising, PR, and ‘branding,’ all of which helps preserve Armstrong’s marketability at a time when he’s under fire. Meanwhile, Armstrong has used the goodwill of his foundation to cut business deals that have enriched him per­sonally, an ethically questionable move.”

Gifford found that the brand name was used in an unusual way, as there is a for-profit active lifestyle website also called Livestrong. In addition, the foundation has scaled back its research funding, although many people still assume Livestrong is a research-based foundation.

According to Gifford, the benefit Armstrong gains most from the foundation is the image of himself as a charitable individual. Good press from his foundation gives him credibility for his good character when scandal allegations arise.

They donate almost nothing to cancer research which is a tad odd. IMHO it's as much a PR and ego boosting front as a cancer support organisation and it makes millions doing it. His best selling book was entitled "it's not about the bike. Indeed Lance, it seems it's more about the spin, the greed for winning at all costs and the pill and needle.

WhatNowForUs?

kneemos wrote: »

If they're all on drugs it's a level playing field,whats the problem.His team mates turning against him after all this time definitely looks suspect.

Because there is no way in hell I would introduce my chrildren into the sport with all that **** being taken.

Wibbs

Mossess wrote: »

4) He did not test positive

Yes he did. Read Peejay's post and attendant link. His preserved samples tested positive for EPO in the 1999 Tour De France, but the official test for EPO didn't come in until 2000.

summerskin

Mossess wrote: »

I think we can all agree on a few things.
1) it is a witch hunt.
2) People are being incentivised to testify in a certain way
3) The USADA are breaking many of their own rules
4) He did not test positive
5) Given the above a fair hearing/trial would not be possible.
6) The USADA does not have the power to strip him of his tour titles.
7) The USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring the charges based on its own rules

Ok, Number 5 is opinion. And my opinion is that if I was him I think I would too call it a day. Some people are saying that he was able to keep ahead of the testing. If this is the case what’s the point in testing any athlete? Why not simply accuse every single athlete who won a medal at this year’s Olympics of doping? The evidence would be exactly the same. IMO the USADA have lost all credibility. I would not let an organisation with no credibility ruin my life.

Yep, that this is your own, very flawed, opinion.

The man is a cheat, was a cheat and always will be a cheat. The only people who think otherwise are gullible fools who bought into his Livestrong nonsense, which was nothing more than a marketing tool and ego booster for himself.

Jerrica

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

Because there is no way in hell I would introduce my chrildren into the sport with all that **** being taken.

But the drugs are being taken at the highest levels. It takes a lot of money to (a) get the PEDs needed and (b) have the support team needed for them to be utilised properly. Ten year olds aren't the target group for doping avoidance

It's not really fair to use what's being done at the top international level as a benchmark for whether kids should be involved in a sport.

Quorum

opinion guy wrote: »

Do you think all of Paris are doping ? No. (Unless you count coffee, cigarettes and cocaine )

And this is where the skinny but not necessarily healthy part comes in. Footballers would be more disciplined than this.

Jerrica wrote: »

errr.... I said explicitly that you don't need to use PEDs to get a body like that .... I said it takes some work to look like Christiano Ronaldo.

This.

SHOVELLER

But he already had money and fame and was a world champion.

I'm not denying the tester's credentials.

You cant argue that he has raised the profile and awareness of the fight against cancer.

Its naive to think that all monies raised by any charity goes to solving the disease. Of course money gets spent on salaries, advertising etc.

Wibbs

opinion guy wrote: »

My point was that in mainland Europe most guys look like that.

That's up there with "foreign biiirds are all skinny". Yes they're generally thinner, but ripped like that photo? Eh not so much. I've been in a Milanese gym(for my many and varied sins) and yes you do see less of the stodgy male builds you get here, but thelow bodyfat ripped guys are working hard on it.

Its not the momentous doping requiring feat you are making it out to be - the other poster was right.

Dope no, not necessarily at all, however for a guy to look like Brad Pitt in Fight Club, he's gonna be working out and hard and eating clean and lean to get down to that level of definition and bodyfat. Genetically more blessed would help. In fact Google up Italian/French/Spanish/ beaches in their search for images and try and find a pic that shows "most guys like that" pic of yer man. Good luck.