Lance armstrong drops fight against doping charges

fishy fishy

summerskin wrote: »

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.

wow, :o
did you buy into the livstrong nonsense, is that why your post seems a little bitter.

Wibbs

SHOVELLER wrote: »

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

Not at that stage he didn't. NOt even within an asses roar of the fame and money that came later. IN any event whose to say he wasn't sipping at the cheaper end of the trough back at that stage. As quite a few have noted even support level riders were taking this and that to keep up in the 80's. It was an open secret as far back as the 60's. One of the UK's most talented riders died in a 60's tour after taking amphetamines.

I'm not denying the tester's credentials.

In which case he took a performance enhancing drug.

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.

Read the link and read wider on the charity in question. Sure stuff like that grabs money, but their percentages are among the highest in that field.

summerskin

fishy fishy wrote: »

wow, :o
did you buy into the livstrong nonsense, is that why your post seems a little bitter.

Nope, it's bitter because I feel sorry for the people he has fooled for all these years. The cancer patients who saw him as a beacon of hope. And he could have been one. Just to compete at that level after cancer was enough, but he had to tarnish it all by cheating to increase his profile and wealth.

Do you think it's a coincedence that cyclists in the peloton at this year's Tour were significantly a slower than they were in 2005? That scientists are now happy that they are competing at what is considered a "human" level?

Armstrong, Landis, Riis and many others were cheats. At least the others were man enough to finally admit it.

Seaneh

Pace2008 wrote: »

Of course we know, everyone competing in the sport at that level is doping. It's an absolute farce.

It's always nice to see the educated well informed members of AH give their opinion on topics they clearly know a lot about...:rolleyes:

SHOVELLER

Wibbs wrote: »

Not at that stage he didn't. NOt even within an asses roar of the fame and money that came later. IN any event whose to say he wasn't sipping at the cheaper end of the trough back at that stage. As quite a few have noted even support level riders were taking this and that to keep up in the 80's. It was an open secret as far back as the 60's. One of the UK's most talented riders died in a 60's tour after taking amphetamines.

In which case he took a performance enhancing drug.

Read the link and read wider on the charity in question. Sure stuff like that grabs money, but their percentages are among the highest in that field.

He was a millionaire before the cancer struck. Granted he made multiples after.

In the tester's opinion:
"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."


I did and as said nothing illegal about that. We only have to look at home to see some charities are paying very generously to their CEOs.

Mossess

summerskin wrote: »

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.

You hit the nail on the head there when you said the word THINK. It’s all what people THINK. No Proof. It anything the PROOF is the drugs tests which came back as negative. With all the athletes in all sports that are caught every year do you not think that he would have been caught at some stage? It’s all opinions and what people THINK.

pc7

Mr. Anderson wrote: »

. A bit long but fascinating/depressing.
http://www.pendlayforum.com/showthread.php?t=6611

Wowzers great read thanks for that, as someone who was glued to their tv during the Olympics I feel kinda robbed now

fishy fishy

Seaneh wrote: »

It's always nice to see the educated well informed members of AH give their opinion on topics they clearly know a lot about...:rolleyes:

for once I agree with you seanah :D

Jerrica

pc7 wrote: »

Wowzers great read thanks for that, as someone who was glued to their tv during the Olympics I feel kinda robbed now

That's a really understandable reaction, but just to play devil's advocate for a second...

So let's assume (hyoooge assumption granted) that the majority of top athletes are using PDEs. How much are those PDEs actually giving them? They need to have the ability in the first place, the genes, the mental strength, the determination. So does using PDEs actually make them less of an athlete? Or is it the cheating element that's takes away their shine? (Genuine question btw, I'm not being awkward!).

GerM

Mossess wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head there when you said the word THINK. It’s all what people THINK. No Proof. It anything the PROOF is the drugs tests which came back as negative. With all the athletes in all sports that are caught every year do you not think that he would have been caught at some stage? It’s all opinions and what people THINK.

Once again, as Wibbs said, his preserved blood samples from 1999 were positive for EPO. Scientists didn't develop a conclusive test for EPO until 2000 so it could not be detected prior to then.

summerskin

Mossess wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head there when you said the word THINK. It’s all what people THINK. No Proof. It anything the PROOF is the drugs tests which came back as negative. With all the athletes in all sports that are caught every year do you not think that he would have been caught at some stage? It’s all opinions and what people THINK.

So the EPO from 99 doesn't count for you then?

What about "In June 2012, the United States Anti-Doping Agency officially charged Armstrong with doping and trafficking of drugs, based on blood samples from 2009 and 2010, and testimonies from other cyclists"?

None of that enough for you? Not even when it's backed up by dozens of others? You'd just rather take good ole Lance's word for it would you?

Keep buying the bracelets... He'll need the money to pay back the $9.5m he got in bonuses for winning the TdF.

hardCopy

SHOVELLER wrote: »

He was a millionaire before the cancer struck. Granted he made multiples after.

In the tester's opinion:
"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."


I did and as said nothing illegal about that. We only have to look at home to see some charities are paying very generously to their CEOs.

According to Andreu he was already on the hot sauce before he got sick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankie_Andreu#Armstrong_testimony

DEFTLEFTHAND

Cycling has such a tarnished reputation. I'm amazed the sport has remained as popular with the amount of damage its taken over years, even recently major guys like Contador have had titles stripped. Doping seems to be a problem that hasn't yet been eradicated.

Chips Lovell

Mossess wrote: »

It anything the PROOF is the drugs tests which came back as negative. With all the athletes in all sports that are caught every year do you not think that he would have been caught at some stage?

How can you fail a drugs test if there is no test for the doping method you're employing?

You are aware that there is a list as long as my arm of riders who've been suspended or proven to have doped without ever failing a drugs test? Ullrich, Basso, Valverde, Millar, Pantani, Zabel, Riis, Pellizotti, Astarloa, Scarponi etc. were all uncovered as dopers without them testing positive.

It wasn't me!

Wibbs is right. As someone who exercises a lot, that build is anything but easy to achieve, and requires serious dietary focus to lower body fat to get the definition. You can be in just as good shape in terms of your physical fitness, strength and abilities and most people will still not look like that. And it's certainly not the prevalent build on the continent either. Most folks everywhere look pretty ordinary.

pc7

Jerrica wrote: »

So does using PDEs actually make them less of an athlete? Or is it the cheating element that's takes away their shine? (Genuine question btw, I'm not being awkward!).

For me I think its a bit of both, I look to these people as the elite, the best of the best, no matter how hard I train etc I'll never be to their level, they are 'Olympians', marvels of the human race pushing the boundaries of the human body. To read an article like that and feel its all false kinda takes the marvel out of it. (does that make sense?)

eta - when gatlin came 3rd in the Olympics I wasn't happy, I felt he shouldn't have been there, once caught as a cheat that should be it (in my humbler)

opinion guy

Wibbs wrote: »

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. 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.

Ok lets say here - I'm talking aobut footballers physiques in general - not specifically Ronaldo - who is more ripped than most of them. Most footballers are fairly ordinary looking skinny guys.

Any you know what Wibbs- foreign women are skinny. We here that all the time on here followed by much consternation. What we here less on here but is equally true - foreign blokes are also skinny. Simple fact of lie here. Irish people on average are fat. You know that's why you hear about the obesity epidemic we are in the midst of. So yes , as much as AH doesn't like it - Irish women are fatter than European counterparts. So are Irish men (myself included). Simple facts.

I will grant you most are not built like ronaldo in Europe. But on average they are much more like Beckham say, who is rather more ordinarily built than Ronaldo.


(Aside: I once read up on the Brad Pitt Fight Club workout - f***king insane. he also dropped his bodyfat to like 5% or something crazy for that)

WhatNowForUs?

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.

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.

Stopped watching it years ago. The sport started to sadden me.

opinion guy

pc7 wrote: »

For me I think its a bit of both, I look to these people as the elite, the best of the best, no matter how hard I train etc I'll never be to their level, they are 'Olympians', marvels of the human race pushing the boundaries of the human body. To read an article like that and feel its all false kinda takes the marvel out of it. (does that make sense?)

eta - when gatlin came 3rd in the Olympics I wasn't happy, I felt he shouldn't have been there, once caught as a cheat that should be it (in my humbler)

Yes - through doping you too could have the looks of an Olympian.....

http://www.sportinglife.com/london-2012/news/article/6932/7987168/ostapchuk-loses-title

:pac:

Doping......or beer.....lots of beer

Quorum

opinion guy wrote: »

I will grant you most are not built like ronaldo in Europe. But on average they are much more like Beckham say, who is rather more ordinarily built than Ronaldo.

Becks, ordinarily built? Yes, that why lots of ordinary Joes are lining up to do underwear ads. :cool:

AnonoBoy

I've been taking drugs for years and cycling around town on my Dublin Bike. Where's my media furore?

Seaneh

My €0.02.

LA did dope, there is proof, a lot of it, blood tampering, failed b samples from 1999, evidence from team mates and so forth.
There was a lot a doping.
WAS.

Now-a-days because of improved testing and stuff like blood passports, doping is near impossible in cycling, it's no longer worth the risk and now fewer and fewer people are being caught, despite increased and improved testing, which means only one thing, people are realising it's not worth the risk, you lose your career, your dignity and credibility.

In other sports, doping is a much, much bigger problem and is being ignored.

If anyone here honestly thinks people aren't using EPO is soccer, Rugby,etc, you are either an idiot or deluded or both.

In any elite sport, where people can gain an advantage, some people will risk it.

Cycling isn't fully clean and never will be, but it's a **** ton cleaner than other major sports, especially the big ones.

Doping is Football is massive, it's just not tested as much or as well.

pc7

opinion guy wrote: »

Yes - through doping you too could have the looks of an Olympian.....

You leave Shane Byrne alone

opinion guy

Quorum wrote: »

Becks, ordinarily built? Yes, that why lots of ordinary Joes are lining up to do underwear ads. :cool:

Yeah he kind of is really. We've just lost sight of what an ordinary build is in this country.

Seaneh

opinion guy wrote: »

But on average they are much more like Beckham say, who is rather more ordinarily built than Ronaldo.

yeah, all 37 year old men look like this
...

Quorum

opinion guy wrote: »

Yeah he kind of is really. We've just lost sight of what an ordinary build is in this country.

He's really not.

hardCopy

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Cycling has such a tarnished reputation. I'm amazed the sport has remained as popular with the amount of damage its taken over years, even recently major guys like Contador have had titles stripped. Doping seems to be a problem that hasn't yet been eradicated.

It's bloody good fun though.

Regardless of whatever happens in the rooms of cheap French motels in the dead of night, I still love flying down a big hill with no seat belts or air-bags.

There are still problems in the pro game that need fixing, I'd love if Contador had been passed over by the Pro-Teams when his ban expired but hopefully a big catch like this can put pressure on the governing bodies to make real changes.

AEDIC

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok lets say here - I'm talking aobut footballers physiques in general - not specifically Ronaldo - who is more ripped than most of them. Most footballers are fairly ordinary looking skinny guys.

Any you know what Wibbs- foreign women are skinny. We here that all the time on here followed by much consternation. What we here less on here but is equally true - foreign blokes are also skinny. Simple fact of lie here. Irish people on average are fat. You know that's why you hear about the obesity epidemic we are in the midst of. So yes , as much as AH doesn't like it - Irish women are fatter than European counterparts. So are Irish men (myself included). Simple facts.

I will grant you most are not built like ronaldo in Europe. But on average they are much more like Beckham say, who is rather more ordinarily built than Ronaldo.


(Aside: I once read up on the Brad Pitt Fight Club workout - f***king insane. he also dropped his bodyfat to like 5% or something crazy for that)

Actually....not simple facts.... at 39% of adults being overweight and 18% in the obese category, Ireland are only just behind Italy and France with many European countries having significantly higher percentages.

opinion guy

I have to be totally honest here.

Even assuming Armstrong was a doper - he still had a ball chopped off, cancer in his lung, brain surgery and endured chemotherapy. And then won a bunch of tour de france against people we know were definitely doping.

I don't care if he was doping - I still find that an incredible achievement

opinion guy

AEDIC wrote: »

Actually....not simple facts.... at 39% of adults being overweight and 18% in the obese category, Ireland are only just behind Italy and France with many European countries having significantly higher percentages.

your source for that ?

AEDIC

opinion guy wrote: »

your source for that ?

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Overweight_and_obesity_-_BMI_statistics

http://www.dohc.ie/publications/report_taskforce_on_obesity_es.html

Wibbs

Seaneh wrote: »

Now-a-days because of improved testing and stuff like blood passports, doping is near impossible in cycling

I disagree. It's impossible to be as blatantly obvious compared to the past, but still very doable. Enough testing experts in the field concur. Take the blood passport, it's not so black and white as Bradley Wiggins statements made clear. This is NOT saying wiggers is up to no good, not at all, just that the results of said passports as he said "Team doctors have said to me that the blood passport is not clearcut, doping or not doping. There are so many variables in it... For certain people, whatever you do will never be enough unless you let them live with you 12 months, which I'm not prepared for them to do that." These variables are where the clever dopers can hide. EG if I looked at Wiggin's results as a top rider and doped my levels to match his by nefarious means way above my natural means it would be hard to catch me out. Never mind designer drugs unknown by or tested for by the anti-doping bodies. So yes it's way better than the 90's when they were rattling around like pill boxes, but like the poor we'll always have people willing to dope.

Pace2008

Quorum wrote: »

He's really not.

I think he's right, you're setting your standards pretty low if you think Beckham has a particularly impressive build outside of photoshopped shoots. He has average muscle mass and low-ish but hardly freaking level of bodyfat.

http://newspaper.li/static/898b68ee51e9ce9f67fbaba1e457cd55.JPG

He's in fashions ads because he's very good looking and hugely famous.

opinion guy

AEDIC wrote: »

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Overweight_and_obesity_-_BMI_statistics

http://www.dohc.ie/publications/report_taskforce_on_obesity_es.html

ok no be specific. I found that eurostat thing myself - except Ireland isn't in any of the graphs.

so what did you do - just pull the numbers off the DOHC website and comapred to the eurostat ones ? Not a valid comparison. You can't simply compare directly numbers from one study with another like that for all sorts of epidemiological reasons. There is some reason why the eurostat people didn't incldue the Irish data.

You need a common data source. Like the OECD for example:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/factbook-2011-en/12/02/03/index.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/factbook-2011-109-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/18147364&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

Shows us as second fattest in Europe next to Britain

Wibbs

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok lets say here - I'm talking aobut footballers physiques in general - not specifically Ronaldo - who is more ripped than most of them.

A lot more ripped. Crazily so.

Any you know what Wibbs- foreign women are skinny. We here that all the time on here followed by much consternation. What we here less on here but is equally true - foreign blokes are also skinny. Simple fact of lie here. Irish people on average are fat. You know that's why you hear about the obesity epidemic we are in the midst of. So yes , as much as AH doesn't like it - Irish women are fatter than European counterparts. So are Irish men (myself included). Simple facts.

Having traipsed around the place in my time this varies a lot. Your Latins tend to be thinner and finer framed than Irish people and Germans and British. You see chunky(and tall) people in Holland. France can be very variable just in one country. Down south you see enough portly men and women. Spain similarly, especially the men. There are a fair amount of barrel chested Spanish blokes knocking around. Going into the future, the Spaniards may have bigger problems(no pun) as they're now the fattest kids in the EU.

The main diff I've noted was at say 20 you had an equal enough spread of body shapes, with a few more heavier here, but when you get to say 30, we suffer a lot more with "middle aged spread" 15 years too early, certain non youthful stodginess. It's damn near celebrated among Irish men as a general vibe. The pot belly from the feeds of beer type o thing.

I will grant you most are not built like ronaldo in Europe. But on average they are much more like Beckham say, who is rather more ordinarily built than Ronaldo.

Beckham is anything but ordinary in physique. He's wide shouldered with well defined muscle. That takes effort, especially in his late 30's.

(Aside: I once read up on the Brad Pitt Fight Club workout - f***king insane. he also dropped his bodyfat to like 5% or something crazy for that)

Yea mad aint in it. Check out what some of them did for that 300 film. Bloody hell. Bruce Lee's workout routine was off the scale. He was rarely to be found not tensing some muscle or other.

opinion guy

Wibbs wrote: »

A lot more ripped. Crazily so.

Having traipsed around the place in my time this varies a lot. Your Latins tend to be thinner and finer framed than Irish people and Germans and British. You see chunky(and tall) people in Holland. France can be very variable just in one country. Down south you see enough portly men and women. Spain similarly, especially the men. There are a fair amount of barrel chested Spanish blokes knocking around. Going into the future, the Spaniards may have bigger problems(no pun) as they're now the fattest kids in the EU.

The main diff I've noted was at say 20 you had an equal enough spread of body shapes, with a few more heavier here, but when you get to say 30, we suffer a lot more with "middle aged spread" 15 years too early, certain non youthful stodginess. It's damn near celebrated among Irish men as a general vibe. The pot belly from the feeds of beer type o thing.

Not disagreeing with that. You will see extremes everywhere - except Japan. Honestly place I was were you almost never saw anyone with a BMI above 20 was Japan. About once a day in the sea of people on the street there you might see a fat person.

Beckham is anything but ordinary in physique. He's wide shouldered with well defined muscle. That takes effort, especially in his late 30's.

I disagree. Run 5k maybe 4 or 5 days a week, do push ups a few crunches and maybe some light upper body weights - avoid eating chips and drinking beer all the time most guys without medical issues can look not far off Beckham that. Its not that hard as its being made out to be. I also don't think his age is that big a deal - hes in his thirties - not his sixties.

Yea mad aint in it. Check out what some of them did for that 300 film. Bloody hell. Bruce Lee's workout routine was off the scale. He was rarely to be found not tensing some muscle or other.

Lol...the most built guy I know is like that. Always moving. If you talking to him he will just start hopping up and down off a wall or doing pushups or something :pac:

Seaneh

opinion guy wrote: »

I have to be totally honest here.

Even assuming Armstrong was a doper - he still had a ball chopped off, cancer in his lung, brain surgery and endured chemotherapy. And then won a bunch of tour de france against people we know were definitely doping.

I don't care if he was doping - I still find that an incredible achievement

It is an amazing achievement but the way he acts like he did it clean and protests that he is being perscuited is bollocks.

Also, he's a wanker.

AEDIC

opinion guy wrote: »

ok no be specific. I found that eurostat thing myself - except Ireland isn't in any of the graphs.

so what did you do - just pull the numbers off the DOHC website and comapred to the eurostat ones ? Not a valid comparison. You can't simply compare directly numbers from one study with another like that for all sorts of epidemiological reasons. There is some reason why the eurostat people didn't incldue the Irish data.

You need a common data source. Like the OECD for example:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/factbook-2011-en/12/02/03/index.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/factbook-2011-109-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/18147364&accessItemIds=&mimeType=text/html

Shows us as second fattest in Europe next to Britain

Good grief...do you even take the time to read the stuff you are putting up as 'evidence'?

First of all the base for the stats in your link are for population aged 15 and above, whereas mine is talking about the adult population. At the age of 15 and 16 children are still developing and weight increase and decrease can be significant at that time and not a good base for comparison, unless you are talking about overweight children.

Secondly, the stats you have provided are talking about data from '2009 or latest' so the comparables within that table itself can range over 3 years, hardly the basis for a sound comparison.

The survey you have also does not include a lot of the European countries and looks at worldwide rather than concentrating on Europe

And finally, but more importanly...if you read the table.... Ireland are NOT second only behind the UK, Spain, Check Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg and Israel (ok arguably not Europe but lets go with it for now) also have higher numbers than Irelands.

Both of my links are current and latest and when you are comparing overweight adults as a percentage of a population of course you can compare from 2 sources as the base of the calculation are exactly the same.... (if you read the first link it tells you why Ireland is not included, as it says the information was not available at the time for some countries, hence the Ireland figures being published in 2012)

Jerrica

pc7 wrote: »

For me I think its a bit of both, I look to these people as the elite, the best of the best, no matter how hard I train etc I'll never be to their level, they are 'Olympians', marvels of the human race pushing the boundaries of the human body. To read an article like that and feel its all false kinda takes the marvel out of it. (does that make sense?)

It does make sense But take the PEDs out of it, the average Joe would still never get to that level, and the Olympians - clean or not - are still the best of the best of the best.

I'm not for a second excusing doping, it's cheating, end of. But I don't think it entirely discredits the merits of the individuals as superior athletes.

Quorum

Pace2008 wrote: »

I think he's right, you're setting your standards pretty low if you think Beckham has a particularly impressive build outside of photoshopped shoots. He has average muscle mass and low-ish but hardly freaking level of bodyfat.

Yup, guess I've low standards so. That's what it is. :cool:

It wasn't me!

opinion guy wrote: »

Not disagreeing with that. You will see extremes everywhere - except Japan. Honestly place I was were you almost never saw anyone with a BMI above 20 was Japan. About once a day in the sea of people on the street there you might see a fat person.



I disagree. Run 5k maybe 4 or 5 days a week, do push ups a few crunches and maybe some light upper body weights - avoid eating chips and drinking beer all the time most guys without medical issues can look not far off Beckham that. Its not that hard as its being made out to be. I also don't think his age is that big a deal - hes in his thirties - not his sixties.



Lol...the most built guy I know is like that. Always moving. If you talking to him he will just start hopping up and down off a wall or doing pushups or something :pac:

I do more exercise than that, I'm in my early to mid twenties and I don't look like that. I also eat lean and keep active day to day. It takes substantial effort over a long period of time to get that physique. Now, it's certainly achievable for most people, but it's tough enough. Like I say, you need a major focus on diet with an eye to lowering body fat. Seriously low sugar intake and a very careful observation of fat intake. A few miles a day and a couple of push-ups and sit-ups will not cut it for me. Body type is also a major factor, obviously. I'm a big, heavy guy and work very hard to keep in good nick. I know other guys who are build lighter and leaner who can out-eat me several times over and then do double duty as a xylophone.

Zipp101

Seaneh wrote: »

In other sports, doping is a much, much bigger problem and is being ignored.

If anyone here honestly thinks people aren't using EPO is soccer, Rugby,etc, you are either an idiot or deluded or both.

In any elite sport, where people can gain an advantage, some people will risk it.

Cycling isn't fully clean and never will be, but it's a **** ton cleaner than other major sports, especially the big ones.

Doping is Football is massive, it's just not tested as much or as well.

Absolutely agree, Out of the 150 odd athletes involved in Operation Puerto in 2004 only 50 of them were cyclists ! The rest came from soccer, tennis etc. However they were never named.
Cycling is now one of the cleanest sports with the most testing yet the media would suggest that it is still tarnished by drug cheats.


In this years tour de France when Frank Schleck (one of only two riders in this years tour to be removed for drugs) tested positive it was headline news while arguably the two best soccer players in the world Xavi and Messi are openly injected with growth hormones and its not mentioned. why is this not newsworthy?

An interesting article on the topic here:


http://www.irishpeloton.com/2012/02/drugs-in-football-pull-the-other-one/

Antisocialiser

I am going to be super pissed off if I find out Lance Armstrong has two balls after all.

titan18

Seaneh wrote: »

My €0.02.

LA did dope, there is proof, a lot of it, blood tampering, failed b samples from 1999, evidence from team mates and so forth.
There was a lot a doping.
WAS.

Now-a-days because of improved testing and stuff like blood passports, doping is near impossible in cycling, it's no longer worth the risk and now fewer and fewer people are being caught, despite increased and improved testing, which means only one thing, people are realising it's not worth the risk, you lose your career, your dignity and credibility.

In other sports, doping is a much, much bigger problem and is being ignored.

If anyone here honestly thinks people aren't using EPO is soccer, Rugby,etc, you are either an idiot or deluded or both.

In any elite sport, where people can gain an advantage, some people will risk it.

Cycling isn't fully clean and never will be, but it's a **** ton cleaner than other major sports, especially the big ones.

Doping is Football is massive, it's just not tested as much or as well.

That's just crap. EPO can be undetectable in urine, and even through blood testing be gone within hours if taken in a certain way. The older HGH test (not sure how many have gone to the new one yet) could only detect HGH if taken up to 72 hours before (new one is 21 days I think, which still aint much)

Blood doping is difficult to test, and the blood passport is bs. Check out how many have been banned for odd blood values, all it can really do is increase testing on certain cyclists.

Gene doping is difficult to detect and is something a lot are concerned about.

Even outside that, I'm not sure what the limits are in cycling, but you can easily dope to the limit where you won't be caught, and it'll be considered natural. For example, I think the average Testosterone / Epitestosterone Ratio is 1:1 but in athletes the limit is 4:1 before it's considered to look suspicious.

I agree with the rest of your post

Jerrica

Zipp101 wrote: »

while arguably the two best soccer players in the world Xavi and Messi are openly injected with growth hormones and its not mentioned. why is this not newsworthy?

Lionel Messi was diagnosed with a growth hormone deficiency at the age of 11 and his treatment on being signed to Barcelona has been widely reported and debated in the media.

fishy fishy

Jerrica wrote: »

Lionel Messi was diagnosed with a growth hormone deficiency at the age of 11 and his treatment on being signed to Barcelona has been widely reported and debated in the media.

drugs are drugs - they are either in your system or not. you can't say its okay for one and not the other.

Seaneh

fishy fishy wrote: »

drugs are drugs - they are either in your system or not. you can't say its okay for one and not the other.

Now you are just being silly.

The boy has an actual medical condition which requires treatment or else his organs and bone wouldn't have grown properly.

mackg

Swampy wrote: »

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.

roadrunner16 wrote: »

"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 .

So what now? Will he be piloting a rickshaw travelling at the speed of light around some town centre with tubes sticking out of him like Bane from the Batman cartoon? I'd pay for a spin in that.

Jerrica

fishy fishy wrote: »

drugs are drugs - they are either in your system or not. you can't say its okay for one and not the other.

So all diabetics should be ruled out of the Olympics by virtue of them needing to take insulin by injection?

Oh you. D+ for effort.

Seaneh

Messi's condition does have one massive (or small) downside.

He might be the best footballer in the world, one of the highest paid atheles of all time and score goals for fun.

But his medical condition has a common symptom called "micropenis".


So odds are, Leo Messi is hung like a pigmy shrew.