I wish they’d just dissolve all of these idiotic agencies like the USADA and let all athletes use however much they want and whatever they want.
It’d make things exponentially more simple while maximizing the entertainment values of the sports.
Hell, look how well it has worked for bodybuilding. (~_^)b
[quote]TheJonty wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]JACKED71 wrote:
Catching Lance sends out the stongest possible message to all those who dope or are thinking of doping - you are never too big to fail.[/quote]
Problem is, he was not caught.
He is simply no longer fighting their allegations.
Now in their mind and in your mind that might mean something, but so far they did not prove anything. [/quote]
This is the part about it that bugs me. As far as I know they have zero physical evidence that he doped during his Tour victories. I read somewhere that they have blood tests from 2009-10 which are consistent with blood doping, but that was years after his last Tour victory. All I’ve read about their “evidence” is that it includes testimony from 10ish other people (who were not named) and e-mails between him and Landis and other team members. Well whoop dee fucking doo, that doesn’t prove a goddamn thing. If he is to be stripped of his Tour de France titles one would think there would have to be physical evidence that there was a banned substance in his body or that a banned method was utilized; as best I can tell no such evidence exists.
From the WADA website in a statement on the issue:
“It is relevant to note, however, that the anti-doping rules violations alleged and outlined in USADAâ??s charge letter to Mr. Armstrong are based on conspiracy and fraud.”
If his titles can be stripped based on allegations of conspiracy and fraud without a shred of physical evidence, I may have to admit to losing some faith in the system. Though it certainly wouldn’t be the first time my faith has been shaken.[/quote]
I’ve heard murmurs about there being evidence of masking agents in his blood samples but if it were definitive I can’t see why they need for the process they’re following and all the conspiracy crap, so it really seems like they have very little. I wonder if we will ever know.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]denisined wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]denisined wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
^^ I don’t Nesecarily agree with “is going to use” but I definitely agree with you otherwise.
Some people’s moral or religious views would prevent them from using but I agree that the temptation is there.[/quote]
By and large, morals disappear in the face of $ millions.[/quote]
I think the fear of bullshit laws tends to evaporate in a flash if you have the chance to make dozens of millions and get laid like a rockstar.
[/quote]
No it is a moral issue. By participating in the sport they agree not to use substances. They are lying and cheating by using said substancses[/quote]
First of all they are not cheating.
Pretty much everyone at the TDF uses and they all know that everyone else uses.
Second, yes, they lie and yes it is a moral issue.
To accept the world as given though and then judge the people acting in it is a bit iffy.
Whether their lying was completely unjustified depends in part on what organization made what rules for what purposes and whether all of that can be justified in the first place.
[/quote]
Just because everyone is doing it does not make it cheating. They are breaking the rules thus cheating. You are not justifying your stance on them not cheating.
[/quote]
Well, in the sense that he has no real advantage if everyone is juiced to the gills it is not cheating.
If I was an up and coming cyclist I would also ponder whether I owe any loyalty to organizations that know perfectly well what goes on and insist on BS rules anyway so as to not stir up a shitstorm.
To give up your one chance to make it big to support the hypocrisy of more or less self appointed officials is a tad more than being honest, that is being a saint and you do not come out of that option with clean hands either.
He did not kill anyone, he did not really lie more than necessary, he just juiced and beat other juicers fair and square.
He did not make the playing field any dirtier than he found it, he just got a bit of dirt on himself because it was dirty to begin with.
For me that is among the negligible and forgivable sins.
[/quote]
If the organizations agree that they do not want doping in the sport and they agree that the rules need to stay, how do they go about enforcing it without penalizing one person while other still yet unproven athletes get by?
(I’m not say they have any evidence for Armstrong btw that all sounds fucked up) But organizations do have a right to lay down the rules for their sport and athletes are agreeing to abide by them. I don’t understand why it is appalling when organizations enforce their rules. The fact that everybody is breaking the rules means that they have a lot of work to do to clean it up but they have to start somewhere.
There are many ways to get disqualified, and while doping carries a lot of extra baggage and controversy, it is still just another rule that is being attempted to enforce.
There is nothing stopping any of these wealthy athletes from creating their own untested organization. But there is a reason they don’t…
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]denisined wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]denisined wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
^^ I don’t Nesecarily agree with “is going to use” but I definitely agree with you otherwise.
Some people’s moral or religious views would prevent them from using but I agree that the temptation is there.[/quote]
By and large, morals disappear in the face of $ millions.[/quote]
I think the fear of bullshit laws tends to evaporate in a flash if you have the chance to make dozens of millions and get laid like a rockstar.
[/quote]
No it is a moral issue. By participating in the sport they agree not to use substances. They are lying and cheating by using said substancses[/quote]
First of all they are not cheating.
Pretty much everyone at the TDF uses and they all know that everyone else uses.
Second, yes, they lie and yes it is a moral issue.
To accept the world as given though and then judge the people acting in it is a bit iffy.
Whether their lying was completely unjustified depends in part on what organization made what rules for what purposes and whether all of that can be justified in the first place.
[/quote]
Just because everyone is doing it does not make it cheating. They are breaking the rules thus cheating. You are not justifying your stance on them not cheating.
[/quote]
Well, in the sense that he has no real advantage if everyone is juiced to the gills it is not cheating.
If I was an up and coming cyclist I would also ponder whether I owe any loyalty to organizations that know perfectly well what goes on and insist on BS rules anyway so as to not stir up a shitstorm.
To give up your one chance to make it big to support the hypocrisy of more or less self appointed officials is a tad more than being honest, that is being a saint and you do not come out of that option with clean hands either.
He did not kill anyone, he did not really lie more than necessary, he just juiced and beat other juicers fair and square.
He did not make the playing field any dirtier than he found it, he just got a bit of dirt on himself because it was dirty to begin with.
For me that is among the negligible and forgivable sins.
[/quote]
^This
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]denisined wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]denisined wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
^^ I don’t Nesecarily agree with “is going to use” but I definitely agree with you otherwise.
Some people’s moral or religious views would prevent them from using but I agree that the temptation is there.[/quote]
By and large, morals disappear in the face of $ millions.[/quote]
I think the fear of bullshit laws tends to evaporate in a flash if you have the chance to make dozens of millions and get laid like a rockstar.
[/quote]
No it is a moral issue. By participating in the sport they agree not to use substances. They are lying and cheating by using said substancses[/quote]
First of all they are not cheating.
Pretty much everyone at the TDF uses and they all know that everyone else uses.
Second, yes, they lie and yes it is a moral issue.
To accept the world as given though and then judge the people acting in it is a bit iffy.
Whether their lying was completely unjustified depends in part on what organization made what rules for what purposes and whether all of that can be justified in the first place.
[/quote]
Just because everyone is doing it does not make it cheating. They are breaking the rules thus cheating. You are not justifying your stance on them not cheating.
[/quote]
Well, in the sense that he has no real advantage if everyone is juiced to the gills it is not cheating.
If I was an up and coming cyclist I would also ponder whether I owe any loyalty to organizations that know perfectly well what goes on and insist on BS rules anyway so as to not stir up a shitstorm.
To give up your one chance to make it big to support the hypocrisy of more or less self appointed officials is a tad more than being honest, that is being a saint and you do not come out of that option with clean hands either.
He did not kill anyone, he did not really lie more than necessary, he just juiced and beat other juicers fair and square.
He did not make the playing field any dirtier than he found it, he just got a bit of dirt on himself because it was dirty to begin with.
For me that is among the negligible and forgivable sins.
[/quote]
If the organizations agree that they do not want doping in the sport and they agree that the rules need to stay, how do they go about enforcing it without penalizing one person while other still yet unproven athletes get by?
(I’m not say they have any evidence for Armstrong btw that all sounds fucked up) But organizations do have a right to lay down the rules for their sport and athletes are agreeing to abide by them. I don’t understand why it is appalling when organizations enforce their rules. The fact that everybody is breaking the rules means that they have a lot of work to do to clean it up but they have to start somewhere.
There are many ways to get disqualified, and while doping carries a lot of extra baggage and controversy, it is still just another rule that is being attempted to enforce.
There is nothing stopping any of these wealthy athletes from creating their own untested organization. But there is a reason they don’t…
[/quote]
But this is neither the TDF owner, nor the International cyclers, nor the American cyclers, it is a semi private BS organization that felt like opening that can of worms…AGAIN after the federal government felt they had not enough to make a case.
I dont even see how it is cheating when the US anti doping whatnot jumps in after the fact and fights the organizations he actually belonged to along the way.
This guy was not even accused by the organizations he allegedly cheated, just some bureaucrat clown that is burning tax payer money, because at this point in time, there really is no better use for it, is there.
Not that Armstrong was not juiced to the gills.
Or bitten by a radioactive spider or somesuch.
Did Armstrong use PED’s? I don’t know. Do I care? Hell no.
He won on his sport’s biggest stage 7 times against the best competition in the world; it takes more than drugs to achieve that.
I just wanted to throw this out there. Some Biotest ad copy for Beta-7…
[quote]Use or Lose
The edge. In elite competition, it’s the difference between first and fifth place.
[…]
The use of performance-enhancing substances is as long as the history of sport itself. Cyclists in the 1800’s used something they called trimethyl – which, believe it or not, was a combination of alcohol, strychnine, heroin, caffeine, and cocaine – and sometimes died from it. In the 1930’s, amphetamines became widely popular. In fact, heroin and cocaine were openly used in sports until they were first classified as prescription drugs and later as illicit substances.[/quote]
The emphasis is mine.
Whether the organization “stripped him of his titles” or not, people still know who he is, and he still did win those races. Whether he won those races with or without assistance, he still won them.
Culturally, Americans tend to have a thing for “fair competition”. There’s a whole lot of money (from Americans especially) in maintaining the illusion of fairness, and you have to consider that side of the money equation.
For that reason, if someone makes a statement (via words or actions) like “oh, he was using assistance, but it’s ok”, a lot of people would boycott it. Which means less advertising dollars, less ticket sales, etc.
Americans are also one of the few cultures that tends to root for the underdog. Many others hold the view that the underdog is the underdog for a reason, and doesn’t deserve to win. Combine that with the fact that Americans also have a lot of money, and the motives behind this become a lot more murky.
Nevermind the fact that, in America, the underdogs rarely win… but there’s a few hundred years of political and marketing rhetoric to maintain that idea. Like, sure, we won the Revolutionary War – but we got a lot of assistance. We just don’t like to mention that part. As if mentioning that somehow discredits everything.
[quote]orion wrote:
Well, in the sense that he has no real advantage if everyone is juiced to the gills it is not cheating.
[…]
He did not make the playing field any dirtier than he found it, he just got a bit of dirt on himself because it was dirty to begin with.
[/quote]
Yeanaah-
This actually does make the case a bit fuzzy:
Some (German) Lars Ullrich fans claim that their champ did barely juice. In the beginning, even though his first TdF victory they claim he didn’t even “supplement” at all. Later, when he hit a wall, his coaches had to persuade him with more or less what Orion wrote above.
This leads to the question, if the chemical information deficit -enforced through steroids being illegal- doesn’t lead to making the champ the most gifted and stealthy chemist. Or rather the guy with the best chemist team.
And that would still be a HUGE problem, even in a libertarian state with no restriction for juicing because
The fair skys be fallin…
What a bunch of bullshit!
It’s really not all that hard to pass 500 or so drug tests when you read the following article from Cyclingnews.com:
American said to have been given time ?to cover his tracks?
Lance Armstrong was ?warned before all planned doping controls,? an adviser to the French anti-doping agency AFLD has said. Michel Rieu, scientific adviser to AFLD, said this was only one of the methods the American used to escape detection of his doping.
"The inspectors encountered many difficulties in making unannounced checks. Armstrong was always informed in advance, so he still had twenty minutes to cover his tracks. He could thin his blood or replace his urine. He used the EPO only in small quantities, so it was no longer there to detect. We were powerless against this way of working,? Rieu told the Le Monde newspaper.
He also claimed that Armstrong used a large network to help him with his doping, and his avoidance of positive doping controls. "Armstrong let himself be surrounded by many physiologists. Also in the logistics field, everything was possible. The rumor was that his private jet was flying blood in from the United States.?
Armstrong was on Friday given a lifetime ban by the USADA, with all his results since August 1998, disqualified, including his seven Tour de France victories. He had chosen not to challenge doping charges which the American agency had brought against him.
French attorney Thibault de Montbrial, who defended the paper in a suit filed by Armstrong against LA Confidential authors David Walsh and Pierre Ballester, thinks the cumulative pressure of authors such as these and the SCA Promotions lawsuit that followed contributed to the downfall of Armstrong.
He also believes riders are still showing suspicious signs.
“Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s.”
^^lol.
There is not one bit of proof in any of that.
They can test for masking agents and blood doping. To date, he hadn’t failed any of those tests.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
He may be a dick in real life (I have read several articles where folks said he was an ass) and that might be the reason for the witch hunt. But he is one of the 10 ten U.S. athletes of all time IMHO…and has raised over 300 million for cancer research…at the end of the day, it just shows the absolute pettiness of people.
And last point, all 7 of Armstrong’s vacated Tour de France titles will now go to… suspected dopers.
1999: Alex Zulle (confessed to EPO use)
2000: Jan Ullrich (suspended from 2006 Tour; banned this year and stripped of all results from 2005 on)
2001: Jan Ullrich
2002: Joseba Beloki (kept out of 2006 Tour while under doping investigation, later cleared)
2003: Jan Ullrich
2004: Andreas Kloden (accused of illegal blood transfusion in the 2006 Tour)
2005: Ivan Basso (confessed to attempted doping, suspended)[/quote]
This was my first thought. I’m fairly certain Armstrong doped, but so did everyone else near the top. They’re taking away his Tour titles only to give them to someone else just as dirty. If they are going to do this, then they should just remove these titles and give them to no one.
Lemond and the french media have had it out for lance for quite some time.
Over the next few weeks much of USADA’s case will be know and it will not be pretty. There will be very clear evidence of a cover up by the UCI. Not just of the 2001 Tour of Spain but also the 1999 cortisone positive. It should also expose the actions by the UCI to try to ensure the truth did not get out to USADA or the Feds. I also expect USAC to not be spared. Multiple entities will launch lawsuits as soon as he is stripped. SCA is the most obvious but I expect sponsors to as well.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]dcb wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Lance Armstrong is the greatest cyclist of all-time.[/quote]
Um no. Not even close. Eddy Merckx was far and away the greatest cyclist of all time. There’s no debate: 525 Victories
5 Tour de France
5 Giro
1 Vuelta
3 World championships
1 Amateur world championship
7 Milan-San Remo
2 Tour of Flanders
3 Paris-Roubaix
5 Li�??�??�?�¨ge-Bastogne-Li�??�??�?�¨ge
2 Amstel Gold races
2 Tour of Lombardy
2 Het Volk
3 Ghent-Wevelgem
3 Fl�??�??�?�¨che-Wallonne
1 Paris-Brussels
As to the rest of your post, I agree.[/quote]
Okay he has more victories so that’s a statement on longevity. Sometimes when you’re looking at the GOAT you may have to slightly discount the length of career as a prevailing factor, especially if the other guy has 7 Tour de Frances. Let me use a tennis example: Rafael Nadal COULD (hypothetically and emphasised because it looks like he’s on the decline) finish his career with more ATP 1000 Master wins than Federer. Would that mean he’d be seen as being better than Federer, especially in light of the fact Federer would have more Slams under this hypothetical scenario? Any rational sports fan would say no.
7 titles is no joke and straight crazy - and then you factor in the level of competition. Plus, Armstrong put cycling ON THE MAP. A large reason MJ will always be the GOAT to step on the court is because of how he elevated the popularity of basketball and how he became an icon (probably the most well-known athlete in history ahead of Ali). You could say he revolutionised the game. Armstrong is to cycling what MJ is to basketball - a revolutionary figure.
'Nuff said [Victor Cruz end zone dance].[/quote]
It’s great that you brought tennis up as it’s a decent way to compare the two sports if you want to look at it that way. Merckx won 5 TDF’s, 5 Giro de Italia’s, and 1 Vuelta a Espania. Those the races are the “Slams” of cycling; i.e. 3 week major stage races of similar length and difficulty. So the comparison would be like someone who won 7 Wimbledons compared to someone who won 5 Wimbledons and 6 other slams. In the end, Merckx with 11 Slams and Armstrong with 7. In regard to length of career, Merckx won all of those from 1969 to 1974 which is a similar timeframe to Armstrong’s wins. In addition, Merckx probably would have won 6 TDF’s had the race organizers asked him not to race in 1973 because he was simply too dominate and it was boring. Instead, he won the Giro and Vuelta that year. In 1975 Merckx was winning the TDF when a fan ran onto the road and punched him, then he crashed and broke his cheek a stage or two later…he still finished second. In the end Armstrong is the more important rider to cycling as a sport in this country, and his work to fight cancer overshadows that of any athlete I can think of from any sport. But, the GOAT in cycling was the Cannibal - Eddy Merckx.
Records
The other records Merckx set:
Most career victories by a professional cyclist: 525.
Most victories in one season: 54.
Most stage victories in the Tour de France: 34.
Most stage victories in one Tour de France: 8, in 1970 and 1974 (shared with Charles P�©lissier in 1930 and Freddy Maertens in 1976).
Most days with the yellow jersey in the Tour de France: 96.
The only cyclist to have won the general classification, points classification and mountains classification in the same Tour de France (1969).
Most victories in classics: 28.
Most victories in one single classic: 7 (in Milan â?? San Remo).
Most victories in Grand Tours: 11
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
He may be a dick in real life (I have read several articles where folks said he was an ass) and that might be the reason for the witch hunt. But he is one of the 10 ten U.S. athletes of all time IMHO…and has raised over 300 million for cancer research…at the end of the day, it just shows the absolute pettiness of people.
And last point, all 7 of Armstrong’s vacated Tour de France titles will now go to… suspected dopers.
1999: Alex Zulle (confessed to EPO use)
2000: Jan Ullrich (suspended from 2006 Tour; banned this year and stripped of all results from 2005 on)
2001: Jan Ullrich
2002: Joseba Beloki (kept out of 2006 Tour while under doping investigation, later cleared)
2003: Jan Ullrich
2004: Andreas Kloden (accused of illegal blood transfusion in the 2006 Tour)
2005: Ivan Basso (confessed to attempted doping, suspended)[/quote]
This was my first thought. I’m fairly certain Armstrong doped, but so did everyone else near the top. They’re taking away his Tour titles only to give them to someone else just as dirty. If they are going to do this, then they should just remove these titles and give them to no one.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
He may be a dick in real life (I have read several articles where folks said he was an ass) and that might be the reason for the witch hunt. But he is one of the 10 ten U.S. athletes of all time IMHO…and has raised over 300 million for cancer research…at the end of the day, it just shows the absolute pettiness of people.
And last point, all 7 of Armstrong’s vacated Tour de France titles will now go to… suspected dopers.
1999: Alex Zulle (confessed to EPO use)
2000: Jan Ullrich (suspended from 2006 Tour; banned this year and stripped of all results from 2005 on)
2001: Jan Ullrich
2002: Joseba Beloki (kept out of 2006 Tour while under doping investigation, later cleared)
2003: Jan Ullrich
2004: Andreas Kloden (accused of illegal blood transfusion in the 2006 Tour)
2005: Ivan Basso (confessed to attempted doping, suspended)[/quote]
This was my first thought. I’m fairly certain Armstrong doped, but so did everyone else near the top. They’re taking away his Tour titles only to give them to someone else just as dirty. If they are going to do this, then they should just remove these titles and give them to no one.[/quote]
Indeed. You actually have to dig a bit deeper in the general classification in those years to find a legit winner. Looking at the 2001 and 2002 tours for example, this would be the 13th or 14th finisher. Almost every finisher within the top 10 has been involved in doping scandal of some sort from 1998 and the early 2000 period.
[quote]dcb wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Lance Armstrong is the greatest cyclist of all-time.[/quote]
Um no. Not even close. Eddy Merckx was far and away the greatest cyclist of all time. There’s no debate: 525 Victories
5 Tour de France
5 Giro
1 Vuelta
3 World championships
1 Amateur world championship
7 Milan-San Remo
2 Tour of Flanders
3 Paris-Roubaix
5 Li�¨ge-Bastogne-Li�¨ge
2 Amstel Gold races
2 Tour of Lombardy
2 Het Volk
3 Ghent-Wevelgem
3 Fl�¨che-Wallonne
1 Paris-Brussels
As to the rest of your post, I agree.[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]JACKED71 wrote:
Catching Lance sends out the stongest possible message to all those who dope or are thinking of doping - you are never too big to fail.[/quote]
Problem is, he was not caught.
He is simply no longer fighting their allegations.
Now in their mind and in your mind that might mean something, but so far they did not prove anything. [/quote]
From what I understand a positive drug test isn’t the only way to be “caught”. Witness testimony can also be used (much like you can be convicted of murder without forensic evidence if there are a bunch of witnesses).
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
^^ I don’t Nesecarily agree with “is going to use” but I definitely agree with you otherwise.
Some people’s moral or religious views would prevent them from using but I agree that the temptation is there.[/quote]
By and large, morals disappear in the face of $ millions.[/quote]
Morals? Many people believe the rules and laws banning PED use are wrong so breaking a rule like that does not create a moral dilemma. And when you add in that everyone else is doing it, it doesn’t really count as cheating as you are not giving yourself an advantage that others don’t already have. [/quote]
If you don’t agree with the rules, then don’t participate in the sport.
I have no issue if people take PEDs. I certainly don’t agree with them being illegal.
But if they take PEDs and then compete in a sport that doesn’t allow them, then they are cheaters.