[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I know a bit about cycling and the issue of doping. The issue of doping (and the Armstrong case) is, as any real-world issue really, not so black and white as people here make it out to be. Some thoughts:
Did Armstrong dope? Yes, there can be very little doubt now.
Was it obvious from the start? No, I would say not to people who were not directly involved in pro cycling.
Can the right blood doping turn a decent but not very talented endurance athlete (like some say Armstrong was) into a great one? Yes, certainly.
Was he still the best because “everyone else was doping” back then? Hmm, difficult to say. Perhaps, but there appears to be evidence that he and his team were ahead of the others in terms of doping strategies and avoidance of testing positive.[/quote]
You seem like a rational thinker.
Do you agree with the manner in which the charges against Armstrong have been pursued?
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I know a bit about cycling and the issue of doping. The issue of doping (and the Armstrong case) is, as any real-world issue really, not so black and white as people here make it out to be. Some thoughts:
Did Armstrong dope? Yes, there can be very little doubt now.
Was it obvious from the start? No, I would say not to people who were not directly involved in pro cycling.
Can the right blood doping turn a decent but not very talented endurance athlete (like some say Armstrong was) into a great one? Yes, certainly.
Was he still the best because “everyone else was doping” back then? Hmm, difficult to say. Perhaps, but there appears to be evidence that he and his team were ahead of the others in terms of doping strategies and avoidance of testing positive.[/quote]
You seem like a rational thinker.
Do you agree with the manner in which the charges against Armstrong have been pursued?
[/quote]
Not exactly sure what you mean by “manner”. You mean so late?
Hard to say really. There is evidence that Armstrong was not just passively avoiding tests but actively “influencing” authorities (e.g., being tipped off before testing etc.) and hence there is reason to believe that some part of the authorities (UCI) were in the know but didn’t do all they could back then. So it is interesting to understand that it wasn’t the UCI which “got” him now but the US Anti-Doping Agency (they are not related).
[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one thinks Lance was clean, dummy. The post that spawned all your hatred here was in response to his being chased around and litigated against for YEARS, for races he’d already completed. The problem was that drug tests were performed time and time and time again, probably more for him that almost any other athlete in his or any sport, and they couldn’t get the evidence they needed from it. So they just kept digging and digging and digging, at Armstrong, because he was the winner. They wanted to get him, and they were going to find any way in their power to do so. They are a bunch of sorry human beings, like you, who just want to tear down someone who was way, WAY better than they could ever dream of being.
Good for you, though. Now you have something to make you feel better for all the races you lost. [/quote]
Perhaps “they” wanted to get him, not because he was a winner, but because it was obvious that he was cheating?[/quote]
If it was “obvious” then why were they not able to get him when he was actually engaged in the cheating?
[quote]gregron wrote:
So now the word of a bunch of lying, drug using, perjurers is now considered proof? lol
These guys have all been offered plea deals to give their version of what happened… I’m sure they’re all very reliable.[/quote]
Yeah but, Lance is a cheater, and like, stuff, and it was so obvious from the very start of his career. So obvious that they’ve had to build a case after the fact based upon years old hearsay and testimony from confirmed liars.
Why even bother having drug tests in sports anymore? Just ask the other athletes. Hey, that guy with all the gold medals…you see him using? Yeah? Disqualified for life![/quote]
Average speed of the peloton from 1980 to 1990: approximately 37 km/h
Average speed of the peloton from 1995 to 2005: approximately 41 km/h
The winning time for the Alpe d’Huez in 2011 would have been good for 40th place in 2001.
The entire field was doped when Armstrong was winning. If you believe someone can win against the best of the world with a roughly 10% handicap, then I’ve got some ocean front property in Montana to sell you.
Also, not all of the people testifying against Armstrong had been caught. Some were admitting it for the first time. They had no reason to make up a story.
[quote]gregron wrote:
So now the word of a bunch of lying, drug using, perjurers is now considered proof? lol
These guys have all been offered plea deals to give their version of what happened… I’m sure they’re all very reliable.[/quote]
[quote]The riders who signed sworn affidavits also either testified before a federal grand jury or were questioned by federal investigators, risking perjury if they lied or changed their stories. And by admitting to old transgressions for which they were never caught, several riders – notably, the recently retired George Hincapie – have hung their own reputations out to dry. It defies credulity to say that all of these statements were given out of spite or in bad faith or to reduce the witnesses’ own doping penalties.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one thinks Lance was clean, dummy. The post that spawned all your hatred here was in response to his being chased around and litigated against for YEARS, for races he’d already completed. The problem was that drug tests were performed time and time and time again, probably more for him that almost any other athlete in his or any sport, and they couldn’t get the evidence they needed from it. So they just kept digging and digging and digging, at Armstrong, because he was the winner. They wanted to get him, and they were going to find any way in their power to do so. They are a bunch of sorry human beings, like you, who just want to tear down someone who was way, WAY better than they could ever dream of being.
Good for you, though. Now you have something to make you feel better for all the races you lost. [/quote]
You know how this works. On-the-day tests are only part of an anti-doping strategy. They will catch middle to low rung careless, ill-informed and unlucky dopers. Top echelon busts are not likely to happen through immediate positives because doping technology is going to be years ahead of the testing technology.
Just like Balco, Festina etc. its caught by specific investigation, retrospective tests and other valid forms of evidence. This will always be the case in many types of criminal activity e.g. financial fraud.
[/quote]
And what technology are they employing that has finally caught up with Lance?
Do tell.
[/quote]
Do you actually want to know? I’m not sure you do. The only reason you can think there haven’t been any is because of LA spin doctors. The USADA evidence is 27 sworn witness statements, money trail to doping doctor… oh and positive tests.
Most recent retrospective tests:
If you want some discussion of the science on previous retests:
And a summary from Cycling news of some of the others:
9.0-to-1 June 23, 1993;
7.6-to-1 from July 7, 1994;
6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996.
Most people have a ratio of 1-to-1.
Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormally high and evidence of doping;
in 2005 that ratio was lowered to 4.0-to-1.
i dont care either… . my post here, is directed at all the non cyclists that know nothing about cycling that think they do and think lance raced clean. a post here a few months ago on this forum, had tons of non cyclists giving their opinion on cycling and lance. not knowing the first bit about the harsh hard hard world of pro cycling… how wrong those clowns are…[/quote]
I don’t see these people who fall into the category of folks you are supposedly sticking it to.
Everyone already knew Lance doped, and everyone already knew all the others did. No one has ever given a shit.
Doped or (looking unlikely) not doped, Armstrong had to EARN those wins. Put another way, if the vast majority of the peloton was doping at that time then it becomes a level playing field. Just as steroids don’t lift the weight, EPO, test, whatever he was taking, doesn’t turn the cranks - he did that himself.
All that will come of this is another cycling great dragged to the depths by people out to get them. Prudhomme himself said that if the UCI doesn’t appeal the decision, then the 7 tour victories which Armstrong won will be voided and awarded to no one… all the epic moments, climbing battles, blood, sweat and tears will be fucking void. Are they forgetting that this man was on his death bed 2 or 3 years before the 99 tour and comes back to tear shit up in ballsy fashion?
USADA have achieved nothing but ensure that people will take cycling even less seriously then they already do.
[quote]thazgeetsqat wrote:
Doped or (looking unlikely) not doped, Armstrong had to EARN those wins. Put another way, if the vast majority of the peloton was doping at that time then it becomes a level playing field. Just as steroids don’t lift the weight, EPO, test, whatever he was taking, doesn’t turn the cranks - he did that himself.
All that will come of this is another cycling great dragged to the depths by people out to get them. Prudhomme himself said that if the UCI doesn’t appeal the decision, then the 7 tour victories which Armstrong won will be voided and awarded to no one… all the epic moments, climbing battles, blood, sweat and tears will be fucking void. Are they forgetting that this man was on his death bed 2 or 3 years before the 99 tour and comes back to tear shit up in ballsy fashion?
USADA have achieved nothing but ensure that people will take cycling even less seriously then they thealready do.[/quote]
level playing field? Did you actually read the report? There is your average pro peleton rider doing cortisone and EPO, and then we have ‘armstrong style’ doping. A sophisticated, well orchestrated doping program ,taken to a complelety different scale and never seen before in all of pro sports for that matter. Surely there is no level playing field here. I do agree LA’s seven titles should be void though and awarded to no one, since almost every rider on the TDF podium from 1999-2005 was implicated in some type of doping scandal during this time.
[quote]thazgeetsqat wrote:
Doped or (looking unlikely) not doped, Armstrong had to EARN those wins. Put another way, if the vast majority of the peloton was doping at that time then it becomes a level playing field. Just as steroids don’t lift the weight, EPO, test, whatever he was taking, doesn’t turn the cranks - he did that himself.
All that will come of this is another cycling great dragged to the depths by people out to get them. Prudhomme himself said that if the UCI doesn’t appeal the decision, then the 7 tour victories which Armstrong won will be voided and awarded to no one… all the epic moments, climbing battles, blood, sweat and tears will be fucking void. Are they forgetting that this man was on his death bed 2 or 3 years before the 99 tour and comes back to tear shit up in ballsy fashion?
USADA have achieved nothing but ensure that people will take cycling even less seriously then they thealready do.[/quote]
level playing field? Did you actually read the report? There is your average pro peleton rider doing cortisone and EPO, and then we have ‘armstrong style’ doping. A sophisticated, well orchestrated doping program ,taken to a complelety different scale and never seen before in all of pro sports for that matter. Surely there is no level playing field here. I do agree LA’s seven titles should be void though and awarded to no one, since almost every rider on the TDF podium from 1999-2005 was implicated in some type of doping scandal during this time.
[/quote]
Maybe they should issue a “Constructors Award” like they do in Formula 1 for the best engineering/doping team?
[quote]thazgeetsqat wrote:
Doped or (looking unlikely) not doped, Armstrong had to EARN those wins. Put another way, if the vast majority of the peloton was doping at that time then it becomes a level playing field. Just as steroids don’t lift the weight, EPO, test, whatever he was taking, doesn’t turn the cranks - he did that himself.
All that will come of this is another cycling great dragged to the depths by people out to get them. Prudhomme himself said that if the UCI doesn’t appeal the decision, then the 7 tour victories which Armstrong won will be voided and awarded to no one… all the epic moments, climbing battles, blood, sweat and tears will be fucking void. Are they forgetting that this man was on his death bed 2 or 3 years before the 99 tour and comes back to tear shit up in ballsy fashion?
USADA have achieved nothing but ensure that people will take cycling even less seriously then they thealready do.[/quote]
level playing field? Did you actually read the report? There is your average pro peleton rider doing cortisone and EPO, and then we have ‘armstrong style’ doping. A sophisticated, well orchestrated doping program ,taken to a complelety different scale and never seen before in all of pro sports for that matter. Surely there is no level playing field here. I do agree LA’s seven titles should be void though and awarded to no one, since almost every rider on the TDF podium from 1999-2005 was implicated in some type of doping scandal during this time.
[/quote]
Maybe they should issue a “Constructors Award” like they do in Formula 1 for the best engineering/doping team?[/quote]
Lol…If that were the case US Postal/Discovery would clearly be awared the Constructors Award hands down 7 years running.
[quote]thazgeetsqat wrote:
Doped or (looking unlikely) not doped, Armstrong had to EARN those wins. Put another way, if the vast majority of the peloton was doping at that time then it becomes a level playing field. Just as steroids don’t lift the weight, EPO, test, whatever he was taking, doesn’t turn the cranks - he did that himself.
All that will come of this is another cycling great dragged to the depths by people out to get them. Prudhomme himself said that if the UCI doesn’t appeal the decision, then the 7 tour victories which Armstrong won will be voided and awarded to no one… all the epic moments, climbing battles, blood, sweat and tears will be fucking void. Are they forgetting that this man was on his death bed 2 or 3 years before the 99 tour and comes back to tear shit up in ballsy fashion?
USADA have achieved nothing but ensure that people will take cycling even less seriously then they thealready do.[/quote]
level playing field? Did you actually read the report? There is your average pro peleton rider doing cortisone and EPO, and then we have ‘armstrong style’ doping. A sophisticated, well orchestrated doping program ,taken to a complelety different scale and never seen before in all of pro sports for that matter. Surely there is no level playing field here. I do agree LA’s seven titles should be void though and awarded to no one, since almost every rider on the TDF podium from 1999-2005 was implicated in some type of doping scandal during this time.
[/quote]
Rick Reily @ ESPN did a good article on this. Some years they would have to award the title to the guy that finished as low as 15th if I remember correctly.
yea… the 15th place guy DIDNT GET CAUGHT…nor did the lanten rouge racer(last place)they both passed the 500 drug tests like lance and his best freind george h. they are all on the stuff!!bottom line is the rules say no drugs. you take drugs you’re dq’ed. this has nothing to do with lance coming back from his death bed and all he has done for cancer research. he’s a god in my eyes for all he’s done in those areas, but the area of race clean or dope, hes the devil. he cheated… and finally got caught… shows how ez it is to pass a drug test.black and white…race clean or you cheat. he cheated for his career, passed all the 500 tests, but in the end he still got caught.i hate cheaters.wonder how lance feels now. knowing he lied to 1000000000 billion people…
[quote]spk wrote:
wonder how lance feels now. knowing he lied to 1000000000 billion people…[/quote]
That really bothers me about him - maybe people don’t care if he doped but do they really condone his bald-faced lying, over and over and over? To me that doesn’t speak well for his character, and neither does the fact that he apparently pressured certain other reluctant members of his team into doping. He wanted the glory of winning regardless of what his doping program might do to the health of his teammates, and he pressured some of them to become cheaters, something I find morally indefensible.
Until these latest details came out, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. No more. I would encourage all his defenders here to actually read the reports that came out in the past few days. They are pretty damning.
Also, the argument that everybody dopes and therefore the playing field is level makes no sense to me. Does anybody really believe a team from, say, Albania, has the same access to the latest and the greatest in doping technology as the Americans? What about people who want to follow the rules of the sport - what are they, chopped liver? The only way you can be happy with what happened is if you believe athletics should be a technology arms race with the richest countries guaranteed to win. But that’s not what I call sports.