[quote]spk wrote:
gregron… go play some flag football… you know nothing about cycling and this topic…nothing about the true lifestyle of a cyclist…nothing at all…wonder why all his teammates passed these doping tests, but then when they all heard jail time, they finally admitted to taking drugs…they passed all their tests, but then finally admitted taking drugs…these tests are so ez to pass…i guess non cyclists just go by what they read in the paper and news. i was there, watching these guys dope. i seen guys i was killing blast by me on a cobbled climb… in the big chainring!! guys i was beating 6 months earlier…read paul kimmages book “a rough ride”… look up “doping in cycling” on wikipedia. every cyclist that ever raced has been caught… not lance though…lol!! you’ll see when this cheat finally admits it…then his name will be on the list with 1000000 other cyclists…i love the sport. its so so frickin hard… and the years i spent over in belgium i wouldnt trade in for nothing… hanging on at break neck speeds. hours of suffering.finishing every race…never won, but being clean, i did very well. always @ the same time as the winner, or a few minutes back in 100+ mile races…[/quote]
I could give a shit about cycling. I also think he doped to the gills and never got caught the after the fact stuff is bullshit. But for the love of motherfucking god periods and paragraphs use them.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]Toohard wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]black_angus1 wrote:
Since when did Lance get caught? He never once tested positive. Not fucking once. That should be the end of the story right there. The constitution has a pretty big section about “innocent until proven guilty”, but I guess that goes out the window here, right?
America’s drug and sport culture is a fucking joke. We are the only culture to actively chases after our own athletes, and then persecute them based on nothing but conjecture and hearsay.[/quote]
Uh, he has been proven guilty. Physical evidence isn’t the only thing that can lead to a conviction.
He also has tested positive.[/quote]
Nope he hasn’t 
Well he has, but the test was later deemed inaccurate and dismissed.
To me this is purely a philosophical question. I don’t give a shit if he doped or not.
But I do give shit about the fact that as soon as one accomplishes someone he becomes “free game”. I mean you can literally hunt him down, just because he is not average. This just sickens me.
And Armstrong’s doping “case” is really nothing but a fucking witch hunt. You could scrape up that kind of evidence about ANY top athlete.[/quote]
Heaven forbid that an organization who’s purpose is to go after cheats actually goes after cheats. The Horror!
Armstrong was one of the most high profile cheats out there and thus attracts a large amount of attention (kind of like how the FBI puts more resources into catching high profile criminals, are you upset that the USA spent so much time/effort going after OBL or Al Capone?). Big deal. He’s not the only one they go after. Virtually every top cyclist from Lance’s era has also been caught. There’s a reason why they aren’t giving his titles to anyone else.[/quote]
It is fine. He probably did dope. But in order to get convicted you would have to get caught first, right? In my books accusations of doping don’t count as evidence.
And comparing him to real criminals is just laughable. It is nothing but a witch hunt occuring YEARS after his wins and YEARS after his quitting. So he doped in a sport in which everyone doped, big fucking deal. And you use so many resources to try to prove it? Equality: you should do the same to EVERY fucking athlete out there! Not single out one guy and go after him with all you got.
And by the way, the police gives resources to the cases depending on the severity of the crime. Are you trying to say Lance doping was much worse than others to justify this hunt?
With the same logic you should actually go after bodybuilders, did you know IFBB rules? “The IFBB is a Signatory to the World Anti-Doping
Agency (WADA) Code and strives to be compliant with
the Code and related International Standards. The IFBB
uses WADA-approved Doping Control Kits. All urine
samples are analyzed at WADA-approved laboratories.”
[quote]JACKED71 wrote:
He is only thinking about a confession if it’s clearly in his best interest. He will not be the least bit remorseful, you can bet on that. It will be some lame confession like, " The evil Europeans were all doing EPO and blood transfusions, and I had no other choice if I wanted to compete with these guys".
More than anything, he is probably confessiing so his current ban will be reduced so he can compete at the Iron Man competition. Lance just loves being in the spotlight. He will probably be doped to the gills in that event as well, and then tell all Livestrong supporters how he has changed and become the new anti-doping spokesman for sports.
Lance has always doped ( re: Team Subaru 1990), and will continue to dope if he is allowed to compete again.[/quote]
I assume he will have large puppy dog eyes + ‘‘Those big bad wuropeans with their eveil EPO and crack cocaine, I had to do it too’’
Did he race against any communists? That’d be great, that always goes down well.
We should start a betting pool on if Lance will confess, and how he will confess (tone of voice, key words, if he accepts blame entirely himself or passes off blame, if he fingers other athletes, etc.).
And I completely reject the notion that gambling is addictive…
[quote]Toohard wrote:
It is fine. He probably did dope. But in order to get convicted you would have to get caught first, right? In my books accusations of doping don’t count as evidence.
[/quote]
Wow, this is really stupid. He did get caught. Witness testimony is evidence. Your “books” don’t match our criminal justice system let alone the less strict rules applied here. If I were to commit a crime for which there was no physical evidence, but several people saw it and testified to that effect, I’d be convicted (and the criminal system has a higher burden of proof).
[quote]Toohard wrote:
And comparing him to real criminals is just laughable. It is nothing but a witch hunt occuring YEARS after his wins and YEARS after his quitting. So he doped in a sport in which everyone doped, big fucking deal. And you use so many resources to try to prove it? Equality: you should do the same to EVERY fucking athlete out there! Not single out one guy and go after him with all you got.
[/quote]
Its the police’s job to catch criminals (and Lance likely is one, since he was involved in a drug ring) and WADA’s job to catch drug cheats. The parallels should be obvious.
He was the most high profile athlete in the sport running the most sophisticated doping operation. Everyone else doped yes, but everyone else got caught. Why should resources be destributed equally? That makes no sense. It was clear to everyone on the inside that he was dirty. There is no way he would win otherwise.
[quote]Toohard wrote:
And by the way, the police gives resources to the cases depending on the severity of the crime. Are you trying to say Lance doping was much worse than others to justify this hunt?
[/quote]
Come back to reality. One person kills a gang member. Another kills the president. Both crimes are murder but one investigation will use far more resources than the other. The profile of the case/athlete matters.
[quote]Toohard wrote:
With the same logic you should actually go after bodybuilders, did you know IFBB rules? “The IFBB is a Signatory to the World Anti-Doping
Agency (WADA) Code and strives to be compliant with
the Code and related International Standards. The IFBB
uses WADA-approved Doping Control Kits. All urine
samples are analyzed at WADA-approved laboratories.”[/quote]
[/quote]
They probably should, or better yet the IFBB shouldn’t make this claim and allow drugs. But just because bodybuilding sweeps its drug use (and more specifically, rules violations) under the rug doesn’t make it acceptible for other sports.
[quote]spk wrote:
gregron… go play some flag football… you know nothing about cycling and this topic…nothing about the true lifestyle of a cyclist…nothing at all…wonder why all his teammates passed these doping tests, but then when they all heard jail time, they finally admitted to taking drugs…they passed all their tests, but then finally admitted taking drugs…these tests are so ez to pass…i guess non cyclists just go by what they read in the paper and news. i was there, watching these guys dope. i seen guys i was killing blast by me on a cobbled climb… in the big chainring!! guys i was beating 6 months earlier…read paul kimmages book “a rough ride”… look up “doping in cycling” on wikipedia. every cyclist that ever raced has been caught… not lance though…lol!! you’ll see when this cheat finally admits it…then his name will be on the list with 1000000 other cyclists…i love the sport. its so so frickin hard… and the years i spent over in belgium i wouldnt trade in for nothing… hanging on at break neck speeds. hours of suffering.finishing every race…never won, but being clean, i did very well. always @ the same time as the winner, or a few minutes back in 100+ mile races…[/quote]
Nice post that has virtually nothing to do with what I said.
I never said that he didn’t dope, I just was stating that he hasn’t failed a test. Thanks for trying though. Keep on whinning about how you would have been a top pro if you juiced as well.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]spk wrote:
everyone on lances teams in his winnning years either got caught taking drugs, or finally admitted to taking drugs,(even though they passed all the tests)… i guess lance was the only one on all those teams that didnt take drugs… hahahaha…[/quote]
Your speculation still doesn’t change the fact that what Black Angus said is true. He has never been caught or tested positive.[/quote]
Are you fucking dense? He didn’t test positive because he was manipulating his tests (as in, the cheaters were one step ahead of the testers as always) or because he was outright bribing the doping officials.
I am so SICK of this attitude and it smacks of a complete lack of awareness of the problem. All you are saying is that it is only wrong if you get caught. Does that apply to everything, or only people who use PEDs? I should certainly hope not.
This isn’t about the “evils” of PEDs in and of themselves, although many people on here will try to distort the doping officials’ arguments any way they can so that it DOES turn into that sort of an issue so they can then defend the use of PEDs. But that is NOT what this is about and never has been. It’s about the negative effect PED use has on the integrity of sports. Most of these doping officials could care less about what sort of potential side effects PEDs can have on the athletes. They simply don’t want to enable a sport in which the PED use is so rampant that no athlete who isn’t on them has no chance to win.
Let’s face it, while there isn’t a whole lot of evidence to suggest that moderate PED use is inherently bad for people’s health, we don’t know for sure yet whether that really is the case or not. People say anabolic steroids aren’t bad for you. FIne. But having an enlarged heart because you’re carrying around 50 more lbs than your frame is meant for IS bad and a comparatively quick way to gain that sort of weight is through steroid use. So while the alcohol itself didn’t kill the drunk driver who went through his windshield at 80mph with a BAC of .29 and the pole that split his cranium open did, you’d be a fool to deny any link between his death and alcohol. The same goes for many of these former or current steroid user deaths.
There is certainly some hypocrisy and a certain level of ignorance when it comes to the policing of steroids in sports, especially a sport like cycling. But Armstrong wasn’t your typical doper by any means. He was such a heavy, systematic cheater of the system that even other dopers had no chance against him. It’s not like taking some EPO and some enanthate all of a suddent puts a doper on the same level of every other doper; they do it to different degrees and Armstrong was doing it to an extreme degree.
It isn’t fair to cyclists who don’t want to take steps that drastic, regardless of how dubious the evidence that it is unhealthy for them in the long run is. There is at least SOME risk in taking the exotic, massive blend of steroids that Armstrong was taking and sports shouldn’t require athletes to take that sort of risk simply to keep up with a blatant cheater like Armstrong.
Call that a pretty normative take on the subject if you want, but cheating is cheating. If Armstrong and others think that the rules are pointless and that doping represents no significant health risks, fine. Instead of spending all that time and money getting around what they think is an archaic, pointless rule, why not invest some money into lobbying against such rules in the first place? If it’s a stupid rule, why not just come right out and fight the rule openly instead of taking all these back-alley steps to get around it and then deny, deny, deny when faced with OVERWHELMING evidence that you’ve been breaking it?[/quote]
I didn’t read anything past the first three sentences but like my other post to SPK said, what I wrote wasn’t incorrect.
I never said that he didn’t cheat or that he wasn’t using PED’s. I said that he hadn’t been failed a drug test and been caught.
My comment wasn’t in any way to say that Armstrong isn’t guilty, it was to say that he, contrary to what was posted, hasn’t actually failed a test yet. (Wether that is due to playoffs or minipulation, it doesn’t matter)
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]spk wrote:
everyone on lances teams in his winnning years either got caught taking drugs, or finally admitted to taking drugs,(even though they passed all the tests)… i guess lance was the only one on all those teams that didnt take drugs… hahahaha…[/quote]
Your speculation still doesn’t change the fact that what Black Angus said is true. He has never been caught or tested positive.[/quote]
Are you fucking dense? He didn’t test positive because he was manipulating his tests (as in, the cheaters were one step ahead of the testers as always) or because he was outright bribing the doping officials.
I am so SICK of this attitude and it smacks of a complete lack of awareness of the problem. All you are saying is that it is only wrong if you get caught. Does that apply to everything, or only people who use PEDs? I should certainly hope not.
This isn’t about the “evils” of PEDs in and of themselves, although many people on here will try to distort the doping officials’ arguments any way they can so that it DOES turn into that sort of an issue so they can then defend the use of PEDs. But that is NOT what this is about and never has been. It’s about the negative effect PED use has on the integrity of sports. Most of these doping officials could care less about what sort of potential side effects PEDs can have on the athletes. They simply don’t want to enable a sport in which the PED use is so rampant that no athlete who isn’t on them has no chance to win.
Let’s face it, while there isn’t a whole lot of evidence to suggest that moderate PED use is inherently bad for people’s health, we don’t know for sure yet whether that really is the case or not. People say anabolic steroids aren’t bad for you. FIne. But having an enlarged heart because you’re carrying around 50 more lbs than your frame is meant for IS bad and a comparatively quick way to gain that sort of weight is through steroid use. So while the alcohol itself didn’t kill the drunk driver who went through his windshield at 80mph with a BAC of .29 and the pole that split his cranium open did, you’d be a fool to deny any link between his death and alcohol. The same goes for many of these former or current steroid user deaths.
There is certainly some hypocrisy and a certain level of ignorance when it comes to the policing of steroids in sports, especially a sport like cycling. But Armstrong wasn’t your typical doper by any means. He was such a heavy, systematic cheater of the system that even other dopers had no chance against him. It’s not like taking some EPO and some enanthate all of a suddent puts a doper on the same level of every other doper; they do it to different degrees and Armstrong was doing it to an extreme degree.
It isn’t fair to cyclists who don’t want to take steps that drastic, regardless of how dubious the evidence that it is unhealthy for them in the long run is. There is at least SOME risk in taking the exotic, massive blend of steroids that Armstrong was taking and sports shouldn’t require athletes to take that sort of risk simply to keep up with a blatant cheater like Armstrong.
Call that a pretty normative take on the subject if you want, but cheating is cheating. If Armstrong and others think that the rules are pointless and that doping represents no significant health risks, fine. Instead of spending all that time and money getting around what they think is an archaic, pointless rule, why not invest some money into lobbying against such rules in the first place? If it’s a stupid rule, why not just come right out and fight the rule openly instead of taking all these back-alley steps to get around it and then deny, deny, deny when faced with OVERWHELMING evidence that you’ve been breaking it?[/quote]
I didn’t read anything past the first three sentences but like my other post to SPK said, what I wrote wasn’t incorrect.
I never said that he didn’t cheat or that he wasn’t using PED’s. I said that he hadn’t been failed a drug test and been caught.
My comment wasn’t in any way to say that Armstrong isn’t guilty, it was to say that he, contrary to what was posted, hasn’t actually failed a test yet. (Wether that is due to playoffs or minipulation, it doesn’t matter)[/quote]
You are so off your rocker on this topic it’s hysterical. The issue is cheating. Whether or not he was actually caught at the time is immaterial, especially when there is STRONG evidence to suggest that he was bribing doping officials to look the other way. The fact is that every time he pissed into a cup or had his blood drawn there were massive amounts of PEDs in those cups and syringes. Much more than any of his fellow dopers in the sport as well.
It’s not like your initial post in this thread is your first on the topic, gregron. I’ve read enough of your posts since he got caught to know that you will defend the guy all day and night, simply because he was smart enough to not get caught.
And next time, read the whole post before you come on here to defend yourself from it. Your posting history on this site is a clear indication that you are a smart guy, so I’m sure you can make sense of what I’ve written.
[quote]harrypotter wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]FarmerBrett wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am not a fan of the way our current society seems to see the act of striving for physical enhancement and performance.
In the short term, it makes self righteous lesser accomplished people feel better about their own mediocrity. In the long term, it decreases the advancement of human performance and development on a grand scale.[/quote]
Reading between the lines are you advocating no drug testing in all sports?[/quote]
I am advocating not letting soccer moms and elderly politicians dictate the way humanity progresses and develops into the future.
This isn’t just about sports. This is about how all of this denial of advancement will hold the entire human race back in the long run.
The problem is people ONLY thinking as far as sports.[/quote]
The society you dream of is a long held fascination of science fiction authors.
Augmentation will come in the future, however it has dark paths.
If research into muscle enhancement were to occur, the armies of the world would pump vast funds into the endeavour to create super soldiers, what then?
Illegal narcotics that enhance your strength, speed and the like?
It might be seen as science fiction but 100 years ago they dreamt of the moon as a place for science fiction dreams, we’re now aiming to colonise it and then go to Mars. Things change.[/quote]
Illegal narcotics are already being used in warfare.
Lance Armstrong still wants to compete…so he might admit cheating…I still think Lance Armstrong is GOAT in the world of cycling. Dope or no dope he won the race seven times.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]spk wrote:
everyone on lances teams in his winnning years either got caught taking drugs, or finally admitted to taking drugs,(even though they passed all the tests)… i guess lance was the only one on all those teams that didnt take drugs… hahahaha…[/quote]
Your speculation still doesn’t change the fact that what Black Angus said is true. He has never been caught or tested positive.[/quote]
Are you fucking dense? He didn’t test positive because he was manipulating his tests (as in, the cheaters were one step ahead of the testers as always) or because he was outright bribing the doping officials.
I am so SICK of this attitude and it smacks of a complete lack of awareness of the problem. All you are saying is that it is only wrong if you get caught. Does that apply to everything, or only people who use PEDs? I should certainly hope not.
This isn’t about the “evils” of PEDs in and of themselves, although many people on here will try to distort the doping officials’ arguments any way they can so that it DOES turn into that sort of an issue so they can then defend the use of PEDs. But that is NOT what this is about and never has been. It’s about the negative effect PED use has on the integrity of sports. Most of these doping officials could care less about what sort of potential side effects PEDs can have on the athletes. They simply don’t want to enable a sport in which the PED use is so rampant that no athlete who isn’t on them has no chance to win.
Let’s face it, while there isn’t a whole lot of evidence to suggest that moderate PED use is inherently bad for people’s health, we don’t know for sure yet whether that really is the case or not. People say anabolic steroids aren’t bad for you. FIne. But having an enlarged heart because you’re carrying around 50 more lbs than your frame is meant for IS bad and a comparatively quick way to gain that sort of weight is through steroid use. So while the alcohol itself didn’t kill the drunk driver who went through his windshield at 80mph with a BAC of .29 and the pole that split his cranium open did, you’d be a fool to deny any link between his death and alcohol. The same goes for many of these former or current steroid user deaths.
There is certainly some hypocrisy and a certain level of ignorance when it comes to the policing of steroids in sports, especially a sport like cycling. But Armstrong wasn’t your typical doper by any means. He was such a heavy, systematic cheater of the system that even other dopers had no chance against him. It’s not like taking some EPO and some enanthate all of a suddent puts a doper on the same level of every other doper; they do it to different degrees and Armstrong was doing it to an extreme degree.
It isn’t fair to cyclists who don’t want to take steps that drastic, regardless of how dubious the evidence that it is unhealthy for them in the long run is. There is at least SOME risk in taking the exotic, massive blend of steroids that Armstrong was taking and sports shouldn’t require athletes to take that sort of risk simply to keep up with a blatant cheater like Armstrong.
Call that a pretty normative take on the subject if you want, but cheating is cheating. If Armstrong and others think that the rules are pointless and that doping represents no significant health risks, fine. Instead of spending all that time and money getting around what they think is an archaic, pointless rule, why not invest some money into lobbying against such rules in the first place? If it’s a stupid rule, why not just come right out and fight the rule openly instead of taking all these back-alley steps to get around it and then deny, deny, deny when faced with OVERWHELMING evidence that you’ve been breaking it?[/quote]
I didn’t read anything past the first three sentences but like my other post to SPK said, what I wrote wasn’t incorrect.
I never said that he didn’t cheat or that he wasn’t using PED’s. I said that he hadn’t been failed a drug test and been caught.
My comment wasn’t in any way to say that Armstrong isn’t guilty, it was to say that he, contrary to what was posted, hasn’t actually failed a test yet. (Wether that is due to playoffs or minipulation, it doesn’t matter)[/quote]
You are so off your rocker on this topic it’s hysterical. The issue is cheating. Whether or not he was actually caught at the time is immaterial, especially when there is STRONG evidence to suggest that he was bribing doping officials to look the other way. The fact is that every time he pissed into a cup or had his blood drawn there were massive amounts of PEDs in those cups and syringes. Much more than any of his fellow dopers in the sport as well.
It’s not like your initial post in this thread is your first on the topic, gregron. I’ve read enough of your posts since he got caught to know that you will defend the guy all day and night, simply because he was smart enough to not get caught.
And next time, read the whole post before you come on here to defend yourself from it. Your posting history on this site is a clear indication that you are a smart guy, so I’m sure you can make sense of what I’ve written.[/quote]
I know what you wrote (went back and read it) and don’t disagree with most of it. I am just stating, again, that he has never failed a test. Every post I’ve made about Armstrong is that he hasn’t tested positive. I have NEVER said that he wasn’t using, just that he wasn’t ever caught and that you can’t crucify someone without proof.
Do I care if he used or not? Nope. I also could care less that Bonds used, or Cushing or any other athlete out there. I have a few friends that play in the NFL (one in the CFL) and I know how rampant PED’s use is, I am in no way dillusional… I just don’t care. If it wasn’t him using and winning then it would have been someone else using and winning.
@gregron: Fuck your boy Lance Armstrong. Let’s get down to the REAL issue at hand here.
Are the Niners going to fucking do it this weekend, or what?
gregron … not whining at all about myself. i got as good as i could get. trained my ass off. did the best i cpould. d3 pro. made some $$. i just hate cheaters… you know, the guys you killed year in and year out, that chose to dope, and they are beating me now… not at all complaining about what you said, "how good i could have been. i was as good as i was, and i’m very happy knowing there are a zillion cyclists out there and i went to the hardest place in the world to race… belgium. and was a pro. i still hate cheaters…
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am more worried that anyone gives a shit enough to strip him of a title.
I am not a fan of the way our current society seems to see the act of striving for physical enhancement and performance.
In the short term, it makes self righteous lesser accomplished people feel better about their own mediocrity. In the long term, it decreases the advancement of human performance and development on a grand scale.[/quote]
Why wouldn’t people “give a shit”? He cheated. He got caught. He pays the consequenses.
Frankly, I’m more concerned about people like you who don’t seem to value things like honesty and fair play.[/quote]
Except theres no such thing.
Even if we lived in a fantasy land where you could actually have effective testing (you won’t, ever, A) theres too much corruption and B) the athletes are always 5 steps ahead of the testing procedures, test comes out, switch to new drug) and nobody used anything, do you really believe this would produce a even playing field?
It would not.
One athlete would have a genetic advantage over another athlete.
And call me crazy but being born with an advantage just by being lucky enough to have parents with ideal genetics for your endeavor seems less fair than someone who had to use drugs and work hard just to hope to be at the same level.[/quote]
Sure there is (such thing). Just not so much in pro sports.
If you don’t like the rules (and I’m not a particular fan of them myself) then petition to get them changed, or pick a different sport. If you break the rules, then you are a cheat.
As for your last statement on genetics: that’s life and it isn’t supposed to be fair despite what your parents told you. Not all people are born equal. There are no rules against having good genetics.[/quote]
Last statement was a commentary on you holding up the ideal of “fair play”. How is using drugs unfair play if a genetic advantage isnt??
And yes if you break the rules you are a cheater by definition. But morally its a moot point when literally EVERYONE is doing it at that level.
Actually by allowing the use of PEDs you create a more level playing field than you ever would’ve by trying to hopelessly pursue anti-doping measures.
^^^^ not at all!! some will get a bit better increasing their wattage by a few % and others will increase it by much more taking the same amount of drugs… everybody reacts different to how drugs effect them. only way we find out a real champ is everybody races clean. so look back to the 1930’s i guess. since then its been cheats…
What would be very interesting is if some kind of former, well-beyond competition years champion in some sport actually went ahead and espoused the pro-PED philosophy expressed in some of the posts in this thread.
[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
What would be very interesting is if some kind of former, well-beyond competition years champion in some sport actually went ahead and espoused the pro-PED philosophy expressed in some of the posts in this thread.
[/quote]
If the ex-athlete has young kids or even colledge aged kids in sports I doubt it.
Why do tax dollars need to be spent on “convicting” an athlete who used drugs in a foreign competition (a competition which didn’t find him a cheater)? Our tax dollars need to be spent to keep the TDF drug free (or at least keep Americans who compete in it drug free)? If the TDF has a drug problem it is their problem to fix. I don’t think we should be paying for it.
So they “got” Lance, now what? The TDF is not affected one way or another. The USADA hasn’t cleaned up a sport, it just crucified an American who competed in that sport ironically, in the name of cleaning up that sport. Hooray! Now millions of drug free American cyclists are free to compete in the TDF, on a level playing field…against doping athletes from other nations. And we paid for it. So what did the USADA really accomplish?
It’s all a monetary based sham anyway. If a couple of players on an MLB team, that won the World Series, later admitted to, or were caught doping, their individual punishments would not come close to what the athletes who fall under the USADA suffer. Not only that, but the team would not be forced to relinquish its title or any revenue.
We already know this to be true. Athletes in non-team sports (for the most part), that have no union, that earn relatively less money in sports that generate less money, are punished more severely.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
@gregron: Fuck your boy Lance Armstrong. Let’s get down to the REAL issue at hand here.
Are the Niners going to fucking do it this weekend, or what?[/quote]
Oh man I hope so. All depends on which version of Kap shows up.
TBH I’m a little worried cause he’s been wildly inconsistent lately and his lack of accuracy is disturbing.
He is definitely our QB of the future but what we need is the QB of right now.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
@gregron: Fuck your boy Lance Armstrong. Let’s get down to the REAL issue at hand here.
Are the Niners going to fucking do it this weekend, or what?[/quote]
Oh man I hope so. All depends on which version of Kap shows up.
TBH I’m a little worried cause he’s been wildly inconsistent lately and his lack of accuracy is disturbing.
He is definitely our QB of the future but what we need is the QB of right now.[/quote]
I just hope that wooden-handed fucking piece of shit Delanie Walker stops dropping touchdown passes when they hit him square in his hands. Fuck, him and VD are the shit and all that, but seriously. Is there a pair of tight ends with worse hands in the NFL right now?