Lance Weighing Admitting to Doping

Off Topic
81

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]spk wrote:
wonder what all these clowns posting in on this topic will say whenever the cheat lance armstrong finally admits he did take a ton of enhancing drugs his whole career…[/quote]

Same thing I said when my roommate admitted to cheating in order to stay in school/not lose his scholarships…he did it to stay in the game. He admitted to cheating even though he was probably the most upstanding student I’d ever seen, wouldn’t even ask classmates to help him with homework when teachers forbade collaboration.

Maybe in Belgium their officials don’t ruin innocent peoples’ lives, but I’ve seen it enough to know that sometimes officials are in it for a witch hunt rather than justice. Elliot Spitzer did it to plenty of people back when he was New York’s AG.[/quote]
If you think Armstrong was actually innocent then I’ve got some ocean front property in Montana to sell to you.

82

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Exactly. Those red pills that pilots take on missions sure as hell aren’t candy mints.

The gen public is clueless to what really goes on if that post is a hint.[/quote]

I believe the USA is the only country that does this.

However, I really see no issue with it. War and sport are two different things. The are no rules about drugs in a war.

83

[quote]OBoile wrote:
If you think Armstrong was actually innocent then I’ve got some ocean front property in Montana to sell to you.[/quote]

To me it is indifferent what he is. The whole process of convicting this athlete stinks. Facts:

  1. The more succesful you are the more enemies you make. Thus I could easily imagine a situation of some assholes “selling you out” for their own skin, for example.
  2. If I was already convicted for a crime I didn’t do, and I had no other way out, I would probably confess if it yielded something for me.
84

[quote]Damici wrote:
To those saying he never tested positive:

There was no test for EPO back in 1999. In 2005, when a test for EPO was finally developed, Lance’s 1999 samples were tested for EPO and they tested, quote, “flaming positive.” Have a listen:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57562781/armstrong-allegedly-offered-large-donation-to-doping-agency/
[/quote]

And… why wasn’t he convicted for this?

OH RIGHT BECAUSE THE FUCKING EVIDENCE WAS IMPROPERLY HANDLED.

In court evidence is worth shit if it is not correctly handled… So… he hasn’t been tested positive if the test process is not correctly carried out.

85

[quote]Toohard wrote:

[quote]Damici wrote:
To those saying he never tested positive:

There was no test for EPO back in 1999. In 2005, when a test for EPO was finally developed, Lance’s 1999 samples were tested for EPO and they tested, quote, “flaming positive.” Have a listen:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57562781/armstrong-allegedly-offered-large-donation-to-doping-agency/
[/quote]

And… why wasn’t he convicted for this?

OH RIGHT BECAUSE THE FUCKING EVIDENCE WAS IMPROPERLY HANDLED.

In court evidence is worth shit if it is not correctly handled… So… he hasn’t been tested positive if the test process is not correctly carried out.[/quote]

I wasn’t claiming that this was or wasn’t worthy of a conviction, or of being admissible in court. Just putting it out there that this happened.

86

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Exactly. Those red pills that pilots take on missions sure as hell aren’t candy mints.

The gen public is clueless to what really goes on if that post is a hint.[/quote]

If warfare and sports had any similarities at all this might be a relevant point. Fortunately, sports aren’t life and death (to most people anyways) and therefore shouldn’t be held to the same standard as warfare.

Do you REALLY think that since giving fighter pilots some amphetamines to enhance their ability to protect our country this justifies athletes doping themselves up with any and all PEDs they can get their hands on?[/quote]

? I didn’t make that argument anywhere at all. I simply pointed out that a previous poster was wrong in thinking they were not in use with the military at all.
They have done years of studies on LSD and soldiers but people are still this clueless?

My argument is simply that by making this a debate about “sports” it not only simplifies the importance of chemical discovery in human development but it causes the general public to focus on what matters least in the long run.

In other words, society evolves and focusing on “sports” outside of the greater context and the influence that has on development is naive…but probably most common.

[quote]

Give me a fucking break Professor. You’re too smart a guy to buy into that sort of bullshit. What is really going on here is that you’ve got a hard-on for PEDs and you are angry that other people stigmatize them. So fucking what if people stigmatize them? Are you THAT emotionally invested in what others think of you that you need to try and distort everything about PEDs into some “this is indicative of the dark place the world is coming to” argument. It’s ugly.[/quote]

Wow…talk about making up an argument.

You suck at it.

87

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Exactly. Those red pills that pilots take on missions sure as hell aren’t candy mints.

The gen public is clueless to what really goes on if that post is a hint.[/quote]

If warfare and sports had any similarities at all this might be a relevant point. Fortunately, sports aren’t life and death (to most people anyways) and therefore shouldn’t be held to the same standard as warfare.

Do you REALLY think that since giving fighter pilots some amphetamines to enhance their ability to protect our country this justifies athletes doping themselves up with any and all PEDs they can get their hands on?[/quote]

? I didn’t make that argument anywhere at all. I simply pointed out that a previous poster was wrong in thinking they were not in use with the military at all.
They have done years of studies on LSD and soldiers but people are still this clueless?

My argument is simply that by making this a debate about “sports” it not only simplifies the importance of chemical discovery in human development but it causes the general public to focus on what matters least in the long run.

In other words, society evolves and focusing on “sports” outside of the greater context and the influence that has on development is naive…but probably most common.

[quote]

Give me a fucking break Professor. You’re too smart a guy to buy into that sort of bullshit. What is really going on here is that you’ve got a hard-on for PEDs and you are angry that other people stigmatize them. So fucking what if people stigmatize them? Are you THAT emotionally invested in what others think of you that you need to try and distort everything about PEDs into some “this is indicative of the dark place the world is coming to” argument. It’s ugly.[/quote]

Wow…talk about making up an argument.

You suck at it.[/quote]

Making up an argument? It’s called synthesizing the totality of about half your posts on this website, Professor. I just did what it’s taken you about 10,000 posts to beat around the bush about.

88

[quote]Damici wrote:

[quote]Toohard wrote:

[quote]Damici wrote:
To those saying he never tested positive:

There was no test for EPO back in 1999. In 2005, when a test for EPO was finally developed, Lance’s 1999 samples were tested for EPO and they tested, quote, “flaming positive.” Have a listen:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57562781/armstrong-allegedly-offered-large-donation-to-doping-agency/
[/quote]

And… why wasn’t he convicted for this?

OH RIGHT BECAUSE THE FUCKING EVIDENCE WAS IMPROPERLY HANDLED.

In court evidence is worth shit if it is not correctly handled… So… he hasn’t been tested positive if the test process is not correctly carried out.[/quote]

I wasn’t claiming that this was or wasn’t worthy of a conviction, or of being admissible in court. Just putting it out there that this happened.
[/quote]

Yes. But if the test samples were improperly handled while testing causing a false positive then he never did test positive, and it is not up to speculation.

I am not saying this couldn’t be one of those loopholes, like officer not reading the rights to the criminal in movies or something. But rules are rules, and if the test procedure is not correctly carried out then it is not a positive.

And thus can not be used as evidence against him, like many in this thread have done.

I think this whole “testing after the fact” is lunacy. Are we going to store all the samples now and take them out in 20-years and re-test everything and strip every retired athlete out of their titles? This just doesn’t make any sense.

89

[quote]Toohard wrote:

[quote]Damici wrote:

[quote]Toohard wrote:

[quote]Damici wrote:
To those saying he never tested positive:

There was no test for EPO back in 1999. In 2005, when a test for EPO was finally developed, Lance’s 1999 samples were tested for EPO and they tested, quote, “flaming positive.” Have a listen:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57562781/armstrong-allegedly-offered-large-donation-to-doping-agency/
[/quote]

And… why wasn’t he convicted for this?

OH RIGHT BECAUSE THE FUCKING EVIDENCE WAS IMPROPERLY HANDLED.

In court evidence is worth shit if it is not correctly handled… So… he hasn’t been tested positive if the test process is not correctly carried out.[/quote]

I wasn’t claiming that this was or wasn’t worthy of a conviction, or of being admissible in court. Just putting it out there that this happened.
[/quote]

Yes. But if the test samples were improperly handled while testing causing a false positive then he never did test positive, and it is not up to speculation.

I am not saying this couldn’t be one of those loopholes, like officer not reading the rights to the criminal in movies or something. But rules are rules, and if the test procedure is not correctly carried out then it is not a positive.

And thus can not be used as evidence against him, like many in this thread have done.[/quote]

Yes, I understand that this can’t be used as evidence. I have no way of knowing for sure whether the samples really were or were not “mishandled.” (Though I will say that I have a hard time believing that some “mishandling” let to wildly positive tests for EPO.)

It’s not a foolproof piece of convict-able evidence, of course, but it’s just one more straw on the increasingly huge, flaming pile of circumstantial (and otherwise) evidence in the general case against him.

90

Why do people care about this issue so much? I mean, really.

Is this just a way for people to work out aggression issues?

91

"My argument is simply that by making this a debate about “sports” it not only simplifies the importance of chemical discovery in human development but it causes the general public to focus on what matters least in the long run.

In other words, society evolves and focusing on “sports” outside of the greater context and the influence that has on development is naive…"

I also don’t think society is focusing on chemical discovery in human development in sports only, nor has society simplified a complex issue to the point of naivety. We look at chemical enhancement within sports in a TOTALLY different way than we look at it in nearly every other area of society, and to argue differently is what is naive.

We are talking about a society that encourages chemical enhancement in many other areas. That’s what the billion different beer commercials that insidiously pressure society to drink at any and all social functions are about. That is further reinforced with the million different reality shows on MTV and so forth that show people in any and all sorts of social situations and then throw in a bunch of booze to liven things up.

We are talking about a society that has spent literally trillions of dollars researching chemicals to fight everything from cancer to neurological issues to psychological ones to stem cell research to the latest, greatest fat-loss methods and everything in between. When it comes to chemical development within humans I would say that society is hardly naive. On the subject of doping in sports, perhaps. But overall, no. We are a society that seeks a chemical answer to just about everything.

92

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Making up an argument? It’s called synthesizing the totality of about half your posts on this website, Professor. I just did what it’s taken you about 10,000 posts to beat around the bush about.[/quote]

I don’t beat around bushes. I wrote exactly what I meant.

I truly think it frustrates some of you that you don’t have much to argue about if you stick to what was actually written.

I find it hilarious you think you know me that easily.

Many of my posts are just meant for people to question what they so “firmly” believe.

Bottom line…this isn’t about me…and if you have to focus on me to have an argument, you don’t have one.

93

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
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?

[/quote]
Actually, other countries test their riders too (contrary to popular belief around here, the USA isn’t unique in this regard). The USADA is merely doing their part to clean up their country’s riders. American riders are not, nor will be, any more clean than any others.

Whether the compeition took place in the USA is irrelevant.[/quote]

Of course it’s relevant where the event takes place. US tax payer dollars fund the USADA. Why should our money pay to clean up France’s “mess?” In fact, why should tax dollars fund the cleaning up and enforcement of rules (not laws) within any sport? Sports have their rules so let them regulate themselves. If it’s a question of legality then there already are law enforcement agencies that deal with that. Why should a tax payer funded agency play Big Brother to any sporting event, let alone one that takes place outside of the US?

I just don’t think it’s the govt’s business to investigate athletes for cheating, simply to enforce rules. If the cheating involves breaking the law then it should be treated as a criminal investigation and handled by the agencies which already exist to investigate crimes.

94

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I also don’t think society is focusing on chemical discovery in human development in sports only, nor has society simplified a complex issue to the point of naivety. We look at chemical enhancement within sports in a TOTALLY different way than we look at it in nearly every other area of society, and to argue differently is what is naive.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, but this is simply not true. You have keyboard warriors absolutely convinced of the “harm” of testosterone therapy. They base this on what they hear in the media of which sports is a large part.

While there may be some improvement over the last 20 years as far as info, the overall concensus still causes most doctors to decrease their own prescription or study of these hormones due to perceived legal stigma.

You seem to think that the focus on sports is not a large reason why.

Why is that?

[quote]
We are talking about a society that encourages chemical enhancement in many other areas. That’s what the billion different beer commercials that insidiously pressure society to drink at any and all social functions are about. That is further reinforced with the million different reality shows on MTV and so forth that show people in any and all sorts of social situations and then throw in a bunch of booze to liven things up.[/quote]

Gee, no one said the average American is smart. Alcohol may be considered a “drug”…but most of America I bet thinks it is safer than a single testosterone injection in an otherwise healthy adult male.

[quote]
We are talking about a society that has spent literally trillions of dollars researching chemicals to fight everything from cancer to neurological issues to psychological ones to stem cell research to the latest, greatest fat-loss methods and everything in between. When it comes to chemical development within humans I would say that society is hardly naive. On the subject of doping in sports, perhaps. But overall, no. We are a society that seeks a chemical answer to just about everything.[/quote]

Wow…talk about blinded by ignorance.

Most studies on drugs are geared towards one thing…a profit line. They don’t give a shit about much of anything but controlling monopolies on drugs that people want most.

The current social stigma is what prevents the current idea of “testosterone” from being directly related to the idea of “birth control pills” in women.

95

[quote]Toohard wrote:

[quote]Damici wrote:

[quote]Toohard wrote:

[quote]Damici wrote:
To those saying he never tested positive:

There was no test for EPO back in 1999. In 2005, when a test for EPO was finally developed, Lance’s 1999 samples were tested for EPO and they tested, quote, “flaming positive.” Have a listen:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57562781/armstrong-allegedly-offered-large-donation-to-doping-agency/
[/quote]

And… why wasn’t he convicted for this?

OH RIGHT BECAUSE THE FUCKING EVIDENCE WAS IMPROPERLY HANDLED.

In court evidence is worth shit if it is not correctly handled… So… he hasn’t been tested positive if the test process is not correctly carried out.[/quote]

I wasn’t claiming that this was or wasn’t worthy of a conviction, or of being admissible in court. Just putting it out there that this happened.
[/quote]

Yes. But if the test samples were improperly handled while testing causing a false positive then he never did test positive, and it is not up to speculation.

I am not saying this couldn’t be one of those loopholes, like officer not reading the rights to the criminal in movies or something. But rules are rules, and if the test procedure is not correctly carried out then it is not a positive.

And thus can not be used as evidence against him, like many in this thread have done.

I think this whole “testing after the fact” is lunacy. Are we going to store all the samples now and take them out in 20-years and re-test everything and strip every retired athlete out of their titles? This just doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]

Why not test it 20 years after the fact? The dopers are ahead of the game and testing procedures are just now catching up. I’m more concerned about justice and right and wrong than rules. The rules serve as a framework, but we shouldn’t be satisfied if people are figuring out ways to beat the system.

96

[quote]Toohard wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:
If you think Armstrong was actually innocent then I’ve got some ocean front property in Montana to sell to you.[/quote]

To me it is indifferent what he is. The whole process of convicting this athlete stinks. Facts:

  1. The more succesful you are the more enemies you make. Thus I could easily imagine a situation of some assholes “selling you out” for their own skin, for example.
  2. If I was already convicted for a crime I didn’t do, and I had no other way out, I would probably confess if it yielded something for me.[/quote]

Athletes who haven’t been caught have come forward and confessed about both themselves and Armstrong. Other non-athletes involved have also testified against him. Other athletes who have been caught are testifying after they recieved their penalty so there is no real benefit to them at this point.

He got caught, and it was fair and square.

97

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
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?

[/quote]
Actually, other countries test their riders too (contrary to popular belief around here, the USA isn’t unique in this regard). The USADA is merely doing their part to clean up their country’s riders. American riders are not, nor will be, any more clean than any others.

Whether the compeition took place in the USA is irrelevant.[/quote]

Of course it’s relevant where the event takes place. US tax payer dollars fund the USADA. Why should our money pay to clean up France’s “mess?” In fact, why should tax dollars fund the cleaning up and enforcement of rules (not laws) within any sport? Sports have their rules so let them regulate themselves. If it’s a question of legality then there already are law enforcement agencies that deal with that. Why should a tax payer funded agency play Big Brother to any sporting event, let alone one that takes place outside of the US?

I just don’t think it’s the govt’s business to investigate athletes for cheating, simply to enforce rules. If the cheating involves breaking the law then it should be treated as a criminal investigation and handled by the agencies which already exist to investigate crimes. [/quote]

Last time I checked, Lance is an American. The TDF (and thus France) tests him during the race, but why would they have a responsibility for an American the other 49 weeks of the year. He didn’t live in France (they have strict doping laws - actual laws, not sport related) but rather in Spain (very lax doping laws which played into his stratgy).

The sport of cycling is international, Lance competed in several countries every year including the USA. Since cycling is associated with WADA, jurisdiction for Americans goes to the USADA. Your argument is analogous to saying the USADA shouldn’t have tested its track and field athletes because the olympics were in London.

98

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
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?

[/quote]
Actually, other countries test their riders too (contrary to popular belief around here, the USA isn’t unique in this regard). The USADA is merely doing their part to clean up their country’s riders. American riders are not, nor will be, any more clean than any others.

Whether the compeition took place in the USA is irrelevant.[/quote]

Of course it’s relevant where the event takes place. US tax payer dollars fund the USADA. Why should our money pay to clean up France’s “mess?” In fact, why should tax dollars fund the cleaning up and enforcement of rules (not laws) within any sport? Sports have their rules so let them regulate themselves. If it’s a question of legality then there already are law enforcement agencies that deal with that. Why should a tax payer funded agency play Big Brother to any sporting event, let alone one that takes place outside of the US?

I just don’t think it’s the govt’s business to investigate athletes for cheating, simply to enforce rules. If the cheating involves breaking the law then it should be treated as a criminal investigation and handled by the agencies which already exist to investigate crimes. [/quote]

Last time I checked, Lance is an American. The TDF (and thus France) tests him during the race, but why would they have a responsibility for an American the other 49 weeks of the year. He didn’t live in France (they have strict doping laws - actual laws, not sport related) but rather in Spain (very lax doping laws which played into his stratgy).

The sport of cycling is international, Lance competed in several countries every year including the USA. Since cycling is associated with WADA, jurisdiction for Americans goes to the USADA. Your argument is analogous to saying the USADA shouldn’t have tested its track and field athletes because the olympics were in London.[/quote]
Read my post carefully. I didn’t say don’t test, I said tax payers shouldn’t be paying for it. Why is it the govt’s job to enforce a sport’s rules? If a law is being broken then handle it as a criminal case with the appropriate law enforcement agencies. If it’s about rules within a sport then let the sport deal with it with its own money.

99

My 0.02: if you want to use PEDs on your own time, that’s one thing. If you use them in a sport that forbids them, you’re a cheat, regardless of how many other people are doing it. What puts Armstrong in the category of true scumbaggery is the fact that he was extremely aggressive and litigious against people who were just trying to tell the truth. He did immense harm to the lives of a lot of honest and brave people.

Also, all this business of catching someone after the fact: that’s how anti-doping works, in all sports. Game-day tests are basically an IQ test - the cheaters are pretty much always a few years ahead of the tests - but if samples are kept for a few years, the truth catches up.

Finally, even if there were a witch-hunt directed against Armstrong, it would be justified, because he’s at the top of the sport. It’s most important to get him in particular. Of course, there is no Lance-only witch hunt, as others above have pointed out.

I’ll grant that the guy raised a lot of money for cancer. Other than that, he pure scum in my books.

A good article:

100

Ok then if you accept humanity has made a great deal of advancements in health and what not with the help of drugs/chemicals, why the disparagement towards PED use in sports?

Athletics is the pursuit of advancement in human performance, if PED use never came about sprinters would still probably be struggling to break the 10 second barrier in the 100m dash. Why can it not be acknowledged that maybe, PED use IS the next step in human performance?