View Poll Results: Do you think Armstrong doped?

Voters
533. You may not vote on this poll
  • No. He never did

    50 9.38%
  • Yup, but I didn't think so until recently.

    118 22.14%
  • Yup, knew it all along.

    156 29.27%
  • Yup, but he should keep his titles cause the USADA is bs

    169 31.71%
  • Nope, but I'm starting to have doubts.

    40 7.50%
Page 12 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 ... LastLast
Results 276 to 300 of 647
  1. #276
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,575
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    appears he is, but that didn't stop him from virtually instantly realizing what the rest of us already know... that you REALLY need to change the last half of your sig. at this point it's right on par with lance's adamant stance of innocence.
    And hasn't ever stopped me from and others from realizing you love to stick your nose into any and every thread hoping someone will listen to your diatribe and rep you for it. The whole revealing identities feature francois implemented let me see that you left me one in october, for a thread that hasn't had a post in it since Jan 24, 2011, and which you weren't even ever ****ing involved in.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  2. #277
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,524
    Quote Originally Posted by erik1245 View Post
    Actually, everyone responds differently to EPO
    just out of curiosity - can you describe how different athletes would respond differently to EPO?

    the goal when using rEPO is to increase the erythrocyte level by 3-4% - same as blood doping. but with rEPO it is achieved within days, compared to months of altitude training.

    how do different athletes react differently to increased erythrocyte levels? as far as i understand the mechanism - the difference is insignificant, compared to overall gain...

    but i'd love to learn more accurate explanation...

  3. #278
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    And hasn't ever stopped me from and others from realizing you love to stick your nose into any and every thread hoping someone will listen to your diatribe and rep you for it. The whole revealing identities feature francois implemented let me see that you left me one in october, for a thread that hasn't had a post in it since Jan 24, 2011, and which you weren't even ever ****ing involved in.
    Last edited by monogod; 12-24-2012 at 02:16 PM.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  4. #279
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fix the Spade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,383
    In other news:

    The Sunday Times of London plans to sue Armstrong - Yahoo! Sports
    Sunday Times to sue Armstrong

    How long before all that money gets ripped right out of his grubby little hands?

  5. #280
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Fix the Spade View Post
    In other news:

    The Sunday Times of London plans to sue Armstrong - Yahoo! Sports
    Sunday Times to sue Armstrong

    How long before all that money gets ripped right out of his grubby little hands?
    it is likely only the first in a long series of lawsuits to recover monies paid out in either settlements or legal defense against his attacks of those whom he targeted as enemies for revealing, admitting, or even suggesting he was doping.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  6. #281
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,524
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    All that being said, I am still back to my original point: Does it matter? If the whole field was doped up and roided out and transfusioned full of EPO, why go back and "prosecute" if you call it that Lance Armstrong? What for? We all know that darned near the whole field in that era was dirty. They aren't planning on giving the title to anyone else. It just serves no or little purpose. If the end result is that cycling will now be clean, that is wonderful. But somehow I suspect there will always be those that are trying to get an edge.
    wow... you are a lawyer?

    Merry Christmas...

  7. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    We all know that darned near the whole field in that era was dirty.
    This is ignorance at it's best, enough with the excuses.

  8. #283
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,524
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yes, and the only relevance that has here is the fact that there are issues of dropped DOJ prosecutions, and different burdens of proof at issue here. You seem to be trying really hard to take issue with something I say here. This must be all you have left.

    Merry Christmas indeed.
    i am surprised that a lawyer would use language that you used in your PM to me, which i had to delete as apparently it is against the rules to post PMs. Thanks - you know who you are - for the advice.

    plus a negative rep.

    cheers and good luck in your career.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Do you believe Lance Armstrong is clean?-screen-shot-2012-12-24-6.12.25-pm.png  

    Last edited by osokolo; 12-24-2012 at 04:11 PM.

  9. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Please show me some reason to believe that during the years Lance was winning, that damn near the whole field wasn't doping.
    Well, you're the one who made the statement, so how about you pony up? (submit your findings)

  10. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    I don't make "findings" but I'll cite to Floyd Landis, Frankie Andreu, and someone else in this thread mentioned even Greg LeMond saying the whole field was doping then.

    Now it is your turn.
    Cadel Evans was doping? I've heard enough...
    Carry on.

  11. #286
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,524
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    You've made several personal attacks, whilst claiming to be "gentle". Not only is it phony, but you deserved the neg rep.

    And no, it doesn't make it okay when you 1. insult someone 2. misconstrue their arguments repeatedly, but claim you are doing it "gently" and then say Merry Christmas.
    you must have mistaken me for someone else:

    i responded to your post only once and i referred to you only with this statement:

    actually Dave - if you have any doubts about Lance's guilt - after all the info that was made available to general public - i must inform you that you really should do a reality check...

    i mean this in the most gentle way... seriously...
    the second time i referred to you was with this:

    wow... you are a lawyer?
    if these two are "several personal attacks" i apologize.

    however, i think you have way more serious issues than your angle on Lance Armstrong.

    thanks for your second, and i hope the last PM to me - which i deleted here as well - as it is against rules to post PMs.

    all this after my two above comments to you?
    Last edited by osokolo; 12-24-2012 at 04:13 PM.

  12. #287
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yes, and the only relevance that has here is the fact that there are issues of dropped DOJ prosecutions, and different burdens of proof at issue here. You seem to be trying really hard to take issue with something I say here. This must be all you have left.

    Merry Christmas indeed.
    the DOJ isn't necessarily through with lance.... linky

    of equal relevance is that LA refused to face the evidence in a hearing. if the 30+ witnesses against him are all liars and easily discredited then why didn't he face them? why did he pull his defense at the last minute after filing countless injunctions and motions and willingly accept a lifetime ban and being stripped of his TDF wins? why will you not address these points?

    one possibility is that with such a "nolo contendere" resolution by not admitting guilt and by not being adjudicated guilty via standard venues he can always claim never to have been "proven" to dope and thus claim innocence. this is still his claim DESPITE failed urine tests and a crushing mountain of evidence of his lies and deception.

    being adjudicated as "guilty" in a formal hearing would strip him of this last vestige of maintaining his facade of innocence.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  13. #288
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    i am surprised that a lawyer would use language that you used in your PM to me:

    plus a negative rep.

    cheers and good luck in your career.
    wow... you got PMs from him??? lucky!

    all i got was neg rep with the exact same comment.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  14. #289
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,524
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    wow... you got PMs from him??? lucky!

    all i got was neg rep with the exact same comment.
    lol... i feel special... and he says:

    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    As this thread has been taken over by people who think that Lance was dirty, and the only thing that should happen is maximum prosecution and punishment of him for that, and that anyone who disagrees one little bit with their view of that part of the world is a psychopathic liar who hates kittens and puppies, it is pretty clear that no meaningful conversation can take place within this thread.
    lol... he is a victim now... must be a "different angle"...

    smiley shaking head...

  15. #290
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,524
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yep, you're probably right about that. The reason I am not addressing those points is that I agree with them. At least as to the first paragraph. Please re-read my post where I discuss that he possibly would have prevailed in federal court, but lost in the USADA proceeding, and that might be why he did what he did. And in the same post I state my belief he was probably doping (so you can stop trying to misconstrue me as claiming he was clean - YET AGAIN).

    As far as nolo contender - are you sure there is such a thing as a nolo plea in a USADA action? Generally that is left for criminal proceedings. And a nolo plea doesn't have all the benefits that non-lawyers think it does in most jurisdictions in modern times. Further, how is a plea of "no contest" different from simply not "contesting" as far as Lance "maintaining that he has never proven to have doped". He still hasn't been so proven. They didn't have a trial in absentia. (But yes, probably he doped).

    Yes, being found guilty in a court of law, depending on the jurisdiction, the fairness of the proceeding, and the burden of proof employed, can have a legal effect on other obligations.
    it never ceases to amaze me how lawyers can skew even the simplest case - making judicial system a pure travesty sometimes... OJ just comes to mind as a glaring example...... now this "angle" on Lance Armstrong...

    "yeah, he doped, but so did everyone else. why are we witch hunting poor Lance"

    geez...

  16. #291
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yep, you're probably right about that. The reason I am not addressing those points is that I agree with them. At least as to the first paragraph. Please re-read my post where I discuss that he possibly would have prevailed in federal court, but lost in the USADA proceeding, and that might be why he did what he did. And in the same post I state my belief he was probably doping (so you can stop trying to misconstrue me as claiming he was clean - YET AGAIN).
    incorrect. i wasn't misconstruing anything nor was i insinuating, implying, nor could any reasonably sane person infer that i was suggesting with that post that you were claiming LA was clean. i was asking you to specifically address various and specific points about LA's actions. nothing more and nothing less. it was you who misconstrued by inferring anything extraneous into it.

    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    As far as nolo contender - are you sure there is such a thing as a nolo plea in a USADA action? Generally that is left for criminal proceedings. And a nolo plea doesn't have all the benefits that non-lawyers think it does in most jurisdictions in modern times.
    i never said there was such a plea in a USADA action. what i said is "such a "nolo contendere" resolution". with nolo contendere being in quotation marks it should be obvious that i was referring to the STYLE of resolution (i.e. not contesting the charges but likewise not admitting guilt) rather than saying he entered a plea of nolo contendere and that's how the case was resolved.

    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    Further, how is a plea of "no contest" different from simply not "contesting" as far as Lance "maintaining that he has never proven to have doped". He still hasn't been so proven. They didn't have a trial in absentia. (But yes, probably he doped).
    no, it still hasn't been proven in a hearing. that was precisely my point.

    to repeat: by refusing to confront/rebut the voluminous and plethoric evidence against him he was able to avoid an adjudication of guilt in a formal hearing. by avoiding an adjudication of guilt in a formal hearing LA is still able to claim his doping has never been proven. of course by "proven" he means definitively adjudicated in a formal hearing because it has been well established and demonstrated that he was doping, lying, engaging in blackmail and coercion, and a host of other nefarious actions.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  17. #292
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,524
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Once again, for you

    It isn't about "poor Lance". it is about a non court proceeding to go back in time to prove an athlete, competing in international sporting events, was breaking the rules, during a time when absolutely everyone was breaking the rules, and to say that even though the governing bodies of the sport gave him a clean bill of health repeatedly, that he wasn't clean after all and should therefore be stripped of his titles. I think it is unfair to the competitors and to the fans of the sport.

    I think that cycling should move on, and come up with a way to test people and to establish they are clean. If one passes and is found to be clean, that should be it for that test and that period of time (unless someone can show that the test was fraudulent - which probably happened sometimes). They should clean up the field in real time.

    I don't know if Cadel Evans ever did or didn't do anything with EPO, etc. But people who know a heck of lot of more than either of us (even Lance's accusers, and multiple TdF winners Le Mond and Landis) say the whole sport was doping then at the top level.

    From a fan's perspective (fan of the sport not Lance specifically) we still got to see a great athletic competition.

    Let me make an analogy. In formula 1 racing, in the early 90s there were electronic traction control devices that were used. They would cut power if wheel slip was detected, among other things. This was outlawed. Then, in 94 (IIRC) Michael Schumacher won the title, in a car that behaved a lot like it had the outlawed traction control. Even Ayrton Senna commendted that Schumacher's car behaved nothing like his teammmate's. Months or years later it was discovered that Schumacher's team had the software codes for traction control and that it was a question of whether they were activated or not. That was never determined.

    If he had been the only doing this, well, it would stand to reason that he duped the field and doesn't deserve a title. If on the other hand, everyone else did it too, and they still lost, that changes the context quite a bit.

    Maybe you're right, maybe the solution is to go after lance, have no TdF winner for a period of several years, and to make him out to be the devil. It just seems to me he is a fallible human who was competing in the sport as it existed, at that level, at that time. Maybe that doesn't make him "innocent" but perhaps it is a "mitigating factor". And I still don't see what cycling, especially cycling in the U.S, gains out of this. That's all.

    And Merry Christmas, seriously.
    Ignorance of the law excuses no man -- from practicing it. Adison Mizner

  18. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Stugotz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    I actually wonder, if everyone was clean, would lance still have won? Each person responds differently to EPO and people can see little improvement or dramatic improvement depending upon their baseline levels.
    Not a chance! With a documented VO2 max in the upper 70's physiologically it would be impossible...
    Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!
    German Engineering in Da Haus, Ja!

  19. #294
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    It isn't about "poor Lance". it is about a non court proceeding to go back in time to prove an athlete, competing in international sporting events, was breaking the rules, during a time when absolutely everyone was breaking the rules, and to say that even though the governing bodies of the sport gave him a clean bill of health repeatedly, that he wasn't clean after all and should therefore be stripped of his titles. I think it is unfair to the competitors and to the fans of the sport.
    it's not unfair to strip a cheater of unfairly gotten wins. doesn't matter how many of the riders were doping.

    you're arguing situational ethics and very few are buying it or on board with you.

    also, not only was he repeatedly given a clean bill of health but he repeatedly failed drug tests. you're aware of this... right?

    he repeatedly dodged drug tests and even dropped out of races to avoid being tested. you're aware of this... right?

    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb
    Maybe you're right, maybe the solution is to go after lance, have no TdF winner for a period of several years, and to make him out to be the devil. It just seems to me he is a fallible human who was competing in the sport as it existed, at that level, at that time. Maybe that doesn't make him "innocent" but perhaps it is a "mitigating factor". And I still don't see what cycling, especially cycling in the U.S, gains out of this. That's all.
    excuse me? "make him out to be the devil"?!?!?!?

    hardly.

    you know why such a ruckus was made about him? because nearly ALL of the others implicated in this huge doping scandal CAME CLEAN when confronted. lance did not. lance aggressively pursued and intimidated and retaliated against people who spoke out against him. lance maintained his innocence when busted in outright in lies. lance insisted that he never failed a drug test when he failed many. lance lied under oath in depositions about doping. and it goes on and on ad nauseum.

    lance made himself out to be the devil and now he gets to reap the whirlwind.

    it's interesting you're so willing to give him a pass for lying, perjury, cheating, doping, blackmailing, bullying, and retaliation with "he's a fallible human being" as some sort of excusable "mitigating factor" while you've neg repped and shat upon anyone who's dared to discuss this with you.

    don't look now but your disingenuous prejudicial "tolerance" is showing....
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  20. #295
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,524
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    it's not unfair to strip a cheater of unfairly gotten wins. doesn't matter how many of the riders were doping.

    you're arguing situational ethics and very few are buying it or on board with you.

    also, not only was he repeatedly given a clean bill of health but he repeatedly failed drug tests. you're aware of this... right?

    he repeatedly dodged drug tests and even dropped out of races to avoid being tested. you're aware of this... right?


    excuse me? "make him out to be the devil"?!?!?!?

    hardly.

    you know why such a ruckus was made about him? because nearly ALL of the others implicated in this huge doping scandal CAME CLEAN when confronted. lance did not. lance aggressively pursued and intimidated and retaliated against people who spoke out against him. lance maintained his innocence when busted in outright in lies. lance insisted that he never failed a drug test when he failed many. lance lied under oath in depositions about doping. and it goes on and on ad nauseum.

    lance made himself out to be the devil and now he gets to reap the whirlwind.

    it's interesting you're so willing to give him a pass for lying, perjury, cheating, doping, blackmailing, bullying, and retaliation with "he's a fallible human being" as some sort of excusable "mitigating factor" while you've neg repped and shat upon anyone who's dared to discuss this with you.

    don't look now but your disingenuous prejudicial "tolerance" is showing....
    well said.

    end of the story. let's move on, please. there is no winning here...

  21. #296
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Stugotz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    457
    I stand corrected. Lance Armstrong actually has a documented VO2 max of 84. (Still not in the realm of a GC winner).

    Documented VO2 max figures.
    Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!
    German Engineering in Da Haus, Ja!

  22. #297
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    215
    All I know is it make sme feel better about huffing and puffing up a hill since it took Lance blood transfusions ect ect to get those titles. I feel less inferior, at least I'm 100% natural blood sweat and beers.

  23. #298
    Bro
    Bro is offline
    Where I do my thinking
    Reputation: Bro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,238
    Quote Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    just out of curiosity - can you describe how different athletes would respond differently to EPO?

    the goal when using rEPO is to increase the erythrocyte level by 3-4% - same as blood doping. but with rEPO it is achieved within days, compared to months of altitude training.

    how do different athletes react differently to increased erythrocyte levels? as far as i understand the mechanism - the difference is insignificant, compared to overall gain...

    but i'd love to learn more accurate explanation...
    Seems I missed a bit in this thread while I was out... Anyways.

    EPO is a drug, and it is also a hormone that occurs naturally in the body. It stimulates and controls production of erythrocytes (red blood cells) in the kidneys and bone marrow -- the EPO that is taken as a PED is slightly different from naturally-occurring EPO, which is why drug controls are able to detect it. However, both forms still have the same effect -- which is increased number of red blood cells.

    As a drug, EPO affects the endocrine system. Simply by the nature of the endocrine system, every person's system responds differently to each drug, though everyone will experience the same basic effects -- in the case of EPO, it's more red blood cells. Some patients are naturally more inclined to produce more blood cells, and some may not, as is the case with anemic patients. (EPO is commonly used to treat anemia, fun fact.) Additionally, some patients respond more quickly and readily to hormonal changes than other patients. The human body is the same basic system, but minute changes in every person's set of genes results in vastly different bodies

    Anyhow, that's the very long, very complicated story very short, and as well as I understand it.
    I've made some bad decisions like taking the gears off my bike. So here's the warning: Do not as I say, nor as I do.

  24. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,304
    Quote Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    everyone responds to EPO very similarly - it is a simple math. the more oxygen carriers - the more oxygen can be fed into the burner...

    the catch is to dope as much as possible short of exploding the burner. that is where Lance was the king, plus masking it successfully (by changing his blood) after every session - so that he is not caught - that was the ultimate perfection...

    without it? pack filler, as someone suggested it...
    Well, I would not agree to that. People don't respond to asprin the same way, let alone EPO. Also, if you are performing at a certain level with a lower hemoglobin level, EPO will give you a boost. If you are performing at the same level but with a higher hemoglobin level, the benefits will be less.

  25. #300
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    Well, I would not agree to that. People don't respond to asprin the same way, let alone EPO. Also, if you are performing at a certain level with a lower hemoglobin level, EPO will give you a boost. If you are performing at the same level but with a higher hemoglobin level, the benefits will be less.
    sure - i would not challenge this statement.

    i am pretty sure Lance responded pretty well - because if he didn't - why in the hell would he risk so much, for such an insignificant gain.

    not just him, but everyone else.

    so i think it is fair to say that all of them benefited from EPO, significantly - otherwise they would not have used it...

    yes?

Page 12 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •