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 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 23 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 647
  1. #301
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,286
    Quote Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    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?
    I agree, I think Lance was probably a good responder. Heck, I would say he was a great responder. The concern with everyone using something like EPO is that you are really just selecting the best responder and not necessarily the best cyclist, if you know what I mean.

    I would also agree the most benefited in some way, either directly or though a placebo effect but the level of benefit varied. I also think some athletes take stuff just because others are doing it. The wife is a tri-athelete and she often talk about other female tri-atheletes taking low dose cialis as a PED. From her comments, it seems to be almost a race day vitamin. In reality, it may not do much to increase performance but lots of people take it just to keep up with the joneses.

  2. #302
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,531
    What cracks me up is the 36 people ( 9.21%) in the poll in this thread that think lance has never doped, add to that the 28 (7.16%) that say no but im starting to have doubts lol, honestly im amazed at how these people feed and look after themselves in general life with out assistance, this poll is the funniest thing ive read all year, no wonder Nigerians can make a living pulling scams over the phone, some people are as dumb as a piece of 4 week old dog sh*t, to put it mildly.
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  3. #303
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yeah, there are some who believe strongly in Innocence until guilt is proven ina court of law, due process and all that stuff. What a bunch of lunatics!
    And some that believe that if you run away from a mountain of evidence with your fingers in your ears, your as guilty as sin and a pathological liar.
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  4. #304
    I'm SUCH a square....
    Reputation: bigpedaler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,933
    Didn't read this whole thread, saw a lot of repetition just on page 1!

    So everybody else doped, too; did everybody else act like the f'n Godfather about it? They ALL denied...until the evidence landed in front of them -- Ullrich, Tyler, Floyd, et. al. Levi stepped up without getting busted.

    Lance CLAIMED that their team contracts included a 'no-doping clause'; so YEAH, if he ADMITS, he's liable to USPS/Discovery for whatever the rest of them leave him with. He surely doesn't want to go back to that apartment in Richardson!

    Still an @$$hole, though........

    And, yeah -- he doped.
    A bike is the only drug with no bad side effects....

  5. #305
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,432
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yeah, there are some who believe strongly in Innocence until guilt is proven ina court of law, due process and all that stuff. What a bunch of lunatics!
    So I take it Hitler was innocent?
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  6. #306
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    So I take it Hitler was innocent?
    Mentioning hitler is an automatic loss in an internet debate. Don't you know that by now ?

    But since you asked a question, it'd help if you clarified that with what exactly you're claiming sarcastically that he's innocent of ? Certainly not of being accused of being a moron who thought because he was a private in the 1st world war, that he knew more about tactics and strategy than all the generals and field marshalls and admirals of the german military who tried to give him advice.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  7. #307
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yeah, there are some who believe strongly in Innocence until guilt is proven ina court of law, due process and all that stuff. What a bunch of lunatics!
    From what I understand, USADA couldn't obligate someone to be at its own process. In Court you don't have the chance Lance had... You must be present to take your blame. Lance is guilty just like Pat Mcquaid is. Its sad that he could escape like this, I would really like to see him debate and intimate the jury.
    Last edited by lapinGTI; 12-27-2012 at 09:33 AM.

  8. #308
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,879
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yeah, there are some who believe strongly in Innocence until guilt is proven ina court of law, due process and all that stuff. What a bunch of lunatics!
    Name:  ImageUploadedByTapatalk1356627038.356216.jpg
Views: 165
Size:  16.1 KB

    A court of law has nothing to do with doping by US athletes because doping is not a crime in the USA per se. Perjury conspiracy and obstruction of justice are - Bonds, Clemons, Jones - but like all crimes not slam dunks to prove. Doping IS a crime in France and Italy, not USA not Canada, not Spain.

    Use the google to research what WADA and USADA are all about. Dopers found in violation under their systems have to right to an arbitration hearing. Lance sued USADA in a COURT OF LAW over its jurisdiction over him AND LOST. He then folded his tent and chose not to arbitrate. Afraid of perjury maybe? His teammates who came clean and testified against him were and decided to fess up.

    Others busted with Armstrong have chosen to arbitrate: Team Director Johan Bruyneel for example. Case not heard yet. But others also folded such as dope Dr. Michele Ferrari.

    Therefore Lance as doper with zero TdF victories. Time for some people to deal with reality
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  9. #309
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,513
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    Mentioning hitler is an automatic loss in an internet debate. Don't you know that by now ?

    But since you asked a question, it'd help if you clarified that with what exactly you're claiming sarcastically that he's innocent of ? Certainly not of being accused of being a moron who thought because he was a private in the 1st world war, that he knew more about tactics and strategy than all the generals and field marshalls and admirals of the german military who tried to give him advice.
    he is just trying to challenge the logic that anyone that was not proven guilty in the court of justice - is actually innocent.

    hitler never made it to the court, hence was never proven guilty in the court. same as lance.

  10. #310
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    470
    I think its very possible but either way the man should have his titles, he did work for them. Nobody actually knows besides Lance himself.

  11. #311
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by sfb12 View Post
    I think its very possible but either way the man should have his titles, he did work for them. Nobody actually knows besides Lance himself.
    "nobody actually knows besides lance himself"? not even the people who saw him dope, who doped with him, who helped him dope, and who covered up his doping?

    i'll wager that if you were the first clean rider to finish behind the dopers you'd not feel he should retain titles gained by cheating.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  12. #312
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    "nobody actually knows besides lance himself"? not even the people who saw him dope, who doped with him, who helped him dope, and who covered up his doping?

    i'll wager that if you were the first clean rider to finish behind the dopers you'd not feel he should retain titles gained by cheating.
    Maybe i'd see it differently if i was a pro rider or in that situation. He was the reason i bought a road bike, I guess a big motivation before all of this was in question.

  13. #313
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,513
    Quote Originally Posted by sfb12 View Post
    Maybe i'd see it differently if i was a pro rider or in that situation. He was the reason i bought a road bike, I guess a big motivation before all of this was in question.
    not just you!!!

    millions of people became cycling fans because of Lance's story of success and triumph over evil disease...

    why did he need to cheat?

    even when he cheated - why didn't he stand up, own it and ask for forgiveness. first from those that he intimidated to quitting their careers to those that paid him a lot of money to settle the lawsuits, to millions of fans...

    i'd be the first to forgive him.

    but he did not man up. which makes everything he did - multiple times worse and that is why he had to go down in flames.

    his free fall did not end yet. it just started.

    but the sport will survive. including because of all this gong show...


  14. #314
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    There was a us doj prosecution that wa dropped. Prosecutions are usually dropped if the prosecutor believes he cannot get a conviction. That doesn't mean innocence factually, as you've pointed out, but it does mean something about the evidence. That's justbthe way it is. Again, not saying Lance is clean
    their decision not to move forward means nothing about the quality or quantity of the evidence against LA.

    if you'd have used the google or just read other threads on here before entering this discussion you'd know that the DOJ did not give a reason for dropping the investigation. you'd know that in dropping the case briotti rejected the advice of his assistants to pursue criminal charges against LA. you'd know that briotti's decision shocked most everyone associated with the investigation both in and out of the DOJ because of the overwhelming mountain of evidence they had amassed against LA. you'd know that the DOJ is still considering moving forward with their case and LA isn't out of the woods yet.

    you'd know that people like andreu and others came forward and admitted both his doping and others (including LA) long before being faced with the pressure of the investigation. so your argument that testimony against LA was made by liars looking to make a deal is, for the most part, baseless. it is further without merit because it is quite common for those involved in an organized criminal activity/organization to turn state's evidence and testify in exchange for a lesser sentence of their own. ever heard of mafia trials?

    had you done your homework you'd know that LA is a proven perjurer who has lied under oath countless times including testifying to never testing dirty, never undergoing drug transfusions to "clean" his blood, and the huge payoff to make at least one dirty u.a. disappear.

    you'd know that LA blatantly lied when he claimed to have severd his relationship with ferrari (a well known doping doctor) in 2004 yet email and financial records proved otherwise. you'd know that LA worked with ferrari (a well known doping dr) for well over a decade and that LA paid ferrari over a million dollars between 1996 and 2006.

    and that's just the tip of the iceberg - but you'd know all this and much, much more if you'd done your research before attempting to debate this issue publicly.

    with all due respect, your arguments are made out of pure ignorance of the facts with many being invalid simply on their face value.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  15. #315
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by sfb12 View Post
    Maybe i'd see it differently if i was a pro rider or in that situation. He was the reason i bought a road bike, I guess a big motivation before all of this was in question.
    you and thousands upon thousands of others. but that doesn't earn him a pass, does it?

    with all due respect it sounds like you're saying that your ethics are situational. sounds like you're saying you believe it's ok to cheat, intimidate, blackmail, retaliate, and commit perjury if it doesn't directly affect you.

    please clarify.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  16. #316
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    you and thousands upon thousands of others. but that doesn't earn him a pass, does it?

    with all due respect it sounds like you're saying that your ethics are situational. sounds like you're saying you believe it's ok to cheat, intimidate, blackmail, retaliate, and commit perjury if it doesn't directly affect you.

    please clarify.
    Your twisting the words i'm trying to say. I have no intention in fighting over this though, you obviously know what your talking about and therefor anything I say we will disagree as we have different opinions.

  17. #317
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    their decision not to move forward means nothing about the quality or quantity of the evidence against LA.

    if you'd have used the google or just read other threads on here before entering this discussion you'd know that the DOJ did not give a reason for dropping the investigation. you'd know that in dropping the case briotti rejected the advice of his assistants to pursue criminal charges against LA. you'd know that briotti's decision shocked most everyone associated with the investigation both in and out of the DOJ because of the overwhelming mountain of evidence they had amassed against LA. you'd know that the DOJ is still considering moving forward with their case and LA isn't out of the woods yet.

    you'd know that people like andreu and others came forward and admitted both his doping and others (including LA) long before being faced with the pressure of the investigation. so your argument that testimony against LA was made by liars looking to make a deal is, for the most part, baseless. it is further without merit because it is quite common for those involved in an organized criminal activity/organization to turn state's evidence and testify in exchange for a lesser sentence of their own. ever heard of mafia trials?

    had you done your homework you'd know that LA is a proven perjurer who has lied under oath countless times including testifying to never testing dirty, never undergoing drug transfusions to "clean" his blood, and the huge payoff to make at least one dirty u.a. disappear.

    you'd know that LA blatantly lied when he claimed to have severd his relationship with ferrari (a well known doping doctor) in 2004 yet email and financial records proved otherwise. you'd know that LA worked with ferrari (a well known doping dr) for well over a decade and that LA paid ferrari over a million dollars between 1996 and 2006.

    and that's just the tip of the iceberg - but you'd know all this and much, much more if you'd done your research before attempting to debate this issue publicly.

    with all due respect, your arguments are made out of pure ignorance of the facts with many being invalid simply on their face value.
    Are you typing with your thumbs or are you trying to redefine normal grammar practices?

    I didnt read much of your post because I find it hard to read. Scanning some of it gives me a clue it might be worthwhile if you used punctuation though.

    Just saying.

  18. #318
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by sfb12 View Post
    Your twisting the words i'm trying to say. I have no intention in fighting over this though, you obviously know what your talking about and therefor anything I say we will disagree as we have different opinions.
    chillax, bro! you're among friends no matter what you think about LA.

    far from twisting your words, i merely asked you to clarify them.

    you initially stated LA should keep his titles whether or not he cheated because he worked for them. when i asked if you'd feel the same if you were a clean rider he'd beaten by cheating you indicated you'd probably feel differently in that case. is that not holding two different opinions on the same topic based on the situation of whether or not it personally affected you? (i.e. situational ethics)

    by stating, "with all due respect it sounds like you're saying..." and "please clarify" i was neither trying to agree, disagree, or fight. i was simply asking you to reconcile two distinctly different positions you'd stated on the same topic and posted publicly on the interwebs. that's hardly an act of aggression.

    welcome to MTBR, and lighten up bro. by joining a public discussion you invite responses to the opinion/position/etc that you post. so don't take it personally if someone asks you to clarify something you've said.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  19. #319
    dru
    dru is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,643
    their decision not to move forward means nothing about the quality or quantity of the evidence against LA.

    if you'd have used the google or just read other threads on here before entering this discussion you'd know that the DOJ did not give a reason for dropping the investigation. you'd know that in dropping the case briotti rejected the advice of his assistants to pursue criminal charges against LA. you'd know that briotti's decision shocked most everyone associated with the investigation both in and out of the DOJ because of the overwhelming mountain of evidence they had amassed against LA. you'd know that the DOJ is still considering moving forward with their case and LA isn't out of the woods yet.

    you'd know that people like andreu and others came forward and admitted both his doping and others (including LA) long before being faced with the pressure of the investigation. so your argument that testimony against LA was made by liars looking to make a deal is, for the most part, baseless. it is further without merit because it is quite common for those involved in an organized criminal activity/organization to turn state's evidence and testify in exchange for a lesser sentence of their own. ever heard of mafia trials?

    had you done your homework you'd know that LA is a proven perjurer who has lied under oath countless times including testifying to never testing dirty, never undergoing drug transfusions to "clean" his blood, and the huge payoff to make at least one dirty u.a. disappear.

    you'd know that LA blatantly lied when he claimed to have severd his relationship with ferrari (a well known doping doctor) in 2004 yet email and financial records proved otherwise. you'd know that LA worked with ferrari (a well known doping dr) for well over a decade and that LA paid ferrari over a million dollars between 1996 and 2006.

    and that's just the tip of the iceberg - but you'd know all this and much, much more if you'd done your research before attempting to debate this issue publicly.

    with all due respect, your arguments are made out of pure ignorance of the facts with many being invalid simply on their face value.
    You shouldn't have started the second last line with an 'and', and you should have used the shift key a little more.

    Just sayin'.......

    (good post btw)

    it's a really good thing you didn't use scripto continuo or we would have been screwed!

    Drew
    occasional cyclist

  20. #320
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by dru View Post
    You shouldn't have started the second last line with an 'and'.
    why? beginning a sentence with a conjunction violates no rule of grammar.

    "There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. An initial And is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues." ~ from The New Fowler's Modern English Usage; edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996.

    and yet more enlightenment for you: linky, linky, and linky.

    but wait, here's more: linky, linky, and linky.

    pro tip: one should first know the rules of grammar before calling someone out for violating them.

    just sayin...
    Quote Originally Posted by dru
    you should have used the shift key a little more. Just sayin'...
    again violates no established rule(s) of etiquette.

    as with the above example perhaps you're equally unaware that eschewing caps in informal electronic communications dates back to the days of the telegraph in the 1800's? it's subsequently been a common and accepted practice in BBSs of old, modern forums, emails, and SMS for decades -- and a myth that it is rude, lazy, improper, or in violation of formal or informal netiquette.

    just sayin...

    Quote Originally Posted by dru
    it's a really good thing you didn't use scripto continuo or we would have been screwed!

    Drew
    i believe you meant "scripto coninua". linky

    did that go the way you thought it was gonna go? nope.
    Quote Originally Posted by dru
    good post btw
    thanks bro.

    in all seriousness i generally enjoy yours as well. your mountain biking "tips" were awesome, especially the "lots of front brake" on off camber corners for awesome traction! man, that was a great thread. reminded me of ben stein's "how to ruin your life".

    oh, and i also loved what you had to say a while back in a thread something to the effect of "my friends don't get it" where you had an awesome ride despite it being freezing cold and having multiple mechanical anomalies.

    in my book any ride is a good ride.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  21. #321
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    There was a us doj prosecution that wa dropped. Prosecutions are usually dropped if the prosecutor believes he cannot get a conviction. That doesn't mean innocence factually, as you've pointed out, but it does mean something about the evidence. That's justbthe way it is. Again, not saying Lance is clean
    Prosecutions often drop out if for what ever reason they lose a key witness, the Doj didnt have its act together for what ever reason, but the USADA had their act together big time, if lance decided to fight the charges he was innocent of in you books he would have been exposed for what he really is, a liar, systematic cheat and a bully.
    He would have been liable and been paying for it forever.
    Case closed
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  22. #322
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Losing a key witness is an evidentiary problem. I love it when people who are tryung to be argumentative agree with me
    key witnesses pull out for many reasons, including a fear of a range of things..

    Your whole argument here stems from the fact you think he is innocent and been treated unfairly..

    If thats not the case your whole argument agrees with me in the fact that he is a cheating, gutless bully, that couldnt face the music at his time of judgement.....
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  23. #323
    dru
    dru is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,643
    Mono, well played, but my translating abilities of latin (scripto coninua) are sadly well past their non-existent prime.

    and I'd have to start with Wheelock's for sure.

    And (and) I'd have to have some point at translating stuff like ... con inua articulista, composta de es- trangcirOB que no querem aprender o ..... which are typical of the hits Google gives.

    and (And) my last attempt was somewhere around several hours per page.

    And (and) any prof worth his/her salt up here would raise a brow at your use of 'and' even if it's OK (as it seems to be).....

    and btw I was taking the piss in your defence, as you might of guessed.

    And (and) you don't need my help anyways......

    Cheers!

    Drew
    occasional cyclist

  24. #324
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    You seriously lack reading comprehension if you have actually read what I have posted in good faith.
    Well what exactly are you in this thread arguing about then and painting a picture that poor old lance is hard done by and there is no evidence, and he has been hung out to dry, ive read what youve said and i think its incredibly Naive, i think youre lacking serious reality and life comprehension after reading your posts Dave.
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  25. #325
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,513
    Quote Originally Posted by dru View Post
    Mono, well played, but my translating abilities of latin (scripto coninua) are sadly well past their non-existent prime.

    and I'd have to start with Wheelock's for sure.

    And (and) I'd have to have some point at translating stuff like ... con inua articulista, composta de es- trangcirOB que no querem aprender o ..... which are typical of the hits Google gives.

    and (And) my last attempt was somewhere around several hours per page.

    And (and) any prof worth his/her salt up here would raise a brow at your use of 'and' even if it's OK (as it seems to be).....

    and btw I was taking the piss in your defence, as you might of guessed.

    Drew
    awesome... love this banter back and forth...

    surely beats certain big head small weenie lawyer talk...

Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 23 ... 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
  •