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 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 647
  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Good thread though...

  2. #52
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    OK, let's go to work on this;

    Quote Originally Posted by .WestCoastHucker. View Post
    nobody gives a flying fvck...
    Then I am "nobody", along with many others in this thread and elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleJon View Post
    I think the USADA is BS because I don't see what good muck racking through ancient history to witch hunt an individual has to do with their stated mission of protecting atheletes who don't cheat. All they are doing is tying up resources and budgets that should be used to protect todays atheletes over a sport that has done a lot more than most to clean up its act over the last few years. This appears to me to be either a personal vendetta or publicity stunt by USADA and its management.
    USADA didn't unilaterally decide to initiate the investigation on a whim. Evidence came forward that required them - under their mandate - to investigate further. We now have the end result of that investigation. If a law enforcement agency was presented with information about a crime, do you think it is BS if they investigate? One primary method of protecting today's athletes is to dismantle elements of the doping culture in sports. Armstrong and his associates are still involved in the sport up to present day. Armstrong was competing in the TdF up until 2 years ago, and was up until recently competing in other sports (triathlons) whose anti-doping also runs through USADA. In total now 11 riders, team doctors, and team management have been charged and/or sanctioned as a result of this investigation. That's not a selective witch hunt.

    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleJon View Post
    +1
    take a quick look at who the USADA actually are. A private organisation with no govt oversight that works on contract. Do people really think they should be able to act as some sort of super cop, judge, jury and executioner.
    I for one hope the UCI tell them to get F**cked - produce the physical hard evidence or through court with all witness statements under oath and subject to cross examination.
    If I were a professional sports person I would be very concerned that some private company can ruin my career, reputation and income without sanction from the sports governing body or a court of law.
    You do realize that there is a wealth of information strongly suggesting that the UCI is a corrupt organization who has been enriching themselves through their "property" of cycling, hiding out in Switzerland above any legal reproach, and has been enabling the doping of certain star riders like Armstrong though preferential treatment that allowed him (but not many other riders) to bypass and dodge tests and sanctions? Why on earth would you want the UCI to tell USADA to get F**cked?

    The concept of USADA being judge, jury, and executioner is a myth. Armstrong had the choice to proceed to an arbitration hearing in which he would have selected 50% of the arbitrators, in keeping with his due process. Instead, he declined to participate in the arbitration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dion View Post
    Here are the options:

    He doped, and beat others that were doping.

    He didn't dope, and beat others that were doping.

    At this point, who really gives a flying f[_]ck?
    As stated above, I give a flying f[_]ck, as do many others. Your list of options presented above is far from complete. How about this option;

    He was allowed to dope to a greater degree, have advance warning of testing, and ability to escape from and bury positive tests, and beat other doping riders who were not given such preferential treatment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    It is the selective and dubious prosecution of non-analytical "positive" that gives me a serious doubt.
    The USADA report contains both analytical and non-analytical evidence, as well as details of past analytical positives that were covered up.

    Quote Originally Posted by 11 Bravo View Post
    I have only passively followed this process, but part of what is galling to a lot of people is that the USADA didn't really follow the rules either. It seems that they went back on things that were past the time limits and things like that. Just the way they went about seems to be troubling to a lot of people. The organization charged with enforcing the rules should also adhere to them.
    It is true that USADA has gone back beyond the usual SOL (Statute of Limitations) but they had legal precedent in doing so, and were prepared to put their sanction and use of precedent going past the normal SOL under scrutiny from a legal panel of arbitrators, 50% of whom would have been selected by Armstrong. Armstrong declined to participate in this hearing which a Federal Court decision by Judge Sam Sparks already ruled could be reasonably expected to give Armstrong his due process.

    Quote Originally Posted by 50calray View Post
    Yes but who didn't in those days? And yes, the USADA is BS.
    Lots of riders doped, but didn't have Armstrong's "get out of jail free cards" to play, which allowed him to dope more, and more often than others who were getting caught.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Evidence is something obtained under a proper legal process. Interviews with people conducted by a third party (with considerable influence over those people) is not "evidence". It is a food for thought, nothing more.
    Incorrect. The witness interviews were conducted by USADA. The Department of Justice did not allow USADA to access their evidence. This is on public record. It is true that the testimony they provided was likely to lead to perjury charges if it differed in any material way from the testimony they provided previously in Grand Jury proceedings with the Department of Justice. Requiring consistent testimony to two different parties at two different times while under oath, or else face perjury charges, doesn't seem like a problem to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by erik1245 View Post
    That said, though, these are performance-enhancing drugs, not performance-giving drugs. People commonly say that doping is what gives you that final 0.5% - 1% gain in order to win after you've already done everything you legally could to come back with fairly good results. I believe that if the whole peloton (including Armstrong) had been clean at the time, he still would have been fairly successful, with possibly a few TdF wins to his name. Unfortunately, that was not the case.
    People in the know (Jonathan Vaughters, etc.) have pegged the performance benefits of oxygen vector drugs like EPO at 5%-15% depending on the rider's individual response. Some respond more effectively than others, meaning that the pecking order of performance and results while doping may be completely different than if all the riders were clean.

    Armstrong's prior visits to the TdF in the years before he started using EPO were very poor in terms of overall classification. Could not climb, could not time trial, often could not even finish all stages. Then, under EPO and the full doping program his results relative to the competition were a magical transformation. Seems like Armstrong was one of these "super responders" who was able to reshuffle the whole deck of results through doping.

    Quote Originally Posted by albertdc View Post
    For those that say he should be stripped of his titles, who should be given the wins for those? A majority of the 2nd place racers (3 of the 4, I believe) are PROVEN, admitted dopers that were caught and sanctioned within a few years of those races. Should THEY be given the titles? :what:
    Considering he never failed a test, is now retired, the dates in question were a long time ago, and many other reasons, I believe he should keep his titles. He may well have been doping (part of me still hopes not and don't understand how he could have passed EVERY test if he had been), but also feel that in that era it was a moot point since everyone he was beating was also doping.... Doesn't make it right, but it would be beyond hypocritical to take the titles away from him and give it to other dopers.
    As has been said already a million times, no one has proposed giving the titles to any other riders. They can leave a blank at the top, or put an asterisk, or similar. In addition to the best medical help to help him ride the "fine line" on testing, Armstrong had advance warning of tests, and had positive tests either covered up or dismissed inappropriately. The sport's governing body the UCI had Armstrong as their cash cow gateway to expanding the sport's reach into the lucrative North American market, and they protected Armstrong's reputation at every step along the way, plus made it easier for him than other riders, to succeed as their chosen one.

    Quote Originally Posted by jjaguar View Post
    Just out of curiosity, I took a look at the GC standings for the 2002 Tour because it was Armstrong's 4th win, right in the middle of his streak. I had to go all the way down to Carlos Sastre in 10th place to find the first rider that hadn't been caught, confessed, or implicated in doping.
    Blank space or asterisk in results.

    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    If USADA want to do good, then witchhunt the doctors, team managers etc who brought this culture to cycling and get them out of the sport.
    That's exactly what USADA has done. The so-called "Armstrong Case" wasn't just an Armstrong case at all, it was co-conspiracy charge against a group of five people who were team doctors, team managers, and a rider (Armstrong) who was very complicit in enabling the entire process, and pushing it on other team members. Of course Armstrong gets all the media attention and so one might believe it was just about him, but that's far from the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by heyyall View Post
    How about this question: do you believe Lance is the mastermind or do you believe there is another person holding the puppet strings?
    Not the mastermind, but certainly one of the ringleaders who was fully behind the curtains, and very complicit in both making it all run and also pushing it on other riders, some of whom had not yet previously been doping.

    Quote Originally Posted by rangeriderdave View Post
    Did Lance dope?,most likely. Was everyone clean ,no way. What does the USADA have to do with events that happen in France ?I know Lance is a American ,but to question events from another country and from another time seems to be a witch hunt ,publicity stunt.
    Armstrong is a U.S. athlete licensed through USA Cycling. The entire agreement structured between IOC/USOC/WADA/USADA/UCI/USAC with respect to anti-doping puts the investigation into Armstrong clearly under their jurisdiction and mandate. The UCI has already publicly stated that USADA has this jurisdiction, although they have been reluctant up to this point to agree with the sanction (they have 20 days to appeal the issue to the CAS / Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland).

  3. #53
    banned
    Reputation: Spinning Lizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by LOUVILLE FAT KID View Post
    Seams like the playing field was even to me.. He was just better with or with out... Just part of the game.
    Not true, some people react better to the drugs then others.

  4. #54
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Spinning Lizard View Post
    Not true, some people react better to the drugs then others.
    Some people also have a more sophisticated medical team to help them keep closer to the allowable limits without going over.

    Some people are also given de facto permission to dope more, knowing they have a "get out of jail free card" if they ever do happen to trip any of the tests.

  5. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    428
    There should be another option. No, but I'm waiting to see what the UCI decide.

    Levi Leipheimer, George Hincapie, Tom Danielson, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie have just been given an extremely light six month ban because they gave evidence against Armstrong to Usada. That was a nice incentive for them.

  6. #56
    I didn't do it
    Reputation: Mookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    9,051
    Quote Originally Posted by 11 Bravo View Post
    I don't think English is his first language. His profile says Belfast.
    I think English is the primary language spoken in Ireland.

  7. #57
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by mbco1975 View Post
    Levi Leipheimer, George Hincapie, Tom Danielson, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie have just been given an extremely light six month ban because they gave evidence against Armstrong to Usada. That was a nice incentive for them.
    Why else would witnesses volunteer to give testimony (yes, they volunteered and were not forced other than by knowing others would probably give testimony that implicated them) unless there was something in it for them? If the same size of book were to be thrown at them regardless of whether or not they cooperated, then no one would cooperate. Seems to be a very commonly used and accepted method in investigations with formal law enforcement agencies. Not saying that all plea bargains are a good deal for the public, but conceptually it makes sense.

    USADA is on public record stating that significant reductions in the sanction were on the table for Armstrong, but he chose to maintain his denials and claims of innocence.

  8. #58
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,205
    Gaelic.

  9. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    USADA is on public record stating that significant reductions in the sanction were on the table for Armstrong, but he chose to maintain his denials and claims of innocence.
    Yes, but the reduced sanction offered to Armstrong was a lot harsher than a sixth month ban. Why was his to be so much worse if he was admitting to the same thing?

  10. #60
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by mbco1975 View Post
    Yes, but the reduced sanction offered to Armstrong was a lot harsher than a sixth month ban. Why was his to be so much worse if he was admitting to the same thing?
    The scope of his involvement with the conspiracy was much larger, in terms of being one of the ringleaders and enablers, fraud, payoffs, witness intimidation, etc.

    I also ask you to consider checking into the UCI a bit more instead of expecting them to provide clarity. They are complicit in much of this, and their heads are also on the block as a result. They are not an impartial observer or overseer.

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    113
    circlip, speculation is not evidence.

  12. #62
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    circlip, speculation is not evidence.
    Which part is speculation?

  13. #63
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,205
    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    circlip, speculation is not evidence.



    What about financial records?

  14. #64
    Ride More, Work Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,775
    But how much of a conspiracy could Lance actually initiate in '98 & '99 when nobody thought he would ride again? He was essentially written off with the cancer. I can't see him rallying the troops in that time with hope he could win. Somebody else must have been very confident that the pieces would fall into place. Now starting in 2002 or certainly when the record was in grasp, Lance would have been the leader in doping. That seems to be supported by the testimonies, at least.

  15. #65
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by heyyall View Post
    But how much of a conspiracy could Lance actually initiate in '98 & '99 when nobody thought he would ride again? He was essentially written off with the cancer. I can't see him rallying the troops in that time with hope he could win. Somebody else must have been very confident that the pieces would fall into place. Now starting in 2002 or certainly when the record was in grasp, Lance would have been the leader in doping. That seems to be supported by the testimonies, at least.
    Armstrong finished 4th in the Vuelta in 1998 after his comeback from illness. He was already the designated team leader going into that event, and that being one of the higher finishes ever by an American in one of the three grand tours, was obviously given the team leadership once again going into the 1999 TdF. Armstrong had already amassed significant financial prize winnings and cumulative salary by that time, had lucrative endorsement deals with huge companies (Oakley, Nike) plus the connections and experience of Johan Bruyneel and Dr. Ferrari. Most of the pieces were already in place at that time.

  16. #66
    Ride More, Work Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,775
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    What about financial records?
    Yep, a cool million of very traceable dollars. That's not counting the cash transactions.

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    113
    there is no law against paying money for a doctor.

    what evidence links that money with drugs?

  18. #68
    Ride More, Work Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    Armstrong finished 4th in the Vuelta in 1998 after his comeback from illness. He was already the designated team leader going into that event, and that being one of the higher finishes ever by an American in one of the three grand tours, was obviously given the team leadership once again going into the 1999 TdF. Armstrong had already amassed significant financial prize winnings and cumulative salary by that time, had lucrative endorsement deals with huge companies (Oakley, Nike) plus the connections and experience of Johan Bruyneel and Dr. Ferrari. Most of the pieces were already in place at that time.
    Lance would have been the perfect prey too. Excellent skills and nothing to lose. He could go for broke and somebody, perhaps Lance but I don't think so, would know the answer on how to make it happen. Now Lance could have said, give me everything you got. Or somebody else could have pulled him aside and tapped his ego with a "I promise you a podium finish if you do just what I say". We may never know, but I think it is more the latter than the former. (and no, I'm not making Lance a victim here).

  19. #69
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,205
    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    there is no law against paying money for a doctor.

    what evidence links that money with drugs?



    The simple fact that it was paid to Ferrari. Google him, spoon feeding isn't on my list of things to do.

  20. #70
    Ride More, Work Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,775
    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    there is no law against paying money for a doctor.

    what evidence links that money with drugs?
    Correct. People pay very good premiums for executive health services. Cancer treatment can cost millions, too. But what ailment would a world-class athlete be seeking treatment for that cost so much yet was strictly confidential?

  21. #71
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by heyyall View Post
    Lance would have been the perfect prey too. Excellent skills and nothing to lose. He could go for broke and somebody, perhaps Lance but I don't think so, would know the answer on how to make it happen. Now Lance could have said, give me everything you got. Or somebody else could have pulled him aside and tapped his ego with a "I promise you a podium finish if you do just what I say". We may never know, but I think it is more the latter than the former. (and no, I'm not making Lance a victim here).
    Now that would be speculation!

    On that speculative note, I'd guess some of each, but that's pure conjecture.

  22. #72
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    there is no law against paying money for a doctor.

    what evidence links that money with drugs?
    Ferrari is a sports phsyiologist and haemotologist, not an oncologist (for Heyall's benefit below). He is irrefutably known and essentially publicly self-admitted as a doping doc, through various criminal investigations in his home country of Italy where he was already banned for life from working with athletes even prior to the USADA investigation. Note the famous public quote from Ferrari speaking about EPO, "This material is no more dangerous than drinking ten liters of orange juice."

    Quote Originally Posted by heyyall View Post
    Correct. People pay very good premiums for executive health services. Cancer treatment can cost millions, too. But what ailment would a world-class athlete be seeking treatment for that cost so much yet was strictly confidential?

  23. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by heyyall View Post
    Correct. People pay very good premiums for executive health services. Cancer treatment can cost millions, too. But what ailment would a world-class athlete be seeking treatment for that cost so much yet was strictly confidential?
    medical records are legally confidential for all persons. the rest of your statement is speculation, my original point.

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    The simple fact that it was paid to Ferrari. Google him, spoon feeding isn't on my list of things to do.
    speculation again. if I signed up to Ferarri for a training program and pay him for it, does that make me a drug cheat?

    yes ferrari is dodgy
    yes lance is dodgy
    yes there is evidence to show lance was ferrari's client
    but where is the evidence of drugs?

  25. #75
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    medical records are legally confidential for all persons. the rest of your statement is speculation, my original point.
    There are many witnesses who have testified under oath now with direct first-hand knowledge about Armstrong's doping programs administered by Ferrari. On the entire spectrum of speculation this item is very, very low, especially when taking all the corroborating evidence and information into account.

  26. #76
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    speculation again. if I signed up to Ferarri for a training program and pay him for it, does that make me a drug cheat?

    yes ferrari is dodgy
    yes lance is dodgy
    yes there is evidence to show lance was ferrari's client
    but where is the evidence of drugs?
    You haven't actually read USADA's 202 page summary, have you? Not that I would blame you. It's a big document that most people probably don't care to devote the time it would take to examine. I freely admit that suggesting you haven't read the document is just speculation on my part.

  27. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    113
    i know, but if lance was to defend himself, he could easily get as many witnesses to say he is clean...
    also none of the witnesses are credible, they are all drug cheats and liars. none of them admitted to cheating until USADA offered them a deal.

  28. #78
    banned
    Reputation: roadie scum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    speculation again. if I signed up to Ferarri for a training program and pay him for it, does that make me a drug cheat?

    yes ferrari is dodgy
    yes lance is dodgy
    yes there is evidence to show lance was ferrari's client
    but where is the evidence of drugs?




    Lance?

  29. #79
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    i know, but if lance was to defend himself, he could easily get as many witnesses to say he is clean...
    Logic above does not work. Since no one was with Lance 365x24 no one can reasonably testify that he didn't dope. All they can state is that they saw no doping while they were in his presence.

    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    also none of the witnesses are credible, they are all drug cheats and liars. none of them admitted to cheating until USADA offered them a deal.
    26 witnesses, some of whom are not even riders (therefore claim of drug cheat is irrelevant to them). All liars you say, even with a mountain of corroborating evidence, but Armstrong is telling the truth? It actually works against you to provide posts that defy reason.

  30. #80
    Frys With That, Please
    Reputation: cda 455's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by .WestCoastHucker. View Post
    nobody gives a flying fvck...

    If that is true, why is he front page news (Above the fold in many ares) around the world and not just in the cycling community?
    2012 Cannondale Trail SL 29ER 4

    1994 Cannondale Super V 1000

    1996 Cannondale F500 rigid-fork 69'er

    Motiv 26'er

  31. #81
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    Lance should have used the chewbacca defense.

    Sj
    Last edited by Burnt-Orange; 12-11-2012 at 11:45 AM.
    I am slow therefore I am

  32. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Whason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    426
    Quote Originally Posted by ryguy135 View Post
    Just curious what public opinion is.
    '

    He seems pretty clean when he's not racing, I'm sure he showers daily. During rides and after I'm not so sure.
    "Chancho. When you are a man sometimes you wear stretchy pants... Its for fun..."

  33. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,801
    for fvck's sake...


    does anyone honestly believe any pro road racer is clean? Or any professional athlete at all? If you do, do also believe in the tooth fairy?

  34. #84
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,085
    Not only is he a drug head, but the spin cycles that he has put his name on stink. They are too small for any one over 6'. It's very frustrating. Even if I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, one workout on his spin cycles would change my mind.

  35. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nuffink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by Joules View Post
    for fvck's sake...


    does anyone honestly believe any pro road racer is clean? Or any professional athlete at all? If you do, do also believe in the tooth fairy?
    Yeah, I do. I believe most, probably the vast majority of professional athletes, are clean. Not so much in pro cycling, sure, but that only accounts for a tiny percentage of pro athletes worldwide. Anyway, the "they're all at it" argument is a council of despair used by those who seek to excuse the cheating. Cynicism as a mask for supporting the rotten status quo.

    Not so sure about the tooth fairy, someone's going to have to kill one and dissect it before I'm convinced.

  36. #86
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    I wonder if he kept his drugs in his coach purse
    Saved by the spambot again

    Sj
    I am slow therefore I am

  37. #87
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by SlowerJoe View Post
    I wonder if he kept his drugs in his coach purse
    Saved by the spambot again
    Sorry, that was just me playing with my sock puppet account again. Trying to get a job as a Coach outlet store sales rep, figuring it would help me cause if I show them how industrious I am spamming forums. j/k I'm sure a mod with admin rights to this forum will clean them out soon. Spammers have been coming in hard lately.

  38. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    7
    wow, can't beleive so many people think he is on dope, I believe he is clean.

  39. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nrlions's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    35
    He was the leader in a huge cycling doping ring. He got blood transfusions after his races to have clean blood. As much as I hate to say it, no he wasn't clean

  40. #90
    Less talk, more ride...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by mmgn View Post
    wow, can't beleive so many people think he is on dope, I believe he is clean.

    IF you really believe he is clean, I have some beach front property in Iowa I'd like to sell you!
    2012 Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Comp 29er
    2012 Specialized Roubaix Apex Compact

  41. #91
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by mmgn View Post
    wow, can't beleive so many people think he is on dope, I believe he is clean.
    Hahahaha, your not one of those people in that cult that think the earth is still flat are you?
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  42. #92
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    110
    Everyone knows that the world is flat. Well, except near New Zealand where it curves a little bit.

  43. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jmmUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,248
    Batter Up!


  44. #94
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by mmgn View Post
    wow, can't beleive so many people think he is on dope, I believe he is clean.
    Hoping the above is sarcasm, but know that you do not stand alone. Lance is with you all the way (see awesome vid compilation at link below);

    Lance Armstrong could face perjury charges following USADA allegations - Telegraph

  45. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11,790
    Well he took PED and did everything everyone else was doing....

    I don't think he ever promised not to take PEDs

    Now they make at least the Olympic atheletes promise not to take drugs....

    He was confronted with a set of rules.......and passed those tests.....

    Just like everyone else who didn't get caught.

    Migual Indrain holds the world record for the slowest resting heartbeart 27 or something....


    You think that might have something to do with drugs?

  46. #96
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffscott View Post
    Well he took PED and did everything everyone else was doing....

    I don't think he ever promised not to take PEDs
    That's exactly what everyone promises contractually in writing (or electronic equivalent) when they apply for a UCI race license through their national cycling federation.

    This is the fundamental basis on which Armstrong was charged and sanctioned.

  47. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    Say what??? That's exactly what everyone promises contractually in writing (or electronic equivalent) when they apply for a UCI race license through their national cycling federation.
    When did they add that clause.

  48. #98
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffscott View Post
    When did they add that clause.
    Admittedly I can't recall exactly, but it's been a lot of years. Certainly within the time frame that Armstrong has been racing, and I'm 99.9% sure within the range of years that his string of seven TdF exploits falls within.

  49. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    Admittedly I can't recall exactly, but it's been a lot of years. Certainly within the time frame that Armstrong has been racing, and I'm 99.9% sure within the range of years that his string of seven TdF exploits falls within.
    I pulled upit doping rules (UCI).....it does mention it is a riders resposiblitiy to ensure that no PDE enters his body.....

    The rules refer to an update that occurred in 2004 to bring the rules in-line with Olympic requirements....


    I doubt the older rules are easily available......but those rules should be used to judge somebody competing at that time.

  50. #100
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,131
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffscott View Post
    I pulled upit doping rules (UCI).....it does mention it is a riders resposiblitiy to ensure that no PDE enters his body.....

    The rules refer to an update that occurred in 2004 to bring the rules in-line with Olympic requirements....
    Yes, the UCI came into compliance with WADA code in 2004 otherwise all cycling events were going to be nixed from the Olympics. Cycling - via the UCI - was the last and final holdout among all Olympic sports to agree to the WADA code. What I cannot recall with any certainty is whether there was an alternate, but still enforceable, anti-doping agreement tied to licenses and the license application process prior to 2004. I'm pretty certain there was, but not 100% positive. I didn't really pay close attention, because I had no qualms about signing off on my agreement to any anti-doping compliance measures and rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffscott View Post
    I doubt the older rules are easily available......but those rules should be used to judge somebody competing at that time.
    The WADA code and rules are retroactive. The rider signs off on their agreement to the WADA code during the licensing process. If the rider has a "shady" past and doesn't want to be subject to retroactive processes, they have the option to not apply for their license. Armstrong chose to apply. Case closed.

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... 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
  •