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 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 647
  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Good thread though...

  2. #52
    No. Just No. Moderator
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,805
    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
    1,487
    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. Moderator
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,805
    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
    370
    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
    7,951
    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. Moderator
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,805
    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
    19,996
    Gaelic.

  9. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    370
    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. Moderator
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,805
    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. Moderator
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,805
    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
    19,996
    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    circlip, speculation is not evidence.



    What about financial records?

  14. #64
    Ride More, Whine Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    8,652
    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. Moderator
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,805
    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, Whine Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    8,652
    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, Whine Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    8,652
    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
    19,996
    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, Whine Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    8,652
    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. Moderator
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,805
    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. Moderator
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,805
    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. Moderator
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,805
    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.

Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... 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
  •