• 10-11-2012
    Circlip
    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.
  • 10-11-2012
    horsey24
    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.
  • 10-11-2012
    roadie scum
    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? :rolleyes:
  • 10-11-2012
    Circlip
    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.
  • 10-11-2012
    cda 455
    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?
  • 10-11-2012
    Burnt-Orange
    Lance should have used the chewbacca defense.

    Sj
  • 10-11-2012
    Whason
    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. :D
  • 10-11-2012
    Joules
    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?
  • 10-11-2012
    Lars_D
    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.
  • 10-11-2012
    nuffink
    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.
  • 10-11-2012
    Burnt-Orange
    I wonder if he kept his drugs in his coach purse
    Saved by the spambot again

    Sj
  • 10-11-2012
    Circlip
    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.
  • 10-12-2012
    mmgn
    wow, can't beleive so many people think he is on dope, I believe he is clean.
  • 10-12-2012
    Nrlions
    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
  • 10-12-2012
    Doedrums
    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! :D
  • 10-12-2012
    Tone's
    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?:D
  • 10-12-2012
    Lance Strongarm
    Everyone knows that the world is flat. Well, except near New Zealand where it curves a little bit.
  • 10-12-2012
    jmmorath
  • 10-12-2012
    Circlip
    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
  • 10-12-2012
    jeffscott
    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?
  • 10-12-2012
    Circlip
    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.
  • 10-12-2012
    jeffscott
    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.
  • 10-12-2012
    Circlip
    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.
  • 10-12-2012
    jeffscott
    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.
  • 10-12-2012
    Circlip
    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.