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 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 350 of 647
  1. #301
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,415
    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
    4,596
    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
    4,596
    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
    1,948
    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
    23,992
    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
    10,762
    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. It’s 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
    4,168
    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: 169
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
    8,047
    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
    460
    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
    5,297
    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
    460
    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
    8,047
    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
    5,297
    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
    5,297
    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
    460
    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
    402
    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 didn’t 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
    5,297
    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
    2,443
    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
    5,297
    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
    4,596
    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
    4,596
    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
    2,443
    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 nào 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
    4,596
    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
    8,047
    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 nào 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...

  26. #326
    dru
    dru is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,443
    Yeah, Oggie, it's the thread that won't die, isn't it. Snow biking tomorrow? You must have got the same dump as we did here in Waterloo.

    Drew
    occasional cyclist

  27. #327
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by dru View Post
    Yeah, Oggie, it's the thread that won't die, isn't it. Snow biking tomorrow? You must have got the same dump as we did here in Waterloo.

    Drew
    we hit the Hilton Falls/Agreement Forest on Boxing Day - oh boy, was it ever awesome... can't wait for another snowfall or two, so that the snow packs down - which makes riding in the rock even more fun... there were a few groups riding at the same time... nothing better than stopping for a minute or two and exchanging pleasantries and occasional banter with fellow riders, before saddling up for more...

    hit me with PM if you are interested in jumping in on a ride or two... i have a great bunch of fun guys and gals riding with all winter.... good banter is priceless...

    stay healthy my friend...

  28. #328
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,140
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    good of the sport, among other things.
    Cycling was here before Armstrong, it will do just fine without him. Maybe even better if the removal of Armstrong from recent cycling lore helps to give some credibility to the sport instead of going the way of professional wrestling. Armstrong certainly wasn't the first to use PEDs nor is he the source of all PED use, but don't kid yourself that Armstrong wasn't a major cog in the wheel of PEDs in the pro road scene, in many more ways than just another end user.

    Many other pros have been sanctioned and stripped of major wins, including two recent TdF wins that were reversed. Should Armstrong be exempt from the somehow? I can't think of any reason why.

    His get out of jail free card with the UCI is worthless now. Stick a fork in him, he's done. Good riddance and all that stuff too.

  29. #329
    mtbr member
    Reputation: grandsalmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,017
    ^^^This^^^

    ..and where each athlete relies on their own personal strength, Lance had enough money to secure, maintain, and lead in the pharmaceutical field. This plus his infamous machinations gave him diabolical influence. This has nothing to do with an even playing field, with or without drugs.

    .

  30. #330
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,297
    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 nào 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
    kudos bro -- nicely done!

    and now for something completely different....

    what's your snow riding rig? fat bike?
    Last edited by monogod; 12-27-2012 at 11:54 PM.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  31. #331
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,297
    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
    losing a witness (or even 5) would not have impacted this case or been an evidentiary problem. still close to 30 left!

    again -- the DOJ did not disclose the purpose for not pursuing the case. your assumption that it was from a lack of evidence is just that... an assumption and nothing more for which you have absolutely ZERO basis to reach such a conclusion. yet again, had you done your homework before entering this debate you'd know that briotti ceased the investigation AGAINST the advice of his assistants and despite compiling a mountain of evidence against LA. it was a move that shocked most everyone connected with the investigation. heck, you even got that information spoon-fed that to ya in this thread.... so perhaps it is YOUR reading comprehension that's questionable?

    speaking of which, if you even remotely think that tone's was agreeing with you then you definitely have some rather profound reading comprehension issues and deficits.

    that being said, you really shouldn't be throwing snarky comments and insults around. it's not that i disapprove or that it's inappropriate in general cuz i love it and don't mind a good debate peppered with little personal jabs here and there. but with you getting all butt hurt and neg repping because you thought you were being personally insulted (when you actually were not) you're not really in a position to be snarky. and trust me, if the benign comments osokolo and i made bent your delicate little feelers you're a little too thin skinned to start getting sideways around here, cuz you'll be eaten alive.

    consider this your only warning. after this the gloves come off.
    Last edited by monogod; 12-28-2012 at 12:08 AM.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  32. #332
    dwt
    dwt is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dwt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,168
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    You seriously lack reading comprehension if you have actually read what I have posted in good faith.
    Good faith? And here I thought you were a naive and/or clueless troll trying to incite arguments about nothing. The case is closed, the hero had feet of clay, the hero is a zero.

    Why not just deal with it and move on?
    Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

  33. #333
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,297
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yes, I must confess, I am a naive and clueless troll.
    congratulations, you've finally made a coherent statement we can all agree on!
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  34. #334
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    15
    This is a very polemical issue... Dopping is a polemical issue.
    Lance is a huge rider and I believe that most of you agree with me.
    Probably, he had ride doped and the others? They were all clean? If you make a little research about the riders that finished in second place, when lance's win. Most of them are tested positive...

    cheers

  35. #335
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by rodd View Post
    This is a very polemical issue... Dopping is a polemical issue.
    Lance is a huge rider and I believe that most of you agree with me.
    Probably, he had ride doped and the others? They were all clean? If you make a little research about the riders that finished in second place, when lance's win. Most of them are tested positive...

    cheers
    You could start a topic on onter riders, but here it's Lance, and what ever the other have done. In doesn't make Lance inocent, Our maybe he is... But for sure he dopep!

  36. #336
    I am with her.
    Reputation: acer66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    889
    Speaking of Lance

    Armstrong nominated as Texan of the Year
    By: Cycling NewsPublished: December 28, 11:27, Updated: December 28, 12:41
    Do you like this?
    Tweet

    Lance Armstrong (US Postal) at the start of the 1999 Amstel Gold
    view thumbnail gallery
    Dallas newspaper calls him “a fighter, a survivor and a cunning, steely-eyed liar”

    Lance Armstrong has been nominated for Texan of the Year – but not as a sterling example of the Lone Star State's population. The Dallas Morning News has nominated him for its award as a top newsmaker who has had a great impact.

    “Armstrong’s crash to Earth in 2012, with all its painful reverberations, leaves a Texas-size crater that qualifies him as a finalist for this year’s distinction. His fall wasn’t pleasant to behold,” the newspaper said in an editorial. “If nothing else, it’s a lesson about the perils of hero worship.”

    The title is one which does not necessarily reflect well on the recipient. “The Dallas Morning News Texan of the Year is a distinction we bestow for impact, be it for better or for worse. It reflects the prominence of what Texans do, not what we’d prefer them to do.”

    Armstrong, a lifelong resident of Texas, first came to notice in the state as a teenage triathlete. He enthralled millions of Texans and fans around the world as he came back from cancer to win seven consecutive Tours de France, and raised millions of dollars from this Livestrong Foundation.

    But the legend came to an end in 2012. “This year came the epic fall, a legacy imploded in weeks. The head of the U.S. anti-doping agency revealed him as a serial cheat, the enforcer of 'the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.' Sponsors abandoned Armstrong. Nike said he misled the company for a decade.

    “Now the Armstrong brand will forever be that of a fighter, a survivor and a cunning, steely-eyed liar.”
    Armstrong Nominated As Texan Of The Year | Cyclingnews.com

  37. #337
    mtbr member
    Reputation: shwinn8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,103
    i remember a radio talk show i listen to while driving to work about the whole Roger Clemens situation and other " top " athletes. one guy said something like, " Everyone is doping which puts them all on the same playing field. If only 2 or 3 guys are actually accomplishing anything in conjunction with skill how is that cheating? It takes more then drugs to get the win " ...
    '11 Jedi
    '01 Rocket 88 Stage3
    '00 Homegrown

  38. #338
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    168
    I'm getting dizzy.

    here:

    Armstrong is done.

    the roadies have hashed this all out already.

  39. #339
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,140
    Quote Originally Posted by rodd View Post
    Probably, he had ride doped and the others? They were all clean? If you make a little research about the riders that finished in second place, when lance's win. Most of them are tested positive...
    Many of those other TdF 2nd/3rd place finishers have been sanctioned with major results stripped. Other TdF winners also sanctioned and TdF wins stripped. Armstrong now sanctioned with TdF wins stripped. Seems fair enough to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by shwinn8 View Post
    i remember a radio talk show i listen to while driving to work about the whole Roger Clemens situation and other " top " athletes. one guy said something like, " Everyone is doping which puts them all on the same playing field. If only 2 or 3 guys are actually accomplishing anything in conjunction with skill how is that cheating? It takes more then drugs to get the win " ...
    No level playing field in this case. Armstrong was given wiggle room to dope up more heavily and more frequently than other riders. Described in detail in many earlier posts in this thread.

  40. #340
    mtbr member
    Reputation: shwinn8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,103
    @Circlip, got'cha. i haven't followed because i really don't care.. well, care just enough to make a post
    '11 Jedi
    '01 Rocket 88 Stage3
    '00 Homegrown

  41. #341
    I am with her.
    Reputation: acer66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    889
    Quote Originally Posted by shwinn8 View Post
    i remember a radio talk show i listen to while driving to work about the whole Roger Clemens situation and other " top " athletes. one guy said something like, " Everyone is doping which puts them all on the same playing field. If only 2 or 3 guys are actually accomplishing anything in conjunction with skill how is that cheating? It takes more then drugs to get the win " ...
    There is also that statement that the sport was becoming somewhat clean and Lance came in doping in full force and the other teams had to start doing it again.

    But I think it all does not matter, he/they cheated so they are all bad no matter how level the playing field was, which at least in my opinion was not level anyway.

  42. #342
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    543
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Yes, there is a prescribed point of view that certain posters in this thread have. If you don't agree not only with their major conclusion but every other point they believe in, you will get called a bunch of names like we're all back in third grade. It's the worst of internet debating, in one thread.
    Here's why you are a troll.
    You just want to argue for the sake of arguing, you stopped making ground on your first post.
    If you actually did read through the thread, you find that they aren't pov's but facts. If you did in fact read the thread, the only conclusion I can come up is is that you are extremely iggnorant to the facts, YES FACTS...As I said stated previously in a post, LA's fans have nothing left to grasp onto, except their shlong and "everyone else was doping". Keep on milking. When it gets to a certain point name calling sometimes get thrown around, thats only because you are one arrogant, single minded individual.
    You've played you're last card.

  43. #343
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    15
    I never said that Lance wasn't a cheater... He should be punished for what he did but in the correct time, not now, 10 years later.
    Every cheater should be punished in every type of sports, but not only in cycling.

  44. #344
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDweeb View Post
    I'm getting dizzy.

    here:

    Armstrong is done.

    the roadies have hashed this all out already.
    they got it all wrong.

    newsflash from a reliable source: Lance is clean until proven otherwise. period.

    end of the story.

    lock the thread please.

    god bless lawyers... i think.

  45. #345
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Again, simpleminded as all hell. I agree with you Lance was doping, never said otherwise. My only "crime" in this thread was being too subtle for you. So no one is disagreeing with facts. If you can't handle someone saying "I agree he was doping, but I disagree with the process and I don't think the whole thing is good for the sport" then you are one big ass olympic quality simpleton. In fact, I would need "doping" to become that simplistic and dull.

    This board s usually a pleasure, I guess you and a couple of others here are too overwhelmed with emotion to actually have a discussion about the subject.
    LOL, you must be going for the award of biggest Hypocrite on this site, your upset at others getting too overwhelmed with emotion, but at the same time your calling them big assed olympic quality simpletons, not only that but along the way you have decided to change your story to suit yourself, first your arguing that there is no evidence, all the witnesses are being bought off and its a big conspirecy to now saying you think he is guilty...

    Mate, whats it going to be, you cant fool anybody here, go back and read your posts for the last few pages.
    This is like the muppet show....
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  46. #346
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by SV11 View Post
    Here's why you are a troll.
    You just want to argue for the sake of arguing, you stopped making ground on your first post.
    If you actually did read through the thread, you find that they aren't pov's but facts. If you did in fact read the thread, the only conclusion I can come up is is that you are extremely iggnorant to the facts, YES FACTS...As I said stated previously in a post, LA's fans have nothing left to grasp onto, except their shlong and "everyone else was doping". Keep on milking. When it gets to a certain point name calling sometimes get thrown around, thats only because you are one arrogant, single minded individual.
    You've played you're last card.
    SV11, Absolutely spot on, you have summed it up perfectly...
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  47. #347
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    41
    First, Lance had to be taking testosterone because he had a testicle remove, which means he was producing a very small amount of his own testosterone. However the problem lays within the question of what’s a normal test level? Go into any high school class to see why that’s such a difficult question… some males like they are 24 and others like they are 14..why? Because everyone produces such a wide range of hormone levels… The avg male produces 400 to 1200 mcg of test. So one racer could be at 440 and Lance could be at 1199 (prescribed test) and both normal.
    But at any rate the basic point is the league had been on a “witch hunt” with Lance since he won his first Tour De France… and it was never proven. I think once someone is no longer competing, than it’s no longer an issue… game over! If he was caught like many others within months of when they competed, then he is busted and all awards removed for cheating. But part of the responsibility of the league is prove it while they are competing.... improve their methods of testing if they feel still others are cheating… but to the rest who may have … the league need to just “SHUTUP”. Hey who knows… Babe Ruth and Jim Brown may have been the biggest dopers… oh well. They got away with it… no one can prove that they never used drugs…

  48. #348
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    You're confused.

    Arguing that "there is no evidence." Nope. Didn't happen. If you go back and read, and try to do it slowly enough that it might penetrate your faulty cognition, you will find that I said that when prosecutions are dropped, that usually means there is a problem with the evidence and that the prosecutor thinks he can't get a conviction. That is a far cry from saying there is "no evidence." I've even mentioned the evidence I found persuasive. So, I wasn't saying there was "no evidence" at amy point and you know that unless you're just being a dick.

    "all the witnesses being bought" - Nope, never said that either. In fact, I never said any witness was "bought", or implied it either.

    "it's a big conspiracy" - I never said that either, or implied it.

    Other than that, your post is just name calling. I hope that you make it to fourth grade. Give your mom my best!
    Mate your a bloke that belittles others and name calls then at the same time accuse others of doing it, you love to make out your a victim and a saint, your above few posts are prime examples.
    Your a dreamer, go back and read your posts, you are totally dellusional Dave, your not fooling anybody mate, the only one your fooling is yourself..
    Not to mention your an Agrade hypocrite, your as much a victim as you think poor lance is, mate get a grip and wake up, your not fooling anybody, your posts are there for all to see....
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  49. #349
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's View Post
    SV11, Absolutely spot on, you have summed it up perfectly...
    monogod put him in his place, never to come back with anything that makes sense even remotely... don't feed the troll anymore please.

    let him debate in front of the mirror... that is what i call the level playing field... pretty low level, but level nonetheless...


  50. #350
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Ok, well, quote me then, using the cut-and-paste feature you know and love so well.

    Quote me where I said that Lance was innocent.

    Quote me where I said there was "no evidence"

    Quote me where I said he didn't dope.

    Quote me where I said witnesses were bought off.

    Quote me where I said it was "a big conspiracy"

    Go!

    You can't do it, because it doesn't exist. You're just in a tizzy because you can't out debate me on the issue, you lack the ability to see finer points, and all you've got at the end of the day is the ability to misconstrue what I've said and call people names. And what's more, you can't even hold your own with your two or three surrogates helping you. Give it a rest, and go back to nursing your feelings of inadequacy in front of the tele, or whatever it is they call it in Australia. Geez!
    Go back and read your posts Dave, from the start, i ask anybody to do the same, im not playing your games, i couldnt be bothered, its there for all to see..
    Cheers ,and keep playing the victim, it suits you.
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... 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
  •