Poll: Do you think Armstrong doped?

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 647
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    874

    Do you believe Lance Armstrong is clean?

    Just curious what public opinion is.

  2. #2
    Pro Crastinator
    Reputation: .WestCoastHucker.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,912
    nobody gives a flying fvck...


  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brewtality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,670
    Quote Originally Posted by .WestCoastHucker. View Post
    nobody gives a flying fvck...
    You might not care but it is something that matters to a lot people.

    After all that has happened, all that has been said, all that has been alleged, I still hope that he was clean. That is what's in my heart.
    My brain tells me otherwise.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Its all Shits and Giggles until somebody Giggles and Shits

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SSdirt29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    586
    hell no

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,091
    I voted yes, but he should still keep his titles:
    -partly because I think the USADA is BS.
    -partly because it was endemic in the late 90's and early mid 2000's.
    I don't think that there many who made it into the GC top 20, without doping and their team mates had to dope to help them. It should be the team managers and the UCI taking the rap for this not individual cyclists; it was a systemic problem not fraud or abuse by an individual.
    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.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleJon View Post
    I voted yes, but he should still keep his titles:
    -partly because I think the USADA is BS.
    -partly because it was endemic in the late 90's and early mid 2000's.
    I don't think that there many who made it into the top GC top 20, without doping and their team mates had to dope to help them. It should be the team managers and the UCI taking the rap for this not individual cyclists; it was a systemic problem not fraud or abuse by an individual.
    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.

    Yes, this.

  7. #7
    Ride More, Work Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,775
    To be honest, I had the thought he took steroids in 2000 and 2001. His legs were enormous. Much greater than any you see on the tour these days. I told myself then it was the dedication to the sport. I didnt think he could pass the tests otherwise. I should have listened to my intuition. Today, I know he is guilty. Nonetheless, I admire what he was able to do on the bike. I'm still a fan of Lance. Always will be. We all have faults. But, it is time to move on. He needs to come clean, pay the piper and go on living and doing his thing.
    Craigslist & MTBR --free ads for all

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5
    10, 15 years ago, who didn't dope?

  9. #9
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    110
    No option for HELL NO!

  10. #10
    govt kontrakt projkt mgr
    Reputation: ArmySlowRdr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,166
    No but he is the winner and should so remain.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,335
    It does not matter what one believes, what matters is actual Evidence, Belief is in something you are not certain of. So from the lack of Evidence I KNOW Lance is Innocent.

  12. #12
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,232
    Yes, I do think he "doped".

    No, I do not think he should be punished in any way. It should be either an undisputed positive test, or proper legal process for "non-analytic" accusations. Civil court level, witnesses under oath etc., not arbitration by a vindictive private company hired to run Olympic anti-doping and trying hard to get into business with all professional sports.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,542
    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?

  14. #14
    Cow Clicker
    Reputation: wmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,031
    Whether or not you think the USADA is BS or not, there are regulatory organizations and rules of participation. If you break the rules or are found guilty of breaking the rules, there are consequences.

    Personally, I think athletes should be able to pump their bodies with whatever makes them go faster. Rules are stupid.
    No, YOU don't understand. You're making an ass of yourself for all of eternity.

  15. #15
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,232
    Quote Originally Posted by wmac View Post
    If you break the rules or are found guilty of breaking the rules, there are consequences.
    Sure, fail a test, lose a title. Landis, Contador... very simple.

    It is the selective and dubious prosecution of non-analytical "positive" that gives me a serious doubt.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Soupy777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    10
    Heard the journalist dissecting the start of the 1000 pages of evidence and it's quiet obvious by the facts of the independent report not only is he guilty but the lengths that he went too cheat so what if everyone was doing it that doesn't make it right he's a fraud simple and should be stripped of his titles, I actually think the whole sport will have to earn its integrity after this as it seems they were all and it, fair enough he's a good at his sport and raising money but sport is about fairness which these "sportsmen" seem to have forgotten

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Soupy777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    10
    Oh footnote for people who don't care why write on this thread ... Just a thought

  18. #18
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Soupy777 View Post
    Heard the journalist dissecting the start of the 1000 pages of evidence
    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.

    In any case, dead horse.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SSdirt29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by Soupy777 View Post
    Heard the journalist dissecting the start of the 1000 pages of evidence and it's quiet obvious by the facts of the independent report not only is he guilty but the lengths that he went too cheat so what if everyone was doing it that doesn't make it right he's a fraud simple and should be stripped of his titles, I actually think the whole sport will have to earn its integrity after this as it seems they were all and it, fair enough he's a good at his sport and raising money but sport is about fairness which these "sportsmen" seem to have forgotten
    Yah I agree he's guilty but was that written with google translator ?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Soupy777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    10
    Do you not think many lawyers have went threw this, if it's not fact I'm sure he will challenge it I would if I had millions and was innocent but we'll have to wait and see. Also people saying its out of jealousy all these people (11 ex team mates ) must have major green eye monster to out themselves as doping cheats just to get lance into trouble ?

  21. #21
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Soupy777 View Post
    if it's not fact I'm sure he will challenge
    Where? Court already dismissed that correctly stating that this is a dispute between two private parties. Nothing to challenge.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brewtality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Soupy777 View Post
    Heard the journalist dissecting the start of the 1000 pages of evidence and it's quiet obvious by the facts of the independent report not only is he guilty but the lengths that he went too cheat so what if everyone was doing it that doesn't make it right he's a fraud simple and should be stripped of his titles, I actually think the whole sport will have to earn its integrity after this as it seems they were all and it, fair enough he's a good at his sport and raising money but sport is about fairness which these "sportsmen" seem to have forgotten
    Quote Originally Posted by Soupy777 View Post
    Do you not think many lawyers have went threw this, if it's not fact I'm sure he will challenge it I would if I had millions and was innocent but we'll have to wait and see. Also people saying its out of jealousy all these people (11 ex team mates ) must have major green eye monster to out themselves as doping cheats just to get lance into trouble ?

    Do you have any idea how hard your posts are to read? I seriously hate to play grammar nazi, but really, learn a little bit about sentence struction and punctuation.
    Its all Shits and Giggles until somebody Giggles and Shits

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 11 Bravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by wmac View Post
    Whether or not you think the USADA is BS or not, there are regulatory organizations and rules of participation. If you break the rules or are found guilty of breaking the rules, there are consequences................

    .
    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.

    There are a lot of things about our legal system here in the U.S that are like that. Guilty people go free sometimes because when everything is done by the rules the prosecutors just can't get over the hurdle of innocent until proven guilty. Not a perfect system, but on balance it is a dam good one and serves us well.

    Again, I haven't followed it very closely, so if I am wrong I will stand corrected and not put up an argument.

    Since I posted, I guess I should answer the OP question.

    I think it looks overwhelming that he was on the juice. That said, I see the point others are making that it was a dirty era and it also seems overwhelming that the guys he was competing against were on it too.

    I don't know how you sort it out now. It is just a bad deal all the way around.

    Sadly, all the people that think this will heal and clean the sport up will be disappointed when the next batch of cheaters get caught. And they will. There will always be people who cheat and try to cheat. Does anyone really believe that the smart guys won't be able to stay one step ahead of the labs?

    This is a big part of why I really don't put a whole lot of focus on professional sports. It is fun to watch a ball game once in a while, but why get wrapped around the axle about sports? Honestly, if the fans didn't get so worked up about it and pay so much money and idolize the stars, the money and fame wouldn't be there.
    I'm not very smart, but I can lift heavy things

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 11 Bravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    Do you have any idea how hard your posts are to read? I seriously hate to play grammar nazi, but really, learn a little bit about sentence struction and punctuation.
    I don't think English is his first language. His profile says Belfast.
    I'm not very smart, but I can lift heavy things

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    467
    Yes but who didn't in those days? And yes, the USADA is BS.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: albertdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    475
    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.


    Sent from my Galaxy S3

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Yes, I do think he "doped".

    No, I do not think he should be punished in any way. It should be either an undisputed positive test, or proper legal process for "non-analytic" accusations. Civil court level, witnesses under oath etc., not arbitration by a vindictive private company hired to run Olympic anti-doping and trying hard to get into business with all professional sports.
    +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.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brewtality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,670
    Quote Originally Posted by 11 Bravo View Post
    I don't think English is his first language. His profile says Belfast.
    Which Belfast?

    Yahoo shows:

    Belfast, United Kingdom
    Belfast, CA
    Belfast, WA
    Belfast, AR
    Belfast, MO
    Belfast, NE
    Belfast Mills, VA

    Other than the Belfast, Arkansas, I think all of those speak and can type english.
    Its all Shits and Giggles until somebody Giggles and Shits

  29. #29
    Bro
    Bro is offline
    Content from my avatar
    Reputation: Bro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,356
    I do believe that Armstrong doped. Not only because of the testimony from several riders who I personally like and respect, such as Leipheimer and Hincapie, but also because that was the EPO era. I find it very hard to believe that Armstrong, or anyone for that matter, would have been able to go up against a doped-up peloton and succeed seven times.

    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.

    However, here is why I do not agree with the sanctions and suspensions, even though I believe that Armstrong, and many others, used performance-enhancing drugs during that time: This entire case is concerned with things that happened over a decade ago. It's largely irrelevant; I understand why those active riders who testified against Armstrong and admitted to doping were suspended from racing, but this case is centered around a rider who has been retired from professional bike racing for years. The whole thing seems like a waste of time and money.

    I would be much more supportive of all parties involved if USADA and UCI came forth and said, "We messed up; our tests at the time did not catch what we wanted to catch. Here's what we will be doing from now on, in the hopes that something like that does not happen again."

    However, in my eyes, that would also require all guilty riders to fess up and offer conclusive proof that they are clean, whether retired or active as a rider or other team member in professional racing.
    Sometimes, I question the value of my content.

  30. #30
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    It does not matter what one believes, what matters is actual Evidence, Belief is in something you are not certain of. So from the lack of Evidence I KNOW Lance is Innocent.
    Blur, these are the facts, today it has been announced that 26, yes 26 witnesses and 11, yes 11 former team mates have given serious evidence against him, blur thats not a lack of evidence thats a mountain of evidence are you saying that all of these guys are payed off and its a massive conspiricy?

    Blur if somebody shoots somebody and there is no gun found and no hard evidence apart from 26 witnesses, mate thats enough evidence to well n truly say he is guilty, i cannot believe the amount of people that chose to keep their heads buried in the sand about this issue.
    Its the nature of the game that the cheats keep well in front of the testers, they would not attempt it if they couldnt stay in front and avoid detection.
    How many times did Marion Jones get caught? none, thats how many, she was tested over n over again, it is very very naive to suggest or think that these cheats are not miles ifront of the testers..
    The evidence in this case is so overwhelming only the most bias and naive person could think that he was clean in his career.
    Yes i now have my flack jacket on waiting for the pages of neg rep but thats ok, i cant sit back n listen to this dribble any longer...... cheers
    Last edited by Tone's; 10-11-2012 at 08:30 PM.
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    17
    I believe that at that level nobody is 100% clean....

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 11 Bravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Brewtality View Post
    Which Belfast?

    Yahoo shows:

    Belfast, United Kingdom
    Belfast, CA
    Belfast, WA
    Belfast, AR
    Belfast, MO
    Belfast, NE
    Belfast Mills, VA

    Other than the Belfast, Arkansas, I think all of those speak and can type english.

    Touche'
    I'm not very smart, but I can lift heavy things

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    77
    No i do not believe he is clean, nor are the majority of pro athletes.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    113
    and still with all the press releases in the last couple of days, USADA don't have any actual evidence...

    11 Riders who lied about using drugs until pressured into confessions and then only admitted to using drugs during the years they road with Lance. Coincidently they all say they were clean since 2006, and now are heroes for help fight against doping.

    Money transfers to a Doctor. No actual evidence that the money was paying for drugs!

    He is guilty as sin, but this is a witchhunt, a waste of tax payer money, and becoming tiresome.

    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.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,676
    Look at this point despite the lack of physical evidence it pretty likely that Lance doped. However it you care to believe the testimony of others and take into account others who have been caught doping it seems to me that in this period the bulk of the cyclist were involved some levels of taking performance enhancing substances that they felt were banned or could be banned and so they hid their use.

    Certainly not right, but what do you do about it? Clearly the UCI was only able to catch some, but not all. Strip titles? Sure you can't but where does it stop? If you stop a the first clean drug test then it is Lance. If you stop where there are no alligations of doping you probably stop a some rider who is rather obsure and because he never won was never investigaged.

    The best result that can come from this is to revise testing proceedures to minimize doping going forward. What is done is done. We will never know what a clean Lance could have done vs a clean Jan Ulrich? We only know that a dopped up Lance beat a dopped up Jan time and time again. Each rider still gave 110% of what they had.
    Joe
    '12 Santa Cruz Highball 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5",Vassago Verhauen SS 29" XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    320
    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.
    Lance signed contracts with private companies in which he agreed to adhere to the rules. He was on the payroll of private companies that also required him to follow the rules. I fail to see why there is any problem with a private company enforcing the rules for private companies. In other fields this occurs all the time. Many contracts include clauses that require the participants to handle grievances through arbitration. Once again, private companies, not government agencies. Assuming you are currently employed by a private company, and that you are not under contract that requires cause for termination, you could have your career ruined for no reason at all, other than someone deciding you are no longer wanted.

    As for those who argue that it is a game of he said, she said, there is other evidence that is not hearsay. More than one expert has concluded that Armstrong's blood samples show all the hallmarks of blood manipulation. When you combine this with the bank statements (amazing that anyone would pay this much to a physician for medical services, particularly when there were team doctors and he had health insurance) and rider testimonies, it is all pretty damning.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tystevens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,826
    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.


    Sent from my Galaxy S3
    Pretty much my thoughts, at least the first paragraph. Virtually every significant cyclist of the last 10 years has either been caught cheating or has very high indicators of cheating -- they haven't been "caught" because they come from smaller countries who understandably don't want to launch an investigation to tarnish one of their own national heros (way to go USADA!), and the Cycling body clearly doesn't care to look into things. I mean, I remember a few years ago during the Tour, someone got their hands on the "indicators" from the testing, and I recognized every name on the list (and I'm not a hardcore fan by any means).

    For those talking about evidence, there is no actual "evidence" that can be derived from the tests for EPO and blood doping. The tests can only generate circumstantial evidence due to other markers or chemicals that are found, that "point to" the stuff that Lance is alleged to have been doing. So, the best evidence you can get here is either admission or eye-witness testimony! Lance will never admit it, but we have eye-witnesses in spades, it seems.

    Do you think Lance's buddies like George and Levi would rat him out if it weren't true? I mean, the evidence isn't coming from perjured "liars" ie, Landis, anymore -- we have Lance's best soldiers, who are rich and famous men because of the success they helped Lance achieve, who are saying they, and Lance, used. Given the nature of the alleged doping, and the fact that there is no test that could tell us that Lance was injecting previously extracted red blood cells and the like, I'm really not sure what better evidence we could have at this point.
    '11 Specialized Enduro Expert for the trails
    '13 Felt Z4 for the road

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tystevens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    It does not matter what one believes, what matters is actual Evidence, Belief is in something you are not certain of. So from the lack of Evidence I KNOW Lance is Innocent.
    Well, Lance made certain of that by the strategic way that he handled the USADA charges, didn't he.

    I mean, I didn't expect him to come out and admit it, either, but he made certain that there would be no certainty. I lost a little respect for him in that way. But it also makes me wonder if he hasn't paid attention to Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and Andy Pettitte's approaches to the confession/denial game. The former 2 denied, fought and fought, and even though arguably the best, most talented players ever at their respective positions, have no respect in the game anymore. Pettitte is the only one that really seemed to come clean. He is also the only one who still has a career and/or any respect in the public eye.

    The interview and statements from Leipheimer are pretty moving. I really don't blame the riders for what was going on -- the pressure to compete, the desire to succeed, the fact that it is only a game, after all -- no one's life is at risk due to his actions -- and the fact that there really don't seem to be known long-term effects of EPO and blood doping, to a 19 yr old trying to get on a world-famous cycling team. I have to tell you, I make the same decision he did if I'm in his shoes.

    I actually think Lance would come out better in the end if he followed a similar course -- "we knew everyone else was doing it, we felt we had no choice, we hired doctors to help us do it the "right way," I know it was wrong now but at the time, I didn't know what else to do ..." You know, blame it on the Europeans, tell us that if he was gonna dope, he was gonna do it right and all the way, and urge people not to do it now!
    '11 Specialized Enduro Expert for the trails
    '13 Felt Z4 for the road

  39. #39
    Cow Clicker
    Reputation: wmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,031
    Screw Clemens and Bonds, Armstrong took a page out of R Kelly's legal strategy book:

    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hZN565uhnGc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    No, YOU don't understand. You're making an ass of yourself for all of eternity.

  40. #40
    Frt Range, CO
    Reputation: pursuiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,577
    And what of all those extra "team only" Treks that made it to ebay and are alleged to have been sold to help fund the doping program, didn't Trek have to know what was going on? Same for Gorski. Not to mention Trek shutting down LeMond for speaking out about Lance's doping.

  41. #41
    Pro Crastinator
    Reputation: .WestCoastHucker.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Tone's L'axeman View Post
    ...Blur if somebody shoots somebody and there is no gun found and no hard evidence apart from 26 witnesses, mate thats enough evidence to well n truly say he is guilty, i cannot believe the about of people that chose to keep their heads buried in the sand about this issue...
    OJ disagrees with your theory...


  42. #42
    Bro
    Bro is offline
    Content from my avatar
    Reputation: Bro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Tystevens View Post
    I actually think Lance would come out better in the end if he followed a similar course -- "we knew everyone else was doing it, we felt we had no choice, we hired doctors to help us do it the "right way," I know it was wrong now but at the time, I didn't know what else to do ..." You know, blame it on the Europeans, tell us that if he was gonna dope, he was gonna do it right and all the way, and urge people not to do it now!
    That's possibly the worst thing that could be done at this stage. If we want to move forward, admissions, apologies, and plans for progress need to come forward. The blame-game is appropriate for the kindergarten playground, nowhere else.
    Sometimes, I question the value of my content.

  43. #43
    Cow Clicker
    Reputation: wmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,031
    If the syringe does not fit, you must aquit.
    No, YOU don't understand. You're making an ass of yourself for all of eternity.

  44. #44
    Ride More, Work Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,775
    How about this question: do you believe Lance is the mastermind or do you believe there is another person holding the puppet strings?
    Craigslist & MTBR --free ads for all

  45. #45
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    110
    Lance is not a puppet!

  46. #46
    Cow Clicker
    Reputation: wmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,031
    The whole thing was a get rich scheme designed by Lance the ego maniac. If you win, you get on tv which gives you more pull with corporate marketing $.
    No, YOU don't understand. You're making an ass of yourself for all of eternity.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,800
    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.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: popcola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    11
    Pro sports motto "If you aint cheating you aint trying"

  49. #49
    Trailhead Poseur
    Reputation: jjaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    506
    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?
    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.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30

    Yes no so what

    Seams like the playing field was even to me.. He was just better with or with out... Just part of the game.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Good thread though...

  52. #52
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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).

  53. #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.

  54. #54
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    430
    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.

  56. #56
    I didn't do it
    Reputation: Mookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    9,369
    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.

  57. #57
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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.

  58. #58
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,201
    Gaelic.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    430
    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?

  60. #60
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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.

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

  62. #62
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    circlip, speculation is not evidence.
    Which part is speculation?

  63. #63
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,201
    Quote Originally Posted by horsey24 View Post
    circlip, speculation is not evidence.



    What about financial records?

  64. #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.

  65. #65
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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.

  66. #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.

  67. #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?

  68. #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).

  69. #69
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,201
    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.

  70. #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?

  71. #71
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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.

  72. #72
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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?

  73. #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.

  74. #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?

  75. #75
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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.

  76. #76
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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.

  77. #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.

  78. #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?

  79. #79
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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.

  80. #80
    Frys With That, Please
    Reputation: cda 455's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    415
    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

  81. #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 12:45 PM.
    I am slow therefore I am

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Whason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    428
    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..."

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,008
    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?

  84. #84
    Anchorage, AK
    Reputation: Lars_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,219
    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.

  85. #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.

  86. #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

  87. #87
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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.

  88. #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.

  89. #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

  90. #90
    Less talk, more ride...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    239
    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

  91. #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....

  92. #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.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jmmUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,309
    Batter Up!


  94. #94
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,072
    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?

  96. #96
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,072
    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.

  98. #98
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,072
    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.

  100. #100
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,150
    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 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •