# Lance Armstrong



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

For me it's a very sad ending to this story and I have conflicting emotions about it's conclusion. What are your thoughts?

USADA to ban Lance Armstrong for life, strip Tour titles


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

how many tests has he taken over the years and PASSED proving he was not cheating?

i don't know... on the flip side, his teammates were cheating and failed doping tests. if lance was similarly doping would he not have been caught???

I think this was a good move on Lance's part. cheater or not.


----------



## FrankyNoTone (Feb 27, 2012)

Its a terrible situation regardless of the truth.

btw, just hypothetically speaking... would any of this stuff help my guitar playing?


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

if you dope with slash's blood you will gain slashtone.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

I can understand that he wants to put this behind him. The dopes at the US doping agency have a lot more money to spend to fight this than Lance does. Sour grapes by the people he beat IMO. Unless they have direct proof by drug tests and not a statement by some of his competitors, his record should stand. It seems the US athletes will go to any lengths to get to the top as was seen recently during the Olympics. The US girls soccer team used dirty trick to cheat our girls out of their gold medal. There is just too much money available to them through endorsements for them to play fair.


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

well, it's not his competitors that are stepping up with a statement. it's his teammates. the doping agency is hanging that proverbial carrot saying admit you cheated or these guys are going to step up with a statement.\

in my opinion, that's absolutely ridiculous. if you have a statement that holds any truth, then release it. why play games?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I've been expecting something like this. There have been too many allegations from people with little or nothing to gain for there not to be something to it.

He's not admitting guilt so far, but in my opinion, he's guilty as hell.

The American drive to win at all costs is a huge causal factor.

And, for what it's worth, I was really hoping he would successfully defend himself against these accusations. It's sad to see our heros fall, but to not hold them accountable is an insult to those who compete honestly and fairly.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

blam said:


> well, it's not his competitors that are stepping up with a statement. it's his teammates. the doping agency is hanging that proverbial carrot saying admit you cheated or these guys are going to step up with a statement.\
> 
> in my opinion, that's absolutely ridiculous. if you have a statement that holds any truth, then release it. why play games?


Only Landis and Hamilton have confirmed they would do so, and Landis's emails came as a direct result of not being allowed to participate in a 2010 race (sour grapes, indeed). Plus those guys had both ALREADY been caught cheating, so they're just trying to pull everyone else down with them. Leipheimer, Hincapie, etc. have never publicly said anything about it, but the USADA hints that they have ten teammates that will testify.

On another note, the lifetime ban is a little tricky. It's a recommendation, as is the stripping of titles. The end decision is the UCI's, which is the governing body of cycling worldwide. The UCI will likely follow suit, but they certainly don't have to. One of the major issues in this case is the jurisdiction. Lance has repeatedly said that the UCI should handle doping in cycling, because it's the governing body, not some US NPO. 

Finally, the USADA has never provided concrete evidence. Whether they have some and have revealed it to Lance behind closed doors causing Lance to drop suit is debatable and only a guess. The public FACT is that Lance has never tested positive. In 1996 he has steroids in his urine, but that was from a corticosteroid cream to treat saddle sores (approved by the UCI). In 2005, a French paper claimed that 1999 samples had tested positive for EPO, but the storage length and method were questioned, and the EPO test is known to produce false positives anyway. In 2009 and 2010, there were rumours that Lance failed tests, but nothing formal was ever presented. It's all hearsay as far as the public eye is concerned. However, all this does tarnish his reputation.


----------



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

I think USADA is putting heavy pressure (blackmail?) on his former teammates and competitors to testify. The cycling federation may not go along with USADA which I don't believe has the power to strip him of his Tour victories. At the time cycling was as rife with doping as all other sports, probably worse. I'm sure it's much cleaner now but at the time Lance was competing with his equals. Pyrrhic victory.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> Only Landis and Hamilton have confirmed they would do so, and Landis's emails came as a direct result of not being allowed to participate in a 2010 race (sour grapes, indeed). Plus those guys had both ALREADY been caught cheating, so they're just trying to pull everyone else down with them. Leipheimer, Hincapie, etc. have never publicly said anything about it, but the USADA hints that they have ten teammates that will testify.
> 
> On another note, the lifetime ban is a little tricky. It's a recommendation, as is the stripping of titles. The end decision is the UCI's, which is the governing body of cycling worldwide. The UCI will likely follow suit, but they certainly don't have to. One of the major issues in this case is the jurisdiction. Lance has repeatedly said that the UCI should handle doping in cycling, because it's the governing body, not some US NPO.
> 
> Finally, the USADA has never provided concrete evidence. Whether they have some and have revealed it to Lance behind closed doors causing Lance to drop suit is debatable and only a guess. The public FACT is that Lance has never tested positive. In 1996 he has steroids in his urine, but that was from a corticosteroid cream to treat saddle sores (approved by the UCI). In 2005, a French paper claimed that 1999 samples had tested positive for EPO, but the storage length and method were questioned, and the EPO test is known to produce false positives anyway. In 2009 and 2010, there were rumours that Lance failed tests, but nothing formal was ever presented. It's all hearsay as far as the public eye is concerned. However, all this does tarnish his reputation.



Hearsay or not, if it were me, I'd want a decision. He has damaged his own reputation far worse by doing what he has done here.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Milkman said:


> Hearsay or not, if it were me, I'd want a decision. He has damaged his own reputation far worse by doing what he has done here.


I can't disagree with that. I wish Lance was clean, but I doubt it. I very much doubt anyone in cycling is clean. What those guys do during the Tour, the Giro and the Vuelta is beyond my ability to comprehend. 

I agree that if he was completely blameless, he should fight this to his last day. It's certainly not a money-for-legal-fees thing, since Lance has plenty of cash (or at least I assume he is fairly well-off), so the assumption everyone will make is that he is tacitly admitting guilt.


----------



## astyles (Apr 6, 2009)

I agree with you hollowbody... +1. Furthermore, declining to enter the arbitration process is not a crime, nor can we infer his guilt because he refused to take part. I should not, nor should any governing body, have the ability to prosecute someone without providing sufficient evidence to convince both judge and jury. The US Constitution has an amendment for these situations (Amendment #5). The USADA cannot take a fundamental principle of the Constitution and turn it against it's own citizen. This is somewhat disturbing. All it creates is speculation... prehaps ligitimate, I don't know... and a snowball of enough media reports to fuel suspicion until the masses are convinced of his guilt. Including, perhaps, the UCI.

I'm not saying he's guilty or not... I do have my own opinion too. I just wish he would have stepped up to defend himself. But again, guilty or not, I can see why he didn't.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

I have not nor am I likely to form an opinion on his guilt or innocence. I do however have an opinion on these anti doping agencies. First I think most of them are dopes. Second they seem to change their minds on what if anything is illegal. Take Ross Rebagliatti winning a gold in free style snow boarding then having it taken away for trace amounts of marijuana in his system then having that reversed and getting his gold metal back because B.C. bud was not on the list of banned substances. I don't smoke anything so I have no knowledge of the effects of this substance has on ones ability to perform at any level at anything sports, music, academics, sex or scratching your nose, those of you who occasionally partake of this substance would or should know how much it enhances or detracts from your performance but I don't think marijuana will make you a faster, stronger better athlete, if I'm wrong pleas let us all know.


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

marijuana makes you slow, tired and hungry. I don't see this aiding anyone in a snowboarding competition.


----------



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

blam said:


> marijuana makes you slow, tired and hungry.


But it can make you a musical genius. ;-)


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

blam said:


> marijuana makes you slow, tired and hungry. I don't see this aiding anyone in a snowboarding competition.


That's basically what I thought. My point being wether it's snow boarding, swimming, skiing, cycling,wrestling or any other sport the International Doping Agencies constantly change the rules as to what is legal and what's not. What was legal or at least acceptable in the 1990's may not be legal today. Yet they will knowingly crucify someone based on yesterdays tests, which might be illegal today, even though the substance was completely acceptable when the original victory prize was awarded. I don't see how they can apply todays standards to something that happened 10, 15 or 20 years ago, in my mind these dopey doping agencies are on a which hunt and or a power trip just because they can, not because there was any real flaunting of the rules at the time of the original event.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i don't understand why sports don't allow steroids in the first place. if you let everyone train any way they like, doesn't that level the playing field? you can't make the money claim, because in ANY sport, he with the most money to train and buy equip, etc is going to consistently finish at the podium. that's just the way life is. you can't make the claim about protecting the athlete from themselves because that's just flat out retarded on every level my mind can explore. they need to have a single governing body make all the decisions, and they need to allow doping AND recumbent bikes.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

astyles said:


> I agree with you hollowbody... +1. Furthermore, declining to enter the arbitration process is not a crime, nor can we infer his guilt because he refused to take part. I should not, nor should any governing body, have the ability to prosecute someone without providing sufficient evidence to convince both judge and jury. The US Constitution has an amendment for these situations (Amendment #5). The USADA cannot take a fundamental principle of the Constitution and turn it against it's own citizen. This is somewhat disturbing. All it creates is speculation... prehaps ligitimate, I don't know... and a snowball of enough media reports to fuel suspicion until the masses are convinced of his guilt. Including, perhaps, the UCI.
> 
> I'm not saying he's guilty or not... I do have my own opinion too. I just wish he would have stepped up to defend himself. But again, guilty or not, I can see why he didn't.


The funny thing was, here is what the courts had to say about Due Process when they threw out Lance's suit: 

“With respect to Armstrong’s due process challenges, the court agrees they are without merit, alternatively, even if the court has jurisdiction over Armstrong’s remaining claims, the court finds they are best resolved through the well-established system of international arbitration, by those with expertise in the field, rather than by the unilateral edict of a single nation’s courts.”

Basically, they said Lance wasn't owed the USADA bringing hard evidence to trial in THEIR court, but the USADA also never brought hard evidence to trial or had anyone testify in a court of those who have expertise (the UCI, ostensibly). Nothing concrete has ever been brought out, and Lance suffers as a result because the US court says "it's not my problem, go away," even though the US Congress-mandated USADA won't file suit elsewhere. The judge himself said that the USADA seemed to have a single-minded determination to prosecute Lance, while the UCI did not, neither did USA Cycling! What gives?!?!


----------



## aftermidnight (Oct 11, 2009)

fredyfreeloader said:


> ...... in my mind these dopey doping agencies are on a which hunt and or a power trip just because they can ......



Is he guilty? ...... considering how dirty cycling is ...... probably ...... just never got caught. 

Apparently, they had actual physical evidence against Roger Clemens ...... (injection swabs with Clemens DNA on them) ....... not just sour grapes testimony from former teammates ...... and they still couldn't prove him guilty of anything.

As hollowbody has indicated, UCI probably has final jurisdiction on all matters pertaining to cycling ....... so I am guessing Armstrong's lawers have advised him to let this US kangaroo court of international doping wanabees flatter their own egos ......... and make their recommendations to the UCI. 

Armstrong will then deal with the UCI accordingly ....... which brings us back to ...... ok UCI, you have been testing me for years ....... where's the proof of doping?

(The US power trippers probably have jurisdiction over Olympic medals though ...... and may be able to take away the bronze he won.)


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

aftermidnight said:


> (The US power trippers probably have jurisdiction over Olympic medals though ...... and may be able to take away the bronze he won.)


Since he rode for the US, yes, in this case they do.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Who is Lance Armstrong?


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Who is Lance Armstrong?



I think hes the dude who rode his bike to the moon


----------



## aftermidnight (Oct 11, 2009)

........ and rode Sheryl Crow for a while!


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

blam said:


> how many tests has he taken over the years and PASSED proving he was not cheating?
> 
> i don't know... on the flip side, his teammates were cheating and failed doping tests. if lance was similarly doping would he not have been caught???


It doesn't prove he did not cheat. Doping programs are designed and administered to be undetectable. And he did have the acknowledged master of doping as his doctor (Michael Ferrari). 

I think the USADA has the goods on him - retesting old samples with new technology - and that is why he is pulling out. If he fights it, all the evidence will become public, which would be devastating for his cancer foundation and his personal brand. If he states he's pulling out because of the hassle, it remains unproven and gives people a reason to believe that he is innocent.

I believe in our court system if enough witnesses come forward and all give the same testimony, the defendant will be found guilty, no? Isn't it the same in the USA?


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Who is Lance Armstrong?


Lance Armstrong is the American who won 7 Tour deFrance cycling races, he was tested during and after each win and found to be legally cleans as per the standards back then. Now some dingbats want or have retested 10/12 year old results using todays standards and claim that he he was guilty of doping, even though he was deemed clean back then. Only in America


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

fredyfreeloader said:


> Lance Armstrong is the American who won 7 Tour deFrance cycling races, he was tested during and after each win and found to be legally cleans as per the standards back then. Now some dingbats want or have retested 10/12 year old results using todays standards and claim that he he was guilty of doping, even though he was deemed clean back then. Only in America


Oh, I thought he was from the Noris Wing


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Is there a standard of limitations on cheating?

If it was found maybe twenty years from now that Usain Bolt was doping, would it make it any less unfair( and for the record, I'm a huge fan)?

If Armstrong is innocent he should defend to the death.

He had the stamina to win seven TDF's, beat testicular cancer, and he's too tired to clear his name?

Please.


----------



## aftermidnight (Oct 11, 2009)

NGroeneveld said:


> - retesting old samples with new technology -



Wow .... I didn't realize this was going on ....... if they re-test every rider from the last 40 years they will probably have to re-write the book of winners ..... that is if they can find any clean riders from that period.

..... and then if they move on to the baseball ...... well, I guess there will be more asterisks in the record book than not ......

..... and the Olympics ...... well, China will probably become a footnote as participant only.


IMHO ...... with amount of money on the table to be had in sports these days ...... the clean athletes are in a definite minority ...... and maybe even a little naive to think they can actually compete with athletes/countries using advanced technologies years ahead of testers ...... and I don't see that changing any time soon.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

aftermidnight said:


> ........ and rode Sheryl Crow for a while!


They are taking that medal away too...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

aftermidnight said:


> Wow .... I didn't realize this was going on ....... if they re-test every rider from the last 40 years they will probably have to re-write the book of winners ..... that is if they can find any clean riders from that period.
> 
> ..... and then if they move on to the baseball ...... well, I guess there will be more asterisks in the record book than not ......
> 
> ...


Getting away with something for decades doesn't make it ok (not that you said so).

I say great. Some athletes should be nervous. If they know that even ten or fifteen years later they may be found out, maybe THAT will act as the needed deterrent.


----------



## aftermidnight (Oct 11, 2009)

Milkman said:


> Getting away with something for decades doesn't make it ok ......



Well, I hate to sound like Kevin O’Leary and/or oversimplify here but IMHO ...... it’s not so much about what is ok or right ..... it’s all about the money.

The masses want their athletes to run faster, jump higher, throw further, hit more home runs, score more goals, break more records, etc., etc. ...... and will pay big bucks to see it ... whether in tickets, advertizing, television rights, merchandise, whatever .... and the heads of these big sport federations/businesses know it ....... it's a huge cash cow.

These organizations pay lip service to doping ...... and offer up a sacrificial lamb every once in a while .... but really have no intention of cleaning up their sports ........ until the masses stop spending money to support their addiction for faster, stronger, further, etc.

So, Armstrong may be the current token offering ..... but I doubt it.

IMHO, the UCI has no intention of uncovering any more dirt from the past than absolutely necessary ........ and will try to find a way to sweep this whole thing under the carpet because ..... 1) there is too much money at stake ...... and 2) Armstrong, if put between a rock and a hard place, could choose to bring a whole lot of people down with him.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i still don't know why it's so important to stop it


----------



## aftermidnight (Oct 11, 2009)

cheezyridr said:


> i still don't know why it's so important to stop it



I would have to agree ....... and big waste of time and money trying to stop the doping ...... so, time to stop the charade of enforcing it.

To me, it's kind of like prohibition attempts to stop/limit alcohol consumption .......or the current war on drugs ........ both a big waste of time and money ....... when it is apparent that, regardless of what the government thinks is best, if the masses want something they will pay big bucks to get what they want ......

..... and it would appear the masses are currently willing to pay big bucks to support faster, further, stronger, etc.

(Pretty much everyone in San Francisco knew Barry Bonds was juiced ...... but they they never stopped filling the seats ....... they wanted to be there when he hit his next one into the bay.)


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

cheezyridr said:


> i still don't know why it's so important to stop it


Seriously?


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

I think that the people at that level have better methods than the doping agencies. The ones getting around the rules are usually a step ahead of the ones enforcing the rules. Most of the elites have a high percentage of 'dirty' athletes.

My gut says he is guilty.

Who really knows? Not me.

My head says that I hope that they aren't going after a guy who is actually innocent.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

NGroeneveld said:


> Seriously?


yes, i'm totally serious.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

cheezyridr said:


> i still don't know why it's so important to stop it


I think if you could talk to one Lyle Alzado you would find a very good reason, unfortunately he died from complications directly related to his steroid use. He talked about it on TV, went to schools to talk to teens about steroid use and he had his own TV show, but in the end the steroid abuse got him. He was just 40 years old when he died. A real waste.


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

cheezyridr said:


> i still don't know why it's so important to stop it


Because young athletes take drugs and wind up dead.

Here's a few quotes:


Writing in a London newspaper, Phil Liggett, the veteran cycling broadcaster, pointed out that as many as 100 international racers have died prematurely during the past decade, most from heart attacks. The likely cause, Liggett argued, was the ongoing abuse of EPO.

Cycling doesn’t just harm physical health of riders, there have been numerous premature deaths, Tom Simpson, Marco Pantani, Jose Maria Jimenez. But also many of long term drug users end up with mental health problems. Both Pantani and Jimenez suffered from depression before their premature end.



Steroid abuse has been linked with a wide range of health hazards, both physical and mental. Among the physical problems are liver and kidney tumors, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol levels, fluid retention, and severe acne. Ormsbee and Vukovich note that some studies associate steroid use with serious cardiovascular problems, including cardiomyopathies (inflammation of the heart muscle), irregular heart rhythm, development of embolisms (blockage of an artery by a clot or particle carried in the bloodstream), and heart failure. Men sometimes experience symptoms such as shrunken testicles, reduced sperm count, baldness, breast development, and increased risk of prostate cancer. Among women, growth of facial hair, male-pattern baldness, menstrual cycle disruptions, and deepening of the voice have all been reported. Adolescents who use steroids run the risk of halting their growth prematurely, as their bones fuse ahead of schedule. Another problem for teenagers is that steroids cause muscles to grow but do not strengthen the tendons that connect these muscles to bones. This can increase the risk of injury.

Emotional/psychological problems stemming from abuse of steroids include extreme mood swings, depression, paranoid jealousy, irritability, delusions, and impaired judgment. Sometimes these steroid-induced mood swings lead to violent behavior, a condition popularly referred to as "'roid rage."

When used excessively, EPO can increase the number of red blood cells to such a degree that the blood becomes too thick to flow properly, potentially leading to heart attacks and strokes. According to the 2007 _World Almanac and Book of Facts_, in the late 1980s, shortly after the appearance of synthetic EPO, thirty top endurance athletes, mainly cyclists, in Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden died; the likely cause of their deaths was EPO.

One of the most popular supplements used by athletes at all levels is creatine. Creatine is available over the counter (without a prescription) and is reputed to help improve performance in sports that involve short bursts of power, such as weightlifting, wrestling, and sprinting. Even though reliable research has not yet established a connection between creatine and serious health problems, there is some evidence that heavy use may cause kidney, liver, and heart problems. Known side effects of creatine include muscle cramps and digestive problems such as stomach pain, diarrhea, and nausea. In "Taking Performance-Enhancing Drugs: Are You Risking Your Health?" (December 26, 2006, Performance-enhancing drugs: Know the risks - MayoClinic.com), the Mayo Clinic explains that what actually happens when people take creatine is that their muscles draw water away from the rest of the body, creating the illusion of added muscle mass. The increased bulk is really just extra water stored in the muscles.

Heavy use of andro can produce side effects similar to those associated with other anabolic steroids. Andro can actually decrease testosterone production in men and increase production of the female hormone estrogen. It can also cause acne, shrinking of the testicles, and reduced sperm count. In women side effects of andro can include acne as well as the onset of masculine characteristics such as deepening of the voice and male-pattern baldness.

Ephedra has been linked to serious side effects, such as strokes, seizures, and heart attacks, and many people have died as a direct result of its use. Ephedra can also cause elevated blood sugar levels and irregular heartbeats. It may be addictive when used over time.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

NGroeneveld said:


> Because young athletes take drugs and wind up dead.
> 
> Here's a few quotes:
> 
> ...


And yet people still take this crap. And lots of it. It's amazing, really.


----------



## aftermidnight (Oct 11, 2009)

NGroeneveld said:


> Because young athletes take drugs and wind up dead ......


Thank-you for the very informative post ...... but these athletes (doped or not) are just pawns to put money in someone else's pockets.

Watching Jacques Rogge at the opening and closing ceremonies made me want to puke ........ in his mind, he believes he is right up there on par with royalty as far as power and influence are concerned ........ and I am pretty sure the next couple of tiers down from him feel pretty much the same. 

Until we quit supporting this exploitation of young athletes, it is going to continue.

(Watching the swimming events on HDTV was pretty impressive though!)


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

aftermidnight said:


> Thank-you for the very informative post ...... but these athletes (doped or not) are just pawns to put money in someone else's pockets.
> 
> Watching Jacques Rogge at the opening and closing ceremonies made me want to puke ........ in his mind, he believes he is right up there on par with royalty as far as power and influence are concerned ........ and I am pretty sure the next couple of tiers down from him feel pretty much the same.
> 
> ...


I totally agree with that.


----------



## Spikezone (Feb 2, 2006)

Have any of you read any of Lance's books? I read one of them when I had my first bout with cancer. He had some stuff to say regarding the allegations about his doping, and the one that struck me the most was that he trained long and hard in Europe in the off-seasons and never once saw any of his competitors slogging it out in the Alps when he was out pounding the pavement there. He spent a lot of time riding the courses and not one of his competitors were out there doing the same. Do you think there could be a chance that the doping allegations are bogus and maybe he was the only one in the field that trained hard enough to accomplish his amazing feats?
-Mikey


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

Spikezone said:


> Do you think there could be a chance that the doping allegations are bogus and maybe he was the only one in the field that trained hard enough to accomplish his amazing feats?
> -Mikey


Apparently there are a lot of witnesses who are willing to come forward and say that it is true. And by the way, Lance Armstrong has also done a few things (that are not in his book) that demonstrate that he isn't exactly mister nice guy either.


----------



## captainbrew (Feb 5, 2010)

I think Lance is guilty simply because he chose not to defend himself against these more recent accusations. Why wouldn't someone defend their legacy and their life's work? In my opinion it's because in his mind he was screwed either way but the evidence that would have come out in the hearings would have killed his reputation even more. It would have removed any doubt about him. I can see there are still people who doubt he's guilty so looks like Lance made the right decision by not fighting the charges against him.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> And yet people still take this crap. And lots of it. It's amazing, really.



And not just at the top level sadly. There are people working out next to me at the local gym who are on the juice.

More than I would have thought.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

But if it makes you happy, it can't be that bad...


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

captainbrew said:


> I think Lance is guilty simply because he chose not to defend himself against these more recent accusations. Why wouldn't someone defend their legacy and their life's work? In my opinion it's because in his mind he was screwed either way but the evidence that would have come out in the hearings would have killed his reputation even more. It would have removed any doubt about him. I can see there are still people who doubt he's guilty so looks like Lance made the right decision by not fighting the charges against him.


+1 to that


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

it's quite boring really...and the fact that he just say "Oh well..Fuck it"...means he's not willing to fork out a fortune and LOOSE anyway....in today's age extreme competition, when you see someone way above the pack..usually means there is doping...mark my words..in a few years or so...we'll see the same shit happen to guys like Michael Phelps...the USA Swimmer.
[h=3][/h]


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

captainbrew said:


> I think Lance is guilty simply because he chose not to defend himself against these more recent accusations. Why wouldn't someone defend their legacy and their life's work? In my opinion it's because in his mind he was screwed either way but the evidence that would have come out in the hearings would have killed his reputation even more. It would have removed any doubt about him. I can see there are still people who doubt he's guilty so looks like Lance made the right decision by not fighting the charges against him.


That's about it in a nutshell...


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i appreciate you taking the time to tell me the dangers of it. however, i knew that already. it's pointless. these guys are motivated enough that they risk everything to do it. so why not let them do with their own bodies what they will? 
why is what they do to themselves anyone else's business?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> i appreciate you taking the time to tell me the dangers of it. however, i knew that already. it's pointless. these guys are motivated enough that they risk everything to do it. so why not let them do with their own bodies what they will?
> why is what they do to themselves anyone else's business?



Why? Because we're paying them at least in part to be role models for our children.

We expect them to compete fairly and by the accepted rules.

That's why.


----------



## aftermidnight (Oct 11, 2009)

Milkman said:


> Why? Because we're paying them at least in part to be role models for our children.
> 
> We expect them to compete fairly and by the accepted rules.
> 
> That's why.



Having said my piece, I thought I was pretty much done with this thread ..... but I have a little time to kill .... and couldn't resist.

Milkman, I respect your point of view most of the time here, but with all due respect I think you might have the rose-coloured glasses on this morning.

I have a couple of kids ....... but I want to be their role model ...... not anyone else ...... not Lance Armstrong, not Barry Bonds, not Usain Bolt, not Hulk Hogan ....... and I don’t expect these guys to be role models for my kids either.

These guys all work in a business/industry that appears to condone the use of performance enhancing drugs (PHD’s) ..... primarily, so that their business can make more money ..... and the athletes choose (or not) to use these drugs at their own peril ..... and if they do, as cheezy has indicated, it is really none of my concern.

Will I personally throw money their way ...... and support the current business model of pro sports? ...... maybe, because it is somewhat entertaining ..... but I certainly won’t go out my way ...... because there are other things now that I find more entertaining .... for myself and my kids.

Will I try to educate my kids about what I believe is going on here? ..... most definitely ..... but once they become of age ........ and if/maybe they ever decide to work for one of these organizations ....... and take performance enhancing drugs to get ahead and possibly get a bigger paycheck ...... then that will be their call ...... again, no longer my concern.

So, IMHO, we need to stop wasting time, money and the charade regarding this pseudo prohibition/control of PHD’s ..... it is big business making gobs of money ....... so it isn’t going to stop.

These athlete employees know the risks and participate of their own free will ...... and it would appear, with the blessing of their senior management.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

The businesses are complicit with the cheating. The people who finish first will be the role models no matter how you act so don't put all of your eggs in that basket. The businesses do not care how the person comes first, they just want them to come first so that their name appears or so they can slap their name on them.

Also...as a chronic user of the ellipsis...I have to say that...you are killing it.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

aftermidnight said:


> Milkman said:
> 
> 
> > Why? Because we're paying them at least in part to be role models for our children.
> ...


Who's wearing the rose colored glasses?

If you think your kids don't see pro athletes and media stars as role models, I suggest you reevaluate that view.

As much as we would all like to think we're the main inspiration for our kids, reality is often quite the opposite.


----------



## aftermidnight (Oct 11, 2009)

Milkman said:


> Who's wearing the rose colored glasses?
> 
> If you think your kids don't see pro athletes and media stars as role models, I suggest you reevaluate that view.
> 
> As much as we would all like to think we're the main inspiration for our kids, reality is often quite the opposite.




Well, I have 2 teenagers still living at home ....... and I like to think ...... they are very well grounded ....... why ....... maybe because my wife and I spend a lot of time communicating with them ........ (my wife probably moreso than me).

We don't put blocks on their TV viewing or internet use ..... we talk about what is out there.

They see high school and university peers abusing alcohol and recreational drugs ....... but I am not seeing any indication of any use at all ..... maybe, because we talk about it.

Maybe we are lucky ..... but once my kids are adults ........ it is quite possible they could end up juiced on a treadmill at the gym next to you ...... but it will no longer be my concern ....... and I will never blame Lance, Barry, Hulk, et al ....... I will blame myself.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

aftermidnight said:


> ....... I will blame myself.


That would be a mistake and huge burdon for you, IMHO

Cheers

Dave


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

aftermidnight said:


> Maybe we are lucky ..... but once my kids are adults ........ it is quite possible they could end up juiced on a treadmill at the gym next to you ...... but it will no longer be my concern ....... and I will never blame Lance, Barry, Hulk, et al ....... I will blame myself.


You had me up until your comment " Blame myself"

Why would you take the blame for your kids decisions? Its their life and there choice. You have zero control when they are adults. Taking the blame would be as ridiculous as taking credit for their great achievements. 

I do agree with you 100% on role models. A very select few number of pro athletes and media stars are good role models. Its all about the money and perceived image.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## aftermidnight (Oct 11, 2009)

greco said:


> That would be a mistake and huge burdon for you, IMHO
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dave



Well, it would only be a short term burden .... not something I would lose a lot of sleep over .... (unless of course they OD or something) ...... because what they are doing with their bodies as adults is a personal choice ..... and no longer my concern.

In the last year my wife chose to start smoking cigarettes again ..... even with all the government intervention, medical information, positive role models, etc. etc. out there.

It is not something I am happy with ..... but she is a (otherwise) smart woman ........ and therefore, as a consenting adult, it is how she chooses to live her personal life ........ and therefore really none of my business.

Lance and his co-workers have made some personal choices ...... and they appear to be job-related ..... and it would appear with the blessing of their bosses ....... and apparently all for financial gain ....... and therefore not really any of my business how they run their business ...... (unless of course I am about to spend my hard-earned cash buying whatever it is they are selling). 

Reminds me of that song by the great Hank Williams ......

_Mindin' other people's business seems to be high-toned
I got all that I can do just to mind my own
Why don't you mind your own business ....... (Mind your own business)
If you mind your own business, you'll stay busy all the time_


And maybe this is where I have to agree with Cheezy ....... what Lance, Barry, my wife, my kids once they become adults, etc. do ....... is really none of my business ...... and also have to agree with Hank ..... I got all that I can do just to mind my own!


----------



## neldom (Apr 29, 2009)

Now I don't know if there is any truth to these stories, but I've heard there are even some musicians using the drugs.
And not just the obscure bands but household names like The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix, one of my friend's moms even told us once that she had heard The Tragically Hip may have used such substances.
Now once again, I don't know if any of these claims can be substantiated so take them with a grain of salt.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

GONE


----------



## aftermidnight (Oct 11, 2009)

ne1roc said:


> You had me up until your comment " Blame myself"
> 
> Why would you take the blame for your kids decisions?



My apologies ..... I thought I was more clear on that ....... if they are making bad decisions as kids ...... I will definitely feel that maybe my wife and/or I have not been a good communicators.

If they make bad decisions as adults ..... it is really no longer my concern ...... but there would certainly still be some guilt/remorse/second guessing that ......... if perchance they came home form cliff diving a qudrapalegic ..... that I could have done more.

Kids will always do stupid stuff ...... and adults?

(if I was Neil Armstrong's father ..... he would have gone to the moon against my better judgement!)


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## aftermidnight (Oct 11, 2009)

neldom said:


> Now I don't know if there is any truth to these stories, but I've heard there are even some musicians using the drugs.
> And not just the obscure bands but household names like The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix, one of my friend's moms even told us once that she had heard The Tragically Hip may have used such substances.
> Now once again, I don't know if any of these claims can be substantiated so take them with a grain of salt.



If these guys are going to be designated as 'role models' for our kids ...... then maybe we need a governing body that will periodically test and make sure they are clean! ....... (sarcasm here)

Again, these are consenting adults ...... and should be free to do what they like with their lives ...... and therefore, none of my business ...... none of my concern.

But ..... as parent of a son hoping to work in the rock and roll industry ..... I would certainly try and advise him of the perils working in that environment ....... e.g. if very successful, more sex, drugs and/or alcohol than you could ever imagine! ...... (sarcasm here)


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

GONE


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

aftermidnight said:


> Well, I have 2 teenagers still living at home ....... and I like to think ...... they are very well grounded ....... why ....... maybe because my wife and I spend a lot of time communicating with them ........ (my wife probably moreso than me).
> 
> We don't put blocks on their TV viewing or internet use ..... we talk about what is out there.
> 
> ...



LOL,

Well, I don't "blame" my kid's role models, but to deny that they have an impact or influence on our kids seems a wee bit naive to me.

I have four kids. I do my best to set a positive example for them.

I recognize my limitations as a parent (perhaps more than some here).


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

nkjanssen said:


> I honestly think most elite athletes are doping/juicing/cheating in one way or another. Some just have better advisors and are better at not getting caught. My bet is that Lance is no exception. I still think he's an amazing athlete, though. He'd likely have been the best in a totally clean race too. If he was doping, it wasn't giving him an advantage. I think it was just levelling a playing field that was filled with dopers.


I agree completely.

I still don't accept that this is an excuse for cheating, but certainly it's what many athletes believe they must do in order to compete "fairly".


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

GONE


----------



## aftermidnight (Oct 11, 2009)

Milkman said:


> .......I recognize my limitations as a parent (perhaps more than some here).



Well, Milkman, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one ...... especially since it would appear that our discussion has strayed a bit into ..... what is good parenting.

My kids were explained (at an appropriate age) ........ the difference between what is real ..... and what is fantasy. 

Now, I know you didn't say this ....... and I am using this as an extreme example of what I believe this thread started out as ...... i.e. juicing ...... but if my kid considered Hulk Hogan to be a role model and/or a real character that got that way by eating his broccoli ...... we would be sitting down (at an appropriate age) and having a long discussion. 

...... and if my kid wanted to be a world class cyclist .... and considered Lance Armstrong to be a role model ........ then we would be having the same discussion. 

..... and as cheezy pointed out earlier ...... once they are of age ...... no longer my business or concern.


----------



## captainbrew (Feb 5, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> That's what they said about Marion Jones too.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> There are ways to beat the system, and the elite among the elite have the right people working for them to advise how to do it. Ben Johnson's biggest sin is that he chose his doctors and other advisors poorly.


Agree 100%


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

gtrguy said:


> Here's my two cents... Armstrong is probably the most tested athlete in history, tested during race seasons, between seasons, at the Tour de France, the Olympics and dozens of other events, basically offering himself up for testing any time, anywhere... the end result of literally hundreds of tests? He passed every one. Period. If he hadn't passed the USADA would have been shouting from the rooftops that he was using.
> 
> So why did he decide to no longer defend himself? It's obvious that he faced a witch hunt that was never going to end and a fight that he could never win. At that point, why waste his time, energy and money? Did the USADA have people that swear he used performance enhancing drugs? Yes- disgraced former users that obviously hate him... at the end of the day, what carries more weight- the science or the testimony of bitter rivals? To quote an article on the topic- people lie... science doesn't.
> 
> Honestly, I can sympathize with the guy... I wouldn't bother responding to the USADA claims anymore either if I were him. At some point you have to realize you're wasting your time.


And in other news...

Lance Armstrong's former team captain and close confidant George Hincapie begins life in cycling retirement this week, leaving behind the burning question: Was his cooperation with doping investigators the reason Armstrong decided last week to quit trying to clear his name?

According to a source with intimate knowledge of the United States Anti-Doping Agency's case against Armstrong, Hincapie, once described by the Texan as his "best bro in the peloton," provided the organization with information pertaining to a systematic doping program that involved Armstrong and the teams he rode for en route to his seven Tour de France titles.
"Most definitely," the source responded when asked by Yahoo! Sports if Hincapie's information was a critical element of the evidence of doping it had connected with Armstrong.

While 10 other former colleagues had come forward accusing Armstrong of doping, Hincapie was the one that USADA desperately wanted. Armstrong has repeatedly poured scorn on the claims of old teammates such as Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, deriding them as the bitter utterances of men who themselves had cheated and been caught.
Hincapie was a different story, though, given the five-time Olympian's reputation in cycling and, more significantly, his bond with Armstrong.

The cooperation of Hincapie was first reported by the New York Times during this year's Tour de France, was confirmed by a Yahoo! Sports' source on Monday, and appears to be a potential catalyst in Armstrong's choice to cease further legal challenges against USADA, which on Thursday stripped him of his seven Tour de France titles.

"The evidence that we've received over the last few months was just overwhelming, unfortunately," USADA chief Travis Tygart told the Dan Patrick Show on Monday. "Lance Armstrong and the other participants on the U.S. Postal Service pro cycling team participated in a very professionalized and sophisticated doping program all aimed to win."


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

NGroeneveld said:


> And in other news...
> 
> Lance Armstrong's former team captain and close confidant George Hincapie begins life in cycling retirement this week, leaving behind the burning question: Was his cooperation with doping investigators the reason Armstrong decided last week to quit trying to clear his name?
> 
> ...


Again, this is just more rumour-mongering. Until there's an official statement from Hincapie, it's all conjecture. And once again, the USADA does not have the authority to strip Lance of his Tour wins. The UCI does that and they have not decided whether they will or not yet.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

GONE


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Release the evidence?

If Armstrong wanted to see it all he had to do was face the music.

The fact that he chose not to speaks louder than anything else.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

GONE


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

gtrguy said:


> Yes... prove he's guilty. I don't understand why the burden should be on Armstrong to prove his innocence? Accusations are baseless without hard evidence and I've yet to see any. I'm not certain he's innocent but at this point I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until it's proven otherwise.


Right, well they are prepared to present the evidence to Armstrong as I understand it. He is declining to defend himself.

Would you have them release it publicly? If you were accused of something would you want the accusations made in the press, or in a closed hearing?


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

GONE


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

gtrguy said:


> So why not release the evidence? Put up or shut up I say...
> 
> Just to be clear, that's directed at the USADA and not NGroeneveld....



Apparently, they do not have to release the evidence unless it is contested by the defendant. This quote from the USADA in Cyclingnews.com

"As is every athlete’s right, if Mr. Armstrong would have contested the USADA charges, all of the evidence would have been presented in an open legal proceeding for him to challenge. He chose not to do this knowing these sanctions would immediately be put into place,” USADA added in a statement.

“The evidence against Lance Armstrong arose from disclosures made to USADA by more than a dozen witnesses who agreed to testify and provide evidence about their first-hand experience and/or knowledge of the doping activity of those involved in the USPS Conspiracy as well as analytical data. As part of the investigation Mr. Armstrong was invited to meet with USADA and be truthful about his time on the USPS team but he refused.”

“Numerous witnesses provided evidence to USADA based on personal knowledge acquired, either through direct observation of doping activity by Armstrong, or through Armstrong’s admissions of doping to them that Armstrong used EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from before 1998 through 2005, and that he had previously used EPO, testosterone and hGH through 1996. 

Witnesses also provided evidence that Lance Armstrong gave to them, encouraged them to use and administered doping products or methods, including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from 1999 through 2005. 

Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.”


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

The USADA says they have the evidence. Lance, like many others before him - Marion Jones(such a sweet girl!!), Floyd Landis (but he grew up in a Hutterite community!! He can't be a liar!!), Tyler Hamilton, (sob, my dog died, that's why I rode so bad today, sob,) says he is innocent. Ya gotta pick one so I'm puttin' my money on the USADA. And now I'm gettin offa this here carousel cause I'm a bike ridin guy and I've gone round and round on this subject too many times before!! Adios!!


----------



## captainbrew (Feb 5, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> Either he's being railroaded and the USADA was going to manufacture a case against him or he was actually doping and an avalanche of evidence would come out to prove it. Either way, if it was a foregone conclusion that he was going to be sanctioned, refusing to contest it is probably a smart move by Lance. Bowing out under a cloud of ambiguity allows him continue to proclaim his innocence without having to answer the charges. He gets to save face and maintain an air of integrity.


My feelings exactly except for USADA manufacturing a case part. I can't see them doing that here. I don't see the motive.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

gtrguy said:


> I'd want them to produce hard evidence... accusations prove nothing.


Exactly, and if someone was making what I KNEW to be baseless accusations against me, I'd damn sure want them to put up or shut up.

Armstrong is basically pleading no contest (ie Guilty).


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Milkman said:


> Exactly, and if someone was making what I KNEW to be baseless accusations against me, I'd damn sure want them to put up or shut up.
> 
> Armstrong is basically pleading no contest (ie Guilty).


I agree.

The faux passion of "this has taken a toll..." is just the easiest way for him to continue to deny it. That is the best avenue to put your Oscar-worthy speeches forth and the people who believe you will believe you even more. 

I don't see why people would get together to lie about him - that doesn't make sense.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> i don't understand why sports don't allow steroids in the first place. if you let everyone train any way they like, doesn't that level the playing field? you can't make the money claim, because in ANY sport, he with the most money to train and buy equip, etc is going to consistently finish at the podium. that's just the way life is. you can't make the claim about protecting the athlete from themselves because that's just flat out retarded on every level my mind can explore. they need to have a single governing body make all the decisions, and they need to allow doping AND recumbent bikes.


Unpopular opinion amongst a lot of sports fans but I have to agree. While 'tell-all' bios from sports figures can't be taken as fact, they constantly state that pretty much everyone in pretty much every sport is doing PED's. And as far as testing, by the time a test is invented to find a PED, there will be a new PED available. It just seems as senseless and frustrating a battle as the 'war on drugs' in general. Tons of wasted time and money on fight that can't be won. And it get's to a ridiculous level when there are government hearings like with baseball.

If everyone is doing it anyway, make it easier for them to do it in a safer way.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I just can't agree with that.

Sport is not just about winning. It's about health and being the best. Being the best with the aid of chemicals in NOT being the best IMO.

What if devices are someday developed that are undetectable but which can add power or endurance to an athlete, maybe nano technology of some sort?

At what point is it the chemicals or other performance enhancing methods competing against each other and not humans?

Seems like a slippery slope and not a wholesome or positive one.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

captainbrew said:


> My feelings exactly except for USADA manufacturing a case part. I can't see them doing that here. I don't see the motive.


The motive is really quit simple. CONTROL, the USADA wants complete control of cycling. They have said that the ICU "must concur" with their order and strip Lance of his 7 wins. The ICU has a major problem here as the 4 people behind Lance in each race have been 1) suspended 2) jailed 3) implicated numerous times for suspected doping infractions. Between 1999 to 2005 
Alex Zuille
Fernado Escartin
Laurent Dufaux
Angel Casero
Jan Ullrich
Joseba Beloki 
Christohe Moraue
Roberto Heras
Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano
Ivan bosso
Jose Azevedo
Fransico Mancebo
Alexander Vinokourov
Raimondas Rumsas
Everyone of these people came in from 2nd to 5th. in the races between 1999 and 2005 and everyone of them was implicated in some sort of drug sting, suspended for drug use, had their entire team suspended for drug use, excluded because of implication in drug use then suspended for drug use, one was even sentenced to 4 months in jail on questionable drug charges.
During all this Lance was never suspended, implicated, excluded or charged. I'm not saying he is innocent or guilty just that the ICU is so far up the well know creek without a paddle it doesn't know what to do and it doesn't even have a boat. They have no one who is clean except maybe Andrei Kivilev in 2001. 
No matter who they choose to replace Lance there is going to be a major shakeup in international cycling and also most probably some major lawsuits. This is a lose/lose situation. Has the USADA manufactured a case, most probably one that is built on one or two semi truths, bullying, threats and vague promises of exemption. Enough already


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I just can't agree with that.
> 
> Sport is not just about winning. It's about health and being the best. Being the best with the aid of chemicals in NOT being the best IMO.
> 
> ...


You have a positive outlook on professional sports though. There is nothing wholesome about them. Look at the ticket prices for most sporting events, and athlete salaries. It IS all about money nowadays. That's why the PED problem is as big of a problem as it is. Keep the trends going on the money side of things, and PED use will just keep growing. I'll admit I have a bit of a negative view, but I am generally disgusted by what goes on in professional sports as a whole. PED's is just one issue, and to me no even one of the more serious ones.

But whether athletes should be 'allowed' to do them is not the area to focus on at this point in my opinion. The fact is they ARE doing them, and as mentioned, will always be one step ahead of the testing. Everyone stating that Lance Armstrong is probably guilty even though he tested clean 100's of times is about as good a demonstration of this as you can get. The amount of people who get caught compared to the amount of people using is very small in most sports. So what do you do? Allow people to use them in a medically supervised way, or force people to get them through dubious means? It's more of a rhetorical question, I don't know the answer.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> You have a positive outlook on professional sports though. There is nothing wholesome about them. Look at the ticket prices for most sporting events, and athlete salaries. It IS all about money nowadays. That's why the PED problem is as big of a problem as it is. Keep the trends going on the money side of things, and PED use will just keep growing. I'll admit I have a bit of a negative view, but I am generally disgusted by what goes on in professional sports as a whole. PED's is just one issue, and to me no even one of the more serious ones.
> 
> But whether athletes should be 'allowed' to do them is not the area to focus on at this point in my opinion. The fact is they ARE doing them, and as mentioned, will always be one step ahead of the testing. Everyone stating that Lance Armstrong is probably guilty even though he tested clean 100's of times is about as good a demonstration of this as you can get. The amount of people who get caught compared to the amount of people using is very small in most sports. So what do you do? Allow people to use them in a medically supervised way, or force people to get them through dubious means? It's more of a rhetorical question, I don't know the answer.



Well I usually try to deal with things the way they are, as opposed to the away they should be (a bit of a negative perspective there). 

In this case maybe I'm considering the way they should be.

I suppose you're right that it's all about money, but changing the rules to accept behavior and values we know to be, well, wrong, just seems like giving up on sport altogether.

"Yes, Billy, if you want to be able to compete in the Olympice or Tour de France, you have to start taking HGH and steroids early.

Oh, yes, it will likely cause all kinds of health problem later, but you won't have a chance if you don't do what it takes."

If it comes to THAT I'll stop watching. Maybe we all need to.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Well I usually try to deal with things the way they are, as opposed to the away they should be (a bit of a negative perspective there).
> 
> In this case maybe I'm considering the way they should be.
> 
> ...


See I guess my main concern is safety. If PED use is as wide spread as we hear it is, I'd rather people be able to use them properly and there be better education about them. Trying to 'beat' a problem that probably can't be beat isn't doing much to help anyone. I definitely am not saying I think everyone using PED's is an ideal situation though. But what is the solution?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

The solution?
Keep hunting them down, disgracing them publicly, and hope the methods to detect ultimately triumph.
Let those who cheat suffer the health effects we all know come as a result of PEDs.

Giving up is not the solution.

That's a bit like Archie Bunker suggesting that the best way to thwart high jackers is to hand out guns to all passengers.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

People being caught is clearly doing nothing to discourage people though. When millions of dollars are on the line, they will do whatever they can. All it leads to is people pushing the technology boundaries to see what new chemicals/methods they can come up with to beat the system. If shaming someone like Lance Armstrong did ANYTHING, I'd be for it. These allegations were going on all through his career though and did absolutely nothing to stop him from earning a ton of money or testing negative on every test they threw at him. It's just a problem that likely can't be beat.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

nkjanssen said:


> Anybody remember the "all drug Olympics" sketch on SNL, with Phil Hartman as a weightlifter attempting to _triple_ the existing world record lift? Unfortuantely, I can't find a YouTube link.


I think that was Belushi wasn't it?

I do remember the sketch though. As I recall, there was a bit of a negative outcome to that one.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> People being caught is clearly doing nothing to discourage people though. When millions of dollars are on the line, they will do whatever they can. All it leads to is people pushing the technology boundaries to see what new chemicals/methods they can come up with to beat the system. If shaming someone like Lance Armstrong did ANYTHING, I'd be for it. These allegations were going on all through his career though and did absolutely nothing to stop him from earning a ton of money or testing negative on every test they threw at him. It's just a problem that likely can't be beat.


People getting caught cheating on tests in University seems to have also had little effect on stopping the practice.

Shall we simply allow it?

Same goes for spousal abuse, molestation....

I know, I'm going a bit far, but just trying to make a point.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> People getting caught cheating on tests in University seems to have also had little effect on stopping the practice.
> 
> Shall we simply allow it?
> 
> ...


I perhaps see a difference because I don't really care about sports. Every sport is corrupt. You have athletes committing full on felonies and it get's covered up. You have millionaire players fighting with millionaire owners, and strikes occurring over it. There are just so many problems with sports in general that I see PED's as a small issue. I just don't feel sorry for any of them. But, my only point is again if they are doing PED's anyway, there are safer ways of doing them. I'd rather see that be an option for them than people buying black market drugs and attempting their own methods of taking them. If it weren't for the fact that use was rampant in all sports, I'd have a different opinion possibly. But at this point it seems like people not having access to PED's safely will just do more harm.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

nkjanssen said:


> Definitely Phil Hartman. I did find the script! I'd forgotten about that last line!
> 
> 
> *Dennis Miller*: In response to what its sponsors claim is an idea whose time has come, the first All-Drug Olympics opened today in Bogota, Columbia. Athletes are allowed to take any substance whatsoever before, after, and even during the competition. So far, 115 world records have been shattered! We go now to correspondent Kevin Nealon, live in Bogota for the Weightlifting Finals. Kevin?
> ...


You're right of course. The one I was confusing with the all drug sketch was Belushi attributing his success in the Olympics to eating mini doughnuts or something similar.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> I perhaps see a difference because I don't really care about sports. Every sport is corrupt. You have athletes committing full on felonies and it get's covered up. You have millionaire players fighting with millionaire owners, and strikes occurring over it. There are just so many problems with sports in general that I see PED's as a small issue. I just don't feel sorry for any of them. But, my only point is again if they are doing PED's anyway, there are safer ways of doing them. I'd rather see that be an option for them than people buying black market drugs and attempting their own methods of taking them. If it weren't for the fact that use was rampant in all sports, I'd have a different opinion possibly. But at this point it seems like people not having access to PED's safely will just do more harm.


Really? Make it safer for cheaters?

No. I don't really see the distinction between cheating at sports and cheating at pretty much anything else.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Really? Make it safer for cheaters?
> 
> *No. I don't really see the distinction between cheating at sports and cheating at pretty much anything else.*


And no one is telling you to. But the simple fact is, people are at a risk doing PED's. They are at way more of a risk when doing them incorrectly. They are going to keep doing them either way. PED's are never not going to be a big part of sports anymore. Nothing anyone has done or is doing to stop that is working. PED technology is advancing far quicker than the testing, and more people than ever are doing them. So again, what is the solution? Or more to the point, what's a realistic solution?


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

torndownunit said:


> But the simple fact is, people are at a risk doing PED's. They are at way more of a risk when doing them incorrectly. They are going to keep doing them either way.


Should we care. They are cheating our honest athletes, who work their butts off for years at their particular sport, out of their chance to be the best in the world. For what, money? They are no more than thieves.
It will be a sad day when we give up at least trying to catch the cheats. How would you feel if your children or grandchildren said to you "why should I bother trying, I can beat them fairly but not if they are taking performance enhancing drugs"? Good will always win over evil. It has too . . . It just has too.


That said, "Go Lance, I'm pulling for you because you never tested positive for drugs all these years, even accusers can be evil" Don't let me down.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Guitar101 said:


> Should we care. They are cheating our honest athletes who work their butts off for years at their particular sport out of being the best in the world. For what, money? They are no more than thieves.
> It will be a sad day when we give up at least trying to catch the cheats. How would you feel if your children or grandchildren said to you "why should I bother trying, I can beat them fairly but not if they are taking performance enhancing drugs"? Good will always win over evil. It has too . . . It just has too.
> 
> 
> That said, "Go Lance, I'm pulling for you because you never tested positive for drugs all these years, even accusers can be evil" Don't let me down.


I am not pro-steroid. The problem is though that it's not a case of a few cheaters anymore. Based on a lot of what's coming out, it's the majority of the top tier of athletes in a lot of professional sports. It's as common place as it can possibly be while still being banned. So again it all comes back to how do you realistically deal with a problem like that? If athletes are testing clean in the test that organizations require, how can they keep pursuing them? It's to the point where you have to change an entire attitude that has developed. 

And regarding the "for what, money?" question... yes... professional sports are pretty much completely centred around money now. Sad but true.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

aftermidnight said:


> ........ and rode Sheryl Crow for a while!


I didn't know Lance Armstrong played a black strat.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

sulphur said:


> But if it makes you happy, it can't be that bad...


My balls shriveling up would not make me happy....maybe that's what causes the 'roid rage?


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> gtrguy said:
> 
> 
> > Here's my two cents... Armstrong is probably the most tested athlete in history, tested during race seasons, between seasons, at the Tour de France, the Olympics and dozens of other events, basically offering himself up for testing any time, anywhere... the end result of literally hundreds of tests? He passed every one.
> ...


Agreed. Remember how quickly it went from "Canadian sprinter" Ben Johnson sets world record to "Jamaican-born sprinter" gets caught cheating.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> And no one is telling you to. But the simple fact is, people are at a risk doing PED's. They are at way more of a risk when doing them incorrectly. They are going to keep doing them either way. PED's are never not going to be a big part of sports anymore. Nothing anyone has done or is doing to stop that is working. PED technology is advancing far quicker than the testing, and more people than ever are doing them. So again, what is the solution? Or more to the point, what's a realistic solution?



Burglers are at risk breaking and entering . Sometimes they sue property owners when they injure themselves breaking in to rob a business or residence. Should we make it safer and easier for them to ply their trade?

They're going to do it anyway and we can't really stop that so we might as well make it safe to do it.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Yes Mike, leave your musical equipment by the door too, will ya.

I say eliminate the testing altogether.
Hey, if nobody's following the rules, lose the rules!
Let's see how fast they can run/bike/swim, whatever.

Heck, the Chinese take the children away from the parents at a tender age, then enrole them in a 24/7 boot camp.
They chose that woman swimmer because she had big hands and feet.

I say go whole hog. Let 'em blast that crap into their veins as much as they can tolerate.
Why not raise a team of athletes to dominate!

I always thought that a six or seven hundred pound goalie would rule!
Just stuff him/her into the net, filling every crevasse...shut-out everytime!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Addendum:

I think some people use the same logic with teens who are "at risk" of having sex.

They're going to do it anyway, so we may as well provide contraceptives and council them on safe sex.

THAT makes perfect sense, because what they're doing is a natural thing. No, we can't prevent people from having sex, nor should we try (within reasonable parameters).

This is completely different. If anyone thinks PEDs are actually a positive thing, I haven't read that post. But I think some are applying the same logic as with teens having sex.

Just a thought.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Burglers are at risk breaking and entering . Sometimes they sue property owners when they injure themselves breaking in to rob a business or residence. Should we make it safer and easier for them to ply their trade?
> 
> They're going to do it anyway and we can't really stop that so we might as well make it safe to do it.


You can make that argument, but it's really tough for me to agree that pro sports are anywhere near as important as the laws/examples you are giving. If you honestly feel such extreme examples apply to something as silly as sports though, then fine. Not giving a crap about sports, that is not really something I can debate. 

Steroids are legal for many uses, but they are banned in sports. Comparing that to actual felonies is just not realistic in my opinion. You are dealing with an issue going on within the sports world, it's affecting very few people outside of that. And again, you seem to be arguing with me like I am pro-steroid. I am not. If someone has a good solution on how you could actually stop steroids in sports, I'd be all for it. But there isn't one. If they can't catch someone (Lance) testing them up to 500 times, then what is the solution? Unless they come up with one, I do take issue to the methods they are using to go after Lance Armstrong. Unless the evidence that would be revealed is that their own testing is corrupt, he stayed within their rules and passed their tests. Plus, if you are going to go after one person like that, you had better be going after everyone else as vigorously. And you had better get every single sport on the same page as far as how aggressive they are going to be with the issue.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

torndownunit said:


> *I do take issue to the methods they are using to go after Lance Armstrong. Unless the evidence that would be revealed is that their own testing is corrupt, he stayed within their rules and passed their tests*.


" B I N G O "
Gee, I wish I had thought of that.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

You make some very good points Torndown, but the fact remains, that regardless of whether or not he "passed their tests", a number of people who had close personal contact with him, have made serious allegations.

Yes, it's only sports. I tend to exaggerate sometimes. Point taken.

Professional wrestling is now understood to be entertainment. In a very real sense, all sport is heading this way.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> You make some very good points Torndown, but the fact remains, that regardless of whether or not he "passed their tests", a number of people who had close personal contact with him, have made serious allegations.
> 
> Yes, it's only sports. I tend to exaggerate sometimes. Point taken.
> 
> Professional wrestling is now understood to be entertainment. In a very real sense, all sport is heading this way.


Allegations without proof are simply allegations though is my issue. People will always make allegations, and he (and people in his situation) could fight them his entire life. As pointed out in other posts, some of the people making allegations have suspect pasts of their own. But, he passed every test they required off him through a very long career. That really should outweigh simple allegations. The only proof I can see being provided is that people falsified tests. If they can prove he didn't pass those tests, that's a whole other matter. But if they aren't doing that, I do kind of see it as a witch hunt.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> Allegations without proof are simply allegations though is my issue. People will always make allegations, and he (and people in his situation) could fight them his entire life. As pointed out in other posts, some of the people making allegations have suspect pasts of their own. But, he passed every test they required off him through a very long career. That really should outweigh simple allegations. The only proof I can see being provided is that people falsified tests. If they can prove he didn't pass those tests, that's a whole other matter. But if they aren't doing that, I do kind of see it as a witch hunt.


it's common knowledge that as soon as tests are intruduced, doctors and technicians are busy finding ways to fool the tests.

The fact that someone got away with something all these years does NOT excuse the fact that they were cheating.

Credible people have stepped forward and stated that they have personal first hand knowledge that Armstrong used PEDs and blood doping while competing in the TDF.

All he as to do is face those allegations.

If it were me, and I were innocent, I would fight to my last breath to clear my name. There's a heck of a lot at stake here. Whether it's for dignity, honour or money, if he was truly innocent he would fight it IMO.

Stopping the fight at this point seems a bit like swimming three quarters of the way across a lake, getting tired and deciding to swim back.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Milkman said:


> If it were me, and I were innocent, I would fight to my last breath to clear my name. There's a heck of a lot at stake here. Whether it's for dignity, honour or money, if he was truly innocent he would fight it IMO.
> *Stopping the fight at this point seems a bit like swimming three quarters of the way across a lake, getting tired and deciding to swim back*.


Maybe he just got tired of swimming and got out of the water as I'm about to do with this thread.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

It still baffles me that a person who never failed a test on record is being treated like a criminal, whereas today in the Vuelta a Espana, Alberto Contador, who has failed drug tests and is just returning from a suspension after having his Tour win stripped, has just taken the lead and looks to be poised to wrap up with another Grand Tour win this weekend. And he's probably still doping too. But Alberto is lionized, while Lance is ruthlessly pursued.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

hollowbody said:


> It still baffles me that a person who never failed a test on record is being treated like a criminal, whereas today in the Vuelta a Espana, Alberto Contador, who has failed drug tests and is just returning from a suspension after having his Tour win stripped, has just taken the lead and looks to be poised to wrap up with another Grand Tour win this weekend. And he's probably still doping too. But Alberto is lionized, while Lance is ruthlessly pursued.


Best point made so far. Not only Contador but Jan Ullrich got suspended, raced again got implicated again and still raced in 2005. Lance is an American and therefore must be guilty.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Well, he's definitely ACTING like a criminal.

I'm tired of defending myself against these accusations = they finally have me cornered.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Well, he's definitely ACTING like a criminal.
> 
> I'm tired of defending myself against these accusations = they finally have me cornered.


I guess it's all in how you perceive his actions. I personally think it could be either. I think not wanting to be hounded years after you have retired would be a valid reason to just put and end to it. Many of us have had to give up a futile fight in our lives before because there was no way to win. At least I know I have. If the guy passed 500 tests (according to reports) and is still being hounded, he will never stop being hounded.

I wonder, what is the point in having such stringent testing if you are just going to completely overlook the results? Those tests are actually physical proof spanning en entire career. Unlike an accusation.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Milkman said:


> Well, he's definitely ACTING like a criminal.
> 
> *I'm tired of defending myself against these accusations = they finally have me cornered.*


I had to give you a "like" for this. It had me laughing. I even imagined you saying it in your best 'James Cagney' voice. Well done.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I want to remind everyone in this thread, that I was firmly behind Armstrong and a believer in his innocence, right up until this happened.

I just can't believe he would choose not to defend himself if he knew he was innocent.

The problem is, now even if he IS innocent, he looks guilty as hell.


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

who brought up Marion Jones? it is almost an identical scenario to what is happening with Lance

from:

Marion Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
On December 3, 2004, Victor Conte, the founder of BALCO, appeared in an interview with Martin Bashir on ABC's _20/20_. In the interview, Conte told a national audience that he had personally given Jones five different illegal performance enhancing drugs before, during and after the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. In the course of investigative research, San Francisco based reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada reported Jones had received banned drugs from BALCO, citing documentary evidence and testimony from Jones's ex-husband C.J. Hunter, who claims to have seen Jones inject herself in the stomach with the steroids.[SUP][19]

[/SUP]

According to Hunter's 2004 testimony before a federal grand jury, Jones' use of banned drugs began well before Sydney.[SUP][20][/SUP] Hunter told the investigators that Jones first obtained EPO (Erythropoietin) from Graham, who Hunter said had a Mexican connection for the drug. Later, Hunter said, Graham met Conte, who began providing the coach with BALCO "nutritional supplements", which were actually an experimental class of "designer" steroids said to be undetectable by any drug screening procedures available at the time. Graham then distributed the performance enhancers to Jones and other Sprint Capitol athletes. Still later, Hunter told federal agents, Jones began receiving drugs directly from Conte.


Jones had never failed a drug test using the then-existing testing procedures, and insufficient evidence was found to bring charges regarding other untested performance enhancing drugs."


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

bolero said:


> who brought up Marion Jones? it is almost an identical scenario to what is happening with Lance
> 
> from:
> 
> ...



But hey, she passed all the drug tests therefore she should have been left alone right?


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Yes.

I dopn't like the 'American way' of if they can prove that I'm guilty, then I am not guilty even if I did it. I like the 'the end justifies the means' and if you are guilty, then you are guilty. Innocence is a state of being not a verdict.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Milkman said:


> But hey, she passed all the drug tests therefore she should have been left alone right?


No, it's different in Jones' case because her accusers made public comments, as well as appearing in court to testify against Jonse. None of Armstrong's accusers have made any sort of testimony in court. The difference is with Jones, someone stood up in court and said "she cheated," whereas with Lance, people are saying "we're pretty sure he cheated, and we can prove it, but we won't...yet."


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> No, it's different in Jones' case because her accusers made public comments, as well as appearing in court to testify against Jonse. None of Armstrong's accusers have made any sort of testimony in court. The difference is with Jones, someone stood up in court and said "she cheated," whereas with Lance, people are saying "we're pretty sure he cheated, and we can prove it, but we won't...yet."



For me it's a very fine distinction.

If you accuse me of something that could destroy my reputation and cause irreparable harm to the good work I have done in my life, I will use every opportunity to defend myself. I'd spit my last breath to that end.

I can't believe that with the millions of dollars at stake and the sheer shame of being considered guilty by much of the world, he would not do everything in his power to face the challenge.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Milkman said:


> For me it's a very fine distinction.
> 
> If you accuse me of something that could destroy my reputation and cause irreparable harm to the good work I have done in my life, I will use every opportunity to defend myself. I'd spit my last breath to that end.
> 
> I can't believe that with the millions of dollars at stake and the sheer shame of being considered guilty by much of the world, he would not do everything in his power to face the challenge.


Be that as it may, but it's still a distinction. Tangible, public evidence vs. smoke and mirrors makes a significant difference to me.

Personally, would it change my opinion of Lance if evidence came out? Sort of, but not 180 degrees. Cycling is so dirty that it's pretty much an even-playing-field when it comes to doping. Would it take anything away from his accomplishments? Again, not really. It's impressive to win one Tour, let alone a handful, let alone 7 in a row. The Grand Tours are probably the MOST grueling sports competition out there (and certainly amongst the top 5 if you don't consider it #1), and my hat goes off to anyone who can ride for 3 weeks with 2 rest days and spend countless hours in the saddle at nearly full-tilt.

Ideally, I'd like to believe Lance was the hero he was built up to be, but if he isn't, no biggie for me. I'd just like to see the people so ruthlessly and doggedly pursuing him bring to light what they claim they have.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> I've been expecting something like this. There have been too many allegations from people with little or nothing to gain for there not to be something to it.
> 
> He's not admitting guilt so far, but in my opinion, he's guilty as hell.
> 
> ...


I agree totally. And really, for the winningest rider in Tour History, a Hero for heavens sake to NOT defend himself it he didn't do it cause he's afraid of losing his fortune?? I get that, but if he's clean he would win it all back. Now he's going to be known forever as a cheater. I can't help but to think he must be afraid of something.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

hollowbody said:


> No, it's different in Jones' case because her accusers made public comments, as well as appearing in court to testify against Jonse. None of Armstrong's accusers have made any sort of testimony in court. The difference is with Jones, someone stood up in court and said "she cheated," whereas with Lance, people are saying "we're pretty sure he cheated, and we can prove it, but we won't...yet."


I watched an interview on 60 minutes and the name of the guy escapes me. Dude was saying "he did it" It was one of his team mates I believe.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Well, Lance is every bit as innocent as OJ.

(he also passed the tests he was given)


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> I agree totally. And really, for the winningest rider in Tour History, a Hero for heavens sake to NOT defend himself it he didn't do it cause he's afraid of losing his fortune?? I get that, but if he's clean he would win it all back. Now he's going to be known forever as a cheater. I can't help but to think he must be afraid of something.


The problem is a ton of people are going to think he's guilty no matter what he does. Either because of accusations, or just because he's involved in one of the dirtiest sports on earth so it's not unreasonable to think he was using PED's. From my comments in the thread you may assume I am pro-PED but that is not the case. My issue with what's going on is that if they have the proof to bust him, then they should have done it a long time ago rather than dragging this out for so long. Either do something about it, or let the guy be. It's the process going on that is annoying. I don't think it's unreasonable of him to just want that process to end and get on with his life. I just honestly think he'd be marked for life either way, even if he 'proved' himself innocent. You have shady people making accusations, in a shady sport. I think any 'verdict' is likely clouded and suspect no matter what the result.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

If cycling is as dirty as everyone, including avid cyclists seem to think, it's time the whole dirty mess was exposed.

Or do we just not care?

Sometimes I feel like Dudly Doright.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> If cycling is as dirty as everyone, including avid cyclists seem to think, it's time the whole dirty mess was exposed.
> 
> Or do we just not care?
> 
> Sometimes I feel like Dudly Doright.


I agree they should do something, but go after the whole sport. It's crazy that a bunch of the people making accusations have been busted themselves for PED's. With so many top riders proven to have cheated, it's a mess of a sport.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> I agree they should do something, but go after the whole sport. It's crazy that a bunch of the people making accusations have been busted themselves for PED's. With so many top riders proven to have cheated, it's a mess of a sport.


Agreed. It seems pretty suspicious that Contador can come back after a lengthy suspension for doping and not only be in top form, but perhaps better form than he's ever shown in the past. The way he's riding right now is pretty much super-human. If the USADA wants someone to look into, they should start with Alberto.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

The USADA claims to have "overwhelming evidence".



C'mon Lance. Face the music ar admit your guilt.
CANOE -- SLAM! Sports - Other Sports - Armstrong banned from Chicago Marathon: Spokesperson


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

I'll tell you what I have noticed over the years but REALLY have noticed lately...Serena Williams is a bodybuilder. No wonder she can pound a tennis ball a squillion miles an hour. If she has been clean all of her career I'd be very surprised...well, to spell it right out, I think she is a steroid/PED freak.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

smorgdonkey said:


> I'll tell you what I have noticed over the years but REALLY have noticed lately...Serena Williams is a bodybuilder. No wonder she can pound a tennis ball a squillion miles an hour. If she has been clean all of her career I'd be very surprised...well, to spell it right out, I think she is a steroid/PED freak.


I think the top tier athletes in most sports are using PED's. I wouldn't be surprised if they are even in a sport like golf. It's that common place. The sports where you don't see people get busted, a huge reason is that their testing isn't as scrutinized as some other sports.

A major use for steroids right now is to speed up the recovery of injuries as well as just performance enhancement. These athletes are so focused on money (from endorsements as well as winning), that they don't want any downtime. With a limited career span in some sports, it's just worth the risk to them.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> A major use for steroids right now is to speed up the recovery of injuries as well as just performance enhancement.


The thing is, it is the recovery and tissue healing that makes them 'enhance performance'. Steroids don't make you do anything better except heal. They allow athletes to train way harder and longer than normal. A weight lifter will work the muscle and then take the time to heal whereas a weight lifter on steroids can work the muscle and work it again with much less healing time.


----------



## BEMUSofNrthAmra (Jun 9, 2012)

Anyone who has strong convictions against PED's is better off switching from watching Pro sports to College or Junior Sports.

NHL to OHL/AHL
MLB to Triple A
NFL to... CFL lol

If you don't like it, don't support it.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

smorgdonkey said:


> The thing is, it is the recovery and tissue healing that makes them 'enhance performance'. Steroids don't make you do anything better except heal. They allow athletes to train way harder and longer than normal. A weight lifter will work the muscle and then take the time to heal whereas a weight lifter on steroids can work the muscle and work it again with much less healing time.


It's the HGH they take to heal, which is supposed to really speed up healing (from what I have read). And it classified as a PED.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

HGH does much more than help healing.

Steroids are also used for that purpose. Prednizone is widely prescribed (or maybe a better term would be wildly prescribed) for that purpose.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Milkman said:


> HGH does much more than help healing.
> 
> Steroids are also used for that purpose. Prednizone is widely prescribed (or maybe a better term would be wildly prescribed) for that purpose.


Yes. HGH will stimulate growth and keep tissue 'younger' which I guess is why it has become so popular with Hollywood types. It is like plastic surgery preventer in a bottle.

Steroids help tissue heal quicker...which is why they are prescibed in so many cases for people with specific conditions (skin and tissue related, specifically) and also why they are prescribed to your pet(s) from vets (prednisone is so broadly used for cats and dogs it is unreal).


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

BEMUSofNrthAmra said:


> Anyone who has strong convictions against PED's is better off switching from watching Pro sports to College or Junior Sports.
> 
> NHL to OHL/AHL
> MLB to Triple A
> ...


Really?

We're that willing to abandon honesty and ethics in sport? The best of the best with an asterisk is ok?

If so, our top level of sport is no better than professional wraslin.

And, by the way, if you think college sports are much cleaner than pro level, I've got news for you.

Where do we draw the line? After all, high school sports are where the scouts look for hot college prospects and college sports are where the scouts look for pro athletes.

Better make sure our kids are "properly prepared" for the big leagues.

Slippery slope IMO.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

BEMUSofNrthAmra said:


> Anyone who has strong convictions against PED's is better off switching from watching Pro sports to College or Junior Sports.
> 
> NHL to OHL/AHL
> MLB to Triple A
> ...



Those sports are no cleaner. 

I know there are tons of people doing steroids at my damn GYM. They aren't professional athletes in any way. Steroids are ridiculously common in all levels of sports.


----------



## captainbrew (Feb 5, 2010)

Anybody still think Lance Armstrong didn't use banned substances? Nike and Livestrong sure think he's guilty....


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

nkjanssen said:


> he seems like a genuine good person.


Yeah.... Sheryl Crowe thought so too..........


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Yeah, it's not looking good for ol' Lance anymore.

I still think what he did is an incredible feat, because, make no mistake, the whole peloton is on something. To win 7 Tours in a row is mind-boggling considering how grueling an event it is. But it does significantly cheapen it.

Makes me wonder about guys like Indurain and Mercx. Doping in cycling goes WAAAAY back.


----------



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

So they'll strip his titles and give them to the next dirty guy. Maybe they should just strike the Tour from the history books, never happened. This thread too-sorry I started it gents.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

WCGill said:


> So they'll strip his titles and give them to the next dirty guy. Maybe they should just strike the Tour from the history books, never happened. This thread too-sorry I started it gents.


There are too many compelling stories in cycling to sweep the whole sport under the rug. Look at a guy like Joaquim Rodriguez or Sylvain Chavanel, both of whom are absolute warriors with no quit in them who constantly battle on long, excruciating climbs and consistently put out efforts that can only be classified as heroic. Not only that, but neither has ever been accused of being guilty of so much as taking a cough drop. 

Now, this is cycling, so both guys may well be on HGH, doing transfusions, etc, but they both seem squeaky clean. It's even more impressive, then, that Rodriguez kept pace with and Contador in the Vuelta this year and nearly won the whole thing but for one bad day that cost him everything. It's guys like this, and stories like this that make cycling so appealing to me.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Not only should they strip cheaters of their titles. They should hit them where it hurts. These guys get rich playing dirty.

Let the companies who endorsed them, get some compensation.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

WCGill said:


> So they'll strip his titles and give them to the next dirty guy. Maybe they should just strike the Tour from the history books, never happened.


The president of the UCI wants to strike the 1999 to 2006 Tours from the record books ie there will be no winner for those Tours. Kinda hard to give the Tour win to the 2nd place guy when everyone knows he was cheating too.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

nkjanssen said:


> seems like a genuine good person.


Have you read any of the depositions or witness statements? He was anything but a good guy. He still denies the doping, and he wasn't afraid to throw anyone under the bus who didn't go along with the squeaky clean image he was trying to project. He also made it plain to lesser riders on the team that they either get with the (doping) program or they wouldn't be around for long.

I don't deny that he is/was a fantastic athlete, and he still might have been the winner on a clean playing field. But nice? No.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

bagpipe said:


> Have you read any of the depositions or witness statements? He was anything but a good guy. He still denies the doping, and he wasn't afraid to throw anyone under the bus who didn't go along with the squeaky clean image he was trying to project. He also made it plain to lesser riders on the team that they either get with the (doping) program or they wouldn't be around for long.
> 
> I don't deny that he is/was a fantastic athlete, and he still might have been the winner on a clean playing field. But nice? No.


Wow, I'm going to come here for my lance instead of TGP. You guys are reallistic, there are guys over there actually comparing him to hitler. 
This is how I see it. I was a fan of his, always suspected he was doping, along with everyone else. Did I like it? No, but it was the way cycling was done for decades, and I know what I'm talking about. I am not going to bring up hypocrasy here, that seems to be a hot button topic, but I will say this: North American cycling owes its existance in its present size and popularity to this guy, and all those dudes who are testifying would never have gotten jobs in europe if not for him and Ochowiz. Thats a fact. Not saying that means they should have kept silent. Not making a judgment on that, not here anyway.
Having said that, what bothers me about the haters is they have been hating him since his first tour, including some of my fellow racers. These guys are now doing a little jig in the street because they actually have a reason for their hate now. In my opinion this is a sad day for the sport, it ain't a reason to celebrate. This could, and probably will, reduce it to pre 1980's popularity on this continent.


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

It goes back farther than that, my uncle Hugo won the tour in 51 and it was amphetamines and so on back then.


hollowbody said:


> Yeah, it's not looking good for ol' Lance anymore.
> 
> I still think what he did is an incredible feat, because, make no mistake, the whole peloton is on something. To win 7 Tours in a row is mind-boggling considering how grueling an event it is. But it does significantly cheapen it.
> 
> Makes me wonder about guys like Indurain and Mercx. Doping in cycling goes WAAAAY back.


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

torndownunit said:


> I agree they should do something, but go after the whole sport. It's crazy that a bunch of the people making accusations have been busted themselves for PED's. With so many top riders proven to have cheated, it's a mess of a sport.


Its not that bad, it just seems that way because cycling is the only endurance sport that is professional, in the sense of large salaries and obvious sponsorship. It is unique in that the majority of its fans are also participants, and so feel a larger stake in the image of the sport. The soccer fans in europe or hockey or football here couldn't care less if the athletes are doping( I'm kinda generalising here). By the way, Bill, Love the amp.


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

vanderkalin said:


> It goes back farther than that, my uncle Hugo won the tour in 51 and it was amphetamines and so on back then.


wow!!!

how cool is that....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Tour_de_France


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

Its pretty cool, I can't help dropping his name once in a while, wish I could have met him.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

And, an update.


Lance Armstrong could find himself the subject of civil action to recover sponsorship and prize money that he won during his career. Photograph: Michael Paulsen/AP

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/22/uci-lance-armstrong-press-conference-live


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Not only should they strip cheaters of their titles. They should hit them where it hurts. These guys get rich playing dirty.
> 
> Let the companies who endorsed them, get some compensation.


How much money did they make from him endorsing their products? 
These companies had a chance years ago to drop him. They are just as guilty for milking it as long as they could.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> How much money did they make from him endorsing their products?
> These companies had a chance years ago to drop him. They are just as guilty for milking it as long as they could.


Enablers?

Anyway, clearly I'm not the only person who thinks that ill gotten gains should be forfeit.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I heard on the radio last night that people that have donated to his charity are requesting refunds.
They're saying that they donated under false pretenses.

IMO, you're not donating the money to Lance,
but I can see some people being POed, under the circumstances.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

He's been stripped of the titles...

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/1...ur-de-france-titles_n_1999966.html?1350905605

Read about how many had doped that were on the podium.
I guess that there's no one legitimate enough to give the titles to anyway.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Enablers?
> 
> Anyway, clearly I'm not the only person who thinks that ill gotten gains should be forfeit.


Yeah.........ok I agree. Lets begin with Dalton Mcguinty's salary.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> Yeah.........ok I agree. Lets begin with Dalton Mcguinty's salary.


No argument from me. Politics and religion may be the only two places we can find such a similar acceptance of cheating.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

McGuinty is on the juice!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

sulphur said:


> McGuinty is on the juice!


I think he needs to try a new formula.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Milkman said:


> Enablers?
> 
> Anyway, clearly I'm not the only person who thinks that ill gotten gains should be forfeit.



ill gotten _opportunities_, ok. but gains? no. lance delivered as promised. his fame brought attention to his sponsors.
that made them gobs of money. so they aren't ill gotten gains. and unless i missed something no one had offered any clinical proof. just testimony from sources who's credibility was questionable for alot longer than lance's. so afaic, lance's guilt or innocence is at best open to question.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

So is OJ's.

By the way, I can get you a great deal on the murder weapon.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

sulphur said:


> McGuinty is on the juice!


I hope it's prune. I don't know that I've ever seen an elected official who looks so consistently constipated in every picture I've ever seen. He always looks like he's trying to pass a cinder block.


RE: Armstrong

At the same time as ad endorsements and other monetary incentives have become a bigger part of professional competitive sports, we see the gaps between those on the podium, and those not, constantly shrinking. Milliseconds, or ounces, or centimetres can differentiate between access to wealth and fame...or being greeted by family at the airport, followed by a nice home-cooked meal. The incentives to ever-so-slightly extend human performance by artificial means has never been greater.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

I have to say I am pretty proud of myself. Today I have reached a life long goal of mine. I've finally have as many tour de france medals as Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I have twice as many.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I have to say, even OJ wasnt tried as harshly in the court of public opinion as this guy.
Hes probably guilty, but I think whats happening now is a pile-on of anubody who ever used him/his success in the past and may have even turned a blind eye to what was going, now doesnt want to be linked to him or have any fingers pointed at them, so they'll bury him and destroy any credibility he may have had to ensure he doesnt drag them down with him.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Diablo said:


> I have to say, even OJ wasnt tried as harshly in the court of public opinion as this guy.
> Hes probably guilty, but I think whats happening now is a pile-on of anubody who ever used him/his success in the past and may have even turned a blind eye to what was going, now doesnt want to be linked to him or have any fingers pointed at them, so they'll bury him and destroy any credibility he may have had to ensure he doesnt drag them down with him.


I don't know if I can agree with you there...people think OJ should get the death penalty but most people think that Lance should just have to be a regular Joe now. I think OJ still got judged more harshly.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

It seems painfully obvious that there's widespread abuse of PEDs and other methods of cheating in cycling.

That's a shame and I suspect the backlash will be severe. When I say backlash, what I really mean is the governing bodies putting extreme countermeasures in place.

Lance may be a bit of a scapegoat, but as much as I didn't want to believe it, I'm convinced he was juicing through most of his career.

I hope some good comes out of ths.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

The man passed the drug tests just like everyone else. Professional cycling has been riddled with blood doping and other athletic enhancements for as long as I can remember. And in my experiences with professional cycling, I've found there to be a no greater self-serving, egotistical, unethical, win at any cost bunch of good old boys. Anything goes as long as you can get away with it. These are Lance's accusers.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> I don't know if I can agree with you there...people think OJ should get the death penalty but most people think that Lance should just have to be a regular Joe now. I think OJ still got judged more harshly.


I get what you are saying, but I thnk that's a very ethnocentric (I.e middle class white) viewpoint.
when oj was acquitted, there was cheering and celebrations in certain communities.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

lance passed the tests as required at the time. he was not caught, at the time. in fact, he still isn't caught. he just now has a giant crowd of accusers. that's it. no one has a test result they can point to and say "there! that's where lance failed the test and had no legal excuse/reason for the result" it never happened afaik. i just don't like how they can come after the fact, so many years later with all this, and have no solid proof. unless his sponsors have to refund money to people who are returning products he endorsed, his compensation should remain his, imo. do all the people who donated $$ to cancer research call and get refunds? i assert lance's name STILL draws awareness to the cancer cause, and certainly holds more value to that charity than say, me or one of you. 
i said before, i don't care if him or anyone is doping. it's their body, their life. with all the people caught doping in that sport over the years, why is it so important to bring down lance armstrong?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Because most people do care Cheezy.

You seem to think there should be a statue of limitations on cheating in sport. Really? That implies that as long as you get away with it for a few years, it never happened.

I've never really understood that, but I suppose there are other things I don't understand as well.

This won't stop at Lance, but he's the biggest most famous cyclist on the planet. Rooting out corruption at the top is a good place to start. Other heads will roll I can assure you.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Milkman said:


> Because most people do care Cheezy.
> 
> You seem to think there should be a statue of limitations on cheating in sport. Really? That implies that as long as you get away with it for a few years, it never happened.
> 
> ...


And a lot of other cyclists are worried for sure. I read the other day that teams are now asking for an external audit into the Lance Armstrong doping inquiry.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Yes, in Armstrong's defense, he's just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone who stood on a podium, knowing they had cheated to win, should be looking over their shoulders.

More importantly than money (to me at least) is the glory of victory being tarnished, and the accomplishments of those who DID complete fairly being called into question by the win at all costs methods of some.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

you cant re run all those races. you cant say "this or that guy really won instead of lance because he was next behind him"
truth is, just by being there lance has forever altered the race. if nascar did what cycling is doing, their points standings would be so amorphous as to be pointless. people cheat. that's why rule books are continuously re-written. but not history. what happened is what it is...or was what it was, i guess. something like that.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> you cant re run all those races. you cant say "this or that guy really won instead of lance because he was next behind him"


They're not. The Tours from 1999 to 2005 now have no winner. They acknowledge that they couldn't give the Tour to the 2nd or 3rd place guy as they were all juiced up too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_france_winners

To me, they should go back even further. Bjarne Riis has acknowledged that he doped when he won in 1996, and Pantani, who won in 1997, was also a known doper. But unless they come up with sworn statements from other riders, similar to what USADA has on Armstrong, there's not much they can do.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> you cant re run all those races. you cant say "this or that guy really won instead of lance because he was next behind him"
> truth is, just by being there lance has forever altered the race. if nascar did what cycling is doing, their points standings would be so amorphous as to be pointless. people cheat. that's why rule books are continuously re-written. but not history. what happened is what it is...or was what it was, i guess. something like that.


You're right. We can't re-run races.

Lance didn't just cheat to win, he also tainted and stole any opportunity for those who weren't cheating to win.

I don't think anyone can be said to have won these races.

Everybody lost.


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

Milkman said:


> Because most people do care Cheezy.
> 
> You seem to think there should be a statue of limitations on cheating in sport. Really? That implies that as long as you get away with it for a few years, it never happened.
> 
> ...


Actually there should be, not to protect the cheaters, but lets say Armstrong was clean. For the sake of the argument. Cause the euro's didn't like him even before he won his first tour. So he's clean, but he spent his whole riding career defending himself against doping allegations. Why should they be able to come after him years after he has retired and has no more to do with the sport? Is he obliged to defend himself until he dies? Hell, even most crimes outside of murder have a statute of limitations, what makes a sport so important? This whole case goes against the spirit of the law.


----------



## starjag (Jan 30, 2008)

People defending LA and criticizing the "process"... read the report! It's 200 pages... but it'll change your opinion.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

starjag said:


> People defending LA and criticizing the "process"... read the report! It's 200 pages... but it'll change your opinion.


It's available to download? Got a link?


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Lance didn't just cheat to win, he also tainted and stole any opportunity for those who weren't cheating to win.
> 
> I don't think anyone can be said to have won these races.
> 
> Everybody lost.


what he said!!


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I found the link to the report...

http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Diablo said:


> I get what you are saying, but I thnk that's a very ethnocentric (I.e middle class white) viewpoint.
> when oj was acquitted, there was cheering and celebrations in certain communities.


Indeed. The cheering and celebrations were a demonstration of racism.


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Are you being sarcastic?


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

as abrasive as it may have seemed, he is right, none the less.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i gotta say, i totally agree with lance on this
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/th...-happens-pose-next-tour-france-190124213.html


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> i gotta say, i totally agree with lance on this
> http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/th...-happens-pose-next-tour-france-190124213.html


Yeah, I saw that pic and thought it was pretty cheeky.

At the end of the day, he still crossed the finish line on the Champs d'Elysses with a faster time than anyone else 7 times in a row. I would be proud of that too, especially if I knew that my competitors were doping/also doping.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

ed-zackly!


----------



## starjag (Jan 30, 2008)

hollowbody said:


> Yeah, I saw that pic and thought it was pretty cheeky.
> 
> At the end of the day, he still crossed the finish line on the Champs d'Elysses with a faster time than anyone else 7 times in a row. I would be proud of that too, especially if I knew that my competitors were doping/also doping.


Pretty proud of being the dirtiest dopper?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

starjag said:


> Pretty proud of being the dirtiest dopper?



What are you going to do?

Absolutely no indication or acknowledgement of the fact that he cheated to win?

He should pose in front of a big syringe instead.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

then so should everyone else. my whole point from day one is, why are the pharisees out to crucify lance? i never saw anyone work so hard to bring someone down that didn't have some personal vendetta driving them.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

starjag said:


> Pretty proud of being the dirtiest dopper?


It's not like he wasn't an incredible cyclist. Maybe he was on dope. He's not the only one. But, he was one of the best in his generation - with or without PEDs. Dope doesn't give you proficiency or the will to win. Lance is basically saying - hey, this is what you wanted, ok, cool. But I'm still the only man to win 7 tour in a row.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

cheezyridr said:


> then so should everyone else. my whole point from day one is, why are the pharisees out to crucify lance? i never saw anyone work so hard to bring someone down that didn't have some personal vendetta driving them.


The Italians, French and Russians have been denying blood doping with a smirk ever since it was invented. All pro cyclists are insufferable, ultracompetitive, ultra-nationalistic egotists in my experience (I used to build high end racing bicycles back in the early 80s as a hobby). The Europeons especially despise Americans who excel at "their" sport and have always looked for ways to undercut their credibility.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

smorgdonkey said:


> Diablo said:
> 
> 
> > I get what you are saying, but I thnk that's a very ethnocentric (I.e middle class white) viewpoint.
> ...


I think the celebration about OJ was viewed as payback for the systemic racism in the U.S. justice system. 

"Too bad for that girl, but it's about time a brother caught a break."


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

I'm not a fan of Lance, but at least he wasn't as self-righteous as Carl Lewis.


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

bluzfish said:


> The Italians, French and Russians have been denying blood doping with a smirk ever since it was invented. All pro cyclists are insufferable, ultracompetitive, ultra-nationalistic egotists in my experience (I used to build high end racing bicycles back in the early 80s as a hobby). The Europeons especially despise Americans who excel at "their" sport and have always looked for ways to undercut their credibility.


hey has anyone else seen that '70's cycling flick called "breaking away"?

it has a great scene of this smalltown US cyclist who finally gets to race with his European cycling idols....and they stick a bicycle pump into the spokes of his front wheel during the race 


[video=youtube;gmYs0S-6ry4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmYs0S-6ry4[/video]


----------



## starjag (Jan 30, 2008)

bolero said:


> hey has anyone else seen that '70's cycling flick called "breaking away"?


Great movie!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> starjag said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty proud of being the dirtiest dopper?
> ...


That's where he made his mistake.

It's NOT what we wanted.


----------



## starjag (Jan 30, 2008)

Milkman said:


> He should pose in front of a big syringe instead.


What about doing nothing? Clearly he is not going to admit use and apologize like many others have done, including his team members, etc. This contrived picture is simply not positive.


----------



## Cartcanuck (Oct 30, 2012)

Somewhere Mark McGwire is nodding and saying "yep, I know how you feel Lance".

Both played their respective games at a top level and set records using performance enhancing substances. Both at a time when "many" were using the same substances. But since they were the record holders, they get skewered more publicly than the others. 

One difference is that Lance claimed for years that he was clean and had nothing to do with doping, even in the face of all the evidence against him. 

My point is that this reaction against a superstar who was taking performance enhancing drugs isn't new. It came to light how prevalent drug use was in baseball, and yet no one was surprised when it was exposed. For years people knew it was happening and no one really cared about it until McGwire's home run push. Then it became a big deal on a big stage. 

Drug use in cycling isn't new, everyone knows that. What makes this such a big disappointment is the "survivor" story that Lance has built the past 20 years of his life around (and it IS a survivor story, no question) and the supposed pure lifestyle surrounding his career and life. What a way to go from hero to zero in quick fashion, and yet his story of coming back from cancer is still remarkable. 

I don't think anyone out there should feel sorry for him and the hole he's dug for himself.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Just wondering about this once very active thread and if anyone had anything to add since Lance's big Oprah interview. 

I have only seen excerpts from it so I can't comment really in depth but from what I did see he still seems like he is able to mostly keep the tough guy act up and doesn't really want to completely own up for the things he has done.

He seemed emotionally overwhelmed a couple of times from the clips that I saw but fought hard to contain it because I think that he still has major issues with deception and the truth.

I wonder what it must be like to go from hero to zero like that. I don't envy him. At one point he was saying how he 'owed a lot of people apologies' and that he wanted to give them the apologies 'when those people were ready' and it seemed like he was puting it on the people that he owed to come and collect. Very odd.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

The only thing I could add after hearing only limited sound bites from the interview is that he is a hideous human being, a bully, a bum, a liar and a thief. I feel sorry for his kids


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

There are positive things about Lance. Livestrong, positive cancer survivor, etc.

The thing that is really, really bad is that he BURIED people who called him out. Lawsuits, blackballing in the cycling industry....he took EVERYTHING (financially) from many people, that they have never recovered from and can never get those years back. 

I don't give a shit that he doped, everyone did. I don't even care that he denied, anyone with half a brain could see through that. He has a huge fortune (heard estimated $100M on ESPN radio this week), money can't buy happiness but it can buy comfort and he owes a lot of comfort to many people.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I think he's done some good with some of the money he earned, however, he's had his fifteen minutes of fame in my opinion and it's time for him to quietly go away.

The sport of road cycling has been exposed to be dirty as many already knew.


If there's any hope of it ever being credible again (may not be possible) Lance Armstrong really can't be involved.

I didn't get any sense of remorse from his confession.

It was like yeah, I'm a shitty human being. Go figure. Then a shrug.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

That is a very profound post keto. Apologies are likely important to people but just as it is when innocent people are imprisoned for crimes that they did not commit...how do you get the years back? Since Lance owes these people years and careers, how could he ever atone for those acts?

I'd love to have the $100M but I would never want to shoulder that burden...I still feel bad about a frog that I killed back when I was 11.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

We really do need to stop talking about him the more we keep talking about him the bigger the fricken idiots ego grows, he wasn't sorry for what he had done and that little chit chat that he had with the Oprah was about as geniun as nothing. It was again all about protecting his bottom line money and staying out of jail. And what he admitted to was exactly how I thought he had cheated and he learnt it while he was being cured of his cancer aqnd when they were doing blood transfusions they also gave him HGH ( human growth hormones ) along with other steroids to help in his treatment and of course he discovered that the transfusions helped mask the testing and almost always showed that he was clean.
Thats stupid son of a bitch owes a lot of apologies to all the folks that he bullied out of the sport and had made fools out of so he could maintain he squeeky clean image and the loss's that they suffered because of him well they certainly were well fucked over from him. 
I'm sorry but I don't feel sorry for his kids they could have just asked like everyone else did, and then would he have lied to them? makes you wonder doesn't it.ship


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Oh he did lie to his kids. That much was evident by one of the excerpts that I saw. Maybe you are having a bad day ship but I'd say that your last line is a bit much.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

smorgdonkey said:


> Just wondering about this once very active thread and if anyone had anything to add since Lance's big Oprah interview.
> 
> I have only seen excerpts from it so I can't comment really in depth but from what I did see he still seems like he is able to mostly keep the tough guy act up and doesn't really want to completely own up for the things he has done.
> 
> ...


The thing that everyone has to remember is that he would be apologizing to nobody if he had any way out of it. He finally got to a point where there was no way out. If there was he would not be doing what he is right now. He is not a good guy. Never was by the sounds of it. I hope he ends up working in a bicycle repair shop


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> The thing that everyone has to remember is that he would be apologizing to nobody if he has any way out of it. He finally got to a point where there was no way out. If there was he would not be soon what he is right now. He is not a good guy. Never was by the sounds of it. I hope he ends up working in a bicycle repair shop


I completely agree.

I also heard some comments that suggested that some of the admissions which he made may work against him in lawsuits that people have against him. Perhaps his ego put him into this interview situation and blinded him to the potential negatives that could arise from it.

The thing is that even when people like that have to claim bankruptcy, I find that they always had a backup plan with Swiss bank accounts or whatever...look at O.J. with his NFL pension...$60G per month and the Brown & Goldman family can't get any of it.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

It just comes down to the guy lied, plain and simple. It's too bad but that's the long and short of it. Now he's paying the price. Honesty is always the best policy. Eventually it catches up with all of us, one way or the other.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

There are too many pages devoted to this thread. I'm sick of hearing about it. CNN devoted an hour last night, far more coverage devoted to this wanker than the Algerian hostage situation. 

This IS NOT news, it's just another car crash that rubber neckers are slowing down to watch.

Whew. That feels better. Rant over.


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

Anybody who has followed cycling over the years would already know that he is and always has been an arrogant prick.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

One of the most interesting aspects of this for me came up yesterday morning when someone the CBC morning host was interviewing noted that Oprah Winfrey's TV network was in some financial trouble as of late, and was charging advertisers 50% over normal rates for time during the Armstrong confessional.

I'm not sure who I have more contempt for, Armstrong, for attacking people so viciously all these years when his front was threatening to crack, or Winfrey for trying to milk the confession for money.

The most interesting part, however, will be the legal fallout from all the companies who used him as spokesperson, at great expense,, and now feel (justifiably) like their brand has been severely tarnished. 

I think we can expect to see the Koodo luchador as the protoypic spokesperson more and more. Animated figures have all the brand recognition you could want, but they don't lie, they don't lead double lives, they don't get caught with young boys, hookers, powdered moustaches, bloody kitchen knives, non-sequential unmarked bills in manilla envelopes, or any of that.

Perhaps the more intriguing part of that expected shift is the impact it might have on things like the Olympics and other world-class competitions, where at least part of the motivation for some athletes is the possibility of an endorsement deal as an outcome of a medal. We're way past Wheaties boxes now. If companies are shy to turn to athletes as spokespersons because they're afraid it might later blow up in their faces, then what will motivate the athletes?


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

mhammer said:


> I'm not sure who I have more contempt for, Armstrong, for attacking people so viciously all these years when his front was threatening to crack, or Winfrey for trying to milk the confession for money.


You know, it's interesting when some of the rich folk who can wipe their asses with $1000 notes throw money around once in a while then people see them as 'good' when all they are most of the time is money-grubbing pigs. 

I was just on another forum which is predominantly American and they are all (or seem to be) very 'pro' Lance. A couple of weeks ago saying "there is no proof" and that sort of thing. People are strange.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Lance confessed (at least to some of it) and will deal with the consequences. What I find really interesting in all of this though, is why is there not more focus on the cycling organizations? So Lance was doping all these years... which means it's very likely there was positive tests that were covered up somewhere along the line. So they didn't 'catch' him, they went after him after the fact. They had better find a way to (a) catch people with their testing systems and punish them at the time, and (b) eliminate any corruption that is preventing it from happening. It seems they loved to benefit from Lance's marquee status and 'stardom' when it came to endorsing cycling, and now they want to go after him as an example for doping as well. Though it's quite likely they new about it and were contributing to covering it up. I don't feel any sympathy for Lance, but I do feel they should start dispersing the blame more here. There are clearly major problems well beyond Lance Armstrong in the cycling world.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Torndownunit it wasn't covered up it just wasnt detected because of him using his cancer treatment as a way to cover his doping, it had to do with the blood transfusions he was recieving. He could do the HGH and steroids and then when he recieved his blodd transfusions he basically wipes out the ability they had at that time of detecting all the things he had takewn prior but they still did what they were suppose to and that was to help the body intake more O2 then was normal for the rest of the field and because of his higher then normal oxygen intake he was able to deliver higher bike pedals through the hills and such giving him of course the faster speeds then the rest of the pack.
And the anti doping agency AT the time did not have the means to check for such things, thats why now that they can go back and actually check for levels of banned stroids and HGH and other things.
And no Smork not having a bad day I truley think that his kids benefitted beyond monetary things and as he said he didn't have that discussion with his kids. But at the same time if it was my father I would have asked.
He is not the only one that is dirty is cycling or in other sports and even in amature sports we see the kids these days going the way of being dirty and not doing it the right way to be on top of their chosen sport. To me it just hurts when we have kids and adults who want to do it the right way and work so very hard to be on top of their game.ship
oh and don't get me started about Oprah she forgot who and where she came from and now is so arrogant to think that she knows more and better then the ordinary people


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Ship of fools said:


> Torndownunit it wasn't covered up it just wasnt detected because of him using his cancer treatment as a way to cover his doping, it had to do with the blood transfusions he was recieving. He could do the HGH and steroids and then when he recieved his blodd transfusions he basically wipes out the ability they had at that time of detecting all the things he had takewn prior but they still did what they were suppose to and that was to help the body intake more O2 then was normal for the rest of the field and because of his higher then normal oxygen intake he was able to deliver higher bike pedals through the hills and such giving him of course the faster speeds then the rest of the pack.
> And the anti doping agency AT the time did not have the means to check for such things, thats why now that they can go back and actually check for levels of banned stroids and HGH and other things.
> And no Smork not having a bad day I truley think that his kids benefitted beyond monetary things and as he said he didn't have that discussion with his kids. But at the same time if it was my father I would have asked.
> He is not the only one that is dirty is cycling or in other sports and even in amature sports we see the kids these days going the way of being dirty and not doing it the right way to be on top of their chosen sport. To me it just hurts when we have kids and adults who want to do it the right way and work so very hard to be on top of their game.ship
> oh and don't get me started about Oprah she forgot who and where she came from and now is so arrogant to think that she knows more and better then the ordinary people



Thanks for the explanation. I don't claim to be a cycling expert. But, when you read beyond just the Lance Armstrong specifics, there seems to be some serious issues with that sport in general. And it definitely appears that a lot of corruption is involved in a lot of it and that the cycling organizations are ok with that if it benefits them. If they have the ability go after Lance than fine. But who's going after them?

Also, Oprah being arrogant is not something new lol. She's the first to bad mouth any type of talk show that's sensationalistic, but then is the first to jump on the band wagon when it can massively benefit her. She does some good things in this world, but she's far from a great person.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Ship of fools said:


> And no Smork not having a bad day I truley think that his kids benefitted beyond monetary things and as he said he didn't have that discussion with his kids. But at the same time if it was my father I would have asked.


His oldest kid is what...13? Hearing his father constantly denouce and flame the people who accused him of it wouldn't be enough for the 9 or 10 year old to make up his mind and defend his dad for a few years...but YOU would ask?

Come on.

I'm bashing Lance too but I don't think you have to be so hardcore on it that you don't feel sorry for his kids because you think that they should have asked him. If I heard my father saying the same thing about people over and over, I wouldn't just ask out of the blue: "are those people really that way?" 

Tap the brakes man.


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

I wish Lance would just go away...f**k him and the bike he rode in on


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

I think I made a mistake for some reason I thought his boy was around 20's I looked it up and now realize I made a mistake you are right he is only 13 and the girls even younger and you are also right to feel bad for them that their father did this to them and that they have to live through his arrogance.

But as their father he should never had denounced other riders who admitted to their mistakes and had tried to get Lance to admit to his.
Snork my aplogies to you my friend.ship


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Ship of fools said:


> their father did this to them and that they have to live through his arrogance.
> 
> But as their father he should never had denounced other riders who admitted to their mistakes and had tried to get Lance to admit to his.


Exactly...ethics are the same between famous and unknown...the same between rich and poor.


----------



## ssydor (Dec 12, 2012)

I am an avid cycling fan... and bought into the whole Lance Armstrong story. I read his books, and followed him through out all his TDF victories. I always heard the rumours... and at first thought it was just sour grapes (mostly from the French). But as the rumours got louder, and more people started coming forward I started to figure there must be some truth to them. Usually where there is smoke, there is fire!
But I was actually shocked when he come out and admitted to doping. I figured he would just keep denying, and take that secret to the grave!!! the whole admission seems very out of character... But I guess he didn't have much choice at this stage. But I still feel like there must be a motive for it, since I don't think he has a conscience.
As a cancer survivor myself, I am disappointed in him and feel a bit cheated. But i'll get over it. He chose to be the poster boy for Cancer, and he made himself a lot of money doing it! I am not saying he didn't do positive things for the disease... but he didn't do them for free! Seems greed was the motive for everything.
Anway...I kind of feel bad for the guy now, due to the public shaming he is getting. But Karma is a bitch! If he was a nice guy, people probably wouldn't be trying to screw him to the wall so badly! He probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist like every other pro-cyclist who has tested positive.

Hopefully he just goes away now. I am actually getting tired of hearing about the guy! And I hope he doesn't profit from this massive scam (apparently there are new movie and book deals in the works)


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Yeah, I saw the story about the new movie in the paper today. Pissed me off, he'll no doubt get paid. Not any of my family's dough though.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

ssydor said:


> I am an avid cycling fan... and bought into the whole Lance Armstrong story. I read his books, and followed him through out all his TDF victories. I always heard the rumours... and at first thought it was just sour grapes (mostly from the French). But as the rumours got louder, and more people started coming forward I started to figure there must be some truth to them. Usually where there is smoke, there is fire!
> But I was actually shocked when he come out and admitted to doping. I figured he would just keep denying, and take that secret to the grave!!! the whole admission seems very out of character... But I guess he didn't have much choice at this stage. But I still feel like there must be a motive for it, since I don't think he has a conscience.
> As a cancer survivor myself, I am disappointed in him and feel a bit cheated. But i'll get over it. He chose to be the poster boy for Cancer, and he made himself a lot of money doing it! I am not saying he didn't do positive things for the disease... but he didn't do them for free! Seems greed was the motive for everything.
> Anway...I kind of feel bad for the guy now, due to the public shaming he is getting. But Karma is a @#!*% ! If he was a nice guy, people probably wouldn't be trying to screw him to the wall so badly! He probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist like every other pro-cyclist who has tested positive.
> ...


Most of us are tired of hearing about him and his story. If I never hear or see it in the new again, it would be a good thing for everyone.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I think he was framed. The confession was made under duress. Oprah can be one tough bee-atch.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i don't care if he did cheat. when as many others cheated at the same time, and pretense at integrity is jus that - pretense. 
at the end of the day, he not only out cycled everyone, but he out cheated them, too. wether hes angel, devil or something in between, this one thing cannot be denied. he did what the others were doing, better than they did. i think that's what the animosity is really all about.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

That may be what the peer animosity is about but that's not his biggest problem - his biggest problem is the public animosity and that animosity comes from Lance being a *fraud *and apparently a prick too.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

That interview was harsh! Oprah had him by the nut.
Especially when he started getting testi with her.

Well, at least he has the ball to confess.


----------



## starjag (Jan 30, 2008)

sulphur said:


> That interview was harsh! Oprah had him by the nut.
> Especially when he started getting testi with her.
> 
> Well, at least he has the ball to confess.


Do you really think this interview took courage?

Did he offer to help rebuild the lives and careers that he destroyed while lying for so many years?


----------



## Cartcanuck (Oct 30, 2012)

i'm always amused at people like Armstrong and Barry Bonds who can be such incredible pr!cks and not think that someone, somewhere is going to rat them out. That whole "I'm untouchable" mentality is the one major flaw that so often bring about exactly what they think they are untouchable about.


----------



## Cartcanuck (Oct 30, 2012)

cheezyridr said:


> i don't care if he did cheat. when as many others cheated at the same time, and pretense at integrity is jus that - pretense.
> at the end of the day, he not only out cycled everyone, but he out cheated them, too. wether hes angel, devil or something in between, this one thing cannot be denied. he did what the others were doing, better than they did. i think that's what the animosity is really all about.


I think most of the animosity come from two sides:
1. he always preached and encouraged living a healthy lifestyle and portrayed this clean-living, all-American boy image of a cancer survivor who is living the near-perfect life we all wanted to imagine. He denied and denied and denied drug use over and over again only to be exposed as a liar and a cheater. There are a lot of people hitched to the Armstrong/Livestrong bandwagon who supported and helped build this image that he put out there. ALL of these people just got kicked in the gonads by the one-nut-wonder-child. 
2. he destroyed the careers of many people. Anyone who got in his way got squashed, sued, blacklisted, fired, etc. He's not this squeaky clean family man. He's turned out to be a ruthless prick who would let nothing stand in his way. Some level of that attitude is needed to be the best in a field or sport. But he took it to levels that were only rumor for many years, until recently. One or two stories.....well, maybe he's just an aggressive, focused athlete. The dozens of stories that have surfaced, the interviews with athletes who never had the chance to perform because they were blackballed by Armstrong, the trainers, therapists, etc who were sued by Armstrong, etc. It quickly became a fact that his focus and determination and power went to the extreme.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

I will not open this thread any more.

keto, do NOT click the LA link. Don't do it DON'T DO IT!

I will not open this thread any more. I will not open this thread any more.

Oh, what now?


----------

