Armstrong Robbed

[isawasnake]

You are just not getting it. Every single one of your examples can be explained by the logic I have laid out countess times. This will be my last post by the way, you can be wrong all you want after this.

Is one single particle of steroid in a human body enough?? Two? Who knows, the "cheating" needs to be defined. They did that in this case before the event by saying "a certain amount of chemicals X and Y would enhance your ability and not allow you to compete". Those tests were passed. So take your big brain and go up to all your own examples... the testing one for example.... it would be like the guy showing the test company written answers on his hand, and them saying, "that's ok, go ahead and take the test." And then coming back and taking the result away when they changed their minds years later. He passed the required test at the time. Do you have any idea what would start happening if we could just decide after the fact in all situations what was actually required and what wasn't. That all has to be set up before the event in question, not YEARS later.

You keep saying cheating is ok if you can get away with it. Again, you're not getting it. There was no cheating based on what the event organizers deemed to be cheating at the time. In your argument you are acting like he used illegal substances and can prove it 100%, that is not true, so stop saying that. It is very important for them to know exactly what cheating is, their entire livelihood is based in it. They told him that information, and he proceeded based on that info.

This is off topic, but I get super annoyed with people like you because you just have no clue. I have been involved in a sport that did have some illegal drug use, although the efficacy was questionable. But the point is, the guy who wins at the very top level of a sport, if a person like you could ever realize this, is an amazing amazing athlete and competitor. To do it as many times as he did it is simply inhuman, drugs or no drugs. People like you just don't get that. It is so much easier to just erase all that amazing cycling and feel better in your little head that the cheater got what was coming. You truly have no idea what excellence in sports is all about. Off topic but all true. So keep spouting off how the best cyclist in the world for about a decade should not have even a single title or recognition. It is fitting of a person of your ilk, because you have no idea what that actually took to get there. No frikin idea.

Edited October 27, 2012 by isawasnake

[whybother]

You are just not getting it. Every single one of your examples can be explained by the logic I have laid out countess times. This will be my last post by the way, you can be wrong all you want after this.

Cheating needs to be defined. They did that in this case before the event by saying "a certain amount of chemicals X and Y would enhance your ability and not allow you to compete". Those tests were passed. So take your big brain and go up to all your own examples... the testing one for example.... it would be like the guy showing the test company written answers on his hand, and them saying, "that's ok, go ahead and take the test." And then coming back and taking the result away when they changed their minds years later. He passed the required test at the time. Do you have any idea what would start happening if we could just decide after the fact in all situations what was actually required and what wasn't. That all has to be set up before the event in question, not YEARS later.

You keep saying cheating is ok if you can get away with it. Again, you're not getting it. There was no cheating based on what the event organizers deemed to be cheating at the time. In your argument you are acting like he used illegal substances and can prove it 100%, that is not true, so stop saying that. It is very important for them to know exactly what cheating is, their entire livelihood is based in it. They told him that information, and he proceeded based on that info.

This is off topic, but I get super annoyed with people like you because you just have no clue. I have been involved in a sport that did have some illegal drug use, although the efficacy was questionable. But the point is, the guy who wins at the very top level of a sport, if a person like you could ever realize this, is an amazing amazing athlete and competitor. To do it as many times as he did it is simply inhuman, drugs or no drugs. People like you just don't get that. It is so much easier to just erase all that amazing cycling and feel better in your little head that the cheater got what was coming. You truly have no idea what excellence in sports is all about. Off topic but all true. So keep spouting off how the best cyclist in the world for about a decade should not have even a single title or recognition. It is fitting of a person of your ilk, because you have no idea what that actually took to get there. No frikin idea.

What part of "You're not allowed to use performance enhancing drugs" do you think Armstrong didn't understand?

The rules were clearly defined. Certain drugs are banned. Certain masking agents are banned. Just because they didn't always have the tests to identify the drugs or more often, the masking agents used to hide the drugs, doesn't make using the drugs OK.

[whybother]

This is off topic, but I get super annoyed with people like you because you just have no clue. I have been involved in a sport that did have some illegal drug use, although the efficacy was questionable. But the point is, the guy who wins at the very top level of a sport, if a person like you could ever realize this, is an amazing amazing athlete and competitor. To do it as many times as he did it is simply inhuman, drugs or no drugs. People like you just don't get that. It is so much easier to just erase all that amazing cycling and feel better in your little head that the cheater got what was coming. You truly have no idea what excellence in sports is all about. Off topic but all true. So keep spouting off how the best cyclist in the world for about a decade should not have even a single title or recognition. It is fitting of a person of your ilk, because you have no idea what that actually took to get there. No frikin idea.

I've done a fair bit of bike riding, and watched Armstrong win many of his tours. He was a great rider. But would he have won all those tours if he hadn't done drugs? Was he really the best?

What about all the great riders that haven't done drugs? What about all the riders who do have an idea of what it takes to get there, but got cheated out of their places because of drug cheats?

"People like you" just don't seem to understand that when you cheat, you can't really be called the best. Who knows what you would have been like if you hadn't cheated.

And it certainly appears that Armstrong cheated. It's not like they changed the rules after the races. He was just good at hiding it. That doesn't stop him from being a cheat.

[StreetCowboy]

This is off topic, but I get super annoyed with people like you because you just have no clue. I have been involved in a sport that did have some illegal drug use, although the efficacy was questionable. But the point is, the guy who wins at the very top level of a sport, if a person like you could ever realize this, is an amazing amazing athlete and competitor. To do it as many times as he did it is simply inhuman, drugs or no drugs. People like you just don't get that. It is so much easier to just erase all that amazing cycling and feel better in your little head that the cheater got what was coming. You truly have no idea what excellence in sports is all about. Off topic but all true. So keep spouting off how the best cyclist in the world for about a decade should not have even a single title or recognition. It is fitting of a person of your ilk, because you have no idea what that actually took to get there. No frikin idea.

I've done a fair bit of bike riding, and watched Armstrong win many of his tours. He was a great rider. But would he have won all those tours if he hadn't done drugs? Was he really the best?

What about all the great riders that haven't done drugs? What about all the riders who do have an idea of what it takes to get there, but got cheated out of their places because of drug cheats?

"People like you" just don't seem to understand that when you cheat, you can't really be called the best. Who knows what you would have been like if you hadn't cheated.

And it certainly appears that Armstrong cheated. It's not like they changed the rules after the races. He was just good at hiding it. That doesn't stop him from being a cheat.

This is off topic, but I get super annoyed with people like you because you just have no clue. I have been involved in a sport that did have some illegal drug use, although the efficacy was questionable. But the point is, the guy who wins at the very top level of a sport, if a person like you could ever realize this, is an amazing amazing athlete and competitor. To do it as many times as he did it is simply inhuman, drugs or no drugs. People like you just don't get that. It is so much easier to just erase all that amazing cycling and feel better in your little head that the cheater got what was coming. You truly have no idea what excellence in sports is all about. Off topic but all true. So keep spouting off how the best cyclist in the world for about a decade should not have even a single title or recognition. It is fitting of a person of your ilk, because you have no idea what that actually took to get there. No frikin idea.

I've done a fair bit of bike riding, and watched Armstrong win many of his tours. He was a great rider. But would he have won all those tours if he hadn't done drugs? Was he really the best?

What about all the great riders that haven't done drugs? What about all the riders who do have an idea of what it takes to get there, but got cheated out of their places because of drug cheats?

"People like you" just don't seem to understand that when you cheat, you can't really be called the best. Who knows what you would have been like if you hadn't cheated.

And it certainly appears that Armstrong cheated. It's not like they changed the rules after the races. He was just good at hiding it. That doesn't stop him from being a cheat.

So have you identified the rider who was clean in those races, who should be given the titles?

I imagine he's the same bloke that has never exceeded the speed limit.

SC

[whybother]

So have you identified the rider who was clean in those races, who should be given the titles?

I imagine he's the same bloke that has never exceeded the speed limit.

SC

1999 Fernando Escartín

2000-02 Joseba Beloki

2003 Haimar Zubeldia

2004 Andreas Klöden

2005 Francisco Mancebo

I'm not sure if they've ever sped, but they haven't been declared drug cheats.

[StreetCowboy]

So have you identified the rider who was clean in those races, who should be given the titles?

I imagine he's the same bloke that has never exceeded the speed limit.

SC

1999 Fernando Escartín

2000-02 Joseba Beloki

2003 Haimar Zubeldia

2004 Andreas Klöden

2005 Francisco Mancebo

I'm not sure if they've ever sped, but they haven't been declared drug cheats.

Well, let's see after a seven year witch-hunt.

SC

[whybother]

So have you identified the rider who was clean in those races, who should be given the titles?

I imagine he's the same bloke that has never exceeded the speed limit.

SC

1999 Fernando Escartín

2000-02 Joseba Beloki

2003 Haimar Zubeldia

2004 Andreas Klöden

2005 Francisco Mancebo

I'm not sure if they've ever sped, but they haven't been declared drug cheats.

Well, let's see after a seven year witch-hunt.

SC

Yep. It will all come back to whether they cheated or not.

[David48]

It’s not often I have to disagree with StreetCowboy, but on this occasion … I have to.

I’m a cycling fan. When the Tour is on, I’ll try and stay up to the wee hours (in Australia) and watch the event.

One of my sporting heroes was Lance Armstrong. Not only because of his winning record, but the manner in which achieved the result. He portrayed the drive to overcome testicular cancer and win the most gruelling event consistently.

While he may not have tested positive to taking performance enhancing drugs, the circumstantial evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Why is it quilt beyond reasonable doubt … because the men who rode with and against Armstrong are now ‘coming clean’ about their doping practises and heads are rolling.

None bigger for Australian cycling then CYCLING Australia vice-president Stephen Hodge.

below ...

[David48]

CYCLING Australia vice-president Stephen Hodge says he took drugs to avoid being dropped for the world's biggest races.

In another bombshell for Australian cycling in the wake of the Lance Armstrong drug scandal, Hodge resigned his CA position and confessed to using blood-boosting EPO and other substances from 1989 until his retirement in 1996.

"I made the decision to take drugs at the end of 1989," he said.

"Clearly, EPO was the drug of choice. There were other things like cortisone, as far as I can remember."

Hodge said he used the drugs to ensure selection in the sport's three grand tours - the Tour de France, Giro d'Italia and the Tour of Spain - with the notorious ONCE and Festina teams.

"It became obvious to me that if I wanted to stay competitive and be selected to do all the big races, I had to participate in a team doping program.

More here

[David48]

.

Is it correct to strip drug cheats of their titles … absolutely.

What is sad though is that now, those titles, those accolades, that recognition cannot be easily or readily bestowed as it appears the practise of doping or taking performance enhancing drugs was so wide spread.

.

[StreetCowboy]

It’s not often I have to disagree with StreetCowboy, but on this occasion … I have to.

I’m a cycling fan. When the Tour is on, I’ll try and stay up to the wee hours (in Australia) and watch the event.

One of my sporting heroes was Lance Armstrong. Not only because of his winning record, but the manner in which achieved the result. He portrayed the drive to overcome testicular cancer and win the most gruelling event consistently.

While he may not have tested positive to taking performance enhancing drugs, the circumstantial evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Why is it quilt beyond reasonable doubt … because the men who rode with and against Armstrong are now ‘coming clean’ about their doping practises and heads are rolling.

None bigger for Australian cycling then CYCLING Australia vice-president Stephen Hodge.

below ...

I think it would be better to abandon those races that Lance Armstrong won, and say that there is evidence that the whole race was riddled with cheating. Would we allow people to slipstream cheating athletes? How will we ever know if any rider at the time was clean?

On the bright side, it's not whether you win or lose, but the taking part that's important in sport.

SC

[David48]

^^ Agreeing SC

I did wish to share this also ...

How dopers stole the best years of my career

by Bradley McGee

I have felt a sense of deja vu these past weeks as the Lance Armstrong story unravels. My emotions are the same as they were after the 1998 Tour de France, when the Festina team was kicked off the race for systematic doping and I was a new professional.

It doesn't get any easier to deal with something that deeply concerns you and yet something you have little control over. Once again I am disillusioned. And I ask myself, "Could it have been that bad?"

After reading most of the US Anti-Doping Agency's findings on Armstrong, the answer is, unequivocally, "Yes."

But this time I take it more personally. I was competing not just against Armstrong, but against the Armstrong years. I feel my professional years — my Tour de France years — have been stolen.

...

The Tour started well and in the first week I was able to match the top contenders, but then there was the first rest day... After that, Armstrong and his Discovery Channel completely changed the race. In effect they just tore it to bits.

I got dropped, cramped and was lost in a sense of disillusionment for the next two weeks, until I felt the cobblestones of the Champs-Elysees under my wheels on the final stage.

Even then, after I had one last dig to try to redeem a wasted Tour, I got rolled by none other than Alexander Vinokourov, who two years later would be thrown off the Tour for doping.

The more I think about it, the more it makes me mad as hell. But I have to move on from the fact that I have, more than likely, missed out on results and revenue, plus more, because of others' doping.

It's the small part of what is an excellent insight from a top level rider from the 'Armstrong Era'.

The longer article

here is well worth a read.

[Neeranam]

I wonder if the cause of his cancer was taking all those drugs?

[JaiRaiJaiDee]

So have you identified the rider who was clean in those races, who should be given the titles?

I imagine he's the same bloke that has never exceeded the speed limit.

SC

1999 Fernando Escartín

2000-02 Joseba Beloki

2003 Haimar Zubeldia

2004 Andreas Klöden

2005 Francisco Mancebo

I'm not sure if they've ever sped, but they haven't been declared drug cheats.

Well, let's see after a seven year witch-hunt.

SC

Well, lets see - there's the Irish woman who drove for the team and talked about the cheating - Armstrong called her a whore and sued her. Then there's David Walsh who talked about the cheating - also sued, slandered, and lost career opportunities after being targeted by the Armstrong team.

There seems to have been a very real code of media a$$ licking when it came to Armstrong in the past - the real witch hunts were the ones initiated by him to cover up the blatant con. Amazing what you can do when you exploit cancer survivor status for personal gain. Working in hospitals you see it on a small scale often.

Couldn't be happier to see the arrogant b@stard unmasked.

http://sportsillustr...rong/index.html

Christophe Bassons - the real yellow jersey winner.

http://en.wikipedia....istophe_Bassons

Edited October 28, 2012 by JaiRaiJaiDee

[Jingthing]

Oh, fudge!

Why not just allow doping in all sports?

OK, if I cared I wouldn't agree with this, but it certainly is a contrary opinion of note:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lance-armstrongs-fall-a-case-for-allowing-performance-enhancement/2012/10/26/6f7cccf0-1d41-11e2-b647-bb1668e64058_story.html

Rather, his case shows that enhancement is here to stay. If everyone’s enhancing, it’s a reality that we should embrace.

[whybother]

Oh, fudge!

Why not just allow doping in all sports?

OK, if I cared I wouldn't agree with this, but it certainly is a contrary opinion of note:

http://www.washingto...4058_story.html

Rather, his case shows that enhancement is here to stay. If everyone’s enhancing, it’s a reality that we should embrace.

They can't allow it because a lot of it is very dangerous to your health.

Allowing it would encourage kids (and more likely, parents and coaches of kids) to try doping, and, in some cases, to go way overboard with doping.

[isawasnake]

You are just not getting it. Every single one of your examples can be explained by the logic I have laid out countess times. This will be my last post by the way, you can be wrong all you want after this.

Cheating needs to be defined. They did that in this case before the event by saying "a certain amount of chemicals X and Y would enhance your ability and not allow you to compete". Those tests were passed. So take your big brain and go up to all your own examples... the testing one for example.... it would be like the guy showing the test company written answers on his hand, and them saying, "that's ok, go ahead and take the test." And then coming back and taking the result away when they changed their minds years later. He passed the required test at the time. Do you have any idea what would start happening if we could just decide after the fact in all situations what was actually required and what wasn't. That all has to be set up before the event in question, not YEARS later.

You keep saying cheating is ok if you can get away with it. Again, you're not getting it. There was no cheating based on what the event organizers deemed to be cheating at the time. In your argument you are acting like he used illegal substances and can prove it 100%, that is not true, so stop saying that. It is very important for them to know exactly what cheating is, their entire livelihood is based in it. They told him that information, and he proceeded based on that info.

This is off topic, but I get super annoyed with people like you because you just have no clue. I have been involved in a sport that did have some illegal drug use, although the efficacy was questionable. But the point is, the guy who wins at the very top level of a sport, if a person like you could ever realize this, is an amazing amazing athlete and competitor. To do it as many times as he did it is simply inhuman, drugs or no drugs. People like you just don't get that. It is so much easier to just erase all that amazing cycling and feel better in your little head that the cheater got what was coming. You truly have no idea what excellence in sports is all about. Off topic but all true. So keep spouting off how the best cyclist in the world for about a decade should not have even a single title or recognition. It is fitting of a person of your ilk, because you have no idea what that actually took to get there. No frikin idea.

What part of "You're not allowed to use performance enhancing drugs" do you think Armstrong didn't understand?

The rules were clearly defined. Certain drugs are banned. Certain masking agents are banned. Just because they didn't always have the tests to identify the drugs or more often, the masking agents used to hide the drugs, doesn't make using the drugs OK.

Where do I say banned substances are "OK". You just dont get the argument, you dont have the capity to understand it or you would not be making erroneous statements about my argument. How can i discuss something with somebody who does not comprehend what i am saying? Get a clue.

[whybother]

You are just not getting it. Every single one of your examples can be explained by the logic I have laid out countess times. This will be my last post by the way, you can be wrong all you want after this.

Cheating needs to be defined. They did that in this case before the event by saying "a certain amount of chemicals X and Y would enhance your ability and not allow you to compete". Those tests were passed. So take your big brain and go up to all your own examples... the testing one for example.... it would be like the guy showing the test company written answers on his hand, and them saying, "that's ok, go ahead and take the test." And then coming back and taking the result away when they changed their minds years later. He passed the required test at the time. Do you have any idea what would start happening if we could just decide after the fact in all situations what was actually required and what wasn't. That all has to be set up before the event in question, not YEARS later.

You keep saying cheating is ok if you can get away with it. Again, you're not getting it. There was no cheating based on what the event organizers deemed to be cheating at the time. In your argument you are acting like he used illegal substances and can prove it 100%, that is not true, so stop saying that. It is very important for them to know exactly what cheating is, their entire livelihood is based in it. They told him that information, and he proceeded based on that info.

This is off topic, but I get super annoyed with people like you because you just have no clue. I have been involved in a sport that did have some illegal drug use, although the efficacy was questionable. But the point is, the guy who wins at the very top level of a sport, if a person like you could ever realize this, is an amazing amazing athlete and competitor. To do it as many times as he did it is simply inhuman, drugs or no drugs. People like you just don't get that. It is so much easier to just erase all that amazing cycling and feel better in your little head that the cheater got what was coming. You truly have no idea what excellence in sports is all about. Off topic but all true. So keep spouting off how the best cyclist in the world for about a decade should not have even a single title or recognition. It is fitting of a person of your ilk, because you have no idea what that actually took to get there. No frikin idea.

What part of "You're not allowed to use performance enhancing drugs" do you think Armstrong didn't understand?

The rules were clearly defined. Certain drugs are banned. Certain masking agents are banned. Just because they didn't always have the tests to identify the drugs or more often, the masking agents used to hide the drugs, doesn't make using the drugs OK.

Where do I say banned substances are "OK". You just dont get the argument, you dont have the capity to understand it or you would not be making erroneous statements about my argument. How can i discuss something with somebody who does not comprehend what i am saying? Get a clue.

"There was no cheating based on what the event organizers deemed to be cheating at the time. In your argument you are acting like he used illegal substances and can prove it 100%"

AT THE TIME, the organisers deemed that using performance enhancing drugs was cheating. The evidence points to the fact that Armstrong was using performance enhancing drugs AT THE TIME. Therefore, he was cheating.

Your argument seems to be that Armstrong didn't get caught using drugs at the time so therefore he didn't cheat. Just because Armstrong passed the tests doesn't mean that he didn't cheat. There were ways to get around the tests. There is plenty of other evidence that Armstrong did use drugs.

You're right, it can't be proved 100%. All these people that have ridden and worked with Armstrong might ALL be lying.

But I believe it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Armstrong used drugs.

[isawasnake]

You are just not getting it. Every single one of your examples can be explained by the logic I have laid out countess times. This will be my last post by the way, you can be wrong all you want after this.

Cheating needs to be defined. They did that in this case before the event by saying "a certain amount of chemicals X and Y would enhance your ability and not allow you to compete". Those tests were passed. So take your big brain and go up to all your own examples... the testing one for example.... it would be like the guy showing the test company written answers on his hand, and them saying, "that's ok, go ahead and take the test." And then coming back and taking the result away when they changed their minds years later. He passed the required test at the time. Do you have any idea what would start happening if we could just decide after the fact in all situations what was actually required and what wasn't. That all has to be set up before the event in question, not YEARS later.

You keep saying cheating is ok if you can get away with it. Again, you're not getting it. There was no cheating based on what the event organizers deemed to be cheating at the time. In your argument you are acting like he used illegal substances and can prove it 100%, that is not true, so stop saying that. It is very important for them to know exactly what cheating is, their entire livelihood is based in it. They told him that information, and he proceeded based on that info.

This is off topic, but I get super annoyed with people like you because you just have no clue. I have been involved in a sport that did have some illegal drug use, although the efficacy was questionable. But the point is, the guy who wins at the very top level of a sport, if a person like you could ever realize this, is an amazing amazing athlete and competitor. To do it as many times as he did it is simply inhuman, drugs or no drugs. People like you just don't get that. It is so much easier to just erase all that amazing cycling and feel better in your little head that the cheater got what was coming. You truly have no idea what excellence in sports is all about. Off topic but all true. So keep spouting off how the best cyclist in the world for about a decade should not have even a single title or recognition. It is fitting of a person of your ilk, because you have no idea what that actually took to get there. No frikin idea.

What part of "You're not allowed to use performance enhancing drugs" do you think Armstrong didn't understand?

The rules were clearly defined. Certain drugs are banned. Certain masking agents are banned. Just because they didn't always have the tests to identify the drugs or more often, the masking agents used to hide the drugs, doesn't make using the drugs OK.

Where do I say banned substances are "OK". You just dont get the argument, you dont have the capity to understand it or you would not be making erroneous statements about my argument. How can i discuss something with somebody who does not comprehend what i am saying? Get a clue.

"There was no cheating based on what the event organizers deemed to be cheating at the time. In your argument you are acting like he used illegal substances and can prove it 100%"

AT THE TIME, the organisers deemed that using performance enhancing drugs was cheating. The evidence points to the fact that Armstrong was using performance enhancing drugs AT THE TIME. Therefore, he was cheating.

Your argument seems to be that Armstrong didn't get caught using drugs at the time so therefore he didn't cheat. Just because Armstrong passed the tests doesn't mean that he didn't cheat. There were ways to get around the tests. There is plenty of other evidence that Armstrong did use drugs.

You're right, it can't be proved 100%. All these people that have ridden and worked with Armstrong might ALL be lying.

But I believe it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Armstrong used drugs.

Try one more time to state my argument. You got closer. It is all there, go back and read it. See, you focus on Armstrong, I am focused on the officials surrounding the event. Can you state my argument for me, if you are correct we can move on, but I doubt it to be honest.

[whybother]

Try one more time to state my argument. You got closer. It is all there, go back and read it. See, you focus on Armstrong, I am focused on the officials surrounding the event. Can you state my argument for me, if you are correct we can move on, but I doubt it to be honest.

The thread is about Armstrong and him cheating.

The officials tested him with the tests that they had available. They allowed him to compete - not that that is relevant, seeing as athletes often get tested after competing.

I really don't know what your argument is. All I can see is that you're trying to say that Armstrong didn't cheat.

[isawasnake]

Try one more time to state my argument. You got closer. It is all there, go back and read it. See, you focus on Armstrong, I am focused on the officials surrounding the event. Can you state my argument for me, if you are correct we can move on, but I doubt it to be honest.

I really don't know what your argument is.

Case closed. And how can I discuss when somebody does not know the argument.

[whybother]

Try one more time to state my argument. You got closer. It is all there, go back and read it. See, you focus on Armstrong, I am focused on the officials surrounding the event. Can you state my argument for me, if you are correct we can move on, but I doubt it to be honest.

I really don't know what your argument is.

Case closed. And how can I discuss when somebody does not know the argument.

Yes ... it's clear that he cheated.

What is your argument?

[qdinthailand]

I used to race bicycles. I rose to the category 1 (amateur) level, and for 2 years held a professional license (racing in North America). I started racing after graduating from college.

Starting out in my first year just after graduation (1974), I didn't have a car. Getting rides to races was a problem for me.

This one time, in early June, just a couple months into my 'career', I went to a race with another person I didn't know. We had to leave early, so I carried along my thermos of coffee, drank that on the drive. The driver had been involved in 'performance lab' cycling training and testing programs all winter - me, I just started riding when the weather in Michigan warmed up enough to get out and ride. I was suprised to learn that we were in the same racing category - I thought he was a hot shot the way he talked.

I got 3rd in the race, losing by inches in the sprint; my driver finished way back in the field.

Boy, on the ride home I got pumped for answers about my caffein intake practices. Shoot - I drank coffee to get the body moving in the morning, not to prepare for competition.

Only later - following the 1984 LA Olympics I believe - where the U.S. team had been using 'caffein suppositories' - was caffein added to the UCI list of PEDs.

Edited November 4, 2012 by qdinthailand

[isawasnake]

Try one more time to state my argument. You got closer. It is all there, go back and read it. See, you focus on Armstrong, I am focused on the officials surrounding the event. Can you state my argument for me, if you are correct we can move on, but I doubt it to be honest.

I really don't know what your argument is.

Case closed. And how can I discuss when somebody does not know the argument.

Yes ... it's clear that he cheated.

What is your argument?

As I said, my argument at this point is that you clearly don't understand my argument, and it is useless discussing something with somebody that doesn't understand. Wouldn't life be great it you could just delay all your decisions.... you do your due diligence when buying a house, negotiate a price, buy the house, find something a couple years later, and say "oh, i found some termites, you must give me my money back". Real men don't live like that, and society has even taken lengths to stop people from doing stuff like that (Thank goodness).

More pertinent to this argument, is that real men also don't see others who make up their mind whenever they feel like it and blindly not see anything wrong with it.

You may say "real men don't cheat", but i'd say a real man would have either 1) found the termites, or 2) dealt with it like a man if he didn't.

[whybother]

As I said, my argument at this point is that you clearly don't understand my argument, and it is useless discussing something with somebody that doesn't understand. Wouldn't life be great it you could just delay all your decisions.... you do your due diligence when buying a house, negotiate a price, buy the house, find something a couple years later, and say "oh, i found some termites, you must give me my money back". Real men don't live like that, and society has even taken lengths to stop people from doing stuff like that (Thank goodness).

More pertinent to this argument, is that real men also don't see others who make up their mind whenever they feel like it and blindly not see anything wrong with it.

You may say "real men don't cheat", but i'd say a real man would have either 1) found the termites, or 2) dealt with it like a man if he didn't.

So you're back to the "He didn't get caught at the time, so he didn't cheat".

Buying a house that has it's problems hidden has nothing to do with cheating at sport and not getting caught at the time. In fact, in a lot of situations, if it can be proven that you deliberately hid something or lied about something, it can go against you. But let's not discuss houses.

The rules were that you can't use performance enhancing drugs. If you're argument is that he didn't use performance enhancing drugs, then we can discuss that.

If you're just arguing that he wasn't caught at the time, therefore the fact (overwhelming evidence) that he used drugs but didn't get caught means nothing, then we can discuss that.

Which is it?

[isawasnake]

There are officials during any sporting event, and their job is to officiate. Assuming his guilt, take examples from other sports.....

12 years after a world series victory, we find the bat used to hit the game winning home run was corked. Take their rings away?

12 years after a super bowl victory, yet to be seen footage exposes players to be reading an opposing teams playbook. Take their title away?

12 years after a golfer wins the masters, hitherto not seen footage exposes him to be moving his ball illegally. Take his title away?

I think in all cases it is a resounding NO. Is that fair.... well, that is another argument. I'm not saying it is fair. What I am saying is you'd have to "punish" them in other ways. Expose them for what they are, prove their guilt, and the sport should take strides to preclude similar acts in the future if possible. Officials should learn from it, not try to counteract their own ineptness a decade later.

[StreetCowboy]

There are officials during any sporting event, and their job is to officiate. Assuming his guilt, take examples from other sports.....

12 years after a world series victory, we find the bat used to hit the game winning home run was corked. Take their rings away?

12 years after a super bowl victory, yet to be seen footage exposes players to be reading an opposing teams playbook. Take their title away?

12 years after a golfer wins the masters, hitherto not seen footage exposes him to be moving his ball illegally. Take his title away?

I think in all cases it is a resounding NO. Is that fair.... well, that is another argument. I'm not saying it is fair. What I am saying is you'd have to "punish" them in other ways. Expose them for what they are, prove their guilt, and the sport should take strides to preclude similar acts in the future if possible. Officials should learn from it, not try to counteract their own ineptness a decade later.

It seems fair enough to retrospectively abandon the competition because the officials were unable to keep order; I'd like to see the same thing done for a dubious goal in 1966... but to go about trying to find someone else to award the trophy to? As you say, the officials do the best that they can at the time, and if that's not good enough, then the competition was flawed, not the result.

SC

[Mossfinn]

You're right, it can't be proved 100%. All these people that have ridden and worked with Armstrong might ALL be lying.

But I believe it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Armstrong used drugs.

If it can't be proved, then it can't be 'beyond reasonable doubt', which in a criminal court of law it has to be, I think it lies in the realms of 'balance of probabilities', which is more likely of a guilty verdict, but it would have to be a civil case in UK laws anyway.

All those that rode with him, struck a deal, any half decent brief will ride a wagon and horses through their testimony.

[whybother]

You're right, it can't be proved 100%. All these people that have ridden and worked with Armstrong might ALL be lying.

But I believe it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Armstrong used drugs.

If it can't be proved, then it can't be 'beyond reasonable doubt', which in a criminal court of law it has to be, I think it lies in the realms of 'balance of probabilities', which is more likely of a guilty verdict, but it would have to be a civil case in UK laws anyway.

All those that rode with him, struck a deal, any half decent brief will ride a wagon and horses through their testimony.

REASONABLE doubt. Not 0% doubt.

[Briggsy]

Right now Armstrong has bigger things to worry about the loss of his 7 Tour de France jerseys.

He will have to make settlements to recompense SCA for about 5 to 10 million dollars and the Sunday Times for about one million and possibly the ASO for about 3 million dollars. All this with a much reduced income as all his corporate sponsors have fled. And to boot, he has to try to dodge perjury charges for the downright lying under oath in his deposition in the SCA case.

Still, he is claimed to be worth around 150 million bucks and has cultivated a lot of politician friends so he should survive with a lot of cash to spare.