# Do you believe Lance Armstrong is clean?



## ryguy135 (Sep 24, 2010)

Just curious what public opinion is.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

nobody gives a flying fvck...


----------



## Brewtality (Jul 25, 2007)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> nobody gives a flying fvck...


You might not care but it is something that matters to a lot people.

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SSdirt29 (Dec 30, 2011)

hell no


----------



## SimpleJon (Mar 28, 2011)

I voted yes, but he should still keep his titles:
-partly because I think the USADA is BS. 
-partly because it was endemic in the late 90's and early mid 2000's. 
I don't think that there many who made it into the GC top 20, without doping and their team mates had to dope to help them. It should be the team managers and the UCI taking the rap for this not individual cyclists; it was a systemic problem not fraud or abuse by an individual.
I think the USADA is BS because I don't see what good muck racking through ancient history to witch hunt an individual has to do with their stated mission of protecting atheletes who don't cheat. All they are doing is tying up resources and budgets that should be used to protect todays atheletes over a sport that has done a lot more than most to clean up its act over the last few years. This appears to me to be either a personal vendetta or publicity stunt by USADA and its management.


----------



## PdlPwr (Nov 16, 2010)

SimpleJon said:


> I voted yes, but he should still keep his titles:
> -partly because I think the USADA is BS.
> -partly because it was endemic in the late 90's and early mid 2000's.
> I don't think that there many who made it into the top GC top 20, without doping and their team mates had to dope to help them. It should be the team managers and the UCI taking the rap for this not individual cyclists; it was a systemic problem not fraud or abuse by an individual.
> I think the USADA is BS because I don't see what good muck racking through ancient history to witch hunt an individual has to do with their stated mission of protecting atheletes who don't cheat. All they are doing is tying up resources and budgets that should be used to protect todays atheletes over a sport that has done a lot more than most to clean up its act over the last few years. This appears to me to be either a personal vendetta or publicity stunt by USADA and its management.


Yes, this.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

To be honest, I had the thought he took steroids in 2000 and 2001. His legs were enormous. Much greater than any you see on the tour these days. I told myself then it was the dedication to the sport. I didnt think he could pass the tests otherwise. I should have listened to my intuition. Today, I know he is guilty. Nonetheless, I admire what he was able to do on the bike. I'm still a fan of Lance. Always will be. We all have faults. But, it is time to move on. He needs to come clean, pay the piper and go on living and doing his thing.


----------



## FNCnca (Oct 5, 2012)

10, 15 years ago, who didn't dope?


----------



## Lance Strongarm (Oct 10, 2012)

No option for HELL NO!


----------



## ArmySlowRdr (Dec 19, 2003)

No but he is the winner and should so remain.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

It does not matter what one believes, what matters is actual Evidence, Belief is in something you are not certain of. So from the lack of Evidence I KNOW Lance is Innocent.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Yes, I do think he "doped". 

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


----------



## Dion (Oct 22, 2009)

Here are the options:

He _doped_, and beat others that were doping.

He _didn't_ dope, and beat others that were doping.

At this point, who really gives a flying f[_]ck?


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Whether or not you think the USADA is BS or not, there are regulatory organizations and rules of participation. If you break the rules or are found guilty of breaking the rules, there are consequences.

Personally, I think athletes should be able to pump their bodies with whatever makes them go faster. Rules are stupid.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

wmac said:


> If you break the rules or are found guilty of breaking the rules, there are consequences.


Sure, fail a test, lose a title. Landis, Contador... very simple.

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


----------



## Soupy777 (Sep 20, 2012)

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


----------



## Soupy777 (Sep 20, 2012)

Oh footnote for people who don't care why write on this thread ... Just a thought


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Soupy777 said:


> Heard the journalist dissecting the start of the 1000 pages of evidence


Evidence is something obtained under a proper legal process. Interviews with people conducted by a third party (with considerable influence over those people) is not "evidence". It is a food for thought, nothing more.

In any case, dead horse.


----------



## SSdirt29 (Dec 30, 2011)

Soupy777 said:


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


Yah I agree he's guilty but was that written with google translator ?


----------



## Soupy777 (Sep 20, 2012)

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


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Soupy777 said:


> if it's not fact I'm sure he will challenge


Where? Court already dismissed that correctly stating that this is a dispute between two private parties. Nothing to challenge.


----------



## Brewtality (Jul 25, 2007)

Soupy777 said:


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





Soupy777 said:


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


Do you have _any_ idea how hard your posts are to read? I seriously hate to play grammar nazi, but really, learn a little bit about sentence struction and punctuation.


----------



## 11 Bravo (Mar 12, 2004)

wmac said:


> Whether or not you think the USADA is BS or not, there are regulatory organizations and rules of participation. If you break the rules or are found guilty of breaking the rules, there are consequences................
> 
> .


I have only passively followed this process, but part of what is galling to a lot of people is that the USADA didn't really follow the rules either. It seems that they went back on things that were past the time limits and things like that. Just the way they went about seems to be troubling to a lot of people. The organization charged with enforcing the rules should also adhere to them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## 11 Bravo (Mar 12, 2004)

Brewtality said:


> Do you have _any_ idea how hard your posts are to read? I seriously hate to play grammar nazi, but really, learn a little bit about sentence struction and punctuation.


I don't think English is his first language. His profile says Belfast.


----------



## 50calray (Oct 25, 2010)

Yes but who didn't in those days? And yes, the USADA is BS.


----------



## albertdc (Mar 2, 2007)

For those that say he should be stripped of his titles, who should be given the wins for those? A majority of the 2nd place racers (3 of the 4, I believe) are PROVEN, admitted dopers that were caught and sanctioned within a few years of those races. Should THEY be given the titles? :what:
Considering he never failed a test, is now retired, the dates in question were a long time ago, and many other reasons, I believe he should keep his titles. He may well have been doping (part of me still hopes not and don't understand how he could have passed EVERY test if he had been), but also feel that in that era it was a moot point since everyone he was beating was also doping.... Doesn't make it right, but it would be beyond hypocritical to take the titles away from him and give it to other dopers.


Sent from my Galaxy S3


----------



## SimpleJon (Mar 28, 2011)

Axe said:


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


+1 
take a quick look at who the USADA actually are. A private organisation with no govt oversight that works on contract. Do people really think they should be able to act as some sort of super cop, judge, jury and executioner.
I for one hope the UCI tell them to get F**cked - produce the physical hard evidence or through court with all witness statements under oath and subject to cross examination. 
If I were a professional sports person I would be very concerned that some private company can ruin my career, reputation and income without sanction from the sports governing body or a court of law.


----------



## Brewtality (Jul 25, 2007)

11 Bravo said:


> I don't think English is his first language. His profile says Belfast.


Which Belfast?

Yahoo shows:

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

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


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

I do believe that Armstrong doped. Not only because of the testimony from several riders who I personally like and respect, such as Leipheimer and Hincapie, but also because that was the EPO era. I find it very hard to believe that Armstrong, or anyone for that matter, would have been able to go up against a doped-up peloton and succeed seven times. 

That said, though, these are performance-enhancing drugs, not performance-giving drugs. People commonly say that doping is what gives you that final 0.5% - 1% gain in order to win after you've already done everything you legally could to come back with fairly good results. I believe that if the whole peloton (including Armstrong) had been clean at the time, he still would have been fairly successful, with possibly a few TdF wins to his name. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

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

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

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


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Blurr said:


> It does not matter what one believes, what matters is actual Evidence, Belief is in something you are not certain of. So from the lack of Evidence I KNOW Lance is Innocent.


Blur, these are the facts, today it has been announced that 26, yes 26 witnesses and 11, yes 11 former team mates have given serious evidence against him, blur thats not a lack of evidence thats a mountain of evidence are you saying that all of these guys are payed off and its a massive conspiricy?

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


----------



## Icarusflies (Oct 10, 2012)

I believe that at that level nobody is 100% clean....


----------



## 11 Bravo (Mar 12, 2004)

Brewtality said:


> Which Belfast?
> 
> Yahoo shows:
> 
> ...


Touche':thumbsup:


----------



## bdjohnson121 (Jul 30, 2011)

No i do not believe he is clean, nor are the majority of pro athletes.


----------



## horsey24 (Mar 3, 2009)

and still with all the press releases in the last couple of days, USADA don't have any actual evidence...

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

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

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

If USADA want to do good, then witchhunt the doctors, team managers etc who brought this culture to cycling and get them out of the sport.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Look at this point despite the lack of physical evidence it pretty likely that Lance doped. However it you care to believe the testimony of others and take into account others who have been caught doping it seems to me that in this period the bulk of the cyclist were involved some levels of taking performance enhancing substances that they felt were banned or could be banned and so they hid their use. 

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

The best result that can come from this is to revise testing proceedures to minimize doping going forward. What is done is done. We will never know what a clean Lance could have done vs a clean Jan Ulrich? We only know that a dopped up Lance beat a dopped up Jan time and time again. Each rider still gave 110% of what they had.


----------



## jmal (Jul 16, 2009)

SimpleJon said:


> +1
> take a quick look at who the USADA actually are. A private organisation with no govt oversight that works on contract. Do people really think they should be able to act as some sort of super cop, judge, jury and executioner.
> I for one hope the UCI tell them to get F**cked - produce the physical hard evidence or through court with all witness statements under oath and subject to cross examination.
> If I were a professional sports person I would be very concerned that some private company can ruin my career, reputation and income without sanction from the sports governing body or a court of law.


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

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


----------



## Tystevens (Nov 2, 2011)

albertdc said:


> For those that say he should be stripped of his titles, who should be given the wins for those? A majority of the 2nd place racers (3 of the 4, I believe) are PROVEN, admitted dopers that were caught and sanctioned within a few years of those races. Should THEY be given the titles? :what:
> Considering he never failed a test, is now retired, the dates in question were a long time ago, and many other reasons, I believe he should keep his titles. He may well have been doping (part of me still hopes not and don't understand how he could have passed EVERY test if he had been), but also feel that in that era it was a moot point since everyone he was beating was also doping.... Doesn't make it right, but it would be beyond hypocritical to take the titles away from him and give it to other dopers.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S3


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

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

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


----------



## Tystevens (Nov 2, 2011)

Blurr said:


> It does not matter what one believes, what matters is actual Evidence, Belief is in something you are not certain of. So from the lack of Evidence I KNOW Lance is Innocent.


Well, Lance made certain of that by the strategic way that he handled the USADA charges, didn't he.

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

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

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


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Screw Clemens and Bonds, Armstrong took a page out of R Kelly's legal strategy book:


----------



## pursuiter (May 28, 2008)

And what of all those extra "team only" Treks that made it to ebay and are alleged to have been sold to help fund the doping program, didn't Trek have to know what was going on? Same for Gorski. Not to mention Trek shutting down LeMond for speaking out about Lance's doping.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> ...Blur if somebody shoots somebody and there is no gun found and no hard evidence apart from 26 witnesses, mate thats enough evidence to well n truly say he is guilty, i cannot believe the about of people that chose to keep their heads buried in the sand about this issue...


OJ disagrees with your theory...


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

Tystevens said:


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


That's possibly the worst thing that could be done at this stage. If we want to move forward, admissions, apologies, and plans for progress need to come forward. The blame-game is appropriate for the kindergarten playground, nowhere else.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

If the syringe does not fit, you must aquit.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

How about this question: do you believe Lance is the mastermind or do you believe there is another person holding the puppet strings?


----------



## Lance Strongarm (Oct 10, 2012)

Lance is not a puppet!


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

The whole thing was a get rich scheme designed by Lance the ego maniac. If you win, you get on tv which gives you more pull with corporate marketing $.


----------



## rangeriderdave (Aug 29, 2008)

Did Lance dope?,most likely. Was everyone clean ,no way. What does the USADA have to do with events that happen in France ?I know Lance is a American ,but to question events from another country and from another time seems to be a witch hunt ,publicity stunt.


----------



## popcola (Aug 30, 2012)

Pro sports motto "If you aint cheating you aint trying"


----------



## jjaguar (Oct 6, 2011)

albertdc said:


> For those that say he should be stripped of his titles, who should be given the wins for those?


Just out of curiosity, I took a look at the GC standings for the 2002 Tour because it was Armstrong's 4th win, right in the middle of his streak. I had to go all the way down to Carlos Sastre in 10th place to find the first rider that hadn't been caught, confessed, or implicated in doping.


----------



## LOUVILLE FAT KID (Oct 11, 2012)

*Yes no so what*

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


----------



## LOUVILLE FAT KID (Oct 11, 2012)

Good thread though...


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

OK, let's go to work on this;



.WestCoastHucker. said:


> nobody gives a flying fvck...


Then I am "nobody", along with many others in this thread and elsewhere.



SimpleJon said:


> I think the USADA is BS because I don't see what good muck racking through ancient history to witch hunt an individual has to do with their stated mission of protecting atheletes who don't cheat. All they are doing is tying up resources and budgets that should be used to protect todays atheletes over a sport that has done a lot more than most to clean up its act over the last few years. This appears to me to be either a personal vendetta or publicity stunt by USADA and its management.


USADA didn't unilaterally decide to initiate the investigation on a whim. Evidence came forward that required them - under their mandate - to investigate further. We now have the end result of that investigation. If a law enforcement agency was presented with information about a crime, do you think it is BS if they investigate? One primary method of protecting today's athletes is to dismantle elements of the doping culture in sports. Armstrong and his associates are still involved in the sport up to present day. Armstrong was competing in the TdF up until 2 years ago, and was up until recently competing in other sports (triathlons) whose anti-doping also runs through USADA. In total now 11 riders, team doctors, and team management have been charged and/or sanctioned as a result of this investigation. That's not a selective witch hunt.



SimpleJon said:


> +1
> take a quick look at who the USADA actually are. A private organisation with no govt oversight that works on contract. Do people really think they should be able to act as some sort of super cop, judge, jury and executioner.
> I for one hope the UCI tell them to get F**cked - produce the physical hard evidence or through court with all witness statements under oath and subject to cross examination.
> If I were a professional sports person I would be very concerned that some private company can ruin my career, reputation and income without sanction from the sports governing body or a court of law.


You do realize that there is a wealth of information strongly suggesting that the UCI is a corrupt organization who has been enriching themselves through their "property" of cycling, hiding out in Switzerland above any legal reproach, and has been enabling the doping of certain star riders like Armstrong though preferential treatment that allowed him (but not many other riders) to bypass and dodge tests and sanctions? Why on earth would you want the UCI to tell USADA to get F**cked?

The concept of USADA being judge, jury, and executioner is a myth. Armstrong had the choice to proceed to an arbitration hearing in which he would have selected 50% of the arbitrators, in keeping with his due process. Instead, he declined to participate in the arbitration.



Dion said:


> Here are the options:
> 
> He _doped_, and beat others that were doping.
> 
> ...


As stated above, I give a flying f[_]ck, as do many others. Your list of options presented above is far from complete. How about this option;

He was allowed to dope to a greater degree, have advance warning of testing, and ability to escape from and bury positive tests, and beat other doping riders who were not given such preferential treatment.



Axe said:


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


The USADA report contains both analytical and non-analytical evidence, as well as details of past analytical positives that were covered up.



11 Bravo said:


> I have only passively followed this process, but part of what is galling to a lot of people is that the USADA didn't really follow the rules either. It seems that they went back on things that were past the time limits and things like that. Just the way they went about seems to be troubling to a lot of people. The organization charged with enforcing the rules should also adhere to them.


It is true that USADA has gone back beyond the usual SOL (Statute of Limitations) but they had legal precedent in doing so, and were prepared to put their sanction and use of precedent going past the normal SOL under scrutiny from a legal panel of arbitrators, 50% of whom would have been selected by Armstrong. Armstrong declined to participate in this hearing which a Federal Court decision by Judge Sam Sparks already ruled could be reasonably expected to give Armstrong his due process.



50calray said:


> Yes but who didn't in those days? And yes, the USADA is BS.


Lots of riders doped, but didn't have Armstrong's "get out of jail free cards" to play, which allowed him to dope more, and more often than others who were getting caught.



Axe said:


> Evidence is something obtained under a proper legal process. Interviews with people conducted by a third party (with considerable influence over those people) is not "evidence". It is a food for thought, nothing more.


Incorrect. The witness interviews were conducted by USADA. The Department of Justice did not allow USADA to access their evidence. This is on public record. It is true that the testimony they provided was likely to lead to perjury charges if it differed in any material way from the testimony they provided previously in Grand Jury proceedings with the Department of Justice. Requiring consistent testimony to two different parties at two different times while under oath, or else face perjury charges, doesn't seem like a problem to me.



erik1245 said:


> That said, though, these are performance-enhancing drugs, not performance-giving drugs. People commonly say that doping is what gives you that final 0.5% - 1% gain in order to win after you've already done everything you legally could to come back with fairly good results. I believe that if the whole peloton (including Armstrong) had been clean at the time, he still would have been fairly successful, with possibly a few TdF wins to his name. Unfortunately, that was not the case.


People in the know (Jonathan Vaughters, etc.) have pegged the performance benefits of oxygen vector drugs like EPO at 5%-15% depending on the rider's individual response. Some respond more effectively than others, meaning that the pecking order of performance and results while doping may be completely different than if all the riders were clean.

Armstrong's prior visits to the TdF in the years before he started using EPO were very poor in terms of overall classification. Could not climb, could not time trial, often could not even finish all stages. Then, under EPO and the full doping program his results relative to the competition were a magical transformation. Seems like Armstrong was one of these "super responders" who was able to reshuffle the whole deck of results through doping.



albertdc said:


> For those that say he should be stripped of his titles, who should be given the wins for those? A majority of the 2nd place racers (3 of the 4, I believe) are PROVEN, admitted dopers that were caught and sanctioned within a few years of those races. Should THEY be given the titles? :what:
> Considering he never failed a test, is now retired, the dates in question were a long time ago, and many other reasons, I believe he should keep his titles. He may well have been doping (part of me still hopes not and don't understand how he could have passed EVERY test if he had been), but also feel that in that era it was a moot point since everyone he was beating was also doping.... Doesn't make it right, but it would be beyond hypocritical to take the titles away from him and give it to other dopers.


As has been said already a million times, no one has proposed giving the titles to any other riders. They can leave a blank at the top, or put an asterisk, or similar. In addition to the best medical help to help him ride the "fine line" on testing, Armstrong had advance warning of tests, and had positive tests either covered up or dismissed inappropriately. The sport's governing body the UCI had Armstrong as their cash cow gateway to expanding the sport's reach into the lucrative North American market, and they protected Armstrong's reputation at every step along the way, plus made it easier for him than other riders, to succeed as their chosen one.



jjaguar said:


> Just out of curiosity, I took a look at the GC standings for the 2002 Tour because it was Armstrong's 4th win, right in the middle of his streak. I had to go all the way down to Carlos Sastre in 10th place to find the first rider that hadn't been caught, confessed, or implicated in doping.


Blank space or asterisk in results.



horsey24 said:


> If USADA want to do good, then witchhunt the doctors, team managers etc who brought this culture to cycling and get them out of the sport.


That's exactly what USADA has done. The so-called "Armstrong Case" wasn't just an Armstrong case at all, it was co-conspiracy charge against a group of five people who were team doctors, team managers, and a rider (Armstrong) who was very complicit in enabling the entire process, and pushing it on other team members. Of course Armstrong gets all the media attention and so one might believe it was just about him, but that's far from the truth.



heyyall said:


> How about this question: do you believe Lance is the mastermind or do you believe there is another person holding the puppet strings?


Not the mastermind, but certainly one of the ringleaders who was fully behind the curtains, and very complicit in both making it all run and also pushing it on other riders, some of whom had not yet previously been doping.



rangeriderdave said:


> Did Lance dope?,most likely. Was everyone clean ,no way. What does the USADA have to do with events that happen in France ?I know Lance is a American ,but to question events from another country and from another time seems to be a witch hunt ,publicity stunt.


Armstrong is a U.S. athlete licensed through USA Cycling. The entire agreement structured between IOC/USOC/WADA/USADA/UCI/USAC with respect to anti-doping puts the investigation into Armstrong clearly under their jurisdiction and mandate. The UCI has already publicly stated that USADA has this jurisdiction, although they have been reluctant up to this point to agree with the sanction (they have 20 days to appeal the issue to the CAS / Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland).


----------



## Spinning Lizard (Nov 27, 2009)

LOUVILLE FAT KID said:


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


Not true, some people react better to the drugs then others.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Spinning Lizard said:


> Not true, some people react better to the drugs then others.


Some people also have a more sophisticated medical team to help them keep closer to the allowable limits without going over.

Some people are also given de facto permission to dope more, knowing they have a "get out of jail free card" if they ever do happen to trip any of the tests.


----------



## mbco1975 (Feb 28, 2012)

There should be another option. No, but I'm waiting to see what the UCI decide.

Levi Leipheimer, George Hincapie, Tom Danielson, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie have just been given an extremely light six month ban because they gave evidence against Armstrong to Usada. That was a nice incentive for them.


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

11 Bravo said:


> I don't think English is his first language. His profile says Belfast.


I think English is the primary language spoken in Ireland.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

mbco1975 said:


> Levi Leipheimer, George Hincapie, Tom Danielson, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie have just been given an extremely light six month ban because they gave evidence against Armstrong to Usada. That was a nice incentive for them.


Why else would witnesses volunteer to give testimony (yes, they volunteered and were not forced other than by knowing others would probably give testimony that implicated them) unless there was something in it for them? If the same size of book were to be thrown at them regardless of whether or not they cooperated, then no one would cooperate. Seems to be a very commonly used and accepted method in investigations with formal law enforcement agencies. Not saying that all plea bargains are a good deal for the public, but conceptually it makes sense.

USADA is on public record stating that significant reductions in the sanction were on the table for Armstrong, but he chose to maintain his denials and claims of innocence.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Gaelic.


----------



## mbco1975 (Feb 28, 2012)

Circlip said:


> USADA is on public record stating that significant reductions in the sanction were on the table for Armstrong, but he chose to maintain his denials and claims of innocence.


Yes, but the reduced sanction offered to Armstrong was a lot harsher than a sixth month ban. Why was his to be so much worse if he was admitting to the same thing?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

mbco1975 said:


> Yes, but the reduced sanction offered to Armstrong was a lot harsher than a sixth month ban. Why was his to be so much worse if he was admitting to the same thing?


The scope of his involvement with the conspiracy was much larger, in terms of being one of the ringleaders and enablers, fraud, payoffs, witness intimidation, etc.

I also ask you to consider checking into the UCI a bit more instead of expecting them to provide clarity. They are complicit in much of this, and their heads are also on the block as a result. They are not an impartial observer or overseer.


----------



## horsey24 (Mar 3, 2009)

circlip, speculation is not evidence.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

horsey24 said:


> circlip, speculation is not evidence.


Which part is speculation?


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

horsey24 said:


> circlip, speculation is not evidence.


What about financial records?


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

But how much of a conspiracy could Lance actually initiate in '98 & '99 when nobody thought he would ride again? He was essentially written off with the cancer. I can't see him rallying the troops in that time with hope he could win. Somebody else must have been very confident that the pieces would fall into place. Now starting in 2002 or certainly when the record was in grasp, Lance would have been the leader in doping. That seems to be supported by the testimonies, at least.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

heyyall said:


> But how much of a conspiracy could Lance actually initiate in '98 & '99 when nobody thought he would ride again? He was essentially written off with the cancer. I can't see him rallying the troops in that time with hope he could win. Somebody else must have been very confident that the pieces would fall into place. Now starting in 2002 or certainly when the record was in grasp, Lance would have been the leader in doping. That seems to be supported by the testimonies, at least.


Armstrong finished 4th in the Vuelta in 1998 after his comeback from illness. He was already the designated team leader going into that event, and that being one of the higher finishes ever by an American in one of the three grand tours, was obviously given the team leadership once again going into the 1999 TdF. Armstrong had already amassed significant financial prize winnings and cumulative salary by that time, had lucrative endorsement deals with huge companies (Oakley, Nike) plus the connections and experience of Johan Bruyneel and Dr. Ferrari. Most of the pieces were already in place at that time.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

AZ.MTNS said:


> What about financial records?


Yep, a cool million of very traceable dollars. That's not counting the cash transactions.


----------



## horsey24 (Mar 3, 2009)

there is no law against paying money for a doctor.

what evidence links that money with drugs?


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Circlip said:


> Armstrong finished 4th in the Vuelta in 1998 after his comeback from illness. He was already the designated team leader going into that event, and that being one of the higher finishes ever by an American in one of the three grand tours, was obviously given the team leadership once again going into the 1999 TdF. Armstrong had already amassed significant financial prize winnings and cumulative salary by that time, had lucrative endorsement deals with huge companies (Oakley, Nike) plus the connections and experience of Johan Bruyneel and Dr. Ferrari. Most of the pieces were already in place at that time.


Lance would have been the perfect prey too. Excellent skills and nothing to lose. He could go for broke and somebody, perhaps Lance but I don't think so, would know the answer on how to make it happen. Now Lance could have said, give me everything you got. Or somebody else could have pulled him aside and tapped his ego with a "I promise you a podium finish if you do just what I say". We may never know, but I think it is more the latter than the former. (and no, I'm not making Lance a victim here).


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

horsey24 said:


> there is no law against paying money for a doctor.
> 
> what evidence links that money with drugs?


The simple fact that it was paid to Ferrari. Google him, spoon feeding isn't on my list of things to do.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

horsey24 said:


> there is no law against paying money for a doctor.
> 
> what evidence links that money with drugs?


Correct. People pay very good premiums for executive health services. Cancer treatment can cost millions, too. But what ailment would a world-class athlete be seeking treatment for that cost so much yet was strictly confidential?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

heyyall said:


> Lance would have been the perfect prey too. Excellent skills and nothing to lose. He could go for broke and somebody, perhaps Lance but I don't think so, would know the answer on how to make it happen. Now Lance could have said, give me everything you got. Or somebody else could have pulled him aside and tapped his ego with a "I promise you a podium finish if you do just what I say". We may never know, but I think it is more the latter than the former. (and no, I'm not making Lance a victim here).


Now that would be speculation! 

On that _*speculative*_ note, I'd guess some of each, but that's pure conjecture.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

horsey24 said:


> there is no law against paying money for a doctor.
> 
> what evidence links that money with drugs?


Ferrari is a sports phsyiologist and haemotologist, not an oncologist (for Heyall's benefit below). He is irrefutably known and essentially publicly self-admitted as a doping doc, through various criminal investigations in his home country of Italy where he was already banned for life from working with athletes even prior to the USADA investigation. Note the famous public quote from Ferrari speaking about EPO, "This material is no more dangerous than drinking ten liters of orange juice."



heyyall said:


> Correct. People pay very good premiums for executive health services. Cancer treatment can cost millions, too. But what ailment would a world-class athlete be seeking treatment for that cost so much yet was strictly confidential?


----------



## horsey24 (Mar 3, 2009)

heyyall said:


> Correct. People pay very good premiums for executive health services. Cancer treatment can cost millions, too. But what ailment would a world-class athlete be seeking treatment for that cost so much yet was strictly confidential?


medical records are legally confidential for all persons. the rest of your statement is speculation, my original point.


----------



## horsey24 (Mar 3, 2009)

AZ.MTNS said:


> The simple fact that it was paid to Ferrari. Google him, spoon feeding isn't on my list of things to do.


speculation again. if I signed up to Ferarri for a training program and pay him for it, does that make me a drug cheat?

yes ferrari is dodgy
yes lance is dodgy
yes there is evidence to show lance was ferrari's client
but where is the evidence of drugs?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

horsey24 said:


> medical records are legally confidential for all persons. the rest of your statement is speculation, my original point.


There are many witnesses who have testified under oath now with direct first-hand knowledge about Armstrong's doping programs administered by Ferrari. On the entire spectrum of speculation this item is very, very low, especially when taking all the corroborating evidence and information into account.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

horsey24 said:


> speculation again. if I signed up to Ferarri for a training program and pay him for it, does that make me a drug cheat?
> 
> yes ferrari is dodgy
> yes lance is dodgy
> ...


You haven't actually read USADA's 202 page summary, have you? Not that I would blame you. It's a big document that most people probably don't care to devote the time it would take to examine. I freely admit that suggesting you haven't read the document is just speculation on my part.


----------



## horsey24 (Mar 3, 2009)

i know, but if lance was to defend himself, he could easily get as many witnesses to say he is clean...
also none of the witnesses are credible, they are all drug cheats and liars. none of them admitted to cheating until USADA offered them a deal.


----------



## roadie scum (Jan 21, 2011)

horsey24 said:


> speculation again. if I signed up to Ferarri for a training program and pay him for it, does that make me a drug cheat?
> 
> yes ferrari is dodgy
> yes lance is dodgy
> ...


Lance?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

horsey24 said:


> i know, but if lance was to defend himself, he could easily get as many witnesses to say he is clean...


Logic above does not work. Since no one was with Lance 365x24 no one can reasonably testify that he didn't dope. All they can state is that they saw no doping while they were in his presence.



horsey24 said:


> also none of the witnesses are credible, they are all drug cheats and liars. none of them admitted to cheating until USADA offered them a deal.


26 witnesses, some of whom are not even riders (therefore claim of drug cheat is irrelevant to them). All liars you say, even with a mountain of corroborating evidence, but Armstrong is telling the truth? It actually works against you to provide posts that defy reason.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> nobody gives a flying fvck...


If that is true, why is he front page news (Above the fold in many ares) around the world and not just in the cycling community?


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

Lance should have used the chewbacca defense.

Sj


----------



## Whason (Sep 15, 2008)

ryguy135 said:


> Just curious what public opinion is.


'

He seems pretty clean when he's not racing, I'm sure he showers daily. During rides and after I'm not so sure.


----------



## Joules (Oct 12, 2005)

for fvck's sake...


does anyone honestly believe any pro road racer is clean? Or any professional athlete at all? If you do, do also believe in the tooth fairy?


----------



## Lars_D (May 24, 2011)

Not only is he a drug head, but the spin cycles that he has put his name on stink. They are too small for any one over 6'. It's very frustrating. Even if I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, one workout on his spin cycles would change my mind.


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

Joules said:


> for fvck's sake...
> 
> does anyone honestly believe any pro road racer is clean? Or any professional athlete at all? If you do, do also believe in the tooth fairy?


Yeah, I do. I believe most, probably the vast majority of professional athletes, are clean. Not so much in pro cycling, sure, but that only accounts for a tiny percentage of pro athletes worldwide. Anyway, the "they're all at it" argument is a council of despair used by those who seek to excuse the cheating. Cynicism as a mask for supporting the rotten status quo.

Not so sure about the tooth fairy, someone's going to have to kill one and dissect it before I'm convinced.


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

I wonder if he kept his drugs in his coach purse
Saved by the spambot again 

Sj


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

SlowerJoe said:


> I wonder if he kept his drugs in his coach purse
> Saved by the spambot again


Sorry, that was just me playing with my sock puppet account again. Trying to get a job as a Coach outlet store sales rep, figuring it would help me cause if I show them how industrious I am spamming forums. j/k I'm sure a mod with admin rights to this forum will clean them out soon. Spammers have been coming in hard lately.


----------



## mmgn (Oct 12, 2012)

wow, can't beleive so many people think he is on dope, I believe he is clean.


----------



## Nrlions (Aug 9, 2012)

He was the leader in a huge cycling doping ring. He got blood transfusions after his races to have clean blood. As much as I hate to say it, no he wasn't clean


----------



## Doedrums (Mar 7, 2010)

mmgn said:


> wow, can't beleive so many people think he is on dope, I believe he is clean.


IF you really believe he is clean, I have some beach front property in Iowa I'd like to sell you!


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

mmgn said:


> wow, can't beleive so many people think he is on dope, I believe he is clean.


Hahahaha, your not one of those people in that cult that think the earth is still flat are you?


----------



## Lance Strongarm (Oct 10, 2012)

Everyone knows that the world is flat. Well, except near New Zealand where it curves a little bit.


----------



## jmmUT (Sep 15, 2008)

Batter Up!


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

mmgn said:


> wow, can't beleive so many people think he is on dope, I believe he is clean.


Hoping the above is sarcasm, but know that you do not stand alone. Lance is with you all the way (see awesome vid compilation at link below);

Lance Armstrong could face perjury charges following USADA allegations - Telegraph


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Well he took PED and did everything everyone else was doing....

I don't think he ever promised not to take PEDs 

Now they make at least the Olympic atheletes promise not to take drugs....

He was confronted with a set of rules.......and passed those tests.....

Just like everyone else who didn't get caught.

Migual Indrain holds the world record for the slowest resting heartbeart 27 or something....


You think that might have something to do with drugs?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

jeffscott said:


> Well he took PED and did everything everyone else was doing....
> 
> I don't think he ever promised not to take PEDs


That's exactly what everyone promises contractually in writing (or electronic equivalent) when they apply for a UCI race license through their national cycling federation.

This is the fundamental basis on which Armstrong was charged and sanctioned.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Circlip said:


> Say what??? That's exactly what everyone promises contractually in writing (or electronic equivalent) when they apply for a UCI race license through their national cycling federation.


When did they add that clause.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

jeffscott said:


> When did they add that clause.


Admittedly I can't recall exactly, but it's been a lot of years. Certainly within the time frame that Armstrong has been racing, and I'm 99.9% sure within the range of years that his string of seven TdF exploits falls within.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Circlip said:


> Admittedly I can't recall exactly, but it's been a lot of years. Certainly within the time frame that Armstrong has been racing, and I'm 99.9% sure within the range of years that his string of seven TdF exploits falls within.


I pulled upit doping rules (UCI).....it does mention it is a riders resposiblitiy to ensure that no PDE enters his body.....

The rules refer to an update that occurred in 2004 to bring the rules in-line with Olympic requirements....

I doubt the older rules are easily available......but those rules should be used to judge somebody competing at that time.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

jeffscott said:


> I pulled upit doping rules (UCI).....it does mention it is a riders resposiblitiy to ensure that no PDE enters his body.....
> 
> The rules refer to an update that occurred in 2004 to bring the rules in-line with Olympic requirements....


Yes, the UCI came into compliance with WADA code in 2004 otherwise all cycling events were going to be nixed from the Olympics. Cycling - via the UCI - was the last and final holdout among all Olympic sports to agree to the WADA code. What I cannot recall with any certainty is whether there was an alternate, but still enforceable, anti-doping agreement tied to licenses and the license application process prior to 2004. I'm pretty certain there was, but not 100% positive. I didn't really pay close attention, because I had no qualms about signing off on my agreement to any anti-doping compliance measures and rules.



jeffscott said:


> I doubt the older rules are easily available......but those rules should be used to judge somebody competing at that time.


The WADA code and rules are retroactive. The rider signs off on their agreement to the WADA code during the licensing process. If the rider has a "shady" past and doesn't want to be subject to retroactive processes, they have the option to not apply for their license. Armstrong chose to apply. Case closed.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Circlip said:


> Yes, the UCI came into compliance with WADA code in 2004 otherwise all cycling events were going to be nixed from the Olympics. Cycling - via the UCI - was the last and final holdout among all Olympic sports to agree to the WADA code. What I cannot recall with any certainty is whether there was an alternate, but still enforceable, anti-doping agreement tied to licenses and the license application process prior to 2004. I'm pretty certain there was, but not 100% positive. I didn't really pay close attention, because I had no qualms about signing off on my agreement to any anti-doping compliance measures and rules.
> 
> The WADA code and rules are retroactive. The rider signs off on their agreement to the WADA code during the licensing process. If the rider has a "shady" past and doesn't want to be subject to retroactive processes, they have the option to not apply for their license. Armstrong chose to apply. Case closed.


nope not case closed maybe for you.....but retroactive rules are not fair by any standard....

BTW what clause makes it retroactive.


----------



## pursuiter (May 28, 2008)

jeffscott said:


> I don't think he ever promised not to take PEDs ...


His contract with Coke and USPS promised that he followed all doping rules and his agent changed the Coke contract to read that Lance was clean and would pay back all $$ if Lance failed a dope test (sneaky agent, naive Coke executives).



> The civil arbitration in Nov 2005 was called to adjudicate between Armstrong (and his company Tailwind Sports) against SCA Promotions Inc and Ted Lyonhamman Insurance Services. The latter were reluctant to pay out the $5  million bonus due to Armstrong after he won his sixth *consecutive Tour de France, as rumours spread as to his possible use of performance-enhancing drugs.
> 
> The insurance company and SCA wanted assurances that he was not doping before paying out, Armstrong wanted his money so, at Armstrong's insistence, they went to court.
> 
> ...


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

jeffscott said:


> btw what clause makes it retroactive.


24.5 which then references Article 10 in turn.


----------



## BacDoc (May 31, 2011)

You want evidence? Under all those Trek and Livestrong decals this is the bike Lance used for his tour wins The Rasta Works Ganja Pro 4:20:










What was he on? He was on the Ganja 6 hrs a day! Tough long rides are a lot less painful when you're on the Ganja!


----------



## mbco1975 (Feb 28, 2012)

SlowerJoe said:


> Lance should have used the chewbacca defense.
> 
> Sj


:lol::lol: I love that episode.....

...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

This Postal rider did the right thing:

BBC Sport - Lance Armstrong case creates an unlikely hero


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Az, as always, good stuff.


----------



## dickeydoo (May 11, 2007)

^^^^ Notice there is an ad for EPO-Boost in Az's link.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Well, the local nutrition store today was running a radio ad for over the counter human growth hormone supplement that was guaranteed to add muscle mass in less than a month.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

heyyall said:


> Well, the local nutrition store today was running a radio ad for over the counter human growth hormone supplement that was guaranteed to add muscle mass in less than a month.


Also, don't forget to completely disregard any instructions or warnings on the label. Whatever you can fit in your stomach is the proper dose.


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

Circlip said:


> Also, don't forget to completely disregard any instructions or warnings on the label. Whatever you can fit in your stomach is the proper dose.


Dammit, I just had my stomach size reduced to combat my weight control issues - now I gotta go get it increased so I can be strong n fast. :madman::madman::madman:


----------



## adam728 (Jan 25, 2006)

AZ.MTNS said:


> This Postal rider did the right thing:
> 
> BBC Sport - Lance Armstrong case creates an unlikely hero


Great that Mercier resisted the pressure, and even made the hard choice to walk away. BUT, what part of this gives him the "hero" label? Didn't try and bring it to light, get it stopped, etc (from the way the story reads anyway).


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Circlip said:


> 24.5 which then references Article 10 in turn.


Of course it does, the entire thing states they can do absolutely anything they want, which is amazing you or anyone else would support an organization that writes its own rules while coming down on Lance for the organizations subjective accusations on his supposedly ( never proven) not following the rules.

Really the USADA has done more to encourage Doping than otherwise, with their draconian witch hunts, their blackmailing of atheletes to get the accusations they are looking for they are sending a message to the Youth that it is Impossible to have great success without Cheating, how wonderful, I wonder if they will now find a way to go back and Strip Jack Lalane of all the great superhuman feats he did 

Edit: And what is the point in having testing if the USADA can merely decide you were cheating anyhow?


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Blurr said:


> Of course it does, the entire thing states they can do absolutely anything they want, which is amazing you or anyone else would support an organization that writes its own rules while coming down on Lance for the organizations subjective accusations on his supposedly ( never proven) not following the rules.
> 
> Really the USADA has done more to encourage Doping than otherwise, with their draconian witch hunts, their blackmailing of atheletes to get the accusations they are looking for they are sending a message to the Youth that it is Impossible to have great success without Cheating, how wonderful, I wonder if they will now find a way to go back and Strip Jack Lalane of all the great superhuman feats he did
> 
> Edit: And what is the point in having testing if the USADA can merely decide you were cheating anyhow?


Blur, you must be takin the piss, i read some ridiculous things on here but this is right up there with the best of em......


----------



## tl1 (Dec 21, 2003)

PdlPwr said:


> Yes, this.


Make it three because the entire pro peloton was on the juice in one way or the other during Armstrong's tenure. Doing a better, more professional job of juicing was just one more integral component of _winning_ and _being a winner_ on the highest level of competition on the world stage. His wins and titles should stand because he was the best athlete and the best at the doping game too.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> Blur, you must be takin the piss, i read some ridiculous things on here but this is right up there with the best of em......


Totally agree.

Talk about a poast that makes absolutely no sense. Especially when the info is out there to read.


----------



## Sandrenseren (Dec 29, 2011)

ryguy135 said:


> Just curious what public opinion is.


Okay, then where are the option to answer that I don't give a rats ass, I still admire him for what he did on a bike, no matter what some suits in a courtroom decides years later?


----------



## 41ants (Jun 12, 2007)

Sandrenseren said:


> Okay, then where are the option to answer that I don't give a rats ass, I still admire him for what he did on a bike, no matter what some suits in a courtroom decides years later?


Yup, I don't care if he doped or not..much like i don't care if people are doping in the NFL, NCAA, MLB, or if the guy next to me in the gym is all dieseled up.

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Sandrenseren said:


> Okay, then where are the option to answer that I don't give a rats ass, I still admire him for what he did on a bike, no matter what some suits in a courtroom decides years later?


This save there is no courtroom


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

I feel sorry for all the kids that looked up to him. He knew he was a role model but continued to dope up year after year. 
So he (Lance) knew all along he could not of won the TDF year after year without being on performance enhancing drugs....why else would he have been on it.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

What jock sniffing head-in-the sand dimwits like Blur ignore are the non dopers in the Armstrong era. Those are the guys who deserve admiration for courage:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...preciating-clean-riders-in-the-epo-era_258522

http://m.guardiannews.com/sport/201...bitter-lance-armstrong?cat=sport&type=article

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1701415/Cadel-Evans-a-true-champion,-says-Hamilton

http://www.independent.ie/sport/oth...ne-else-its-your-choice-admit-it-3257272.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SlopeRiderSC (Oct 14, 2012)

Clear now that LA is in deep trouble. But what can we say about all those that were 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc... behind him during his long reign on the Tour ?

LA might be deleted from the results and then what ? Who's going to be declared winner of the Tour and what will happen ?
Ullrich, Vinokurov, Klöden, Basso, etc...
That's a joke...


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

Of course he did. He's a top athlete that was winning a lot. It's what they do...


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

This question has been asked and answered probably 50 times already in all the various Armstrong threads, but in for a penny in for a pound, so I'll answer it yet once again.

Here`s a link to the latest comments from Christian Prudhomme, race director for the Tour de France suggesting that the best resolution is to leave a blank spot in the results i.e. no winner (as has been discussed and proposed several times in this thread already);

Tour De France Director Against Reassigning Armstrongâ€™s Victories | Cyclingnews.com



SlopeRiderSC said:


> Clear now that LA is in deep trouble. But what can we say about all those that were 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc... behind him during his long reign on the Tour ?
> 
> LA might be deleted from the results and then what ? Who's going to be declared winner of the Tour and what will happen ?
> Ullrich, Vinokurov, Klöden, Basso, etc...
> That's a joke...


----------



## coal mountain (Jul 9, 2012)

i have seen through LA for awhile, and i do not support his racing actions. but on the tittles i think they should stand as a reminder of what happened. all too often history is written by the victors. LA not sure if the Postal money was tax dollars or not. also how much does livestrong benefit cancer patients? 
my hate of cheaters is strong but my ability to forgive is greater, LA justapologizee and we can move on. help clean up sports.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Circlip said:


> This question has been asked and answered probably 50 times already in all the various Armstrong threads, but in for a penny in for a pound, so I'll answer it yet once again.
> 
> Here`s a link to the latest comments from Christian Prudhomme, race director for the Tour de France suggesting that the best resolution is to leave a blank spot in the results i.e. no winner (as has been discussed and proposed several times in this thread already);
> 
> Tour De France Director Against Reassigning Armstrong's Victories | Cyclingnews.com


How idiotic can you get, regardless of if he was guilty or not, if the titles exist currently or not, Lance will always be known as the person who won the tour de france seven times.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Blurr said:


> How idiotic can you get, regardless of if he was guilty or not, if the titles exist currently or not, Lance will always be known as the person who won the tour de france seven times.


No, he will be remembered as the guy who cheated his was to 7 tour wins, you left out the 'cheated' part.
Blurr while i respect your sticking to your guns and persistence in these lance threads are you a dead set raving lunatic or what?


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> No, he will be remembered as the guy who cheated his was to 7 tour wins, you left out the 'cheated' part.
> Blurr while i respect your sticking to your guns and persistence in these lance threads are you a dead set raving lunatic or what?


Days off and the weather sucks, so may as well argue


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Blurr said:


> How idiotic can you get, regardless of if he was guilty or not, if the titles exist currently or not, Lance will always be known as the person who won the tour de france seven times.


I can only speak for myself, but that's not the way I'll remember him. Others will have opinions that go both ways, in some % split.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

I think I will remember Lance as a person that changed cycling. For better or worse, the sport was changed by him, and importantly will improve as a result of him.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

horsey24 said:


> there is no law against paying money for a doctor.
> 
> what evidence links that money with drugs?


It is actually very illegal for Ferrara to accept money in this type of scenario. He essentially acted as an open pharmacy for Lance and I see huge correlations between this and the Michael Jackson fiasco. 
Ferrara is a POS and I hope he ends up in jail.


----------



## eclipse24 (Jan 14, 2012)

In the past, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. But now, with all his teammates coming clean (no pun intended), I believe he juiced like the rest.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

heyyall said:


> I think I will remember Lance as a person that changed cycling. For better or worse, the sport was changed by him, and importantly will improve as a result of him.


+1 He put cycling on the map for America that is for sure.

He and Landis gave hope to people who previously thought such things were a sentence to living life in misery, that is way cool.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Blurr said:


> Days off and the weather sucks, so may as well argue


Arguing with you is like arguing with someone who insists OJ didn't kill his wife. Credulous uncritical people aren't worth the effort.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Geralt (Jul 11, 2012)

At some time over the years I came to the realization that Armstrong was a doper. I came to the realization that all top road cyclists of his era were doping. I hadn't followed the Armstrong saga closely, so what I hadn't known until recently was just how dirty he was about smearing and intimidating people who told the truth about him and how central he was to coercing other cyclists to follow his doping scheme.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

Here is my disclaimer: This is only my opinion.

I do think Lance cheated. Even though I believe he cheated what he still did was amazing. Lets stick to the facts. This man had cancer, overcame it , and still became a pro cyclist. That would have been enough for me to admire anyone. If he would've won 1 race I would have been shocked, but this guy won the TDF 7 times. If you look at that era there was a doping epidemic. How could a guy beat a field of dopers if he didn't dope? Did he just train that much better? I would like to believe that, but I don't. If he did or didn't dope what he did on the bike was extraordinary. 

I admire the local guy who rides with me that had cancer.


----------



## Geralt (Jul 11, 2012)

If he'd admit it and apologize to the people he's treated so badly along the way, I think he'd still be widely admired. I think he's under too much financial jeopardy and possibly even legal jeopardy for him to do that though.


----------



## lapinGTI (Dec 30, 2009)

The best contribution of lance to USA, is that he show you where the effel tower is actually from, Not Las Vegas.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Geralt said:


> At some time over the years I came to the realization that Armstrong was a doper. I came to the realization that all top road cyclists of his era were doping. I hadn't followed the Armstrong saga closely, so what I hadn't known until recently was just how dirty he was about smearing and intimidating people who told the truth about him and how central he was to coercing other cyclists to follow his doping scheme.


So true, doping is one thing, but his antics will be remembered.
What he didn't realise is this whole doping saga was going to surface sooner or later. 
The reason it was going to surface is becasue a lot of people knew about his doping, most of those people weren't exactly friends. I wonder how many blackmail attempts he has lived through.
He isnt an intelligent guy, plus did he really think he could get away with winning 7 titles and no one getting suspicous? He got greedy. (He isnt superman ffs)
He can never be the rider that Cadel Evans is. 
LA did put cycling on the map, but for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

tl1 said:


> Make it three because the entire pro peloton was on the juice in one way or the other during Armstrong's tenure. Doing a better, more professional job of juicing was just one more integral component of _winning_ and _being a winner_ on the highest level of competition on the world stage. His wins and titles should stand because he was the best athlete and the best at the doping game too.


WTF?

Yes Armstrong was the strongest and smartest doped rider on a playing field of MOSTLY doped riders. Barry Bonds hit more home runs and roger Clemens struck out more batters than any other doped baseball players. Marion Jones was the fastest runner among doped Olympians.

Damn, that makes me feel good.

BUT, the ENTIRE pro peloton was NOT doped in the Armstrong era. There were at least a few honest/courageous riders who refused to risk their health to win, to be competitive, or even just stay employed in the sport. It was these people who got f***ed up the ass by rampant doping.

Armstrong was/is a lying self centered psychopathic bully who deserves zero respect for anything he accomplished, surviving cancer, being the best doper, winning 7 tdf while doped to the gills, or whatever. He has to come clean like all his teammates before he can salvage anything he has left.


----------



## tl1 (Dec 21, 2003)

dwt said:


> WTF?
> 
> Yes Armstrong was the strongest and smartest doped rider on a playing field of MOSTLY doped riders. Barry Bonds hit more home runs and roger Clemens struck out more batters than any other doped baseball players. Marion Jones was the fastest runner among doped Olympians.
> 
> ...


Well first of all, I don't think that the doping with performance enhancing drugs of that period necessarily caused people to "risk their own health". All the teams had their own doctors coordinating and monitoring the doping. The net effect of the doping was to improve recovery from training and allow extreme volumes of very hard training to produce a stronger body. I know that may be hard to deal with for some people with a simplistic and Puritanical "pure body" mindset but it's true.

By the vast majority of ex-pro accounts of that era, the doping was a reality among _all top riders_, sorry. If you want to continue on with your demonizing witch hunt about people being "lying self centered psychopaths" and so on because you're suddenly disillusioned then go for it. To me, the guy (and a lot of other guys) got caught and he's (they're) paying the price and that's enough. I don't feel the need to burn anyone at the stake to purge them of their "evil".


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

tl1 said:


> By the vast majority of ex-pro accounts of that era, the doping was a reality among _all top riders_, sorry.


That might of been the case, but how many of them top doped riders went to the extent that LA did, by intimidating, lying, smearing other people who dropped the beans on him, when he got caught out? Why couldn't he own up to it?
This isn't just about doping, the guy is a lunatic!


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

tl1 said:


> Well first of all, I don't think that the doping with performance enhancing drugs of that period necessarily caused people to "risk their own health". All the teams had their own doctors coordinating and monitoring the doping. The net effect of the doping was to improve recovery from training and allow extreme volumes of very hard training to produce a stronger body. I know that may be hard to deal with for some people with a simplistic and Puritanical "pure body" mindset but it's true.
> 
> By the vast majority of ex-pro accounts of that era, the doping was a reality among _all top riders_, sorry. If you want to continue on with your demonizing witch hunt about people being "lying self centered psychopaths" and so on because you're suddenly disillusioned then go for it. To me, the guy (and a lot of other guys) got caught and he's (they're) paying the price and that's enough. I don't feel the need to burn anyone at the stake to purge them of their "evil".


Who's "suddenly disillusioned"? This has been going on for more than a decade. Rider after rider has been busted and/or come clean, including every rider your a-hole hero beat or teamed with. If you don't think he's a total a-hole you are the one who is terminally naive and uninformed. As opposed to class acts and admitted dopers George Hincapie and David Millar

Cadel Evans whom you might have heard of, as former WC mtb champ and TdF winner, was/is a top pro and reputed to be clean

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/cyc...e-tyler-hamilton/story-fnanprbk-1226495552945

You want a hero, try a good guy, eh?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

tl1 said:


> Well first of all, I don't think that the doping with performance enhancing drugs of that period necessarily caused people to "risk their own health".


Use the google why don't you, and see what you can find to refute that fallacy.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/02/cyclist-dies-in-sleep.html?m=1

http://www.pfitzinger.com/labreports/epo.shtml

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

The thing that has me astounded is that in the poll above there are 24 yes 24 people that think Lance never doped, they must also me members of the 'flat earth cult'
But they do say that one in every ten people are insane so the poll above is right on the money....


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> The thing that has me astounded is that in the poll above there are 24 yes 24 people that think Lance never doped, they must also me members of the 'flat earth cult'
> But they do say that one in every ten people are insane so the poll above is right on the money....


You might also call them " low information voters", which is why Presidential elections are so scary.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Map204 (May 29, 2012)

Good poll....


----------



## tl1 (Dec 21, 2003)

dwt said:


> Use the google why don't you, and see what you can find to refute that fallacy.
> 
> The Science of Sport: Cyclist dies in sleep
> 
> ...


The first link is to a story about a pro cyclist dying in his sleep but there's no reason there as to why it happened then it meanders off into some anecdotes about EPO use, vaguely trying to link the two w/o any evidence. The second link is to a story on the dangers of EPO. Are you saying that performance enhancing drugs can hurt you? Yes they can but any athlete using so much EPO that it endangered their life either had a no doctor supervising its use or an incompetent doctor doing so treating an incompetent patient.

Is Lance Armstrong dead, blind, crippled or crazy today as a result of using PE drugs? I don't think so. In fact he successfully used EPO _under a doctor's care_ as a vital life giving therapy during his battle with cancer. Tons of people die from using too much alcohol every year but we still aren't afraid to have a drink or two now and again. You can die from drinking too much water too but it's pretty rare. The difference between help and harm with any substance is always in the dose. Some of the anti-PE drug tales are so very reminiscent of the cheesy scare tactics evident in stuff like Reefer Madness.

I don't condone or use PEDs but for gawds-sake, use a little common sense not just fear tactics. As far as Armstrong goes, the guy and a lot of others got caught for using drugs against the rules _for years_. His multi-million dollar a year cycling career that gave him international fame, admiration and respect is shot today. That alone should be a lesson for those tempted to do the same. Give it a rest.


----------



## tl1 (Dec 21, 2003)

dwt said:


> Who's "suddenly disillusioned"? This has been going on for more than a decade. Rider after rider has been busted and/or come clean, including every rider your a-hole hero beat or teamed with. If you don't think he's a total a-hole you are the one who is terminally naive and uninformed. As opposed to class acts and admitted dopers George Hincapie and David Millar
> 
> Cadel Evans whom you might have heard of, as former WC mtb champ and TdF winner, was/is a top pro and reputed to be clean
> 
> ...


Sorry but I haven't looked for any heroes since I was around nine years old and discovered that Superman and Spiderman weren't real people. I guess some of us need them more than others.


----------



## MikeyHustle (Jul 27, 2012)

I have no idea if he was clean or not. But he was tested numerous times, and passed them all.


----------



## Spinning Lizard (Nov 27, 2009)

MikeyHustle said:


> I have no idea if he was clean or not. But he was tested numerous times, and passed them all.


No he did not, he failed many of them but had the money to pay off the UCI.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

MikeyHustle said:


> I have no idea if he was clean or not. But he was tested numerous times, and passed them all.


No he didnt, it has come out that he bought his way out of it and also paid a certain doctor to write scripts to cover for his failed tests, its a myth that he passed all his tests...
He also paid a specialist over 1million in a very short period of time to advise him on doping and beating the system....


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

MikeyHustle said:


> I have no idea if he was clean or not. But he was tested numerous times, and passed them all.


Lance and the team practiced the 5 d's of doping

Dope, Dodge, Dip, Dodge, Dope!


----------



## big terry (Apr 22, 2012)

i bought lots of dope from some cat named lance.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

MikeyHustle said:


> I have no idea if he was clean or not. But he was tested numerous times, and passed them all.


Neither did Marion Jones.

How might Lance have done it

http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/n..._host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/analysis/no-armstrong-never-tested-positive-but-how_261616

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RJJ (Jul 19, 2006)

Really surprised by so many thinking he doped but it’s OK because others did as well. 

If he doped, then he has lied, he committed crimes (perjury), stolen prize money, got people fired for telling the truth, threatened people, sued people, bullied people who wanted to cooperate with investigations, etc., etc.

Would you want him in your sport?


----------



## lapinGTI (Dec 30, 2009)

If you try google translate here is a small list i fond on my first atempt to search for suspect dead of athletes. As you can see they were all old and drug wasn't in cause. But as you said Lance had a good doctor, he will live strong.

Les dix morts les plus marquantes
France-Soir a répertorié les dix décès les plus marquants de ces vingt dernières années, en raison de la popularité de leurs victimes, de leur implication dans des affaires de dopage ou de leur très jeune âge.

José Manuel Fuente
Mort en juillet 1996, à 50 ans, d'une maladie rénale qu'il aurait contractée, selon ses dires, en prenant des corticoïdes.

Paul Haghedooren
Mort en novembre 1997, à 38 ans, d'une crise cardiaque lors de son jogging. Contrôlé positif.

Denis Zanette
Mort en janvier 2003, à 32 ans, d'un arrêt cardiaque, après une visite chez son dentiste. Mis en examen pour dopage.

Fabrice Salanson
Mort en juin 2003, à 23 ans, retrouvé inanimé dans sa chambre d'hôtel. Jamais contrôlé positif.

José-Maria Jimenez
Mort en décembre 2003, à 32 ans, d'une crise cardiaque, après des problèmes de drogue et une dépression nerveuse.

Marco Pantani
Mort en février 2004, à 34 ans, d'une overdose de cocaïne. Suspendu pour dopage.

Johan Sermon
Mort en février 2004, à 21 ans, d'un arrêt cardiaque.

Alessio Galletti
Mort en juin 2005, à 37 ans, d'un arrêt cardiaque après une chute en course. Mis en examen pour un trafic de transfusions sanguines.

Frank Vandenbroucke
Mort en octobre 2009, à 35 ans, d'une double embolie pulmonaire et d'une attaque cardiaque durant des vacances au Sénégal. Suspendu pour dopage.

Laurent Fignon
Mort en août 2010, à 50 ans, d'un cancer. Il avait reconnu s'être dopé mais n'était pas sûr que sa maladie soit liée



tl1 said:


> The first link is to a story about a pro cyclist dying in his sleep but there's no reason there as to why it happened then it meanders off into some anecdotes about EPO use, vaguely trying to link the two w/o any evidence. The second link is to a story on the dangers of EPO. Are you saying that performance enhancing drugs can hurt you? Yes they can but any athlete using so much EPO that it endangered their life either had a no doctor supervising its use or an incompetent doctor doing so treating an incompetent patient.
> 
> Is Lance Armstrong dead, blind, crippled or crazy today as a result of using PE drugs? I don't think so. In fact he successfully used EPO _under a doctor's care_ as a vital life giving therapy during his battle with cancer. Tons of people die from using too much alcohol every year but we still aren't afraid to have a drink or two now and again. You can die from drinking too much water too but it's pretty rare. The difference between help and harm with any substance is always in the dose. Some of the anti-PE drug tales are so very reminiscent of the cheesy scare tactics evident in stuff like Reefer Madness.
> 
> I don't condone or use PEDs but for gawds-sake, use a little common sense not just fear tactics. As far as Armstrong goes, the guy and a lot of others got caught for using drugs against the rules _for years_. His multi-million dollar a year cycling career that gave him international fame, admiration and respect is shot today. That alone should be a lesson for those tempted to do the same. Give it a rest.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

tl1 said:


> The first link is to a story about a pro cyclist dying in his sleep but there's no reason there as to why it happened then it meanders off into some anecdotes about EPO use, vaguely trying to link the two w/o any evidence. The second link is to a story on the dangers of EPO. Are you saying that performance enhancing drugs can hurt you? Yes they can but any athlete using so much EPO that it endangered their life either had a no doctor supervising its use or an incompetent doctor doing so treating an incompetent patient.
> 
> Is Lance Armstrong dead, blind, crippled or crazy today as a result of using PE drugs? I don't think so. In fact he successfully used EPO _under a doctor's care_ as a vital life giving therapy during his battle with cancer. Tons of people die from using too much alcohol every year but we still aren't afraid to have a drink or two now and again. You can die from drinking too much water too but it's pretty rare. The difference between help and harm with any substance is always in the dose. Some of the anti-PE drug tales are so very reminiscent of the cheesy scare tactics evident in stuff like Reefer Madness.
> 
> I don't condone or use PEDs but for gawds-sake, use a little common sense not just fear tactics..


The opposite of fear tactics is white washing.

There is plenty of evidence that EPO is potentially harmful. I would think you would want the whole picture before injecting sh*t into your body.

http://www.emaxhealth.com/8782/epo-blood-doping-may-cause-stroke-bikers-and-runners

What a choice for a pro to be told by his race director and sponsors "dope and be competitive with other dopers, or you're out". As far as management is concerned, you are an animal who rides bikes and are treated as such. Don't worry, son, stick the needle in your vein. It's perfectly safe.

Do you really think Kim Kirchen's heart attack in the 2010 Tour de Suisse had nothing to do with PED? 34 year old pro at the peak of his career. Sure.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tl1 (Dec 21, 2003)

dwt said:


> The opposite of fear tactics is white washing.
> 
> There is plenty of evidence that EPO is potentially harmful. I would think you would want the whole picture before injecting sh*t into your body.


ANYTHING is "potentially harmful". Anything can be used wisely or unwisely. That was my point. Be sure to tell the cancers patients surviving and healing with the help of EPO that they're "injecting sh*t" into their bodies.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

tl1 said:


> ANYTHING is "potentially harmful". Anything can be used wisely or unwisely. That was my point. Be sure to tell the cancers patients surviving and healing with the help of EPO that they're "injecting sh*t" into their bodies.


Are you dense or just play one on MTBR? CAncer patients undergoing chemo are receiving EPO as a medicine they need to replace red blood cells lost during chemo. A healthy cyclist using EPO to boost normal hematocrit to 50% is abusing the drug to cheat and risks health issues. You don't agree go ahead and use it and spank all the other Cat 4's. knock yourself out. I don't care if you win races or stroke out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tl1 (Dec 21, 2003)

dwt said:


> Are you dense or just play one on MTBR? CAncer patients undergoing chemo are receiving EPO as a medicine they need to replace red blood cells lost during chemo. A healthy cyclist using EPO to boost normal hematocrit to 50% is abusing the drug to cheat and risks health issues. You don't agree go ahead and use it and spank all the other Cat 4's. knock yourself out. I don't care if you win races or stroke out.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Apparently I must be dense because now you seem to be accusing me of abusing EPO as a CAT-4 racer or something and that can't be true, in fact it would actually be libelous. I've never been a CAT-Anything racer!

Did I argue somewhere that using EPO to the point of endangering health is somehow a good or admirable thing? My point that you must have missed, is that EPO is neutral it's not evil, it's just a substance that can be used or misused like any other. I don't think you're going to find anyone to argue about whether it was against the rules or not because it definitely was. The idea that _any use of it is automatically bad_ _and unhealthy_ is just kind of simplistic, juvenile and an act of demonizing it. Cancer patients that have benefited from it are living proof of that.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

tl1 said:


> Apparently I must be dense because now you seem to be accusing me of abusing EPO as a CAT-4 racer or something and that can't be true, in fact it would actually be libelous. I've never been a CAT-Anything racer!
> 
> Did I argue somewhere that using EPO to the point of endangering health is somehow a good or admirable thing? My point that you must have missed, is that EPO is neutral it's not evil, it's just a substance that can be used or misused like any other. I don't think you're going to find anyone to argue about whether it was against the rules or not because it definitely was. The idea that _any use of it is automatically bad_ _and unhealthy_ is just kind of simplistic, juvenile and an act of demonizing it. Cancer patients that have benefited from it are living proof of that.


Sorry for insult. My bad and not necessary. It's just hard for me to understand where you're coming from.

You can't compare legitimate medicinal use of a drug to cheating in athletics. EPO is not neutral; it is a powerful drug that can be used and abused. Any use other than medicinal treatment of an abnormal condition is abuse per se. Denial that abuse is potentially harmful is just plain false. That Lance and his cohorts appear none worse for wear today and that harmful effects are not common proves nothing- even assuming the truth of that statement. artificially boosting hematocrit to 50% is risky business. How risky is for each abuser to decide for him or herself, same as with HGH, testosterone, steroids and other PED's. That some riders were pressured into becoming EPO junkies against their better judgement, and that other riders rode clean and got pummeled by cheaters, just plain sucks. The sooner cycling comes clean, the better. The sponsors, team directors and riders must be on the same page. The UCI should be dissolved and replaced by another agency with credible members. It is not a pipe dream, the pendulum is swinging in that direction 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nuclear_powered (Apr 18, 2007)

RJJ said:


> If he doped, then he has lied, he committed crimes (perjury), *stolen prize money, got people fired for telling the truth,threatened people, sued people, bullied people who wanted to cooperate with investigations, etc., etc.*


??? From a logic point of view, does the stuff not in bold *imply the stuff in bold*?

Not saying he did or didn't do all those things .... just trying to sort out the implications in this very public lynching.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

This thread is getting ridiculously long so I don't know if this has been mentioned, but he is no longer the head of Livestrong and Nike dropped him today and that is saying a lot. The storm is about to hit.


----------



## BigDweeb (Dec 2, 2005)

Trek dropped him today too.

The issue is black and white to me. The truth is the truth.


----------



## BudMelman (Sep 9, 2012)

Doping was widespread in cycling before Lance was even born.
Kund Jensen died in competition in 1960 of anphetamines.
Tom Simpson dropped dead in the 1967 Tour de France. Drugs.
Lance arrived to be the best at it, and beat everybody. He succeeded.

Good time for Nike to suddenly get some morals. How are those sweat shops doing?


----------



## SlopeRiderSC (Oct 14, 2012)

Hi,
sad news : LA has just been prooven guilty and all his victories are cancelled by UCI, this after hearing the results of USADA enquiries.
No news from ASO and Tour Org, next public appointment for the Tour is next wednesday for unveiling the 2013 full race details, more to come...
News released at 13h01 CET.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Cha-ching!!



LA is toast.


----------



## horsey24 (Mar 3, 2009)

SlopeRiderSC said:


> LA has just been prooven guilty


Incorrect, there has never been a court case or judgement. He is just been presumed guilty based on decision not to fight.

Even though he didn't respond to USADA, he could still decide to appeal the UCI decision. Seems unlikely though.

The sh1t thing is that unless lance actually admits it, or fights it and loses in court. There will never be closure on this whole thing...


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

horsey24 said:


> Incorrect, there has never been a court case or judgement. He is just been presumed guilty based on decision not to fight.
> 
> Even though he didn't respond to USADA, he could still decide to appeal the UCI decision. Seems unlikely though.
> 
> The sh1t thing is that unless lance actually admits it, or fights it and loses in court. There will never be closure on this whole thing...


LOL, You sound like his lawyer or lance himself, he has been proven guilty to any sensible person beyond any shadow of a doubt.
He will never fight it, he has no leg to stand on, his no show to fight it IS A FULL ADMISSION OF GUILT, the evidence is unfightable n mountainous.

Any person who thinks he is telling the truth would also believe the earth is still flat....


----------



## RJJ (Jul 19, 2006)

Rod said:


> Here is my disclaimer: This is only my opinion.
> 
> I do think Lance cheated. Even though I believe he cheated what he still did was amazing. Lets stick to the facts. This man had cancer, overcame it , and still became a pro cyclist. That would have been enough for me to admire anyone. If he would've won 1 race I would have been shocked, but this guy won the TDF 7 times. If you look at that era there was a doping epidemic. How could a guy beat a field of dopers if he didn't dope? Did he just train that much better? I would like to believe that, but I don't. If he did or didn't dope what he did on the bike was extraordinary.
> 
> I admire the local guy who rides with me that had cancer.


Missed a few of his qualities mentioned in the now widely accepted USADA report, like...
Lying, cheating, bullying, threatening people and their families, perjury, encouraging others to dope, organizing the distribution of drugs, getting people fired from their jobs for telling the truth, ........

Yea, a guy to be admired.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

SlopeRiderSC said:


> Hi,
> sad news : LA has just been prooven guilty and all his victories are cancelled by UCI, this after hearing the results of USADA enquiries.
> No news from ASO and Tour Org, next public appointment for the Tour is next wednesday for unveiling the 2013 full race details, more to come...
> News released at 13h01 CET.


Correction: GOOD NEWS! The scumball is toast, and these stupid threads will stop for good


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

So how long do we have to wait to see who won the 7 tours he had?
With all the other dopers behind him it will probably take months to sort out.
You might as well just say the tour was canceled for those 7 years.
Why not just take the whole tour, put it in a burlap bag and just toss it over the bridge.:devil:


Sj


----------



## 475856 (Feb 6, 2010)

The powers that be now make it so as if nobody sat on a bike for 3 weeks and rode their butts off. The titles won't go to the next in line since everybody doped. The TDF and UCI can't find anyone who cycled in all those races that was clean. Did I just waste all that time watching the TDF???


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

horsey24 said:


> The sh1t thing is that unless lance actually admits it, or fights it and loses in court. There will never be closure on this whole thing...


Not sure about that. I'm getting pretty close to a feeling of closure.


----------



## Stugotz (Dec 14, 2011)

*Syringe Guy-Tour of California '09*

Guess we know which way this guy would vote.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Circlip said:


> Not sure about that. I'm getting pretty close to a feeling of closure.


 Amnesty and truth and reconciliation might lead to closure

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/analysis/from-the-pages-of-velo-is-amnesty-the-answer_262269

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ays-punishing-armstrong-not-sufficient_262255

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

dwt said:


> Amnesty and truth and reconciliation might lead to closure
> 
> From the pages of Velo: Is amnesty the answer?
> 
> Travis Tygart calls for truth and reconciliation, says punishing Armstrong not sufficient


Ya, except then the UCI tool that ball and started running with it with public statements explaining that they should be administering the proceedings of any T & R initiatives, if they happen.

McQuaid and Co. just don't get it. Either that or they figure they can just continue shouting nonsense over top of everyone else's voices. They shouldn't even have a platform to speak from at this point.


----------



## midnightlost (Feb 26, 2012)

links aren't working....

Eh eventually the truth will come out, but unfortunately it will always be tainted by the what-ifs and the possibles.


----------



## Methodical (Jul 14, 2012)

Blurr said:


> It does not matter what one believes, what matters is actual Evidence, Belief is in something you are not certain of. So from the lack of Evidence I KNOW Lance is Innocent.


I agree. Prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt ('cause there are tons of reasonable doubt in my eye :skep and then I'll believe he doped, until then, to me he's the best tour rider, ever.

Just One Man's Opinion.

"It ain't what you know, but want you can prove in the court of law" Denzel Washington (Training Day)

PS. I know I will get some negative reps because of my beliefs, but I can care less. If you negative rep me, be a man and leave your name.

Al


----------



## 1967marti (Jun 15, 2012)

I don’t think he was "clean".

BUT I look at it like this: 

Everyone from every country was doping to some extent. So in that regard none of them are any better than any other pro cyclist at the time. Now, if I take every drug that lance took in the same exact amounts that he did, I would still never be able to come close to his level of performance. There is still the fact that he is an amazing athlete under all those drugs. Performance enhancing drugs enhance an athlete they don’t make a world class athlete out of anyone. If everyone at the time was 100% clean I believe he would have won the exact same way that he won originally.
Now all that being said… I think he is a total ******-bag for the way he acted and continued his career after he became famous. There is no excuse for bribery and intimidation in a world-class sport. I’d bet the same thing was going on in other countries but in our American society we love nothing more than to tear down our idols… A little blood in the water and everyone jumps on the lynching wagon. 
Lance was a great athlete but a crappy competitor and teammate. Fame changes people, who’s to say that any of us wouldn’t have acted the same way under all of the stress and pressures to live up to your own reputation? That’s not an excuse for his behavior but I can understand. NOT condone, but I can understand.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Methodical said:


> I agree. Prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt ('cause there are tons of reasonable doubt in my eye :skep and then I'll believe he doped, until then, to me he's the best tour rider, ever.
> 
> Just One Man's Opinion.
> 
> ...


Believe what you want. Meanwhile, the record books have already been rewritten, Trek, Nike, Oakley have already dumped him, he's looking at numerous lawsuits to recover money and bonuses paid to him under false pretenses, and he's burned so many bridges in his life, he is left friendless all by himself. Except for a few pathetic jock sniffing morons like you who will insist the earth is flat while real life passes them by.

P.S. no reason to neg rep the mentally challenged. That's just wrong.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Methodical said:


> I agree. Prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt ('cause there are tons of reasonable doubt in my eye :skep and then I'll believe he doped, until then, to me he's the best tour rider, ever.
> 
> Just One Man's Opinion.
> 
> ...


Well ive always been intrigued who the 10% of people in the poll in the top of the page were that thinks that he never doped.
Mate if anybody calls you from Nigeria telling you that youve won the Nigerian national lottery and to send them money so they can process it and send you the winnings, please dont send them the money, its a scam....:thumbsup:
P.S just on the quiet, the sky's not falling in either.....
And just on the quiet again, your not in one of those cults that think the worlds going to end tomorrow are you?


----------



## 41ants (Jun 12, 2007)

Everyone doped and everyone is still doping...if you think otherwise, you must be on dope 

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk 2


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

41ants said:


> Everyone doped and everyone is still doping...if you think otherwise, you must be on dope
> 
> Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk 2


Bollocks. Even if it's true, so what? The "everyone's doing it" argument is shite. It's only ever heard from people who are doing something wrong_ and who know it_.

Nobody ever helps out the homeless because "everyone's doing it". Nobody volunteers for unpaid charity work because "everyone's doing it". It's the last, desperate defence of liars, cheats, thieves and other general purpose scumbags.


----------



## ben83s (Oct 23, 2012)

FNCnca said:


> 10, 15 years ago, who didn't dope?


the losers that's who


----------



## mtbzarg (Oct 6, 2011)

Indurain believes Lance is clean 

Indurain believes in Armstrong's innocence | Comcast

or I should say "innocent"


----------



## B-Mac (Oct 2, 2008)

I'm pretty bummed about the whole thing. 

At first, I really thought that this was just a good guy who happened to be a spectacular athlete getting taken down by a power-hungry bureaucrat. But there's just no way that the USADA convinced EVERYONE to lie. I read some of the deposition transcripts that have been published. There's too much detail given for me to believe that the story's just a fabrication by a bunch of guys trying to save their own careers. 

I think its pretty clear that LA's amazing record was the result of a doping program. I think it sucks because I was pretty proud of the guy.


----------



## Methodical (Jul 14, 2012)

dwt said:


> Believe what you want. Meanwhile, the record books have already been rewritten, Trek, Nike, Oakley have already dumped him, he's looking at numerous lawsuits to recover money and bonuses paid to him under false pretenses, and he's burned so many bridges in his life, he is left friendless all by himself. Except for a few pathetic jock sniffing morons like you who will insist the earth is flat while real life passes them by.
> 
> P.S. no reason to neg rep the mentally challenged. That's just wrong.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yep, I am one wild and crazy guy.:thumbsup: Bleep, bleep, what's up doc:thumbsup:



Tone's said:


> Well ive always been intrigued who the 10% of people in the poll in the top of the page were that thinks that he never doped.
> Mate if anybody calls you from Nigeria telling you that youve won the Nigerian national lottery and to send them money so they can process it and send you the winnings, please dont send them the money, its a scam....:thumbsup:
> P.S just on the quiet, the sky's not falling in either.....
> And just on the quiet again, your not in one of those cults that think the worlds going to end tomorrow are you?


I'm the one doing the calling:thumbsup: Whew, whew, whew, whew


----------



## thetazzbot (Sep 5, 2012)

8 pages of replies no one will see this one ! lol

Anyway, many of the posts here say "that was then, this is now." However, here's thing. Lance participated in and won, the Leadville 100 in 2009. In 2010, Leipheimer won (also confessed doper, not in the news much). Leipheimer even broke the record for the race. These guys continue to compete. Not that I will ever be even close to being in the same race as someone like them, but the thought will forever be in the back of someone's mind: This guy doped to get an advantage, of which he's probably still reaping the benefits of physically. So all the other competitors are left to sucking up trail dust.

I like Lance, I admire his courage. I mean, in this video Lance Armstrong's Offroad Short Cut in the Tour De France - YouTube he takes that skinny tire bike down hill when others behind him braked hard to avoid it. He said hell with it, I'm going. So sure, doping gives you some upgrades, but some of it is just pure balls. In the Leadville 100 he road a flat tire for the last few miles of the race. And still won.

It's just sad that the status quo at the time dictated that you either dope or come in last.


----------



## thetazzbot (Sep 5, 2012)

RJJ said:


> Missed a few of his qualities mentioned in the now widely accepted USADA report, like...
> Lying, cheating, bullying, threatening people and their families, perjury, encouraging others to dope, organizing the distribution of drugs, getting people fired from their jobs for telling the truth, ........
> 
> Yea, a guy to be admired.


wow, well, maybe i take some of my admiration back too


----------



## pointerDixie214 (Feb 10, 2009)

<----- Has tried real hard to care less, but it is not possible. 


Is he the victim of being made "an example"? Maybe. I don't know. There are two things I know about Lance Armstrong. He is an incredible athlete, regardless of doping. And he is a giant jackass and totally full of himself.


----------



## FireDog46 (Jan 13, 2004)

dwt said:


> WTF?
> He has to come clean like all his teammates before he can salvage anything he has left.


The way things are going he will be a broken penniless old man before he's sixty.


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

*On a related note....*

Just saw this post from my teammate:

"I went to see the Levi Leipheimer Documentary tonight. Showed up, no sound, choppy image, movie cancelled. First he admits and gets sacked by OPQS, now the omerta's claiming his movie. Dang."

:lol:


----------



## Bleedin' Bill (Oct 19, 2006)

My take on this is that Tygart is an anti-doping zealot (or a shameless self-promoter out to make a name for himself) who believes that cycling is a dirty sport. He wants to destroy it in order to save it. Thus, his attack on the biggest fish (Armstrong) and the integrity of the UCI.
The problem is that this is ancient history in sporting and doping terms and the sport seems to be doing much better these days. Unfortunately, I predict that as a result, the exodus of sponsors will continue and the sport will suffer greatly, assuming it survives.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Bleedin' Bill said:


> My take on this is that Tygart is an anti-doping zealot (or a shameless self-promoter out to make a name for himself) who believes that cycling is a dirty sport. He wants to destroy it in order to save it. Thus, his attack on the biggest fish (Armstrong) and the integrity of the UCI.
> The problem is that this is ancient history in sporting and doping terms and the sport seems to be doing much better these days. Unfortunately, I predict that as a result, the exodus of sponsors will continue and the sport will suffer greatly, assuming it survives.


How's the weather on your planet?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CDub204 (Oct 24, 2012)

nope...dirty as my first playboy


----------



## longhaultrucker (Jan 24, 2007)

I firmly and wholeheartedly believe that I neither gain anything from Lance's efforts whether doped or not,nor do I gain anything other than several hours entertainment from the tour or it's sponsors,as I am not influenced either one way or the other on my purchases by "what the po's ride/say/think",I'm much more mtn biker than roadie (even my road bike has skinny little knobbie 38mm tires),and the is M....tbr,not a roadie site to begin with....

That siad,I admire Lance's performances whether doped or not,it's more than I could do (doped or not),but the reality is,it's non of my business


----------



## FireDog46 (Jan 13, 2004)

*a very sad state of affairs*

Too many are still in denial. There can no longer be any question of what happened in that era. I too was drawn into the excitement of the Lance Armstrong years. But as one after another a rider left or was kicked off his teams only to be caught later for doping...my doubts grew about how clean LA was. Something strange was going on. It could be years before we know the ultimate truth. Perhaps long after I'm dead (pity). Wait for his memoirs...about 20+ plus years from now. Then again, just might leave us guessing.

edit

this from my morning newspaper

The apology Lance Armstrong will never give | Sports | National Post

hope it is available for some time to come
if Lance ever did something like this he would get his life back
but he will still have to face the piper for playing off key


----------



## 50calray (Oct 25, 2010)

I heard the other day that companies/endorsements are trying to sue LA and the government may get involved as well.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

50calray said:


> I heard the other day that companies/endorsements are trying to sue LA and the government may get involved as well.


I have not heard of any companies that Armstrong had endorsement contracts with proposing to sue him. He does have very real financial exposure in a couple of other areas, primarily from SCA Promotions whom he quite obviously defrauded of several million dollars in bonus payouts (although due to legal technicalities they might not be able to recover) and also ASO which owns and operates the TdF which is also saying they want several million in prize winnings returned. A seven figure libel payout to Armstrong by a UK newspaper is also very likely to be overturned now.

The largest issue may be a Qui Tam suit brought by the U.S. feds that could total tens of millions of dollars, but that's another matter entirely which doesn't have much in the way of firm information available to the public at this time, given that the case was previously shelved by the Department of Justice (for undisclosed reasons) and they're still not talking about it.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

"P.S. no reason to neg rep the mentally challenged. That's just wrong."

"Everyone doped and everyone is still doping...if you think otherwise, you must be on dope"

two jewels from this thread...that and the quip about "the flat earth society"...

good god.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

FireDog46 said:


> Too many are still in denial. There can no longer be any question of what happened in that era. I too was drawn into the excitement of the Lance Armstrong years. But as one after another a rider left or was kicked off his teams only to be caught later for doping...my doubts grew about how clean LA was. Something strange was going on.


You are far from alone. I remember many a mountain stage party at my house in the early years when I was the only one in my crowd who could get Versus on satellite. We sat on the edges of our seats and cheered. In 2002 I had my own bout of cancer and when the Livestrong bracelets came out mine never came off. It wasn't until Floyd's debacle that I gave up on cycling and realized everyone was dirty My oldest son, who raced in the SF Bay Area, had warned me years earlier. "doping is endemic; if a performance looks too good to be true, it's not." Over and over again, some guy was over the top. Rasmussen and Contador, both dominant both busted. The Spanish Armada,2012. And so many seeming suspicious, Gilbert 2011 (was there a race he didn't win?); Horner and Levi (doper), 2011 Tour of California( two old men dropping 20 and 30 somethings. Really, Chris?) Then this years boring Tour: UK Postal riding together full team up mountains, 2 riders out climbing and out TT'ing everybody. Sagan winning stages and getting points on vertical terrain.

I really hope Gilbert, Boonen, Evans, Cancellera, Hejsdal, TJ, Voigt, Voeckler, and Sagan, even Cavendish (to name a few) are the real deal. Wiggins and Froome not so much. WTF know with them ? Suspicious team doctors. The blue train being too f'ing good; too much really like Lance's teams. I'm sure there are others.

Amnesty and reconciliation. Dissolve thev UCI. Start over. It's too good a sport to just die off.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

"Amnesty and reconciliation. Dissolve thev UCI. Start over. It's too good a sport to just die off."

thank you.


----------



## FireDog46 (Jan 13, 2004)

shekky said:


> "Amnesty and reconciliation. Dissolve thev UCI. Start over. It's too good a sport to just die off."
> 
> thank you.


another vote for that idea


----------



## FireDog46 (Jan 13, 2004)

dwt said:


> It wasn't until Floyd's debacle that I gave up on cycling and realized everyone was dirty


That was the beginning of the end for me. I remember that TDF as if it happened yesterday. His recovery ride was one for the ages. "i told the team car, i'm going for it, keep me supplied with water" his words after the stage, or something like it. Then weeks later "game over". It is a beautiful sport. Clean it up. Let's get back to honest racing. The TDF will survive.


----------



## tl1 (Dec 21, 2003)

FireDog46 said:


> That was the beginning of the end for me. I remember that TDF as if it happened yesterday. His recovery ride was one for the ages. "i told the team car, i'm going for it, keep me supplied with water" his words after the stage, or something like it. Then weeks later "game over". It is a beautiful sport. Clean it up. Let's get back to honest racing. The TDF will survive.


The beginning of the truth about Armstrong for me was when Frankie Andreu and his wife both said they witnessed Lancey Pants tell his cancer doctor that he had used EPO and steroids in his past. At that point in time in the hospital room it was October of 1996 but this was revealed by the Andreus later.

I think the only way to get illegal drugs and illegal practices out of professional racing is to take the money (endorsements and everything) out of professional racing because the drug chemists always have been and will always be one or two steps ahead of the drug testers. The ultimate solution though is to stop worshiping and idolizing sports stars as some kind of heroes. Good luck with either case given that amateur racers making no money still dope and most people love to make heroes for themselves.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

FireDog46 said:


> That was the beginning of the end for me. I remember that TDF as if it happened yesterday. His recovery ride was one for the ages. "i told the team car, i'm going for it, keep me supplied with water" his words after the stage, or something like it. Then weeks later "game over". It is a beautiful sport. Clean it up. Let's get back to honest racing. The TDF will survive.


Get back to honest racing ?!? I'm sorry... but apparently you don't know your TdF history very well. One of the earliest rule books stated the organizers were not responsible for paying for the stimulants and drugs used by the riders. Drug usage was always going on in the tour from the very beginning, and its only because of the french press finally making it widely known to the public that any sort of measures were ever adopted to try and get rid of them, and that only started in like the third decade of the tour. And they only adopted them because the public cried foul (not realizing that their own french heroes were using drugs and relying on various drugs to win.... just like everyone else).

Do i think lance doped? yep... but then so did everyone else...remember when greg lemond kept saying lance doped... greg would of \course had known...since he doped himself... eddy mercx doped, miguel indurein doped... EVERYONE doped. There are a host of drugs not on the banned lists that can enhance a rider's performance... but you don't see them getting hassled for them. Why? Because it simply would not be possible to do a month of back to back double-century rides, at speeds that make it enjoyable to watch the stages on television, with all the ad revenue and money involved. Yeah Lance made money in purses and bonuses...big deal. The TdF organizers made more. And their bribes to the UCI to ignore test results were no doubt quite extensive. The Olympic Commitee and the UCI and other such groups are organized crime wrapped in a fancy wrapper... that's it.


----------



## Crunch406 (Oct 22, 2012)

SimpleJon said:


> I voted yes, but he should still keep his titles:
> -partly because I think the USADA is BS.
> -partly because it was endemic in the late 90's and early mid 2000's.
> I don't think that there many who made it into the GC top 20, without doping and their team mates had to dope to help them. It should be the team managers and the UCI taking the rap for this not individual cyclists; it was a systemic problem not fraud or abuse by an individual.
> I think the USADA is BS because I don't see what good muck racking through ancient history to witch hunt an individual has to do with their stated mission of protecting atheletes who don't cheat. All they are doing is tying up resources and budgets that should be used to protect todays atheletes over a sport that has done a lot more than most to clean up its act over the last few years. This appears to me to be either a personal vendetta or publicity stunt by USADA and its management.


My thoughts as well. Although I polled that I only recently believed so.


----------



## bigbadwulff (Jan 18, 2012)

He did it but so did everyone else. All should be equally-recognized and stripped of any awards/finishes. Any money they got from US taxpayers should be returned. The whole thing was one big witch hunt but if they are going to do it, by God they should go after EVERYONE!


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

bigbadwulff said:


> He did it but so did everyone else. All should be equally-recognized and stripped of any awards/finishes. Any money they got from US taxpayers should be returned. The whole thing was one big witch hunt but if they are going to do it, by God they should go after EVERYONE!


When you say "EVERYONE" do you mean other than the 10 other people (riders, team doctors, team manager) who have also been charged or sanctioned in this same case together with Armstrong? Or are you looking for a different everyone? Maybe the 15 individuals that are that are going through the last stages before facing criminal charges in Italy for similar cycling-related doping activities?


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

DeeEight said:


> Why? Because it simply would not be possible to do a month of back to back double-century rides, at speeds that make it enjoyable to watch the stages on television, with all the ad revenue and money involved.


Wrong, EVERYONE did not dope. 
You say that, but the tour was won by someone who wasn't doped up, Evans!! I have no doubt on other riders being clean.
You saying the tour can't be won by any rider unless they are doped up is ridiculous, and you've been proved wrong.Your problem is that you are generalizing.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

SV11 said:


> Wrong, EVERYONE did not dope.
> You say that, but the tour was won by someone who wasn't doped up, Evans!!
> You saying the tour can't be won by any rider unless they are doped up is ridiculous, and you've been proved wrong.Your problem is that you are generalizing.


The riders them selves have a term for clean riders and thats ''bread and water riders' yes they are still around and have always been around the riders say this themselves, everybody thats ever been associated with Cadel says hes clean, you only have to look at the hurt in his eyes n his face during the end of the race to see it, but im not naive to say hes never used, but at this point in time i'll give him the benifit of the doubt, but im not wearing rose coloured glasses when it comes to him or any other rider, anythings possible these days.
But yes there are clean riders for sure.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Thats true, no one can completely know someone's past. But I'm pretty confident that he was clean when he won the tour ( you had better be clean Evans, don't make me look like a fool)


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

Well, this whole thing became a personal issue for me tonight.

I was talking with one of my friends while I was wearing my team kit -- I had just gotten home from a road ride with a few teammates. Seeing my kit, he said, "You know that you're forever linked with doping now, right?" I'm hoping that he was being sarcastic, but I can't be too sure, and there are people who legitimately believe that; I still replied that there is massive change occurring in the professional ranks right now. I don't know if I've ever been more offended.

And this is all because of two primary reasons: there are riders who decided to take illegal drugs, and there are officials who decided to turn a blind eye towards it all. It's too late to change the past, but we need to make sure this never happens again. 

Pat McQuaid, Hein Verbruggen, and all other officials in UCI and USADA who have ever shirked your professional and moral responsibilities, step down now and leave the sport of cycling forever. You've done far too much damage to be able to make up for it. Levi, George, David, all other cyclists who doped, whether you confessed or not, it's time to come clean. Make your peace, and leave the sport. To those who came clean and subsequently lost their jobs, thank you for attempting to do the right thing. I appreciate that you cared enough to be honest with your past, but the truly right thing to do would have been to say "No" in the first place. It's time to clean house and start again.

I love this sport far too much, and I have far too much pride to be linked, however distantly, with cheaters.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

erik1245 said:


> Well, this whole thing became a personal issue for me tonight.
> 
> I was talking with one of my friends while I was wearing my team kit -- I had just gotten home from a road ride with a few teammates. Seeing my kit, he said, "You know that you're forever linked with doping now, right?" I'm hoping that he was being sarcastic, but I can't be too sure, and there are people who legitimately believe that; I still replied that there is massive change occurring in the professional ranks right now. I don't know if I've ever been more offended.
> 
> ...


Erik, i'll second that, im not sure why but ive always linked you directly to doping and think you should take this opportunity to come clean, we wont judge you, and im sure you wont get booted off MTBR for it, so send me a PM if you want to get it off your chest,


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

erik1245 said:


> Just saw this post from my teammate:
> 
> "I went to see the Levi Leipheimer Documentary tonight. Showed up, no sound, choppy image, movie cancelled. First he admits and gets sacked by OPQS, now the omerta's claiming his movie. Dang."
> 
> :lol:


:lol:

Karma's a b!tch  !


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

*I jumped off the Armstrong bandwagon after...*

I watched this Lance Armstrong documentary on CNN.
Watch CNN listing for reruns of it, you may change your mind.
http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/web-deceit%85%85-825351.html


----------



## 475856 (Feb 6, 2010)

I saw that same CNN piece. I do question the motives of the people coming clean and throwing Arrmstrong under the bus in exchange for immunity or reduced sentences with regards to banishment from the sport.
He did dope for sure but so did everyone else. Lance just leveled the playing field. He did ride 7 tours and still had to pedal, but now everyone is piling sh^t on him as-if he was the only one doping...
"He who is without sin, cast the first stone" comes to mind. I am not defending the doping part but do admire his tenacity in beating cancer and riding all those miles. His foundation does great work and I am glad that he stepped down from it as not to distract from the good work that has come from it.
I lost my dad through cancer and hope one day there is a cure. Foundations like Livestrong are needed to help find a cure.YMMV


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

OscarW said:


> I saw that same CNN piece. I do question the motives of the people coming clean and throwing Arrmstrong under the bus in exchange for immunity or reduced sentences with regards to banishment from the sport.
> He did dope for sure but so did everyone else. Lance just leveled the playing field. He did ride 7 tours and still had to pedal, but now everyone is piling sh^t on him as-if he was the only one doping...
> "He who is without sin, cast the first stone" comes to mind. I am not defending the doping part but do admire his tenacity in beating cancer and riding all those miles. His foundation does great work and I am glad that he stepped down from it as not to distract from the good work that has come from it.
> I lost my dad through cancer and hope one day there is a cure. Foundations like Livestrong are needed to help find a cure.YMMV


No doubt they were all guilty of it. And it was all admitted in the documentary. They had little proof of Lance doing it so they had to give immunity to the little fish for testimony against the big fish [Lance]. My mom just died of lung cancer so I can understand your thoughts on the foundation.


----------



## Bigfoot (Jan 16, 2004)

OscarW said:


> Foundations like Livestrong are needed to help find a cure.YMMV


There are many other organizations that do that deserve support. But Livestrong doesn't do anything toward research and hasn't for years. Your Livestrong donation will not hasten that cure. It does help cancer patients and their families "navigate" the patchy and hostile realms of the US healthcare system. But it also does quite a lot to boost the stature and brand value of one Lance Armstrong. In August 2009, for example, the foundation spent about $7m - a quarter of its annual spend - on a Dublin "summit" whose main purpose seems to have been presenting Armstrong as a kind of global statesman, on the same plane as his role models, Bono and Bill Clinton.

Perhaps Livestrong should strip Lance Armstrong of one more title: chairman | Bill Gifford | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Here's s'more interesting reading regarding Livestrong and Lance's personal finances. roopstigo | The Soul of Sports | Inside Livestrong


----------



## 475856 (Feb 6, 2010)

^^ Interesting read from roopstigo... Sad story all around really..


----------



## gelo354 (Nov 28, 2012)

absolutely NO.


----------



## hokihigh (Dec 8, 2012)

Don't wanna believe he did, but who knows...


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

I voted #4

That is I think they all dope, or at least did as much as they possibly could, and always have been. its that type of sport where small gains count. Either your last of first.

I don't think this sport will ever be clean, but its still a sport. And they do their best out there.
Thats what we all want to see.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

The thread that keeps on giving.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Hehe its only 2 months old 

I hadn't seen it at least. wasn't looking either really but still.
I have to vote right??


----------



## turbogrover (Dec 4, 2005)

Geez, I am truly amazed at how naive and gullible some of the replies are, in this thread.
It isn't about whether LA is innocent or guilty in a court of law. Did he take PED's? Yes.
The reason he's being exposed, is for the level of deception, and corruption he created.


----------



## lapinGTI (Dec 30, 2009)

daves4mtb said:


> If everyone in the field was cheating, what does it matter as far as race results go?


Exact what i try to explain to my teacher. I hope she will come to reason and let me pass my grade.


----------



## Spinning Lizard (Nov 27, 2009)

daves4mtb said:


> If everyone in the field was cheating, what does it matter as far as race results go?


Because not everybody gets to cheat at the same level. Lance paid the testers ahead of time to know when testing was coming days in advance. The other riders did not get a warning. Lance got to stay doped up longer, so it was not all the same for everyone.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

daves4mtb said:


> If everyone in the field was cheating, what does it matter as far as race results go?


Not everyone was cheating. This is just one more fallacy that is propagated by the legions of fans that cannot support any argument about doping without resorting to lies, half truthes and innuendo. When the truth wont do, baffle them with bullsh!t.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> If everyone in the field was cheating, what does it matter as far as race results go?


It matters because Evans and Wiggins and etc did not cheat. They won the tour on their own without the aid of dope. If you need to take dope, you know for a fact that you're no good at the sport and need a way to "cheat" to win. Most can be successful while doped, not everyone can win while clean. Lance needed dope to remain at a high level, to me that says he isn't good at the sport at an elite level (but he's competitive when juiced up), compared to Evans or Wiggins.

LA is singled out, mainly because of his antics. But, the guy is pretty dense. Who on earth was he trying to fool by winning 7 TDF titles, it had never been done before and something that no one could of done. He farked himself over, he did it by himself without the help of anyone, what does that say about him?


----------



## turbogrover (Dec 4, 2005)

daves4mtb said:


> Ok, if everyone was cheating, of course some could cheat better than others. Does that degrade the sport element of things? Of course, it does, but so does the fact that everyone is cheating. So, the argument that all were cheating but Lance cheated better than others (and is therefore a bad dude) is not one I find convincing - personally.
> 
> If it is true that cheating was not universal or near-universal, then yes, that changes everything. What I've seen including interviews with Landis and Andreu seems to imply it was quite widespread. But I don't have firsthand knowledge of that. The story I got from what I've seen and read was that he started cheating because the Europeans were doing it all over the place already.


Why pick on poor Lance?
Because he deceived millions, and corrupted an entire sport. The others just doped. Big difference.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Everyone has this "follow the leader" kind of mentality, thats why "because everyone was doping" gets bought up a lot. Who cares if others were doping, latter winners of the TDF proved that you don't need to be doped up to win the tour among doped riders. So that kind of bs (because everyone was doping) holds no water, it never had and it never will. 
People don't realise how obsurd they are starting to sound.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> Why is it absurd.


Mainly, because LA's fans are iggnorant to the facts.
They create hypotheticals, rather than looking at the facts.

The reason why they are focusing on one guy is becasue he is right in the middle of the biggest fraud in the history of sport. This goes way beyond doping.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> Why is it absurd?
> 
> I think it is absurd that we have an "Anti Doping Agency" that receives federal funds, that prosecutes athletes who competed years earlier in international cycling events that are privately sanctioned and located in France. Someone show me that in the Constitution.
> 
> But aside from that, if everyone was doping, during those years, then it is absurd to focus on one guy who won, on the basis he was doping.


Dave, i think its absurd that there are people that hold the views that you do, mate your a classic case of somebody who actually knows very little on the topic who has his head buried firmly in the sand....


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> Yep, everyone in LA is 'iggnorant" and "creates hypotheticals" ummm-hmmm, yeah, that sounds like some solid logic there.
> 
> So then explain it - if i am "giving hypotehticals" you are just giving a conclusion...show your analysis.


Dude, LA = Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> to the contrary, my head isn't buried in the sand "mate"...
> 
> See if you can follow along now:
> 
> ...


Mate, wheres your source to say every body was doping.
Your carrying on that they are only targeting the guy that won, thats ridiculous, 21 from the last 26 place getters from the tour have been caught and exposed as drug cheats, is that just targeting lance is it?

Pro cyclists have a term for clean riders they call them 'bread and water' riders, even pro cyclists admit there are still plenty in the tour, more often than not they are not top place getters.
Cadel Evens is a world renound anti doper, and you can see it in his face at the end of a race.
Yes i agree that the majority of them are , but that doesnt mean every or all...
Thats the old chestnut thats put out by lance lovers.
The USADA put egg in all a lot of peoples faces, they got their man big time, they only have the juristriction to investigate US cyclists not every other cyclist in the world.
they have done the states proud, got the biggest fish in the biggest pond and some like yourself cant accept that a fellow American who you thought was the greatest has turned out to be the biggest cheat in the history of sport.
Suck it up mate, and stop trying to make up ******** to get over your butthurt..


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> Yep, everyone in LA is 'iggnorant" and "creates hypotheticals" ummm-hmmm, yeah, that sounds like some solid logic there.
> ,
> So then explain it - if i am "giving hypotehticals," you are just giving a conclusion...show your analysis.


LOL, the first paragraph really says it all about Daves knowledge on the subject, i'll leave it here and let the quote above do all the talking.....


----------



## Mr Cup (May 31, 2011)

I don't think it's fair to put any of the riders or especially the winners on a higher level of anti-doping yet. They haven't been proven to have cheated and speak out against it of course, but so did Lance and all the others over the years. For all we know, Wiggins could win the next few tours as well and then 10 years from now we could find out that him and the rest of his team was on some new drug that couldn't be detected at the time. 

This entire thing sadely makes it impossible to really trust any of them.....


----------



## Stugotz (Dec 14, 2011)

*Lance just can't catch a break*

Sunday Times sues Lance Armstrong

LONDON -- Lance Armstrong is being sued for more than $1.5 million by a British newspaper over the settlement of a libel action, which followed doping allegations against the cyclist that it published.

"
It is clear that the proceedings were baseless and fraudulent. Your representations that you had never taken performance enhancing drugs were deliberately false.
"
-- Sunday Times, in letter to Lance Armstrong's lawyers
The Sunday Times paid Armstrong 300,000 pounds (now about $485,000) in 2006 to settle a case after it reprinted claims from a book in 2004 that he took performance-enhancing drugs.

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency concluded this year that Armstrong led a massive doping program on his teams. Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from cycling for life.

The Sunday Times announced in an article in its latest edition that it has issued legal papers against Armstrong.

"It is clear that the proceedings were baseless and fraudulent," the paper said in a letter to Armstrong's lawyers. "Your representations that you had never taken performance enhancing drugs were deliberately false."

The paper, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., said its total claim against Armstrong is "likely to exceed" 1 million pounds ($1.6 million).

"The Sunday Times is now demanding a return of the settlement payment plus interest, as well as its costs in defending the case," the paper said.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

He has many more of these to face.


----------



## Fishbucket (Dec 4, 2012)

Well, If Barry Bonds is saying he didn't... who am I to argue.


----------



## DavyRay (Apr 13, 2012)

Stugotz said:


> Sunday Times sues Lance Armstrong
> 
> LONDON -- Lance Armstrong is being sued for more than $1.5 million by a British newspaper over the settlement of a libel action, which followed doping allegations against the cyclist that it published.
> 
> ...


To see Rupert Murdock facing off with Lance Armstrong in lawsuits over ethics is, well, entertaining. Ironic is perhaps a better word for it.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

daves4mtb said:


> I think it is absurd that we have an "Anti Doping Agency" that receives federal funds, that prosecutes athletes who competed years earlier in international cycling events that are privately sanctioned and located in France. Someone show me that in the Constitution.


the Constitution has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. when a racer applies for and is granted a racing license they willingly and voluntarily subjugate themselves to the various governing bodies of the sport.



daves4mtb said:


> But aside from that, if everyone was doping, during those years, then it is absurd to focus on one guy who won, on the basis he was doping.


you indeed have had your head buried in the sand if you think LA's the only rider of focus during those years or any other. specific to the period in question he was merely the most prominent and one of the few that maintained innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence -- to the extent of suing in retaliation those who even suggested he doped.

hence, this is but the first of many lawsuits that he will enjoy subsequent to this guilt being firmly and irrevocably established.



dave4mtb said:


> I posted a belief that as far as race results go, who cares if he was doping, since everyone else was too.


the guys who weren't doping certainly cared. the guys who had the integrity to race clean even if it meant never standing on the podium. the guys who weren't worthless bags of excrement who eschewed the philosophy of "win at any cost and by any means" certainly cared.

the whole "who cares cuz everyone was doping" is a blind fanboi statement uttered out of pure ignorance of the facts and of road racing in general -- not to mention belying the same questionable personal ethics mirroring those who thought it was ok to lie/cheat/bully to win.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

monogod said:


> -- not to mention belying the same questionable personal ethics mirroring those who thought it was ok to lie/cheat/bully to win.


Yup... this...


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

monogod said:


> the Constitution has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. when a racer applies for and is granted a racing license they willingly and voluntarily subjugate themselves to the various governing bodies of the sport.


yep, but the USADA wasn't actually a governing body when Lance first started racing. it didn't exist. It actually has zero power outside the USA and in fact has been proven many times as leading witch hunts against athletes to try and give the public image to the media that the USA is tough on drug users. That's its sole purpose for existing. If there had been actual real provable evidence against lance, the justice department would NOT have dropped their case against him last year. They'd have filed criminal charges and taken him into a court of law. Not a court of public opinion.



> hence, this is but the first of many lawsuits that he will enjoy subsequent to this guilt being firmly and irrevocably established.


In what court was this guilt firmly established? Oh wait... none. Maybe in the puppet court of the backroom of the USADA headquarters when they decided ahead of time that Lance was guilty. Its amusing how all the racers who were dopers who were "witnesses" have gotten slap on the wrist suspensions for their "reliable" testimonies and Lance is given a lifetime ban. The UCI was well within their rights to deny the USADA's claims, as is IOC still (since he was no doubt blood tested at the time he won his bronze medal and didn't test positive for anything they were testing for). All the evidence since the USADA didn't actually ever have access to his actual blood and urine tests, nor the authority to ever gain access to them was based on personal testimony of proven liars. Only a complete moron would believe that is enough to firmly and irrevocably prove Lance was guilty also.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

DeeEight said:


> yep, but the USADA wasn't actually a governing body when Lance first started racing. it didn't exist. It actually has zero power outside the USA and in fact has been proven many times as leading witch hunts against athletes to try and give the public image to the media that the USA is tough on drug users. That's its sole purpose for existing. If there had been actual real provable evidence against lance, the justice department would NOT have dropped their case against him last year. They'd have filed criminal charges and taken him into a court of law. Not a court of public opinion.
> 
> In what court was this guilt firmly established? Oh wait... none. Maybe in the puppet court of the backroom of the USADA headquarters when they decided ahead of time that Lance was guilty. Its amusing how all the racers who were dopers who were "witnesses" have gotten slap on the wrist suspensions for their "reliable" testimonies and Lance is given a lifetime ban. The UCI was well within their rights to deny the USADA's claims, as is IOC still (since he was no doubt blood tested at the time he won his bronze medal and didn't test positive for anything they were testing for).


Please, really...... you need to do some research, the USADA had a mountain of evidence, from first hand witnesses, to finacial records, phone records, paper trails, failed blood tests that were covered up by team doctors etc, the reason Lance ran away from the evidence is that he knew it was unbeatable, he knew he would look like a liar and a cheat and he would loose everything to litigation against him.
The USADA put egg and humble pie in many peoples faces, they proved the doubters wrong.
Are you saying that over 20 first hand witnesses are lying and its a big conspiricy lol
To say he passed all blood tests is outright false information, mate the guy is as guilty as sin, he doesnt have a leg to stand on and he is a boarderline sociopath.

The USADA is the only thing that give the whole situation ant credit at all, they have done the states proud, and bought down the biggest cheat, bully and liar in the history of sport, and thats a fact....


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

If there was a mountain of evidence, why didn't they submit it to the US justice department or even to a US federal prosecutor in some random state looking to make a name for him/herself ? Why was this not presented in an ACTUAL courtroom where there is a real burden of proof to be met... oh that's right...because it wasn't real proof. It was a stacked deck of heresay and slander where they'd decided his guilt ahead of time, and done everything they could to manufacture the proof of that afterwards, even going so far as to solicit testimony from other proven liars, in exchange for sweet deals.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

There are people who believe OJ did not kill his wife, that Elvis lives, that alien beings live among us, and that Lance Armstrong was clean. 

And that Tonight Santa Claus will land on their roof. If they are lucky he will give them Tyler Hamilton's book, "The Secret Race" and they will learn something true about professional cycling in the 90's and the first decade of the 00's.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

DeeEight said:


> If there was a mountain of evidence, why didn't they submit it to the US justice department or even to a US federal prosecutor in some random state looking to make a name for him/herself ? Why was this not presented in an ACTUAL courtroom where there is a real burden of proof to be met... oh that's right...because it wasn't real proof. It was a stacked deck of heresay and slander where they'd decided his guilt ahead of time, and done everything they could to manufacture the proof of that afterwards, even going so far as to solicit testimony from other proven liars, in exchange for sweet deals.


So i gather you think he is clean?
i gather you think the first hand eye witnesses are all lying?
suppose you think that all the evidence is fabricated?
Suppose you think that poor lance was just over it and too tired to fight the charges?

Suppose you think the earth is still flat and the world was going to end a few days ago?

I have read the key points of the USADA report, seen many eye witness accounts, if it was a murder charge, it would be more than enough hard evidence to lock somebody up for life, if you think theres no proof, you need to do some actual research..

lol, im just gonna leave it here i have no intentions of arguing with somebody thats clear bias has totally skewed his vision, you know what they say about 1 in 10 people?


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

dwt said:


> There are people who believe OJ did not kill his wife, that Elvis lives, that alien beings live among us, and that Lance Armstrong was clean.
> 
> And that Tonight Santa Claus will land on their roof. If they are lucky he will give them Tyler Hamilton's book, "The Secret Race" and they will learn something true about professional cycling in the 90's and the first decade of the 00's.


LOL, well said, but i guarentee you those same people will say Tyler is making it all up and so is every other witness, and that they have been paid off and its all a big conspiracy, same old story, as i said dwt, you know what they say about 1 in 10 people, in the poll above 8% thinks he never doped, it was 10% for a long time, that proves the 1 in 10 theory spot on, and theres no point arguing with these people or even trying to have a rational conversation with them, that would be the definition of madness lol.......:thumbsup:


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

I think Lance is clean right "wait for it, wait for it"
NOW


Sj


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Tone's said:


> So i gather you think he is clean?


Nope, I believe he and everyone else that were "contenders" for the overall title were riding dirty. If you look at the finishing results for the TdF races when Lance was riding, most of the top-5 were proven in other investigations to be dopers. For several of the years they invalidated Lance's wins, they couldn't elevate second or third to the wins because they'd been caught and convicted of doping already. But they never actually proved he was riding dirty at the time, and retroactively convicting people for things with heresay evidence and testing that couldn't actually prove at the time... well DwT mentioning OJ simpson is appropriate. They couldn't convict him in a criminal court because the burden of proof is higher, so what did they do... find him guilty in a civil case that he was financially liable for the deaths, where the burden of proof is much lower. Same thing happened here with Lance. Attempting to argue any different just proves you're a moron.



> i gather you think the first hand eye witnesses are all lying?


I believe they'd say whatever they think the USADA wanted to hear them say, in order to get cheesecake sweet deals for themselves.

Levi Leipheimer for example got a six month suspension that's in effect from september 2012 thru march 2013, which prevents him from doing exactly NO major races. Oh and they took away his results for a 7 year span in which he really didn't do anything spectacular anyway. Oh boo hoo hoo.



> suppose you think that all the evidence is fabricated?


I've read the report and think enough of it was fabricated as to cast doubt on the whole report and all the findings. Again it comes down to what can actually be proven under law, versus under "we make our own rules and will change the rules to meet what flimsy evidence we have if we don't like the first results" that is how the USADA has operated since its inception 13 years ago.



> Suppose you think that poor lance was just over it and too tired to fight the charges?


I think so. I think it was pointless to go into a game where the deck is marked and stacked by the dealers, and try and think you can play against that and still win.



> Suppose you think the earth is still flat and the world was going to end a few days ago?


Nope but I know you are a moron and that's enough for me to sleep at night.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

daves4mtb said:


> Tone's "can see it in Cadel Evan's face" that he doesn't dope, currently, at the end of a race..


Tyler Hamilton, an admitted doper who was privy in his era to inside information in the peloton, as to who was doing what, as well as who was clean, is on record that Cadel was/is clean.

If you want a hero with a record which is not likely ever to be broken, he's the guy. Only rider ever to have been both Mtb and Road World Champ, and TdF winner to boot. And clean. No one can touch that. Mate.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Yep, after years of merely winning the "other" jerseys of the tour, he finally reached a stage where all the people with drugs were retired or suspended/banned.


----------



## dru (Sep 4, 2006)

D8, I'm curious about your interpretation of reality......

If armstrong is innocent?

Could you explain why Armstrong severed all ties with Ferrari on Oct 1st, 2004, confirmed by Stapleton in 2005, and reconfirmed by Armstrong spokesman Mark Fabiani on April 15, 2010, "Lance has not had a professional relationship with Ferrari since 2004", yet the payments and working together continued in secret?

2005 $100,000
12/31/2006: $110,000.
and in 2009:

On September 1, 2009, Stefano writes, "Schumi asked me if you could process the
payment (25.000 EUR) for the season as agreed last March. You can forward the payment
when's best for you to my account in MC [Monte Carlo]."428 To which Armstrong responds,
"Can I pay it in cash when I see you?"429

So in your interpretation it doesn't matter if Armstrong is a liar?

Or was this stuff fabricated by the USADA and various police agencies from around the world just to get your hero?

The fact that Ferrari has long been linked to doping carries no weight with you either?

In all honesty, contrary to what you claim, many many people have gone to prison on circumstantial evidence, and rightfully so.

Armstrong is guilty as sin.

I'll be waiting for the 'moron' rebuttal; it seems to make you feel better.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

.WestCoastHucker. said:


> OJ disagrees with your theory...


even the GLOVE didn't help.

if it doesn't fit - you must acquit.

brilliant piece of american judicial system...


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

AZ.MTNS said:


> The thread that keeps on giving.


THE DEADEST HORSE EVER...

is taking more beating...


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

daves4mtb said:


> Yes, it does, if taxpayer money is used to support the US Anti Doping Agency. Please read the Constitution and show me where it says that is a proper role of the federal government. (AND, YES, I AM AWARE THE USADA IS NOT A PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT IT GETS PUBLIC FUNDING).
> 
> If you read my other posts you will hopefully understand that I am well aware that doping was widespread and I commented on other top riders being found guilty of it during the same era.
> 
> ...


actually Dave - if you have any doubts about Lance's guilt - after all the info that was made available to general public - i must inform you that you really should do a reality check...

i mean this in the most gentle way... seriously...

Lance was my hero, and if he simply said: "yep, i did it. i am sorry" he would have remained being my hero.

But defending what is really defenceless, he is treating me and all others that believed in him - as trash with no intelligence. I take offence to it.

Big man, even with only one nut, should own to his mistakes. I don't fault him for doping as much - it is human to make mistakes - particularly in sports. Been there and I understand the desire to win - completely. However, I fault him for not admitting and apologizing. That made him a small man. He can not fit his hero shoes anymore. Sorry Dave. I hope you accept my approach to this debate...


----------



## Fishbucket (Dec 4, 2012)

DeeEight said:


> Nope but I know you are a moron and that's enough for me to sleep at night.


You were doing so well... untill then.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Fishbucket said:


> You were doing so well... untill then.


You're actually new here aren't you?


----------



## Lance Strongarm (Oct 10, 2012)

DeeEight said:


> yep, but the USADA wasn't actually a governing body when Lance first started racing. it didn't exist. It actually has zero power outside the USA and in fact has been proven many times as leading witch hunts against athletes to try and give the public image to the media that the USA is tough on drug users. That's its sole purpose for existing. If there had been actual real provable evidence against lance, the justice department would NOT have dropped their case against him last year. They'd have filed criminal charges and taken him into a court of law. Not a court of public opinion.
> 
> In what court was this guilt firmly established? Oh wait... none. Maybe in the puppet court of the backroom of the USADA headquarters when they decided ahead of time that Lance was guilty. Its amusing how all the racers who were dopers who were "witnesses" have gotten slap on the wrist suspensions for their "reliable" testimonies and Lance is given a lifetime ban. The UCI was well within their rights to deny the USADA's claims, as is IOC still (since he was no doubt blood tested at the time he won his bronze medal and didn't test positive for anything they were testing for). All the evidence since the USADA didn't actually ever have access to his actual blood and urine tests, nor the authority to ever gain access to them was based on personal testimony of proven liars. Only a complete moron would believe that is enough to firmly and irrevocably prove Lance was guilty also.


Checks in the mail Brah.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Lance Strongarm said:


> Checks in the mail Brah.


priceless...

i see the potential in you Lance... :thumbsup:


----------



## TripleB67 (Dec 24, 2012)

Innocent until proven guilty....show me the proof, not just a bunch of people saying he did. If OJ isn't guilty then Lance isn't guilty 

TripleB67


----------



## Fishbucket (Dec 4, 2012)

DeeEight said:


> You're actually new here aren't you?


 And ?


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

DeeEight said:


> You're actually new here aren't you?


appears he is, but that didn't stop him from virtually instantly realizing what the rest of us already know... that you REALLY need to change the last half of your sig. at this point it's right on par with lance's adamant stance of innocence. :thumbsup:


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

DeeEight said:


> If there was a mountain of evidence, why didn't they submit it to the US justice department or even to a US federal prosecutor in some random state looking to make a name for him/herself ? Why was this not presented in an ACTUAL courtroom where there is a real burden of proof to be met... oh that's right...because it wasn't real proof. It was a stacked deck of heresay and slander where they'd decided his guilt ahead of time, and done everything they could to manufacture the proof of that afterwards, even going so far as to solicit testimony from other proven liars, in exchange for sweet deals.


yeah... the evidence was so weak and inconclusive that LA withdrew his contention and took a lifetime ban from the sport and willingly accepted being stripped of all of his TDF victories rather than face and respond to it in an open hearing.

what makes it even better is that this is from a dude that spent MILLIONS suing and retaliating against people who dared to even insinuate that he might be doping.

LA had the chance to answer to the evidence and discredit all of it. he had the opportunity to vindicate himself. he had the opportunity to crush the haters and show what an honest, clean, fair, man/racer of integrity he was. BUT HE CHOSE NOT TO. he WILLINGLY accepted the punitive measures rather than facing the weak and inconclusive evidence in an actual hearing.

ask yourself why sometime, champ. :thumbsup:


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

DeeEight said:


> Nope, I believe he and everyone else that were "contenders" for the overall title were riding dirty. If you look at the finishing results for the TdF races when Lance was riding, most of the top-5 were proven in other investigations to be dopers.
> Nope but I know you are a moron and that's enough for me to sleep at night.


That is the key part, not the last part about someone being a moron, but the first part. If you believe in what everyone that has testified has said, even Lemond, pretty much the entire peleton is on some sort of illegal substance. The heck with the top 5, they were all cheating. Does that make what Lance did right? No not at all but I think you have to put it into perspective.

I actually wonder, if everyone was clean, would lance still have won? Each person responds differently to EPO and people can see little improvement or dramatic improvement depending upon their baseline levels.


----------



## roadie scum (Jan 21, 2011)

Lance was nothing more than pack filler before doping. Was he clean? Yep and Santa is coming down my chimney tonight.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

roadie scum said:


> Lance was nothing more than pack filler before doping. Was he clean? Yep and Santa is coming down my chimney tonight.


hey scum, when you see the fat guy tonight, ask him about AZ's bike, will you please?

AZ is starting to concern me as of late, which I think is due to the fact that he still hasn't gotten his black bike.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Vespasianus said:


> I actually wonder, if everyone was clean, would lance still have won? Each person responds differently to EPO and people can see little improvement or dramatic improvement depending upon their baseline levels.


I seriously and highly doubt that he would of won. You take drugs only for one reason, to gain the extra performance over the rest. If you do take drugs, you consciously know that you're unable to win without it, otherwise why would you dope up. He knew at the time he wasn't world class material, not even close. Doping up from his first TDF to the last really says a lot.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

SV11 said:


> I seriously and highly doubt that he would of won. You take drugs only for one reason, to gain the extra performance over the rest. If you do take drugs, you consciously know that you're unable to win without it, otherwise why would you dope up. He knew at the time he wasn't world class material, not even close. Doping up from his first TDF to the last really says a lot.


everyone responds to EPO very similarly - it is a simple math. the more oxygen carriers - the more oxygen can be fed into the burner...

the catch is to dope as much as possible short of exploding the burner. that is where Lance was the king, plus masking it successfully (by changing his blood) after every session - so that he is not caught - that was the ultimate perfection...

without it? pack filler, as someone suggested it...


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

osokolo said:


> everyone responds to EPO very similarly - it is a simple math. the more oxygen carriers - the more oxygen can be fed into the burner...
> 
> the catch is to dope as much as possible short of exploding the burner. that is where Lance was the king, plus masking it successfully (by changing his blood) after every session - so that he is not caught - that was the ultimate perfection...
> 
> without it? pack filler, as someone suggested it...


It's funny, why didn't he just put all that extra work into training, rather than finding shortcuts and deceiving people, maybe he would of amounted to something.


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

DeeEight said:


> I believe they'd say whatever they think the USADA wanted to hear them say, in order to get cheesecake sweet deals for themselves.
> 
> Levi Leipheimer for example got a six month suspension that's in effect from september 2012 thru march 2013, which prevents him from doing exactly NO major races. Oh and they took away his results for a 7 year span in which he really didn't do anything spectacular anyway. Oh boo hoo hoo.


Most of the witnesses in the Armstrong case are not racers. A racing ban doesn't hold much water for them, now does it? Additionally, Leipheimer knew that in testifying, he would have to admit to his own drug use as well. He did, and he received that suspension; later he was fired from his team at Omega-Pharma Quickstep for this confession. If he hadn't been 100% sure that he was right to testify, why would he have done so? He lost his job, and likely ended his career, just to testify against Armstrong. Have you heard what happens to those who go against Armstrong? He makes it a personal vendetta and tries very hard to make their lives a living hell.



osokolo said:


> everyone responds to EPO very similarly - it is a simple math. the more oxygen carriers - the more oxygen can be fed into the burner...


Actually, everyone responds differently to EPO. Armstrong just happened to be one of those people who react very strongly to it, and then of course he knew those people so that he could scrape by most of the drug controls without any positives.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

monogod said:


> appears he is, but that didn't stop him from virtually instantly realizing what the rest of us already know... that you REALLY need to change the last half of your sig. at this point it's right on par with lance's adamant stance of innocence. :thumbsup:


And hasn't ever stopped me from and others from realizing you love to stick your nose into any and every thread hoping someone will listen to your diatribe and rep you for it. The whole revealing identities feature francois implemented let me see that you left me one in october, for a thread that hasn't had a post in it since Jan 24, 2011, and which you weren't even ever ****ing involved in.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

erik1245 said:


> Actually, everyone responds differently to EPO


just out of curiosity - can you describe how different athletes would respond differently to EPO?

the goal when using rEPO is to increase the erythrocyte level by 3-4% - same as blood doping. but with rEPO it is achieved within days, compared to months of altitude training.

how do different athletes react differently to increased erythrocyte levels? as far as i understand the mechanism - the difference is insignificant, compared to overall gain...

but i'd love to learn more accurate explanation...


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

DeeEight said:


> And hasn't ever stopped me from and others from realizing you love to stick your nose into any and every thread hoping someone will listen to your diatribe and rep you for it. The whole revealing identities feature francois implemented let me see that you left me one in october, for a thread that hasn't had a post in it since Jan 24, 2011, and which you weren't even ever ****ing involved in.


----------



## Fix the Spade (Aug 4, 2008)

In other news:

The Sunday Times of London plans to sue Armstrong - Yahoo! Sports
Sunday Times to sue Armstrong

How long before all that money gets ripped right out of his grubby little hands?


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Fix the Spade said:


> In other news:
> 
> The Sunday Times of London plans to sue Armstrong - Yahoo! Sports
> Sunday Times to sue Armstrong
> ...


it is likely only the first in a long series of lawsuits to recover monies paid out in either settlements or legal defense against his attacks of those whom he targeted as enemies for revealing, admitting, or even suggesting he was doping.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

daves4mtb said:


> All that being said, I am still back to my original point: Does it matter? If the whole field was doped up and roided out and transfusioned full of EPO, why go back and "prosecute" if you call it that Lance Armstrong? What for? We all know that darned near the whole field in that era was dirty. They aren't planning on giving the title to anyone else. It just serves no or little purpose. If the end result is that cycling will now be clean, that is wonderful. But somehow I suspect there will always be those that are trying to get an edge.


wow... you are a lawyer?

Merry Christmas...


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> We all know that darned near the whole field in that era was dirty.


This is ignorance at it's best, enough with the excuses.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

daves4mtb said:


> Yes, and the only relevance that has here is the fact that there are issues of dropped DOJ prosecutions, and different burdens of proof at issue here. You seem to be trying really hard to take issue with something I say here. This must be all you have left.
> 
> Merry Christmas indeed.


i am surprised that a lawyer would use language that you used in your PM to me, which i had to delete as apparently it is against the rules to post PMs. Thanks - you know who you are - for the advice.

plus a negative rep.

cheers and good luck in your career.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> Please show me some reason to believe that during the years Lance was winning, that damn near the whole field wasn't doping.


Well, you're the one who made the statement, so how about you pony up? (submit your findings)


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> I don't make "findings" but I'll cite to Floyd Landis, Frankie Andreu, and someone else in this thread mentioned even Greg LeMond saying the whole field was doping then.
> 
> Now it is your turn.


Cadel Evans was doping? I've heard enough...
Carry on.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

daves4mtb said:


> You've made several personal attacks, whilst claiming to be "gentle". Not only is it phony, but you deserved the neg rep.
> 
> And no, it doesn't make it okay when you 1. insult someone 2. misconstrue their arguments repeatedly, but claim you are doing it "gently" and then say Merry Christmas.


you must have mistaken me for someone else:

i responded to your post only once and i referred to you only with this statement:



> actually Dave - if you have any doubts about Lance's guilt - after all the info that was made available to general public - i must inform you that you really should do a reality check...
> 
> i mean this in the most gentle way... seriously...


the second time i referred to you was with this:



> wow... you are a lawyer?


if these two are "several personal attacks" i apologize.

however, i think you have way more serious issues than your angle on Lance Armstrong.

thanks for your second, and i hope the last PM to me - which i deleted here as well - as it is against rules to post PMs.

all this after my two above comments to you?


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

daves4mtb said:


> Yes, and the only relevance that has here is the fact that there are issues of dropped DOJ prosecutions, and different burdens of proof at issue here. You seem to be trying really hard to take issue with something I say here. This must be all you have left.
> 
> Merry Christmas indeed.


the DOJ isn't necessarily through with lance.... linky 

of equal relevance is that LA refused to face the evidence in a hearing. if the 30+ witnesses against him are all liars and easily discredited then why didn't he face them? why did he pull his defense at the last minute after filing countless injunctions and motions and willingly accept a lifetime ban and being stripped of his TDF wins? why will you not address these points?

one possibility is that with such a "nolo contendere" resolution by not admitting guilt and by not being adjudicated guilty via standard venues he can always claim never to have been "proven" to dope and thus claim innocence. this is still his claim DESPITE failed urine tests and a crushing mountain of evidence of his lies and deception.

being adjudicated as "guilty" in a formal hearing would strip him of this last vestige of maintaining his facade of innocence.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

osokolo said:


> i am surprised that a lawyer would use language that you used in your PM to me:
> 
> plus a negative rep.
> 
> cheers and good luck in your career.


wow... you got PMs from him??? lucky!

all i got was neg rep with the exact same comment.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

monogod said:


> wow... you got PMs from him??? lucky!
> 
> all i got was neg rep with the exact same comment.


lol... i feel special... and he says:



daves4mtb said:


> As this thread has been taken over by people who think that Lance was dirty, and the only thing that should happen is maximum prosecution and punishment of him for that, and that anyone who disagrees one little bit with their view of that part of the world is a psychopathic liar who hates kittens and puppies, it is pretty clear that no meaningful conversation can take place within this thread.


lol... he is a victim now... must be a "different angle"...

smiley shaking head...


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

daves4mtb said:


> Yep, you're probably right about that. The reason I am not addressing those points is that I agree with them. At least as to the first paragraph. Please re-read my post where I discuss that he possibly would have prevailed in federal court, but lost in the USADA proceeding, and that might be why he did what he did. And in the same post I state my belief he was probably doping (so you can stop trying to misconstrue me as claiming he was clean - YET AGAIN).
> 
> As far as nolo contender - are you sure there is such a thing as a nolo plea in a USADA action? Generally that is left for criminal proceedings. And a nolo plea doesn't have all the benefits that non-lawyers think it does in most jurisdictions in modern times. Further, how is a plea of "no contest" different from simply not "contesting" as far as Lance "maintaining that he has never proven to have doped". He still hasn't been so proven. They didn't have a trial in absentia. (But yes, probably he doped).
> 
> Yes, being found guilty in a court of law, depending on the jurisdiction, the fairness of the proceeding, and the burden of proof employed, can have a legal effect on other obligations.


it never ceases to amaze me how lawyers can skew even the simplest case - making judicial system a pure travesty sometimes... OJ just comes to mind as a glaring example...... now this "angle" on Lance Armstrong...

"yeah, he doped, but so did everyone else. why are we witch hunting poor Lance"

geez...


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

daves4mtb said:


> Yep, you're probably right about that. The reason I am not addressing those points is that I agree with them. At least as to the first paragraph. Please re-read my post where I discuss that he possibly would have prevailed in federal court, but lost in the USADA proceeding, and that might be why he did what he did. And in the same post I state my belief he was probably doping (so you can stop trying to misconstrue me as claiming he was clean - YET AGAIN).


incorrect. i wasn't misconstruing anything nor was i insinuating, implying, nor could any reasonably sane person infer that i was suggesting with that post that you were claiming LA was clean. i was asking you to specifically address various and specific points about LA's actions. nothing more and nothing less. it was you who misconstrued by inferring anything extraneous into it.



daves4mtb said:


> As far as nolo contender - are you sure there is such a thing as a nolo plea in a USADA action? Generally that is left for criminal proceedings. And a nolo plea doesn't have all the benefits that non-lawyers think it does in most jurisdictions in modern times.


i never said there was such a plea in a USADA action. what i said is "_such a "nolo contendere" resolution_". with nolo contendere being in quotation marks it should be obvious that i was referring to the STYLE of resolution (i.e. not contesting the charges but likewise not admitting guilt) rather than saying he entered a plea of nolo contendere and that's how the case was resolved.



daves4mtb said:


> Further, how is a plea of "no contest" different from simply not "contesting" as far as Lance "maintaining that he has never proven to have doped". He still hasn't been so proven. They didn't have a trial in absentia. (But yes, probably he doped).


no, it still hasn't been proven in a hearing. that was precisely my point.

to repeat: by refusing to confront/rebut the voluminous and plethoric evidence against him he was able to avoid an adjudication of guilt in a formal hearing. by avoiding an adjudication of guilt in a formal hearing LA is still able to claim his doping has never been proven. of course by "proven" he means definitively adjudicated in a formal hearing because it has been well established and demonstrated that he was doping, lying, engaging in blackmail and coercion, and a host of other nefarious actions.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

daves4mtb said:


> Once again, for you
> 
> It isn't about "poor Lance". it is about a non court proceeding to go back in time to prove an athlete, competing in international sporting events, was breaking the rules, during a time when absolutely everyone was breaking the rules, and to say that even though the governing bodies of the sport gave him a clean bill of health repeatedly, that he wasn't clean after all and should therefore be stripped of his titles. I think it is unfair to the competitors and to the fans of the sport.
> 
> ...


Ignorance of the law excuses no man -- from practicing it. Adison Mizner


----------



## Stugotz (Dec 14, 2011)

Vespasianus said:


> I actually wonder, if everyone was clean, would lance still have won? Each person responds differently to EPO and people can see little improvement or dramatic improvement depending upon their baseline levels.


Not a chance! With a documented VO2 max in the upper 70's physiologically it would be impossible...


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

daves4mtb said:


> It isn't about "poor Lance". it is about a non court proceeding to go back in time to prove an athlete, competing in international sporting events, was breaking the rules, during a time when absolutely everyone was breaking the rules, and to say that even though the governing bodies of the sport gave him a clean bill of health repeatedly, that he wasn't clean after all and should therefore be stripped of his titles. I think it is unfair to the competitors and to the fans of the sport.


it's not unfair to strip a cheater of unfairly gotten wins. doesn't matter how many of the riders were doping.

you're arguing situational ethics and very few are buying it or on board with you.

also, not only was he repeatedly given a clean bill of health but he repeatedly failed drug tests. you're aware of this... right?

he repeatedly dodged drug tests and even dropped out of races to avoid being tested. you're aware of this... right?



daves4mtb said:


> Maybe you're right, maybe the solution is to go after lance, have no TdF winner for a period of several years, and to make him out to be the devil. It just seems to me he is a fallible human who was competing in the sport as it existed, at that level, at that time. Maybe that doesn't make him "innocent" but perhaps it is a "mitigating factor". And I still don't see what cycling, especially cycling in the U.S, gains out of this. That's all.


excuse me? "make him out to be the devil"?!?!?!?

hardly.

you know why such a ruckus was made about him? because nearly ALL of the others implicated in this huge doping scandal CAME CLEAN when confronted. lance did not. lance aggressively pursued and intimidated and retaliated against people who spoke out against him. lance maintained his innocence when busted in outright in lies. lance insisted that he never failed a drug test when he failed many. lance lied under oath in depositions about doping. and it goes on and on ad nauseum.

lance made himself out to be the devil and now he gets to reap the whirlwind.

it's interesting you're so willing to give him a pass for lying, perjury, cheating, doping, blackmailing, bullying, and retaliation with "he's a fallible human being" as some sort of excusable "mitigating factor" while you've neg repped and shat upon anyone who's dared to discuss this with you.

don't look now but your disingenuous prejudicial "tolerance" is showing....


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

monogod said:


> it's not unfair to strip a cheater of unfairly gotten wins. doesn't matter how many of the riders were doping.
> 
> you're arguing situational ethics and very few are buying it or on board with you.
> 
> ...


well said.

end of the story. let's move on, please. there is no winning here...


----------



## Stugotz (Dec 14, 2011)

I stand corrected. Lance Armstrong actually has a documented VO2 max of 84. (Still not in the realm of a GC winner).

Documented VO2 max figures.


----------



## RollingAround (Sep 26, 2011)

All I know is it make sme feel better about huffing and puffing up a hill since it took Lance blood transfusions ect ect to get those titles. I feel less inferior, at least I'm 100% natural blood sweat and beers.


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

osokolo said:


> just out of curiosity - can you describe how different athletes would respond differently to EPO?
> 
> the goal when using rEPO is to increase the erythrocyte level by 3-4% - same as blood doping. but with rEPO it is achieved within days, compared to months of altitude training.
> 
> ...


Seems I missed a bit in this thread while I was out... Anyways.

EPO is a drug, and it is also a hormone that occurs naturally in the body. It stimulates and controls production of erythrocytes (red blood cells) in the kidneys and bone marrow -- the EPO that is taken as a PED is slightly different from naturally-occurring EPO, which is why drug controls are able to detect it. However, both forms still have the same effect -- which is increased number of red blood cells.

As a drug, EPO affects the endocrine system. Simply by the nature of the endocrine system, every person's system responds differently to each drug, though everyone will experience the same basic effects -- in the case of EPO, it's more red blood cells. Some patients are naturally more inclined to produce more blood cells, and some may not, as is the case with anemic patients. (EPO is commonly used to treat anemia, fun fact.) Additionally, some patients respond more quickly and readily to hormonal changes than other patients. The human body is the same basic system, but minute changes in every person's set of genes results in vastly different bodies

Anyhow, that's the very long, very complicated story very short, and as well as I understand it.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

osokolo said:


> everyone responds to EPO very similarly - it is a simple math. the more oxygen carriers - the more oxygen can be fed into the burner...
> 
> the catch is to dope as much as possible short of exploding the burner. that is where Lance was the king, plus masking it successfully (by changing his blood) after every session - so that he is not caught - that was the ultimate perfection...
> 
> without it? pack filler, as someone suggested it...


Well, I would not agree to that. People don't respond to asprin the same way, let alone EPO. Also, if you are performing at a certain level with a lower hemoglobin level, EPO will give you a boost. If you are performing at the same level but with a higher hemoglobin level, the benefits will be less.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Vespasianus said:


> Well, I would not agree to that. People don't respond to asprin the same way, let alone EPO. Also, if you are performing at a certain level with a lower hemoglobin level, EPO will give you a boost. If you are performing at the same level but with a higher hemoglobin level, the benefits will be less.


sure - i would not challenge this statement.

i am pretty sure Lance responded pretty well - because if he didn't - why in the hell would he risk so much, for such an insignificant gain.

not just him, but everyone else.

so i think it is fair to say that all of them benefited from EPO, significantly - otherwise they would not have used it...

yes?


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

osokolo said:


> sure - i would not challenge this statement.
> 
> i am pretty sure Lance responded pretty well - because if he didn't - why in the hell would he risk so much, for such an insignificant gain.
> 
> ...


I agree, I think Lance was probably a good responder. Heck, I would say he was a great responder. The concern with everyone using something like EPO is that you are really just selecting the best responder and not necessarily the best cyclist, if you know what I mean.

I would also agree the most benefited in some way, either directly or though a placebo effect but the level of benefit varied. I also think some athletes take stuff just because others are doing it. The wife is a tri-athelete and she often talk about other female tri-atheletes taking low dose cialis as a PED. From her comments, it seems to be almost a race day vitamin. In reality, it may not do much to increase performance but lots of people take it just to keep up with the joneses.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

What cracks me up is the 36 people ( 9.21%) in the poll in this thread that think lance has never doped, add to that the 28 (7.16%) that say no but im starting to have doubts lol, honestly im amazed at how these people feed and look after themselves in general life with out assistance, this poll is the funniest thing ive read all year, no wonder Nigerians can make a living pulling scams over the phone, some people are as dumb as a piece of 4 week old dog sh*t, to put it mildly.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> Yeah, there are some who believe strongly in Innocence until guilt is proven ina court of law, due process and all that stuff. What a bunch of lunatics!


And some that believe that if you run away from a mountain of evidence with your fingers in your ears, your as guilty as sin and a pathological liar.


----------



## bigpedaler (Jan 29, 2007)

Didn't read this whole thread, saw a lot of repetition just on page 1!

So everybody else doped, too; did everybody else act like the f'n Godfather about it? They ALL denied...until the evidence landed in front of them -- Ullrich, Tyler, Floyd, et. al. Levi stepped up without getting busted.

Lance CLAIMED that their team contracts included a 'no-doping clause'; so YEAH, if he ADMITS, he's liable to USPS/Discovery for whatever the rest of them leave him with. He surely doesn't want to go back to that apartment in Richardson!

Still an @$$hole, though........

And, yeah -- he doped.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

daves4mtb said:


> Yeah, there are some who believe strongly in Innocence until guilt is proven ina court of law, due process and all that stuff. What a bunch of lunatics!


So I take it Hitler was innocent?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Jayem said:


> So I take it Hitler was innocent?


Mentioning hitler is an automatic loss in an internet debate. Don't you know that by now ?

But since you asked a question, it'd help if you clarified that with what exactly you're claiming sarcastically that he's innocent of ? Certainly not of being accused of being a moron who thought because he was a private in the 1st world war, that he knew more about tactics and strategy than all the generals and field marshalls and admirals of the german military who tried to give him advice.


----------



## lapinGTI (Dec 30, 2009)

daves4mtb said:


> Yeah, there are some who believe strongly in Innocence until guilt is proven ina court of law, due process and all that stuff. What a bunch of lunatics!


From what I understand, USADA couldn't obligate someone to be at its own process. In Court you don't have the chance Lance had... You must be present to take your blame. Lance is guilty just like Pat Mcquaid is. It's sad that he could escape like this, I would really like to see him debate and intimate the jury.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

daves4mtb said:


> Yeah, there are some who believe strongly in Innocence until guilt is proven ina court of law, due process and all that stuff. What a bunch of lunatics!











A court of law has nothing to do with doping by US athletes because doping is not a crime in the USA per se. Perjury conspiracy and obstruction of justice are - Bonds, Clemons, Jones - but like all crimes not slam dunks to prove. Doping IS a crime in France and Italy, not USA not Canada, not Spain.

Use the google to research what WADA and USADA are all about. Dopers found in violation under their systems have to right to an arbitration hearing. Lance sued USADA in a COURT OF LAW over its jurisdiction over him AND LOST. He then folded his tent and chose not to arbitrate. Afraid of perjury maybe? His teammates who came clean and testified against him were and decided to fess up.

Others busted with Armstrong have chosen to arbitrate: Team Director Johan Bruyneel for example. Case not heard yet. But others also folded such as dope Dr. Michele Ferrari.

Therefore Lance as doper with zero TdF victories. Time for some people to deal with reality


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> Mentioning hitler is an automatic loss in an internet debate. Don't you know that by now ?
> 
> But since you asked a question, it'd help if you clarified that with what exactly you're claiming sarcastically that he's innocent of ? Certainly not of being accused of being a moron who thought because he was a private in the 1st world war, that he knew more about tactics and strategy than all the generals and field marshalls and admirals of the german military who tried to give him advice.


he is just trying to challenge the logic that anyone that was not proven guilty in the court of justice - is actually innocent.

hitler never made it to the court, hence was never proven guilty in the court. same as lance.


----------



## sfb12 (Dec 27, 2012)

I think its very possible but either way the man should have his titles, he did work for them. Nobody actually knows besides Lance himself.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

sfb12 said:


> I think its very possible but either way the man should have his titles, he did work for them. Nobody actually knows besides Lance himself.


"_nobody actually knows besides lance himself_"? not even the people who saw him dope, who doped with him, who helped him dope, and who covered up his doping? 

i'll wager that if you were the first clean rider to finish behind the dopers you'd not feel he should retain titles gained by cheating. :thumbsup:


----------



## sfb12 (Dec 27, 2012)

monogod said:


> "_nobody actually knows besides lance himself_"? not even the people who saw him dope, who doped with him, who helped him dope, and who covered up his doping?
> 
> i'll wager that if you were the first clean rider to finish behind the dopers you'd not feel he should retain titles gained by cheating. :thumbsup:


Maybe i'd see it differently if i was a pro rider or in that situation. He was the reason i bought a road bike, I guess a big motivation before all of this was in question.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

sfb12 said:


> Maybe i'd see it differently if i was a pro rider or in that situation. He was the reason i bought a road bike, I guess a big motivation before all of this was in question.


not just you!!!

millions of people became cycling fans because of Lance's story of success and triumph over evil disease...

why did he need to cheat?

even when he cheated - why didn't he stand up, own it and ask for forgiveness. first from those that he intimidated to quitting their careers to those that paid him a lot of money to settle the lawsuits, to millions of fans...

i'd be the first to forgive him.

but he did not man up. which makes everything he did - multiple times worse and that is why he had to go down in flames.

his free fall did not end yet. it just started.

but the sport will survive. including because of all this gong show...

:thumbsup:


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

daves4mtb said:


> There was a us doj prosecution that wa dropped. Prosecutions are usually dropped if the prosecutor believes he cannot get a conviction. That doesn't mean innocence factually, as you've pointed out, but it does mean something about the evidence. That's justbthe way it is. Again, not saying Lance is clean


their decision not to move forward means nothing about the quality or quantity of the evidence against LA.

if you'd have used the google or just read other threads on here before entering this discussion you'd know that the DOJ did not give a reason for dropping the investigation. you'd know that in dropping the case briotti rejected the advice of his assistants to pursue criminal charges against LA. you'd know that briotti's decision shocked most everyone associated with the investigation both in and out of the DOJ because of the overwhelming mountain of evidence they had amassed against LA. you'd know that the DOJ is still considering moving forward with their case and LA isn't out of the woods yet.

you'd know that people like andreu and others came forward and admitted both his doping and others (including LA) long before being faced with the pressure of the investigation. so your argument that testimony against LA was made by liars looking to make a deal is, for the most part, baseless. it is further without merit because it is quite common for those involved in an organized criminal activity/organization to turn state's evidence and testify in exchange for a lesser sentence of their own. ever heard of mafia trials?

had you done your homework you'd know that LA is a proven perjurer who has lied under oath countless times including testifying to never testing dirty, never undergoing drug transfusions to "clean" his blood, and the huge payoff to make at least one dirty u.a. disappear.

you'd know that LA blatantly lied when he claimed to have severd his relationship with ferrari (a well known doping doctor) in 2004 yet email and financial records proved otherwise. you'd know that LA worked with ferrari (a well known doping dr) for well over a decade and that LA paid ferrari over a million dollars between 1996 and 2006.

and that's just the tip of the iceberg - but you'd know all this and much, much more if you'd done your research before attempting to debate this issue publicly.

with all due respect, your arguments are made out of pure ignorance of the facts with many being invalid simply on their face value.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

sfb12 said:


> Maybe i'd see it differently if i was a pro rider or in that situation. He was the reason i bought a road bike, I guess a big motivation before all of this was in question.


you and thousands upon thousands of others. but that doesn't earn him a pass, does it?

with all due respect it sounds like you're saying that your ethics are situational. sounds like you're saying you believe it's ok to cheat, intimidate, blackmail, retaliate, and commit perjury if it doesn't directly affect you.

please clarify.


----------



## sfb12 (Dec 27, 2012)

monogod said:


> you and thousands upon thousands of others. but that doesn't earn him a pass, does it?
> 
> with all due respect it sounds like you're saying that your ethics are situational. sounds like you're saying you believe it's ok to cheat, intimidate, blackmail, retaliate, and commit perjury if it doesn't directly affect you.
> 
> please clarify.


Your twisting the words i'm trying to say. I have no intention in fighting over this though, you obviously know what your talking about and therefor anything I say we will disagree as we have different opinions.


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

monogod said:


> their decision not to move forward means nothing about the quality or quantity of the evidence against LA.
> 
> if you'd have used the google or just read other threads on here before entering this discussion you'd know that the DOJ did not give a reason for dropping the investigation. you'd know that in dropping the case briotti rejected the advice of his assistants to pursue criminal charges against LA. you'd know that briotti's decision shocked most everyone associated with the investigation both in and out of the DOJ because of the overwhelming mountain of evidence they had amassed against LA. you'd know that the DOJ is still considering moving forward with their case and LA isn't out of the woods yet.
> 
> ...


Are you typing with your thumbs or are you trying to redefine normal grammar practices?

I didn't read much of your post because I find it hard to read. Scanning some of it gives me a clue it might be worthwhile if you used punctuation though.

Just saying.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

sfb12 said:


> Your twisting the words i'm trying to say. I have no intention in fighting over this though, you obviously know what your talking about and therefor anything I say we will disagree as we have different opinions.


chillax, bro! you're among friends no matter what you think about LA. 

far from twisting your words, i merely asked you to clarify them.

you initially stated LA should keep his titles whether or not he cheated because he worked for them. when i asked if you'd feel the same if you were a clean rider he'd beaten by cheating you indicated you'd probably feel differently in that case. is that not holding two different opinions on the same topic based on the situation of whether or not it personally affected you? (i.e. situational ethics)

by stating, _"with all due respect it sounds like you're saying..."_ and _"please clarify"_ i was neither trying to agree, disagree, or fight. i was simply asking you to reconcile two distinctly different positions you'd stated on the same topic and posted publicly on the interwebs. that's hardly an act of aggression.

welcome to MTBR, and lighten up bro. by joining a public discussion you invite responses to the opinion/position/etc that you post. so don't take it personally if someone asks you to clarify something you've said. :thumbsup:


----------



## dru (Sep 4, 2006)

> their decision not to move forward means nothing about the quality or quantity of the evidence against LA.
> 
> if you'd have used the google or just read other threads on here before entering this discussion you'd know that the DOJ did not give a reason for dropping the investigation. you'd know that in dropping the case briotti rejected the advice of his assistants to pursue criminal charges against LA. you'd know that briotti's decision shocked most everyone associated with the investigation both in and out of the DOJ because of the overwhelming mountain of evidence they had amassed against LA. you'd know that the DOJ is still considering moving forward with their case and LA isn't out of the woods yet.
> 
> ...


You shouldn't have started the second last line with an 'and', and you should have used the shift key a little more.

Just sayin'.......

(good post btw)

it's a really good thing you didn't use scripto continuo or we would have been screwed!

Drew


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

dru said:


> You shouldn't have started the second last line with an 'and'.


why? beginning a sentence with a conjunction violates no rule of grammar.

"_There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. An initial And is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues._" ~ from The New Fowler's Modern English Usage; edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996.

and yet more enlightenment for you: linky, linky, and linky.

but wait, here's more: linky, linky, and linky.

pro tip: one should first know the rules of grammar before calling someone out for violating them.

just sayin...


dru said:


> you should have used the shift key a little more. Just sayin'...


again violates no established rule(s) of etiquette.

as with the above example perhaps you're equally unaware that eschewing caps in informal electronic communications dates back to the days of the telegraph in the 1800's? it's subsequently been a common and accepted practice in BBSs of old, modern forums, emails, and SMS for decades -- and a myth that it is rude, lazy, improper, or in violation of formal or informal netiquette.

just sayin...



dru said:


> it's a really good thing you didn't use scripto continuo or we would have been screwed!
> 
> Drew


i believe you meant "scripto coninua".  linky

did that go the way you thought it was gonna go? nope. :lol:


dru said:


> good post btw


thanks bro.

in all seriousness i generally enjoy yours as well. your mountain biking "tips" were awesome, especially the "lots of front brake" on off camber corners for awesome traction! man, that was a great thread. reminded me of ben stein's "how to ruin your life".

oh, and i also loved what you had to say a while back in a thread something to the effect of "my friends don't get it" where you had an awesome ride despite it being freezing cold and having multiple mechanical anomalies.

in my book any ride is a good ride. :thumbsup:


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> There was a us doj prosecution that wa dropped. Prosecutions are usually dropped if the prosecutor believes he cannot get a conviction. That doesn't mean innocence factually, as you've pointed out, but it does mean something about the evidence. That's justbthe way it is. Again, not saying Lance is clean


Prosecutions often drop out if for what ever reason they lose a key witness, the Doj didnt have its act together for what ever reason, but the USADA had their act together big time, if lance decided to fight the charges he was innocent of in you books he would have been exposed for what he really is, a liar, systematic cheat and a bully.
He would have been liable and been paying for it forever.
Case closed


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> Losing a key witness is an evidentiary problem. I love it when people who are tryung to be argumentative agree with me


key witnesses pull out for many reasons, including a fear of a range of things..

Your whole argument here stems from the fact you think he is innocent and been treated unfairly..

If thats not the case your whole argument agrees with me in the fact that he is a cheating, gutless bully, that couldnt face the music at his time of judgement.....


----------



## dru (Sep 4, 2006)

Mono, well played, but my translating abilities of latin (scripto coninua) are sadly well past their non-existent prime.

and I'd have to start with Wheelock's for sure.

And (and) I'd have to have some point at translating stuff like ... _con inua articulista, composta de es- trangcirOB que nào querem aprender o ..... _ which are typical of the hits Google gives.

and (And) my last attempt was somewhere around several hours per page.

And (and) any prof worth his/her salt up here would raise a brow at your use of 'and' even if it's OK (as it seems to be).....

and btw I was taking the piss in your defence, as you might of guessed.

And (and) you don't need my help anyways......

Cheers!

Drew


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> You seriously lack reading comprehension if you have actually read what I have posted in good faith.


Well what exactly are you in this thread arguing about then and painting a picture that poor old lance is hard done by and there is no evidence, and he has been hung out to dry, ive read what youve said and i think its incredibly Naive, i think youre lacking serious reality and life comprehension after reading your posts Dave.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

dru said:


> Mono, well played, but my translating abilities of latin (scripto coninua) are sadly well past their non-existent prime.
> 
> and I'd have to start with Wheelock's for sure.
> 
> ...


awesome... love this banter back and forth... :thumbsup:

surely beats certain big head small weenie lawyer talk...


----------



## dru (Sep 4, 2006)

Yeah, Oggie, it's the thread that won't die, isn't it. Snow biking tomorrow? You must have got the same dump as we did here in Waterloo.

Drew


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

dru said:


> Yeah, Oggie, it's the thread that won't die, isn't it. Snow biking tomorrow? You must have got the same dump as we did here in Waterloo.
> 
> Drew


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

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

stay healthy my friend... :thumbsup:


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

daves4mtb said:


> good of the sport, among other things.


Cycling was here before Armstrong, it will do just fine without him. Maybe even better if the removal of Armstrong from recent cycling lore helps to give some credibility to the sport instead of going the way of professional wrestling. Armstrong certainly wasn't the first to use PEDs nor is he the source of all PED use, but don't kid yourself that Armstrong wasn't a major cog in the wheel of PEDs in the pro road scene, in many more ways than just another end user.

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

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


----------



## grandsalmon (Oct 24, 2005)

^^^This^^^

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

.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

dru said:


> Mono, well played, but my translating abilities of latin (scripto coninua) are sadly well past their non-existent prime.
> 
> and I'd have to start with Wheelock's for sure.
> 
> ...


kudos bro -- nicely done! :lol: :thumbsup:

and now for something completely different....

what's your snow riding rig? fat bike?


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

daves4mtb said:


> Losing a key witness is an evidentiary problem. I love it when people who are tryung to be argumentative agree with me


losing a witness (or even 5) would not have impacted this case or been an evidentiary problem. still close to 30 left! :thumbsup:

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

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

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

consider this your only warning. after this the gloves come off.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

daves4mtb said:


> You seriously lack reading comprehension if you have actually read what I have posted in good faith.


Good faith? And here I thought you were a naive and/or clueless troll trying to incite arguments about nothing. The case is closed, the hero had feet of clay, the hero is a zero.

Why not just deal with it and move on?


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

daves4mtb said:


> Yes, I must confess, I am a naive and clueless troll.


congratulations, you've finally made a coherent statement we can all agree on! :thumbsup:


----------



## rodd (Dec 27, 2012)

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

cheers


----------



## lapinGTI (Dec 30, 2009)

rodd said:


> This is a very polemical issue... Dopping is a polemical issue.
> Lance is a huge rider and I believe that most of you agree with me.
> Probably, he had ride doped and the others? They were all clean? If you make a little research about the riders that finished in second place, when lance's win. Most of them are tested positive...
> 
> cheers


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


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

Speaking of Lance



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


Armstrong Nominated As Texan Of The Year | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## shwinn8 (Feb 25, 2006)

i remember a radio talk show i listen to while driving to work about the whole Roger Clemens situation and other " top " athletes. one guy said something like, " Everyone is doping which puts them all on the same playing field. If only 2 or 3 guys are actually accomplishing anything in conjunction with skill how is that cheating? It takes more then drugs to get the win " ...


----------



## BigDweeb (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm getting dizzy.

here:

Armstrong is done.

the roadies have hashed this all out already.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

rodd said:


> Probably, he had ride doped and the others? They were all clean? If you make a little research about the riders that finished in second place, when lance's win. Most of them are tested positive...


Many of those other TdF 2nd/3rd place finishers have been sanctioned with major results stripped. Other TdF winners also sanctioned and TdF wins stripped. Armstrong now sanctioned with TdF wins stripped. Seems fair enough to me.



shwinn8 said:


> i remember a radio talk show i listen to while driving to work about the whole Roger Clemens situation and other " top " athletes. one guy said something like, " Everyone is doping which puts them all on the same playing field. If only 2 or 3 guys are actually accomplishing anything in conjunction with skill how is that cheating? It takes more then drugs to get the win " ...


No level playing field in this case. Armstrong was given wiggle room to dope up more heavily and more frequently than other riders. Described in detail in many earlier posts in this thread.


----------



## shwinn8 (Feb 25, 2006)

@Circlip, got'cha. i haven't followed because i really don't care.. well, care just enough to make a post


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

shwinn8 said:


> i remember a radio talk show i listen to while driving to work about the whole Roger Clemens situation and other " top " athletes. one guy said something like, " Everyone is doping which puts them all on the same playing field. If only 2 or 3 guys are actually accomplishing anything in conjunction with skill how is that cheating? It takes more then drugs to get the win " ...


There is also that statement that the sport was becoming somewhat clean and Lance came in doping in full force and the other teams had to start doing it again.

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


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> Yes, there is a prescribed point of view that certain posters in this thread have. If you don't agree not only with their major conclusion but every other point they believe in, you will get called a bunch of names like we're all back in third grade. It's the worst of internet debating, in one thread.


Here's why you are a troll.
You just want to argue for the sake of arguing, you stopped making ground on your first post.
If you actually did read through the thread, you find that they aren't pov's but facts. If you did in fact read the thread, the only conclusion I can come up is is that you are extremely iggnorant to the facts, YES FACTS...As I said stated previously in a post, LA's fans have nothing left to grasp onto, except their shlong and "everyone else was doping". Keep on milking. When it gets to a certain point name calling sometimes get thrown around, thats only because you are one arrogant, single minded individual. 
You've played you're last card.


----------



## rodd (Dec 27, 2012)

I never said that Lance wasn't a cheater... He should be punished for what he did but in the correct time, not now, 10 years later. 
Every cheater should be punished in every type of sports, but not only in cycling.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

BigDweeb said:


> I'm getting dizzy.
> 
> here:
> 
> ...


they got it all wrong.

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

end of the story.

lock the thread please.

god bless lawyers... i think. :nonod:


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> Again, simpleminded as all hell. I agree with you Lance was doping, never said otherwise. My only "crime" in this thread was being too subtle for you. So no one is disagreeing with facts. If you can't handle someone saying "I agree he was doping, but I disagree with the process and I don't think the whole thing is good for the sport" then you are one big ass olympic quality simpleton. In fact, I would need "doping" to become that simplistic and dull.
> 
> This board s usually a pleasure, I guess you and a couple of others here are too overwhelmed with emotion to actually have a discussion about the subject.


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

Mate, whats it going to be, you cant fool anybody here, go back and read your posts for the last few pages.
This is like the muppet show....


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

SV11 said:


> Here's why you are a troll.
> You just want to argue for the sake of arguing, you stopped making ground on your first post.
> If you actually did read through the thread, you find that they aren't pov's but facts. If you did in fact read the thread, the only conclusion I can come up is is that you are extremely iggnorant to the facts, YES FACTS...As I said stated previously in a post, LA's fans have nothing left to grasp onto, except their shlong and "everyone else was doping". Keep on milking. When it gets to a certain point name calling sometimes get thrown around, thats only because you are one arrogant, single minded individual.
> You've played you're last card.


SV11, Absolutely spot on, you have summed it up perfectly...


----------



## Bradpreo (Dec 18, 2011)

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


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


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


Mate your a bloke that belittles others and name calls then at the same time accuse others of doing it, you love to make out your a victim and a saint, your above few posts are prime examples.
Your a dreamer, go back and read your posts, you are totally dellusional Dave, your not fooling anybody mate, the only one your fooling is yourself..
Not to mention your an Agrade hypocrite, your as much a victim as you think poor lance is, mate get a grip and wake up, your not fooling anybody, your posts are there for all to see....


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Tone's said:


> SV11, Absolutely spot on, you have summed it up perfectly...


monogod put him in his place, never to come back with anything that makes sense even remotely... don't feed the troll anymore please.

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

:thumbsup:


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> Ok, well, quote me then, using the cut-and-paste feature you know and love so well.
> 
> Quote me where I said that Lance was innocent.
> 
> ...


Go back and read your posts Dave, from the start, i ask anybody to do the same, im not playing your games, i couldnt be bothered, its there for all to see..
Cheers ,and keep playing the victim, it suits you.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Dave, if your a Lawyer, you must have bribed somebody to get your qualifications.....


----------



## shwinn8 (Feb 25, 2006)

...


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Bradpreo said:


> First, Lance had to be taking testosterone because he had a testicle remove, which means he was producing a very small amount of his own testosterone. However the problem lays within the question of what's a normal test level? Go into any high school class to see why that's such a difficult question&#8230; some males like they are 24 and others like they are 14..why? Because everyone produces such a wide range of hormone levels&#8230; The avg male produces 400 to 1200 mcg of test. So one racer could be at 440 and Lance could be at 1199 (prescribed test) and both normal.


Not sure where you are going with this. Armstrong's use of PEDs and banned methods according to the charges, mountain of testimony, and supporting evidence, is largely related to EPO and blood transfusions. "T" isn't a central issue.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

daves4mtb said:


> If you go back and read, and try to do it slowly enough that it might penetrate your faulty cognition, you will find that I said that when prosecutions are dropped, that usually means there is a problem with the evidence and that the prosecutor thinks he can't get a conviction.


Since you are very focused on the DOJ case, I think it's critical to remind once again that this investigation was for fraud and criminal conspiracy i.e. financial crimes. The investigation wasn't directly aimed at anti-doping violations, since these are not criminal offences - as has been pointed out already by others and acknowledged by you earlier in this thread if I'm not mistaken. The DOJ case wasn't for doping charges, therefore no doping charges were dropped by the DOJ.

On the other hand, the USADA case was for anti-doping violations. We all know the outcome there.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> typically devoid of substance, yet proclaiming victory.
> 
> Your buddy posts nonsense accusations about my prior posts
> 
> ...


You are impossible, you did this with with a few others in this thread, lol.
You're BF is guilty, we want blood!


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Bradpreo said:


> But at any rate the basic point is the league had been on a "witch hunt" with Lance since he won his first Tour De France&#8230; and it was never proven.


wrong. it was well proven.

LA failed numerous tests, did a huge payoff to make one of his failed tests disappear, and was under suspicion and investigation for doping and conspiracy while actively racing.

investigating a racer with history of doping, failed drug tests, intimidation, bribery, extortion, cheating, and lying can hardly be considered a "witch hunt". 



Bradpreo said:


> I think once someone is no longer competing, than it's no longer an issue&#8230; game over! If he was caught like many others within months of when they competed, then he is busted and all awards removed for cheating. But part of the responsibility of the league is prove it while they are competing....


think and believe whatever you want, you certainly have that right.

however, in the REAL WORLD that exists beyond the confines of your beliefs when a racer applies for and is granted a license they willingly and voluntarily agree to be subjugated to the governing authorities.

there is no statute of limitations in cycling to catch cheaters and strip them of titles/results if they are later found to have cheated. lance (and everyone else with a racing license) agreed to these conditions by applying for a license. lance (and everyone else with a racing license) agreed to these conditions by being a professional racer.

point being that all the license holding professional racers didn't have a problem with it -- so then why do you?


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

daves4mtb said:


> typically devoid of substance, yet proclaiming victory.
> 
> Your buddy posts nonsense accusations about my prior posts
> 
> ...


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

*Do you believe Lance Armstrong is clean..*

I believe Lance is clean for the first 5 minutes he exits the shower every day. Anything beyond that is a well kept secret only he and his 100 or so inside circle of friends know for sure. Hey wait a minute weren't 80% of those subpoenaed to testify against him. And it soon became apparent to all how clean he really was.
Opinions vary&#8230;Road House highlights 04 - YouTube


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

WOW guys! 

16 pages of speculation about something you really know ZERO about because you weren’t there?

This is what we call a ‘First World Problem’ over on ar15.com…


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

daves4mtb said:


> Good a time as any to exit the thread. You were called out Tones, and you came up with nothing. Zeo, zilch, nada. Though you did say Lance is my "bff" and did some more name calling.


you're a day late and dollar short leaving this thread, champ. for you to claim ANY type victory at this point makes just about as much sense as claiming the mayans were correct that 12-21-12 was the end of the world.

but hey, by this time we're used to you pretty much talking out the southern most extremity of your g.i. tract...


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> WOW guys!
> 
> 16 pages of speculation about something you really know ZERO about because you weren't there?
> 
> This is what we call a 'First World Problem' over on ar15.com&#8230;


I agree Dead Dog no one can say for sure and positively if he is or isn't guilty unless you were there. All we have to go on is evidence or lack of evidence that he doped. It's just like any crime unless you are there you have to go by evidence and credible or non credible witnesses. Go through the evidence and make an educated decision.

I was on the Lance bandwagon for years and years thinking he was innocent of all accusations. That all changed in my mind once I saw the Lance Documentary on CNN. I think once you view this if you are on the bandwagon you may make a leap off.
CNN Documentary 'The World According to Lance Armstrong' Exposes Web of Deceit | Bleacher Report


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> WOW guys!
> 
> 16 pages of speculation about something you really know ZERO about because you weren't there?
> 
> This is what we call a 'First World Problem' over on ar15.com&#8230;


people for whom nothing exists without their first hand direct knowledge live in very tiny, myopic microcosms of their own delusional creation.

this what we call a "cognition and reality problem" over here on MTBR...


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

"Doping" is such a fine line.
Altitude chambers, food, etc.

All I can say is my hat is fully off to anybody that even finishes the TDF!!! 

To do it 7-8-9 times Good for YOU!


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> "Doping" is such a fine line.
> Altitude chambers, food, etc.
> 
> All I can say is my hat is fully off to anybody that even finishes the TDF!!!
> ...


"Doping" is not such a fine line.

not even close.

Doping is the difference between winning the TDF and being a peloton filler.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> All I can say is my hat is fully off to anybody that even finishes the TDF!!!


how many did LA finish before he started doping?


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

osokolo - Really?

When they test for doping there are no limits to the tests? 
Do you know the specifics of the tests? 
Do run them? 

As an engineer that creates and runs tests, xxx level in your blood is the trigger point. 0.0001% over the limit = busted, 0.0001% under and you are good. It may be limited to the ability of the machine to read it, but it is not zero.

Show me the data!


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

monogod said:


> how many did LA finish before he started doping?


That's like asking how many men it took to build the great pyramids. No one knows and it will for always be a mystery. Ask Lance!


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> osokolo - Really?
> 
> When they test for doping there are no limits to the tests?
> Do you know the specifics of the tests?
> ...


as a former athlete, who tried stuff that is waaaaay less powerful than EPO - i can tell you that it was a HUGE difference maker.

just to clarify above statement - i tried banned substance just for the sake of trying - after i retired from high level competition. never used PED during my athletic career.

the difference is stunning.

i can tell you that PED can make the difference from the middle of the road athlete to the winner...

you can talk your engineering language as much as you want. i am telling you a real life story.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

The only way to tell if Lance is as good as he has portrayed himself to be to win 9 TDF titles. Is to let him race it again and give him full allowance to use any and all drugs he wants. But you must also drug up all competitors to make it fair.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> That's like asking how many men it took to build the great pyramids. No one knows and it will for always be a mystery. Ask Lance!


um.... no. that's like asking how many tours LA finished before he started doping. (hint: none)

however, unlike the construction of the pyramids plethoric sworn eye-witness testimony and evidence (i.e. failed drug tests) of his doping exists so it's hardly speculation.

"ask lance"? um... no again. as a confirmed and documented perjurer, liar, blackmailer, and extortionist LA's credibility is wholly non-existent.


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

osokolo said:


> as a former athlete, who tried stuff that is waaaaay less powerful than EPO - i can tell you that it was a HUGE difference maker.
> 
> just to clarify above statement - i tried banned substance just for the sake of trying - after i retired from high level competition. never used PED during my athletic career.
> 
> ...


And I started taking viagra after I swore off sex...


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

dead_dog_canyon said:


> WOW guys!
> 
> 16 pages of speculation about something you really know ZERO about because you weren&#146;t there?


I wasn't there for 99% of the stories I read online, in magazines or even in newspapers. Doesn't mean I can't find factual info amongst the BS and achieve an informed opinion


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

danhasdrums said:


> And I started taking viagra after I swore off sex...


your inability to achieve an erection is wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

monogod said:


> um.... no. that's like asking how many tours LA finished before he started doping. (hint: none)
> 
> however, unlike the construction of the pyramids plethoric sworn eye-witness testimony and evidence (i.e. failed drug tests) of his doping exists so it's hardly speculation.
> 
> "ask lance"? um... no again. as a confirmed and documented perjurer, liar, blackmailer, and extortionist LA's credibility is wholly non-existent.


Everything you said in response to what I said falls under the same belief. Just slightly worded different with a lot more hostility in your response than mine.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Some of you need to watch "the world according to lance".
He dopped up in his first TDF till the last. He had a drug cloud hanging over his head, from then till now. I remember that to this day watching it on the news.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

SV11 said:


> Some of you need to watch "the world according to lance".
> He dopped up in his first TDF till the last. He had a drug cloud hanging over his head, from then till now. I remember that to this day watching it on the news.


OR

I was on the Lance bandwagon for years and years thinking he was innocent of all accusations. That all changed in my mind once I saw the Lance Documentary on CNN. I think once you view this if you are on the bandwagon you may make a leap off.
CNN Documentary 'The World According to Lance Armstrong' Exposes Web of Deceit | Bleacher Report


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> OR
> 
> I was on the Lance bandwagon for years and years thinking he was innocent of all accusations. That all changed in my mind once I saw the Lance Documentary on CNN. I think once you view this if you are on the bandwagon you may make a leap off.
> CNN Documentary 'The World According to Lance Armstrong' Exposes Web of Deceit | Bleacher Report


DJ, Yes thats the same Aussie doco that SV11 is talking about, yes its very damning, it shows up LA for what he is, theres no doubt about that.


----------



## Bradpreo (Dec 18, 2011)

News flash.... PEDs have been and will continue to be used in every professional sport... All this BS about Lance is a cheater is delusional talk because those who think that... some where deep inside believe in the "purity of sports". To alll those in that camp.... In the words of Jack..."you can't handle the truth"! Son, we live in a world of walls... We put our atheletes on a pedestal and would like to think they are "god like".... You have that luxury... The luxury of being so native that all your idols are clean... So when one of these super stars get caught ... U are like OMG!!! Such liars, such cheaters amoung this world of unbelievable super humans God has put among us for our entertainment.... We use words like honor, code and loyalty.... I have neither the time or the inclination to explain way the difference of just being a college star and a millionaire superstar is just the point of a needle difference.... Now I am not saying these superstars are not ridiculously talented and if you or I used the same PEDs then we could do what they are achieving.... NO WAY!! These are superstars that train hard their whole life and look for any advantage they can get away with.... And they know for a fact others are doing it... So they find a way or accept being irrelevant. Take off your rose colared glasses and just enjoy watching the game.... It's just as much of a game behind the scenes not getting caught.... Lance is a 7 time Tour De France champion and deserves everything he has earned.... so does Tiger Woods even if one day they prove he took something .....face the facts and enjoy the game.... don't think you know what's happening behind closed doors... And don't be so quick to "throw that stone" and just believe in the system....


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Bradpreo said:


> So when one of these super stars get caught ... U are like OMG!!! Such liars, such cheaters amoung this world of unbelievable super humans God has put among us for our entertainment....


off the top of your head, without googling, name 5 other dirty riders.

you most likely can't unless you really follow the sport. know why? most cheaters admitted it when confronted with the evidence so there was never much fanfare over them in the media. they just "manned up", took their lumps, and moved on. in fact, many came forward solely at the prompting of their own conscience. now THAT is called honor and integrity. :thumbsup:

know why LA is called a liar? simple... because he is one. because he continues to deny being dirty despite the mountain of evidence against him INCLUDING multiple failed drug tests and payoff to cover dirty drug tests. know why he's in the news? because he's a liar that made a huge public spectacle about being all butt hurt over the allegations he cheated (including ruining the lives/careers/finances of those making them) only to be found that the allegations were true all along. and even in the face of it all, he maintains his innocence. now THAT is textbook narcissism of a sociopath.

part of formulating a coherent, relevant argument in a debate is actually knowing WTF you're talking about -- a luxury you clearly don't have. so instead you elect to paint the walls with your explosive verbal diarrhea then stand back proudly imagining yourself so profound and enlightened when in reality all that's come out of your mouth is excrement.



Bradpreo said:


> These are superstars that train hard their whole life and look for any advantage they can get away with.... And they know for a fact others are doing it... So they find a way or accept being irrelevant.


therein lies the definition of honor and integrity. a man of substance who's character is defined by honor and integrity would rather never "make it" and be relegated to historical irrelevance than to win by cheating.

there are rules one agrees to abide by when applying for and being granted a license. racers who disregard those rules have no honor or integrity, and that is NOT part of the game. people who do not believe the rules apply to them are called "sociopaths" and it is considered a serious character defect and mental disorder.

those who defend these sociopathic cheaters possess the self-same lack of honor, character, and integrity as those whom they defend. you are disgracing yourself with your argument and showing that at a core level your soul is putrid and your heart rancid.

you're nothing more than a sociopath just like the ones you defend. "birds of a feather" and so forth...



Bradpreo said:


> Lance is a 7 time Tour De France champion and deserves everything he has earned....


last time i checked the record books LA did not win a single TDF due to being disqualified for cheating. of course to his fellow sociopaths he will always remain their champion and they will cry "UNFAIR!" that he was held accountable for his actions.

unwittingly you've finally uttered some truth, however. in saying LA "deserves everything he has earned" you are correct.

he has earned the titles of "cheater", "liar", "extortionist", "blackmailer", "fraud", "perjurer" and "the biggest disgrace in the history of cycling" -- and as you stated he deserves everything he has earned.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Bradpreo said:


> News flash.... PEDs have been and will continue to be used in every professional sport... All this BS about Lance is a cheater is delusional talk because those who think that... some where deep inside believe in the "purity of sports". To alll those in that camp.... In the words of Jack..."you can't handle the truth"! Son, we live in a world of walls... We put our atheletes on a pedestal and would like to think they are "god like".... You have that luxury... The luxury of being so native that all your idols are clean... So when one of these super stars get caught ... U are like OMG!!! Such liars, such cheaters amoung this world of unbelievable super humans God has put among us for our entertainment.... We use words like honor, code and loyalty.... I have neither the time or the inclination to explain way the difference of just being a college star and a millionaire superstar is just the point of a needle difference.... Now I am not saying these superstars are not ridiculously talented and if you or I used the same PEDs then we could do what they are achieving.... NO WAY!! These are superstars that train hard their whole life and look for any advantage they can get away with.... And they know for a fact others are doing it... So they find a way or accept being irrelevant. Take off your rose colared glasses and just enjoy watching the game.... It's just as much of a game behind the scenes not getting caught.... Lance is a 7 time Tour De France champion and deserves everything he has earned.... so does Tiger Woods even if one day they prove he took something .....face the facts and enjoy the game.... don't think you know what's happening behind closed doors... And don't be so quick to "throw that stone" and just believe in the system....


that is great insight. thank you.

can you please take some time and explain how anything in your post has any relevance to the fact that an athlete got caught using banned substances and penalized for it, according to the rules of the game that you are referring to?

are you suggesting that the worlds sport body abandons drug tests and allows athletes to drug themselves to the sky and/or death? that is an interesting concept, entertained by a few.

however, the issue at hand is that there are rules of the game right now, and those that break them will get penalized according to these rules. sure - i dig it completely - if you don't get caught - you are a winna'

but if you get caught - you are a looser.

did i get it right?


----------



## aaiinsd (Oct 31, 2012)

He figured out how to win and pass all the tests and get the trophy in most sports especially motorsports we have found out how dominant teams were cheating and did not get caught because they outsmarted the competition . It has been the rest of the competition realizing how they did it with better technology and ideas well after the winning took place. The goal is to win anyway possible and dont get caught. I like believe the team won fair and square. I also believe It is a shame they did or may have cheated especially when drugs are involved. zero tolerance means zero tolerance


----------



## BigDweeb (Dec 2, 2005)

The issue is looking everyone straight in the eye and lying about it. with an attitude.

The other stuff is noise. It's the LIE.


----------



## Bradpreo (Dec 18, 2011)

off the top of your head, without googling, name 5 other dirty riders.

_you most likely can't unless you really follow the sport. know why? most cheaters admitted it when confronted with the evidence so there was never much fanfare over them in the media. they just "manned up", took their lumps, and moved on. in fact, many came forward solely at the prompting of their own conscience. now THAT is called honor and integrity_.

Are you kidding me, MonoGod? I must say, after reading your reply, you need to be tested for drugs... here is a "quota from wikipedia on Tour de France

"For as long as the Tour has existed, since 1903, its participants have been doping themselves. No dope, no hope. The Tour, in fact, is only possible because - not despite the fact - there is doping. For 60 years this was allowed. For the past 30 years it has been officially prohibited. Yet the fact remains; great cyclists have been doping themselves, then as now.[3]

thank you for your reply and offering for everyone to read, the exact viewpoint I was referrring to ,,,


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Bradpreo said:


> Lance is a 7 time Tour De France champion and deserves everything he has earned....


Actually he isn't, why else would he take that down from his Tweeter page?
He used to have that on his tweet page, not anymore.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Tone's said:


> DJ, Yes thats the same Aussie doco that SV11 is talking about, yes its very damning, it shows up LA for what he is, theres no doubt about that.


Oh that explains it, same documentary. Yeah I would like to see what this thread would turn to if everybody who responded saw this. It sure does open your eyes to what has been going on all these years.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Bradpreo said:


> News flash.... PEDs have been and will continue to be used in every professional sport... All this BS about Lance is a cheater is delusional talk because those who think that... some where deep inside believe in the "purity of sports". To alll those in that camp.... In the words of Jack..."you can't handle the truth"! Son, we live in a world of walls... We put our atheletes on a pedestal and would like to think they are "god like".... You have that luxury... The luxury of being so native that all your idols are clean... So when one of these super stars get caught ... U are like OMG!!! Such liars, such cheaters amoung this world of unbelievable super humans God has put among us for our entertainment.... We use words like honor, code and loyalty.... I have neither the time or the inclination to explain way the difference of just being a college star and a millionaire superstar is just the point of a needle difference.... Now I am not saying these superstars are not ridiculously talented and if you or I used the same PEDs then we could do what they are achieving.... NO WAY!! These are superstars that train hard their whole life and look for any advantage they can get away with.... And they know for a fact others are doing it... So they find a way or accept being irrelevant. Take off your rose colared glasses and just enjoy watching the game.... It's just as much of a game behind the scenes not getting caught.... Lance is a 7 time Tour De France champion and deserves everything he has earned.... so does Tiger Woods even if one day they prove he took something .....face the facts and enjoy the game.... don't think you know what's happening behind closed doors... And don't be so quick to "throw that stone" and just believe in the system....


LOL, Brad, ive got some news for you that might come as a real shock,
LA is no longer the 7 times champion of the tour, his titles have been stripped because he cheated and lied to get them
You can live in your world of dellusion for as long as you like, but it wont bring bring his titles back.
I suppose you still call Marion jones and Ben Johnson olympic champions, along with all the other olympic cheats lol.
And you tell others to take of their rose coloured glasses, pure gold.


----------



## Bradpreo (Dec 18, 2011)

Those are not the facts according to Lance, Oso. The facts are its been a "witch hunt" on Lance and after nearly ten years they have it all figured out... not so fast Sherlock... my point is simply the sport and others are riddled with PEDs... lets not be so quick to throw stones and in Lance's case the board was "hellbend" on conviction.. and Lance finally is feedup with trying to convince a board of judges who really have have greater problems with their sport .... this one is personal and if you can't see that...and if it makes you feel better each day to throw stones at the greatest American this sport has ever known.. more power to you.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Bradpreo said:


> Those are not the facts according to Lance, Oso. The facts are its been a "witch hunt" on Lance and after nearly ten years they have it all figured out... not so fast Sherlock... my point is simply the sport and others are riddled with PEDs... lets not be so quick to throw stones and in Lance's case the board was "hellbend" on conviction.. and Lance finally is feedup with trying to convince a board of judges who really have have greater problems with their sport .... this one is personal and if you can't see that...and if it makes you feel better each day to throw stones at the greatest American this sport has ever known.. more power to you.


Brad , at least look at this thread poll results before you start pointing fingers and ridiculing people. It takes many years and lots of hard work to crack such a sophisticated cheating network that Lance has built. Can't take that one from him - I have to admit that. It was almost perfect. However, the justice may be slow, but in this case - it was merciless.

If you prefer to call it witch hunt - sure. By all means. But the witch has been caught.

Your statement that Lance was tired of defending himself is very uninformed and false. He was not tired to sue everyone's a$$ for millions of dollars if they dared to suggest that he doped.

Now that it is not a secret any more - he may have to cough up some money back to those he sued.

Why would not he sue USADA and get a few million extra bucks? Which he could have spent on his favourite charity?

If you don't know the answer - let me know. I will do my best to present you some factual answers - which you could have found everywhere - if you really wanted.

Instead, you stick your head in the sand and have wet dreams about the most successful American athlete... Pretty sad if you ask me - but you are entitled to your opinion and most certainly - your own heroes.

Power to you my friend.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

monogod said:


> off the top of your head, without googling, name 5 other dirty riders.
> 
> You most likely can't unless you really follow the sport. Know why? Most cheaters admitted it when confronted with the evidence so there was never much fanfare over them in the media. They just "manned up", took their lumps, and moved on. In fact, many came forward solely at the prompting of their own conscience. Now that is called honor and integrity. :thumbsup:
> 
> ...


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Bradpreo said:


> Those are not the facts according to Lance, Oso. The facts are its been a "witch hunt" on Lance and after nearly ten years they have it all figured out... not so fast Sherlock... my point is simply the sport and others are riddled with PEDs... lets not be so quick to throw stones and in Lance's case the board was "hellbend" on conviction.. and Lance finally is feedup with trying to convince a board of judges who really have have greater problems with their sport .... this one is personal and if you can't see that...and if it makes you feel better each day to throw stones at the greatest American this sport has ever known.. more power to you.


Easily the most dellusional post ive ever read on MTBR.....


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> The human centipede trifecta / three headed hydra of selfrighteous overblown shutins of monogod-osokolo- tones is cuing the fanboy accusations...it won't be long now...


Well spoken from the guy that got his lawyer qualifications out of the bottom of a box of weeties...:thumbsup:


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Bradpreo said:


> Those are not the facts according to Lance, Oso. The facts are its been a "witch hunt" on Lance and after nearly ten years they have it all figured out... not so fast Sherlock... my point is simply the sport and others are riddled with PEDs... lets not be so quick to throw stones and in Lance's case the board was "hellbend" on conviction.. and Lance finally is feedup with trying to convince a board of judges who really have have greater problems with their sport .... this one is personal and if you can't see that...and if it makes you feel better each day to throw stones at the greatest American this sport has ever known.. more power to you.


Wake up, smell the coffee and throw away yesterday's papers. Armstrong was the greatest cheater and disgrace the sport has ever known. The greatest American cyclist was Greg Lemond. You can look it up.


----------



## Fishbucket (Dec 4, 2012)

Let's make this easy and get to the end.

Lance is a loser.... If you dont argee, It's ok that you are wrong. 


There, now I'm unsubscribing. :thumbsup:


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Bradpreo said:


> off the top of your head, without googling, name 5 other dirty riders.


mercier, hamilton, hincape, pantani, landis, brochard, and leblanc.

i can name off many more if you'd like. as an avid cyclist (road and mtn) i following road racing. that's why i stated to you, "most likely you can't unless you really follow the sport". however i could because i do. yet because you don't follow the sport you couldn't and you only proved my position while yet again fancying yourself to be so clever.



Bradpreo said:


> Are you kidding me, MonoGod? I must say, after reading your reply, you need to be tested for drugs...


of course it's not going to make sense to someone devoid of personal integrity. didn't expect it to and was not the least bit surprised it didn't.

however that begs the following question: am i the one defending lying, cheating, extortion, bribery, perjury, and having a complete disregard for the rules in order to get what one wants?

no. you are.

by definition that makes you just as much of a sociopath as the individual you're defending.



Bradpreo said:


> here is a "quota from wikipedia on Tour de France
> 
> "For as long as the Tour has existed, since 1903, its participants have been doping themselves. No dope, no hope. The Tour, in fact, is only possible because - not despite the fact - there is doping. *For 60 years this was allowed. For the past 30 years it has been officially prohibited.* Yet the fact remains; great cyclists have been doping themselves, then as now.[3]


when it was allowed all was fair game. once it was disallowed it became an activity contravened by the rules (i.e. "cheating").

we're not discussing the years there were no prohibitions to PED's in the tour. we're talking about violation of rules one agrees to be bound by when applying for and being granted a license and the privilege to compete in professional cycling. specifically we're talking about the most corrupt cyclist in the history of the sport and his actions.

you defend them and say he should be rewarded for them. myself and others disagree.

no matter how you try to spin it, you're advocating cheating. by your own argument you've exposed yourself to be a sociopath of questionable character, morals, and devoid of integrity.

if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and so forth...



Bradpreo said:


> thank you for your reply and offering for everyone to read, the exact viewpoint I was referrring to ,,,


my viewpoint is actually one that most of society agrees with. specifically that it's wrong to cheat to win. that lying, cheating, extortion, retaliation, perjury, and illegal behavior are not an acceptable means to an end and should be punished rather than rewarded.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Blurr said:


> It does not matter what one believes, what matters is actual Evidence, Belief is in something you are not certain of. So from the lack of Evidence I KNOW Lance is Innocent.


+ 100% on the above. Until he is fund guilty by a jury of his peers, it is unfair for any of us to have on opinion one way or the other regarding his guilt or innocense. We weren't there and we don't know what really happenened.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> Au contraire! it wasn't Wheeties at all! It was Grape Nuts, that way I could send in the box top and get an MBA (more ******** again) or a phd (piled higher and deeper).


LOL, well played, i'll pay that one dave, :thumbsup:


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Blurr said:


> It does not matter what one believes, what matters is actual Evidence, Belief is in something you are not certain of. So from the lack of Evidence I KNOW Lance is Innocent.
> 
> 
> Mountain Cycle Shawn said:
> ...


we weren't there, but scores of others were. some who doped with him. some who helped him dope. some who helped him cover it up. most all of whom who have submitted sworn testimony and were willing to testify in an open hearing. in legal terms that is referred to as "evidence".

lance failed several drug tests which revealed he was using PED's and/or banned substances. in legal terms this is also referred to as "evidence".

there are financial records showing payouts to ferrari, whom he swore under oath to have no contact with, of over a million dollars. in legal terms this is also referred to as "evidence".

there are financial records showing a total of $250,000 paid to the UCI immediately after he failed a drug test. a failed drug test for which he suffered no repercussion. in legal terms this is referred to not only as "evidence" but also a "bribe".

there are countless emails showing lance conspired with ferrari and others to cheat, dope, lie, cover it up, intimidate and retaliate against people who were not "playing for the team". in legal terms this is also referred to as.... wait for it.... wait for it.... "evidence".

further, if one enters a plea bargain and accepts the punishment offered rather than face a trial they have been adjudicated guilty just as if there had been a trial.

lance had the opportunity to face every shred of evidence against him as well as the scores of witnesses ready to testify against him. he declined. instead he dropped his defense and willing accepted the punishment rather than face his accusers and the evidence in an open, formal hearing. that, along with the fact he had literally no witnesses testifying to his innocence, speaks volumes.

so tell us, if he willingly accepted the sanctions against him why do you refuse to?

his own actions refute both of you.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> + 100% on the above. Until he is fund guilty by a jury of his peers, it is unfair for any of us to have on opinion one way or the other regarding his guilt or innocense. We weren't there and we don't know what really happenened.


Shawn, he had the chance to face the mountain of evidence against him, but he chose not to because he knew he would be found guilty, then he would be liable, and the findings would show him out to be the biggest cheat, bully and liar in the history of sport.
Shawn watch the documentary 'the world according to lance', come back and tell me if you still have the same opinion, also, read the findings of the USADA.
Theres no grey area, he is as guilty as one could possably be.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

monogod said:


> we weren't there, but scores of others were. some who doped with him. some who helped him dope. some who helped him cover it up. most all of whom who have submitted sworn testimony and were willing to testify in an open hearing. in legal terms that is referred to as "evidence".
> 
> lance failed several drug tests which revealed he was using PED's and/or banned substances. in legal terms this is also referred to as "evidence".
> 
> ...


Well said mono, only a complete imbo would argue with this....
Honestly, no wonder there are people that still believe that the earth is flat, youve only gotta read this thread to understand that.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Tone's said:


> Well said mono, only a complete imbo would argue with this....


and one probably will in short order. :thumbsup:


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

Tone's said:


> DJ, Yes thats the same Aussie doco that SV11 is talking about,.


He is just repeating the post he made before SV11 made his.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

acer66 said:


> He is just repeating the post he made before SV11 made his.


God help me and god help this thread.................:skep::skep::madman:


----------



## Bradpreo (Dec 18, 2011)

BTW mono, I do follow and love the sport... But that not the issue.... In fact, the issue here isn't if LA is guilty or innocent..... Right now it's all "circumstantial evidence... And last time I checked, you are innocent tell proven guilty by a jury of your peers... But I'm not even saying LA is innocent.... I'm saying all along, I'm not judging him... The point u are failing to understand is.... IT'S NOT CHEATING IF EVERYONE IS DOING IT.... Are you able to handle that truth? I said the "difference of a college superstar and a millionaire sports star is the width of a needle"... But u wouldn't except that , that's why you lash on your insults to the ones who are caught..... What if I told you that 90% of the tour in some form or fashion are taking PEDs... At one time or another in their careers. Same thing in professional football....and many others...if fact, it wasn't till lately HGH could be identified! So until there is a 100% fool proof method of testing and that includes not just one race but you one has ever taken any drug to improve their proformance ... Well then y'all are just wasting your breathe.... Because the list of superstars that have never been caught will change that " stupid "OMG- he is a cheater "! view forever . IT'S NOT CHEATING IF EVERYONE DOING IT


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

Bradpreo said:


> IT'S NOT CHEATING IF EVERYONE DOING IT


So you know for a fact without a single doubt and have evidence to proof it that every single rider, even the one that always came in dead last, that raced against Lance was using?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

dwt said:


> The greatest American cyclist was Greg Lemond. You can look it up.


+1 by far.

(among modern day road pros)


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

LOL, ''ITS NOT CHEATING IF EVERYONES DOING IT'' What a great way to view life lol
This thread gets better with every post.....


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

acer66 said:


> So you know for a fact without a single doubt and have evidence to proof it that every single rider, even the one that always came in dead last, that raced against Lance was using?


Actually, Bradpreo is purporting that the adoption rate of PEDs is 90%;



Bradpreo said:


> What if I told you that 90% of the tour in some form or fashion are taking PEDs... At one time or another in their careers.


Even though he later seems to contradict himself with the statement below;



Bradpreo said:


> IT'S NOT CHEATING IF EVERYONE DOING IT


Who knows where the 90% figure comes from. I'm certain that no one, not pro team riders, managers, UCI, knows a real figure so the 90% is some mix of speculation and possibly educated guess. I'll take a shot at saying the real figure isn't 0% nor is it 100%, but as described above no one truly knows where to peg it. 90% based on his criteria doesn't sound unreasonable given information that's hit public domain over the past 15 years from Festina 1998 onwards.

Still, if it's less than 100% adoption, then the riders who are doping are stealing careers from those who don't. That includes riders who somehow made it into the pro peloton clean, like perhaps Scott Mercier and others like him;

BBC Sport - Lance Armstrong case creates an unlikely hero

Or those who had to give it up earlier in their careers because they wouldn't dope, and never even made it as far as Mercier.



Bradpreo said:


> Right now it's all "circumstantial evidence... And last time I checked, you are innocent tell proven guilty by a jury of your peers...


I'm not a lawyer, but it's plain to even a layperson that the very large body of eyewitness evidence represents a combination of both direct (not circumstantial) and circumstantial evidence. Combine that large body of eyewitness testimony with all the other evidence which included communications/email records, financial trails, etc. and the USADA had a very compelling case compiled.

As for the concept of innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers, that is for a court of law. USADA has no standing to enforce violations of the law, nor is that what they charged Armstrong with. USADA charged Armstrong with violations of rules of sporting organizations. Those sporting organizations have their own rules (not laws), which Armstrong agreed to explicitly when applying for and subsequently accepting his USA Cycling race license each year. Those rules do not include having disputes settled by a jury of peers, although they do offer athletes an opportunity to participate in arbitration in which 50% of the arbitration panel is selected by the athlete. Armstrong declined to contest the USADA charges when he chose to not proceed with the arbitration.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Circlip said:


> Actually, Bradpreo is purporting that the adoption rate of PEDs is 90%;
> 
> Even though he later seems to contradict himself with the statement below;
> 
> ...


Schooled ............:thumbsup:


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

@Circlip, I was just playing along since the statement that "it's not cheating when..." is so beyond wrong.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

acer66 said:


> @Circlip, I was just playing along since the statement that "it's not cheating when..." is so beyond wrong.


I know it. Please excuse my use your playing along to support my playing along.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Circlip said:


> I know it. Please excuse my use your playing along to support my playing along.


i have no issues at all with you guys playing... quite fine with me.

Tone's may make it an issue, but not me.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Tone's said:


> LOL, ''ITS NOT CHEATING IF EVERYONES DOING IT'' What a great way to view life lol
> This thread gets better with every post.....


goes hand in hand with this 24k gold from USA Republican Gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams

"if the rape is imminent, just relax and enjoy it"

we have to preserve these nuggets from fading...


----------



## lapinGTI (Dec 30, 2009)

Bradpreo said:


> IT'S NOT CHEATING IF EVERYONE DOING IT


It's cheating if it's again the law, sporting law, Federal Law what ever laws apply. In this case UCI law say it illegal to drug.

No matter if you are the only one our if every body doing it. If you dope, You are guilty! That it.

And yes Lance was cheating, he used/use drugs...

It's fun i can practice my english will having a good laught.


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

I'm surprised people care this much about the actions of some random guy. Who cares what Lance does or how some governing body wants to handle his actions? You'll find in life that a good percentage of the people who are at the top of anything cheated a bit to get there. Cheating, and not getting caught, helps your odds at success (if you view success in terms of money/podium placement). Sucks, but it's true. It's true in all careers, even athletic ones... I'm not saying it's the noble thing to do, but any amount of unbiased research will lead you to this conclusion. Just look at the criminal records of the idiots we vote in to congress. Drug charges, DUI's, spousal abuse, fraud, tax evasion, etc... And these are the idiots you guys all vote for. To focus on Lance's actions here is silly and naive IMO.


----------



## lapinGTI (Dec 30, 2009)

On this tread we focus on Lance. On other tread we focus on different things... You see.


----------



## Gundam168 (Dec 19, 2012)

I believe all bikers participating in those races are all drugged up. Just so happened that LA was the best drugged up biker.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> + 100% on the above. Until he is fund guilty by a jury of his peers, it is unfair for any of us to have on opinion one way or the other regarding his guilt or innocense. We weren't there and we don't know what really happenened.


Somebody didn't read through the thread and didn't do any research before posting stupid nonsense. Not the first time and won't be the last.

One more time: DOPING IS NOT A CRIME THE USA; THERE NEVER WILL BE A JURY OF HIS PEERS. Doping is prohibited under the rules of USADA and WADA. Those organisations have jurisdiction over Lances shenanigans. How do I know this? Because Lance and his army of shysters sued USADA in a COURT OF LAW over this and LOST. The anti-doping organisations found mountains of evidence proving that Lance cheated in every race he entered after his cancer comeback. They therefore stripped him of all his titles. He chose not to arbitrate this, as was his right; he caved, he quit, he lost. STICK A FORK IN HIM. HE'S DONE.

Only a tiny minority of credulous jock sniffing hero worshipping dumbasses don't get this.

Make a New Years resolution:

GET OVER IT. GET A LIFE. MOVE ON WITH REALITY


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Bradpreo said:


> Right now it's all "circumstantial evidence...


wrong.

the evidence consists of documented financial records. documented failed drug tests. documented payoff to cover up dirty drug tests. a plethora of emails between LA others discussing doping, how to cover it up, how to retaliate against and silence those where were not "team players. sworn eyewitness testimony.

that's not circumstantial evidence.



Bradpreo said:


> And last time I checked, you are innocent tell proven guilty by a jury of your peers...


wrong again.

that's in a LEGAL court. this issue of his cheating is NOT in a legal court.

what you fail to be able to grasp, despite it being laid out for you very simply, is that LA is bound by rules and procedures HE AGREED TO when he applied for and was granted a pro racing license. he willingly and voluntarily agreed to be bound by the policies and procedures of the governing bodies.

however, even if your argument above were true lance DECLINED to face the evidence and witnesses in an open, formal hearing and instead WILLINGLY was stripped of his titles and banned for life. a "plea bargain" of sorts, if you will.

so yet again your arguments have no merit either in fact, practice, or as lance himself is concerned.



Bradpreo said:


> The point u are failing to understand is.... IT'S NOT CHEATING IF EVERYONE IS DOING IT.... Are you able to handle that truth?


that is only "truth" to a sociopath.

when there are rules, and they are being broken, it is called "cheating" even if everyone is doing it. breaking a rule on a mass scale does not somehow magically invalidate that rule.

what you're saying is as stupid, non-sensical, pathological, and sociopathic as saying, "speeding is not illegal since everyone does it". i think we'd all agree that most people do speed. in fact, i would suggest a greater percentage of licensed drivers speed than licensed racers dope. does that invalidate the legal prohibition against speeding? a prohibition one agrees to be bound by when applying for and being granted a driver's license?

tell ya what... the next time you get a speeding ticket go into court like a boss and yell to the judge, "IT'S NOT BREAKING THE LAW CUZ EVERYONE DOES IT! CAN'T YOU ACCEPT THAT TRUTH?!?!?" and see how far that gets you.



Bradpreo said:


> that's why you lash on your insults to the ones who are caught.....


when someone has lied, cheated, blackmailed, extorted, bribed, retaliated, and committed perjury it's not "lashing insults" to call them a liar, cheater, blackmailer, extortionist, perjurer, etc.



Bradpreo said:


> What if I told you that 90% of the tour in some form or fashion are taking PEDs... At one time or another in their careers.


for the purpose of this discussion i would say, "who cares? relevance?" oh yeah, your relevance for this is to claim that "it's not cheating if everyone does it".

but you argue against yourself with such a stance. you say, "i'm not saying lance is not guilty" but then you say "it's not cheating if everyone is doing it". well since lance clearly did it you're saying it's not cheating since everyone else was. thus, you're saying lance is not guilty.

your arguments are getting more and more non-sensical and self contradictory with each post. no doubt you imagine you are really handing "truth" and "reality" to us and we're too dumb to see it when in fact you're proudly putting your ignorance and abhorrent personal morals/value and reprehensible situational ethic on display for the entire world to see.

and you're too pathetically and profoundly obtuse to even realize it.



Bradpreo said:


> IT'S NOT CHEATING IF EVERYONE DOING IT


we get it, sociopath. we just don't agree with you.


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

Maybe posts like the last 2 should be mandatory to be read and fully understood before posting
but that might take the fun out of this thread.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Circlip said:


> +1 by far.
> 
> (among modern day road pros)


But if we include mtb past & present, we have John Tomac (also a National Roadie champ) and Brian Lopes ( more WC wins than any male ever).

Just saying (I mean remembering)


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

Ah, I see why this thread is still going. There are some people defending Lance. That is also strange to me. This guy wouldn't stop and help you with a flat tire on the side of the road/trail and you're all here arguing for him like he's your family... The guy's definitely a donkey so it's good to have his name dragged through some mud. Carry on.


----------



## dirtdan (Jun 27, 2011)

lapinGTI said:


> On this tread we focus on Lance. On other tread we focus on different things... You see.


This is pretty cut and dry. Person signs agreement to race on particular circuit. Person breaks rule(s) (even if the only rule broken was that which requires him to be a willing participant in an investigation). Due to infraction, governing body removes person from being in good standing with the organization and takes titles away.
Nothing foul here. Just how it's supposed to go. I'm glad Lance isn't being treated like the god he goes around pretending to be. Except by some here on the Internet, who luckily, aren't in charge of any athletic organizations.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

dwt said:


> But if we include mtb past & present, we have John Tomac (also a National Roadie champ) and Brian Lopes ( more WC wins than any male ever).
> 
> Just saying (I mean remembering)


Good list, if we're keeping on the theme of the site speaking to MTB. Juli Furtado would also rate highly in some people's books. Another couple of years like 2012 and Aaron Gwin might make it up there too. On the other hand if we instead open up the criteria to all disciplines, it wouldn't be any stretch to give a nod to Major Taylor.


----------



## RJJ (Jul 19, 2006)

Bradpreo said:


> News flash.... PEDs have been and will continue to be used in every professional sport... All this BS about Lance is a cheater is delusional talk because those who think that... some where deep inside believe in the "purity of sports". To alll those in that camp.... In the words of Jack..."you can't handle the truth"! Son, we live in a world of walls... We put our atheletes on a pedestal and would like to think they are "god like".... You have that luxury... The luxury of being so native that all your idols are clean... So when one of these super stars get caught ... U are like OMG!!! Such liars, such cheaters amoung this world of unbelievable super humans God has put among us for our entertainment.... We use words like honor, code and loyalty.... I have neither the time or the inclination to explain way the difference of just being a college star and a millionaire superstar is just the point of a needle difference.... Now I am not saying these superstars are not ridiculously talented and if you or I used the same PEDs then we could do what they are achieving.... NO WAY!! These are superstars that train hard their whole life and look for any advantage they can get away with.... And they know for a fact others are doing it... So they find a way or accept being irrelevant. Take off your rose colared glasses and just enjoy watching the game.... It's just as much of a game behind the scenes not getting caught.... Lance is a 7 time Tour De France champion and deserves everything he has earned.... so does Tiger Woods even if one day they prove he took something .....face the facts and enjoy the game.... don't think you know what's happening behind closed doors... And don't be so quick to "throw that stone" and just believe in the system....


Hey Lance, is that you?


----------



## dead_dog_canyon (Sep 8, 2010)

Do you believe Hillary really suffered a fainting spell?

Nope – Bill slapped her down the stairs.
Yep – But I didn’t until I saw the news this morning.
Nope - But I'm starting to have doubts.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

daves4mtb said:


> hillary suffered a farting spell? That'll go over well


----------



## Bwfmtber (Jan 11, 2012)

he is clean they have no proof


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

Bwfmtber said:


> he is clean they have no proof


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

daves4mtb said:


> Wow dwt I am clearly not trolling...my post was no more a troll than yours. Happy new year, try to lay off the geritol


Really? Could have fooled me, and did repeatedly.

Geritol? Damn, not only are you a troll but a f***tard as a comedian.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Among the evidence cited by USADA:

- US Postal Service team riders used EPO, testosterone, human growth hormone and cortisone, according to riders George Hincapie, Tyler Hamilton, Frankie Andreu and Jonathan Vaughters and team employee Emma O'Reilly

- Armstrong required O'Reilly to dispose of syringes after the 1998 Tour of the Netherlands

- Hincapie and Hamilton testified they were aware of Armstrong's EPO use as early as 1998. Vaughters confirmed Armstrong used in the Tour of Spain and said he saw Armstrong inject himself with EPO in a hotel room

- Vaughters and Christian Van de Velde saw a doctor bring saline to Armstrong to help him avoid doping detection

- Hamilton testified he saw Armstrong take EPO during the 1999 Tour de France, having blood removed before the 2000 Tour and receiving a transfusion during the 2000 Tour

- Armstrong offered Hamilton a vial of EPO from a refrigerator at his villa in Nice, France, in May, 1999. Hincapie also testified to being aware of 1999 EPO use by Armstrong

- O'Reilly testified team officials fabricated a story to explain why Armstrong tested positive for cortisone, including a backdated prescription for a cortisone cream to treat a saddle sore when he really had taken a cortisone injection

Cycling: Armstrong misses doping appeal deadline - Sport - NZ Herald News


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

daves4mtb said:


> Ha! That all you got?


You apparently are unable to just let it go.

How about this: if I can criticise you as being a credulous mentally challenged troll, I suppose it's fair for you to bring up age. Although that is lame and very low hanging fruit, and only emphasises your lack of cognitive ability.

I suppose you might know something about mtb, but your understanding of professional road bike racing and your contributions to this thread are sorely deficient.

New Years resolution: don't feed trolls


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

daves4mtb said:


> Ha! That all you got?


Is that all I've got, lol...the fact that it's official that he never won a tour...it's all I need.
An innocent man does not miss the deadline for his doping appeal.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

SV11 said:


> Is that all I've got, lol...the fact that it's official that he never won a tour...it's all I need.
> An innocent man does not miss the deadline for his doping appeal.


Nicely put sv11, this just about sums it all up, game set and match.....:thumbsup:


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Thanks mate.
Only one thing left to do, rape him for millions from his ill gotten wealth.


----------



## jackbombay (Nov 15, 2010)

SV11 said:


> Thanks mate.
> Only one thing left to do, rape him for millions from his ill gotten wealth.


 Do you guys harbor this much hatred of the 2nd through 10th place finishers of the tours that Lance was in?

Thats what seems so absurd about all the Lance Hatred, everyone thinks that the more they hate lance the more morally upstanding they are, but nobody displays any hatred for _all the other guys_ on the tour that were surely doping so instead of proving themselves to be morally upstanding they just look like hypocrites.

You guys are obviously free to hate Lance all you want, you might even consider having a comment on your grave stone about how terrible of a person Lance is/was, but you guys really need to let the hatred flow to all the other dopers, you do want to be known as equal opportunity haters, right?


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

jackbombay said:


> Do you guys harbor this much hatred of the 2nd through 10th place finishers of the tours that Lance was in?
> 
> Thats what seems so absurd about all the Lance Hatred, everyone thinks that the more they hate lance the more morally upstanding they are, but nobody displays any hatred for _all the other guys_ on the tour that were surely doping so instead of proving themselves to be morally upstanding they just look like hypocrites.
> 
> You guys are obviously free to hate Lance all you want, you might even consider having a comment on your grave stone about how terrible of a person Lance is/was, but you guys really need to let the hatred flow to all the other dopers, you do want to be known as equal opportunity haters, right?


I have 14 words and a vowel for you dude, watch the world according to lance, then come back to this thread for a chat...


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

jackbombay said:


> Do you guys harbor this much hatred of the 2nd through 10th place finishers of the tours that Lance was in?
> 
> Thats what seems so absurd about all the Lance Hatred, everyone thinks that the more they hate lance the more morally upstanding they are, but nobody displays any hatred for _all the other guys_ on the tour that were surely doping so instead of proving themselves to be morally upstanding they just look like hypocrites.
> 
> You guys are obviously free to hate Lance all you want, you might even consider having a comment on your grave stone about how terrible of a person Lance is/was, but you guys really need to let the hatred flow to all the other dopers, you do want to be known as equal opportunity haters, right?


Quack quack quack......
Its obvious you have read very little of these threads and have done very little research on the topic.....


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

jackbombay said:


> Thats what seems so absurd about all the Lance Hatred, everyone thinks that the more they hate lance the more morally upstanding they are, but nobody displays any hatred for _all the other guys_ on the tour that were surely doping so instead of proving themselves to be morally upstanding they just look like hypocrites.


You mean all the other guys that weren't using their influence to bully other riders, blackmail? That weren't raking in the millions in sponsorships and denying the substantial charges several times over the years? That weren't paying people off with large sums of money? That weren't involved in a never-ending legal battle to deal with the allegations that kept coming up? That have stepped forward in many cases to support the allegations and received temporary bans?

Those guys? 
There are probably more than a few that have slipped through, and it's not a witch-hunt, it's a situation where there's good evidence against LA. If there's just as good evidence against all these others like you say, I'd imagine that will come out or should be pursued. I'd imagine due to not being anywhere near the extent of what LA did, it's probably unlikely.


----------



## jackbombay (Nov 15, 2010)

Jayem said:


> ...it's a situation where there's good evidence against LA. If there's just as good evidence against all these others like you say...


 I never said there was, or wasn't, evidence against the other guys in the tour









Do you believe that I'm defending Lance? :nono:

All I did was point out that the hatred bestowed upon Lance for cheating should be spread out on all the cheating riders, you guys have to let the hate flow and be more generous with it.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Die thread! Die!


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Circlip said:


> Die thread! Die!


LOL, i dont think its ready yet mate, its got some legs on it yet, besides, its been very entertaining.....:skep:


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Move it to the 29er forum, make it a sticky.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Move it to the 29er forum, make it a sticky.


Cruel and unusual punishment?


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Circlip said:


> Cruel and unusual punishment?


They deserve it for being Zealots.


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

this thread is


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

hay Lance is your shower running



Better go catch it


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

SlowerJoe said:


> hay Lance is your shower running
> 
> Better go catch it


he can't his supply ran out


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

daves4mtb said:


> How dare you call me a ginger!:madmax:


in responding to a post clearly directed at someone else as though it was directed at you personally you've scored the coveted "troll twofer" -- epic troll combined with epic fail.

congrats! :thumbsup:


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Lance going to confess?

Lance Armstrong considering public doping confession, reports say - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

LOL, thinking about confessing because the wants his riding ban lifted, the guy is a sociopath, if he confesses, it will be a contrived load of dribble to suit him, not a word that comes out of the guys mouth can be believed.
It will be a carefully scripted, sociopathic,load of dribble, if he wants to confess for the right reasons i'll have a listen, but if its because he wants to get back into pro riding, its a total disgrace of a reason and it wont even be worth the 10 minute press conference.
The guy has no shame and i wont mix my words, he is the biggest disgrace in the history of sport, with daylight second.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Lance going to confess?
> 
> Lance Armstrong considering public doping confession, reports say - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com


This is enough to drive me out of lurking on this thread.

First Graham Watson's blog. Now the New York Times. Next, I suspect he will play a victim. Regardless, if he comes forward and says he made a mistake and is acting like a leader in trying to right a major wrong, he'll earn respect.

edit: Perhaps not Tone's respect. But anybody that could confess to this much of a lie will earn *some* respect back.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

If LA wanted to keep a little respect, he would of come out when he got outed, when the rest admitted to doping. Him denying his doping/antics for all this time proves to me his confession would not be genuine, people know when they are being played.
How can you respect a guy that did what he did, and denied it up until this time (he is considering a confession, not a certainty yet) and still does?
His consideration for a confessoin doesn't sit well with me, now I know for a certain that he's an A grade scumbag.


----------



## joshh (Nov 14, 2012)

Well it seems to be quite simple. No matter what you did, if you apologize people will love you and shower you with money and Presidents will come to your concerts.....
Just ask Psy and his Gangnam style singing about killing American troops and their families, or Chris Brown the woman beater. You could also ask the dog killer Michael Vick. The list goes on
I imagine that Lance, and everyone else, sees how easy it is to apologize and be forgiven when famous and figure it will work for them to.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

1. We all have lied before. 2. When we lied, we thought it was the right thing to do at the moment. Turning away from a lie, even a little lie or especially one that shows vulnerability, requires more strength than continuing to lie. So yes, him coming through to say what went on from his perspective could be very enlightening about the sport. I'm certain he is playing an angle, but in the end, put yourself on a stage and confess a lie that is going to be quoted in virtually every paper around the world and see if your knees are not trembling a bit. For better or worse, this is a necessary step.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

heyyall said:


> This is enough to drive me out of lurking on this thread.
> 
> First Graham Watson's blog. Now the New York Times. Next, I suspect he will play a victim. Regardless, if he comes forward and says he made a mistake and is acting like a leader in trying to right a major wrong, he'll earn respect.
> 
> edit: Perhaps not Tone's respect. But anybody that could confess to this much of a lie will earn *some* respect back.


Heyall, im onto lances personality like many others are, if and when he does, it will be narcissistic, self serving, sociopathic, it will be constructed to avoid any blame and paint himself out to be a victim and hero.
I f its just to get his riding ticket back it will be a total sham and disgrace.
Lance does not have the grace to come clean if theres not something in it for him, its not in his nature, if and when he does, just watch, every word of it will be self serving dribble.
If he has the courage to come clean with out there being somerthing in it for him other than pride, i will listen and might give him some respect for it, but a sociopath doesnt have that in his nature to do that.
The guy has called everybody that was a witness against him a liar, he has done his best to wreck careers and destroy others that dared to speak out against him, coming clean at this point will actually make him look worse not better, especially if he is doing it to get himself back in competition, it will be the lowest of low moves and show just what a narcissist and sociopath he really is.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Tone's said:


> Heyall, im onto lances personality like many others are, if and when he does, it will be narcissistic, self serving, sociopathic, it will be constructed to avoid any blame and paint himself out to be a victim and hero.
> I f its just to get his riding ticket back it will be a total sham and disgrace.
> Lance does not have the grace to come clean if theres not something in it for him, its not in his nature, if and when he does, just watch, every word of it will be self serving dribble.
> If he has the courage to come clean with out there being somerthing in it for him other than pride, i will listen and might give him some respect for it, but a sociopath doesnt have that in his nature to do that.
> The guy has called everybody that was a witness against him a liar, he has done his best to wreck careers and destroy others that dared to speak out against him, coming clean at this point will actually make him look worse not better, especially if he is doing it to get himself back in competition, it will be the lowest of low moves and show just what a narcissist and sociopath he really is.


i am kinda on the same page... if his actions did not hurt others as much as they did, including career ending moves and millions of dollars in damages - maybe, just maybe he would stand a chance...

this way - i doubt it. just watched "the world according to Lance" again... the most organized crime within the sport... sigh...


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

*Report: Armstrong weighs admitting to doping*

Report: Armstrong weighs admitting to doping 

AUSTIN -- The New York Times is reporting Friday that Lance Armstrong -- who has strongly denied the doping charges that led to him being stripped of his seven Tour de France titles -- has told associates he is considering admitting he used performance-enhancing drugs.

The report is based on anonymous sources and says Armstrong is considering a confession to help restore his athletic career in triathlons and running events at age 41. Armstrong was been banned for life from cycling and cannot compete in athletic events sanctioned by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Yet Armstrong attorney Tim Herman denies that the cyclist has reached out to USADA chief executive Travis Tygart and David Howman, director general of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Herman tells The Associated Press he has no knowledge of Armstrong considering a confession and said, "When, and if, Lance has something to say, there won't be any secret about it."


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Tone's I'm with you. I am just saying this is a big step...the right step too. 

Note to self: lurk :thumbsup:


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

heyyall said:


> Tone's I'm with you. I am just saying this is a big step...the right step too.
> 
> Note to self: lurk :thumbsup:


may be a good script for a movie... that's about it...

too little too late...


----------



## grandsalmon (Oct 24, 2005)

Regarding Mr. Armstrong -this is no longer about just him; whether he doped. We all know there is the mountain of mess he created in maintaining innocence at the expense of putting a lot of people 'under the bus'. This last bit just seems insurmountable, and rightly is I think. 'The Matter of Armstrong' is far beyond any "confession" could adequately address.


.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Tone's said:


> It will be a carefully scripted, sociopathic,load of dribble, if he wants to confess for the right reasons i'll have a listen, but if its because he wants to get back into pro riding, its a total disgrace of a reason and it wont even be worth the 10 minute press conference.


Actually that's the reason why he is considering confessing, so anti doping officials might restore his eligibility to continue his athletic career. You were bang on.


----------



## JacquesZA (Jan 4, 2013)

Yes believe he is clean and will "confess" just to have the lifetime sports ban lifted.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

JacquesZA said:


> Yes believe he is clean and will "confess" just to have the lifetime sports ban lifted.


CONGRATULATIONS Jacques, this is officially the silliest first post in the history of MTBR, its onlt downhill from here mate :thumbsup::skep:


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

I love the way so many folks keep trying to defend this dude. Yes, lots of other schmucks, myself included, have made big mistakes. But this Armstrong destroyed the lives of a number of people. I mean ruined people. Now he wants to come clean? Great. 

Let the dude go ride his bike with a number on his back. Who cares. Maybe he'll find a way to earn some more money for cancer.


----------



## shwinn8 (Feb 25, 2006)

much like the movie the Thomas Crown Affair, the only ones who care are a bunch of rich people


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

I'm beyond caring whether he comes clean. When this whole thing started -- not with the USADA investigation, not with the federal investigations, but with his very first positive/questionable drug test, he should have come clean. 

But no. He denied, he bribed, he manipulated. He cheated. And then he denied it all. He took us for fools. 

And now he wants to come clean after his reputation has been destroyed, after he's been exposed as the filth that he is. And he thinks a simple confession will undo all that. He thinks he'll be able to return to the sport as though nothing ever happened. 

**** that. Save it, Lance. Go ahead and confess for your own mental well-being, but don't expect it to change anything. What's done is done, and what's done is beyond repair. Leave the sport, leave competition, and take Patty McQuaid and his cronies with you. You had your chance, Lance.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

^^^^ well said Erik, i feel exactly the same..


----------



## Spinning Lizard (Nov 27, 2009)

I hope when he does confess that he says Pat was on the take. If he just confesses without going through ALL the details then screw him.


----------



## lapinGTI (Dec 30, 2009)

The guy is CONSIDERING a confession. Ye right. Now is layer team collect information on the people reaction and authority, and if everything is right he will confess? 

Considering to confess isn't that a confession in its own?
At least now is supporter must believe he dope? Or is it a complot from Lance to recover the right to race. And to do so he will lie to use once again be telling us what we want to hear from him?  
I don’t believe 1 word coming out from his mouth, I hope the American cycling association won’t let him ride for a confession… 

Just the fact that he is considering it, and even worsts him makes it public! Tell you a lots about the guy. 

I never had respect for him, and i will never have.


----------



## ViperNC (May 9, 2011)

I wish he didn't... hard to find heros these days and he was one of them.


----------



## lapinGTI (Dec 30, 2009)

Spinning Lizard said:


> I hope when he does confess that he says Pat was on the take. If he just confesses without going through ALL the details then screw him.


If he did so it will be is only contribution tho the cycling world. It would be awsome


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

grandsalmon said:


> ...We all know there is the mountain of mess he created in maintaining innocence at the expense of putting a lot of people 'under the bus'. This last bit just seems insurmountable, and rightly is, far beyond any "confession" could address.





> But this Armstrong destroyed the lives of a number of people. I mean ruined people.


The irony of wanting his reputation and eligibility restored after he ruined and threatened to ruin so many others.....

I was thinking this week that Lance was laying low & being awfully quiet -- perhaps preemptively paying off lawsuits right and left.

re:_ His "associates" just happen to mention it to a reporter, but his lawyer just doesn't know a thing about it. _ (When the term "associates" is used in a news item it seems always to subtly reference an element of criminality and is used when discussing drug dealers, professional criminals, mob types, organized crime, so it was intriguing to see it popping up in an article about LA.)

When items like this show up, they are part of an extremely well orchestrated PR strategy, the first step in a process of rehabilitating the LA brand in the media *by creating a carefully crafted and appropriately contrite persona*.

In terms of the eligibility issues, Travis Tygart would settle for nothing less than a full confession....no stone unturned. And it may also be likely that the window of confession is past, as far as USADA is concerned, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, so who knows.


----------



## Crusty3764 (Jan 16, 2007)

Confess to what?
Blood doping? EPO? HGH? Steroids?
Or confess to perjury, libel, slander, deceiving millions of cancer victims and so on?
All that so he can race clean against guys 20 years younger?
Doesn't make sense. He's lied before and confession at this point is more of the same.


----------



## DavyRay (Apr 13, 2012)

It would be much easier for Lance if he were a country music star.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

he is still your hero?


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

I'd be *sick* if it were that Burry Stander's death on Thrusday due that accident in South Africa offered some type of proliferations for Lance Armstrong to have a media campaign. Blind leading the Blind... 
Should Armstrong go ahead and fall in line w/ IOC rules now, IOC should absolutely re-write Doping Laws to where LA is still the Born Loser.

...wait, UCI, not the Olympic Commitee.


----------



## DavyRay (Apr 13, 2012)

DavyRay said:


> It would be much easier for Lance if he were a country music star.





osokolo said:


> he is still your hero?


He never was a hero to me.

If he had the sense of a country music star, though, he would have come to Jesus already.
He would have had the chore of confessing his sins and testifying on multiple media outlets, in titillating detail. Of course, a fess-up book would follow soon. Country music stars who get caught with their pants down and illegally high always make an album of religious songs as well. Helps the bottom line even more.

I think the gospel album might be a stretch for LA, especially since he has not confessed or repented at all.


----------



## edley (Dec 8, 2006)

God, I tried to just lurk, but this latest "news" is too much.

I smell a rat in the form of a deal to sell out Bruyneel, and make him the evil force with restraints and needles in hand as the poor, pitiful, meek Lance attempted to hide - in the kitchen next to the blood bags with the labels to date each sample. Bruyneel becomes the Darth Vader of cycling and Lance gets to participate in events but cannot accept prize money. 

If true, the question is whether Lance dreamed this up or whether the USADA felt it needed a bombshell live witness to cast Bruyneel as DV to show the cycling world that the bad guys have been rooted out, and its safe of fans - and sponsors - to jump back in the cycling waters.

Or, it could be a terrific prank by someone as bored as me who can't ride because of all of the f#$king rain!


----------



## grandsalmon (Oct 24, 2005)

^^^I'm on board.


.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

erik1245 said:


> I'm beyond caring whether he comes clean. When this whole thing started -- not with the USADA investigation, not with the federal investigations, but with his very first positive/questionable drug test, he should have come clean.
> 
> But no. He denied, he bribed, he manipulated. He cheated. And then he denied it all. He took us for fools.
> 
> ...


That sounds a bit naive. I doubt even LA thinks he'll be able to return to the sport as if nothing happened. He might like to do that, but he probably realizes anything he does is tainted for the future for a long time and he'll have a long way to go to even have a chance at "making it up". It just sounds outlandish to say that he thinks he'll be able to return back as if nothing happened. It sounds like you just want him shot or something. I think the post a few back that said "continuing to tell a lie is much easier than coming clean" is correct. He only has one shot at life, so it's not unreasonable to expect humans to do irrational things in exceptional situations. I think the damage is already done, but I wouldn't put a human in a situation where he can "never recover", unless it was some kind of crime like murder.

Wanting someone to "come clean" for the "good of humanity" when there's no chance for them to ever do better and make it up gets to be a little selfish and insecure IMO, it seems to be self-serving for the observer that can't make up their mind based on the evidence and "needs closure".

If he does "come clean" and they say: "no, we won't life your ban, but thank you very much", I won't care all that much. If they say "ok, if you do, this, this this and this, then at this point we'll consider it or lift it", then I still won't care all that much, but I won't think that is "getting away with it". "Getting away with it" is what he did in the past, and it's not what happens when everyone in the world knows you did it and your empire and reputation comes crashing down.


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

Jay, I think you confused my words. I don't care whether he confesses -- what's done is done, there's no changing that, and a confession after everything that has happened is too little, too late.

The original source that reported this -- the NY Times -- states, "He would do this, the people said, because he wants to persuade antidoping officials to restore his eligibility so he can resume his athletic career."

He's considering this confession just so that he can continue to race and make money. That's where I take issue with this confession. It's a ploy so that he doesn't have to face the consequences of his decisions to dope and then lie about it for years and years and years, while threatening anyone who tried to expose his lie. After he realized those consequences, he decided, "No, I don't wanna deal with that." And now he's looking for a way to skip out on those consequences.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

erik1245 said:


> He's considering this confession just so that he can continue to race and make money. That's where I take issue with this confession. It's a ploy so that he doesn't have to face the consequences of his decisions to dope and then lie about it for years and years and years, while threatening anyone who tried to expose his lie. After he realized those consequences, he decided, "No, I don't wanna deal with that." And now he's looking for a way to skip out on those consequences.


And if sponsors start asking for money back, where is it going to come from, assuming it's more than he has on hand? Exactly how is he going to "make money" by racing?


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

Jayem said:


> And if sponsors start asking for money back, where is it going to come from, assuming it's more than he has on hand? Exactly how is he going to "make money" by racing?


Professional racing -- whether on bikes or in triathlons -- is exactly that. You're paid to race.

And this is exactly the type of consequence that he's trying to avoid by trying to start racing again; he can make money by racing and pay those sponsors and fulfill the terms of his sponsorship contracts by racing. He should face those consequences just like everyone else would and figure it out.

There are plenty of ways to make money without racing bikes. For one, he could find a job outside the bike industry.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

erik1245 said:


> Professional racing -- whether on bikes or in triathlons -- is exactly that. You're paid to race.
> 
> And this is exactly the type of consequence that he's trying to avoid by trying to start racing again; he can make money by racing and pay those sponsors and fulfill the terms of his sponsorship contracts by racing. He should face those consequences just like everyone else would and figure it out.
> 
> There are plenty of ways to make money without racing bikes. For one, he could find a job outside the bike industry.


Come on now, you know this isn't major league baseball or NBA. "Professional" road racing is just above amateur bowling. They aren't working for a company, they are paid by sponsors ultimately. Your assertion was that he is thinking he can just return to the sport as if nothing happened. I still think you aren't being realistic. If LA himself knows he did this, he also knows he isn't going to pick up sponsors, hence, he knows that he isn't going to be able to just return, pick up Nike, Trek and a bunch of other stuff, and rake in millions. That seems to be what you think he's trying to get? I just can't see any way that he or anyone else would think that is the goal by "coming clean". He's obviously doing it for his own benefit, but "as if nothing had happened"? Come on now.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

FWIW, Lance has hauled in large green for appearance fees, I imagine that he is losing a good portion of income not being eligable to compete in the Tri events.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

AZ.MTNS said:


> FWIW, Lance has hauled in large green for appearance fees, I imagine that he is losing a good portion of income not being eligable to compete in the Tri events.


And you assume people are going to pay him to appear after what he's done and the only thing that controls this is the USADA?


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Jayem said:


> And you assume people are going to pay him to appear after what he's done and the only thing that controls this is the USADA?


Yes, they still pay him to appear at Tri's. USADA does not sanction all events and some Tri's have gone so far as to drop their USADA affiliation in order for Lance to appear.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Spinning Lizard said:


> I hope when he does confess that he says Pat was on the take. If he just confesses without going through ALL the details then screw him.


Yes, and also out that other UCI drug coverupping scumball Hein Verbruggen


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Jayem said:


> And you assume people are going to pay him to appear after what he's done and the only thing that controls this is the USADA?


The guy's totally radioactive. No way any reputable company would sponsor him in any sport. Only American more radioactive is John Edwards


----------



## Bro (Dec 20, 2010)

Jayem said:


> And you assume people are going to pay him to appear after what he's done and the only thing that controls this is the USADA?





AZ.MTNS said:


> Yes, they still pay him to appear at Tri's. USADA does not sanction all events and some Tri's have gone so far as to drop their USADA affiliation in order for Lance to appear.


Yup. He also appeared at several unsanctioned mountain bike races after USADA's reasoned decision was handed over to UCI.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

*there's no fail like a toll's fail*



monogod said:


> in responding to a post clearly directed at someone else as though it was directed at you personally you've scored the coveted "troll twofer" -- epic troll combined with epic fail.
> 
> congrats!
> 
> ...


hmmmmm.... let's review your contribution to this thread:










the only discernible difference being that stepping in canine residue barefooted is far more enjoyable than your offerings herein. so if you're under the delusion that you've provided reading enjoyment for pretty much anyone you've just kicked it up a notch to the elusive triple troll fail -- the "trifailcta".


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Jayem said:


> And you assume people are going to pay him to appear after what he's done and the only thing that controls this is the USADA?


absolutely... there are still promoters with more money than morals and brains out there...


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)




----------



## higgsj (Nov 28, 2012)

I was always suspicious after the guys he was beating were all caught doping. It's one thing to be great but to be great AND beat all these guys who were doping....just seemed too good to be true.


----------



## trinajstich (Jan 8, 2013)

Armstrong is a Legend!


----------



## Burnt-Orange (Dec 10, 2008)

all legends are not good!


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

trinajstich said:


> Armstrong is a Legend!


LOL, A doping and cheating legend.:skep:


----------



## joshh (Nov 14, 2012)

Being infamous is still being famous.....


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

SlowerJoe said:


> all legends are not good!


you have a space in your signature, where it doesn't belong.

it is freaking me out.


----------



## jackbombay (Nov 15, 2010)

daves4mtb said:


> Tones loves Lance Armstrong


 Tone's did confess that to me in a private message, but he said he would deny it if I were ever to reveal it in public.


----------



## Stugotz (Dec 14, 2011)

*Armstrong allegedly offered large "donation" to doping agency*

This is really nothing that we don't already know but I thought it curious that CBS News had something on it today.(CBS News)

Cyclist Lance Armstrong once offered a large "donation" to the same agency that recently concluded he and his team had used illegal substances, causing him to be stripped of his seven Tour de Frances wins. The brazenly inappropriate gesture made to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is recounted by the agency's CEO Travis Tygart, who tells Scott Pelley the whole story of his agency's investigation of Armstrong for the first time in an interview to be broadcast on the premiere edition of "60 Minutes Sports," Wednesday, Jan. 9 at 10:00 p.m. on the Showtime network.

Armstrong once gave the International Cycling Union, a regulatory body for his sport, a gift of $100,000. Tygart called that "totally inappropriate." Then someone representing Armstrong tried to give USADA a large sum of money sometime in 2004. "I was stunned," he tells Pelley. "It was clear -- it was a clear conflict of interest for USADA. We had no hesitation in rejecting that offer," says Tygart, who said the amount was "in excess of $150,000." Told by Pelley that "60 Minutes" had learned it was $250,000, Tygart replies, "It was around that ballpark."

For a preview of Scott Pelley's interview with Travis Tygart, tune in to the CBS Evening News tonight at 6:30 p.m. ET.

38 Photos
Lance Armstrong
View the Full Gallery »

It had long been suspected that Armstrong and the U.S. Postal Cycling Team he led had been using substances and illegal treatments to enhance their amazing performances. The U.S. Justice Department investigated the team for two years but refused to charge him. It was a decision that stunned Tygart, especially since he learned about it from reporters. "I don't know [why they failed to charge Armstrong], Scott. It's a good question and one that if you finally answer, let me know," says Tygart.

Attorney denies report Lance Armstrong will admit doping
Armstrong sued for more than $1.5M by U.K. newspaper over libel case

In addition to blindsiding him on its refusal to bring charges, the Justice Department also refused to share the results of its investigation with Tygart. Regardless of the message the U.S. government may have been sending with that move, Tygart says, "We have an obligation to clean athletes and the future of sport. This was a fight for the soul of sport."

Tygart describes Armstrong and his team of doctors, coaches and riders as similar to a "Mafia" that kept their secret for years and intimidated riders into silently following their illegal methods. Some of those riders are considered victims by Tygart and he said they were forced to choose between following the doping program or being off the team, dashing the dream they had worked so hard to attain. It's what Tygart says motivates him. "It's our job, Scott, to protect clean athletes. There were victims of doping," he says.

Lance Armstrong declined to comment for this story.


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

Lance is going to have a 90 minute interview with Oprah on January 17th........Just sayin'


----------



## uber_franz (Jan 1, 2013)

My wife has a conspiracy theory that he faked the cancer to get a chance to use the drugs...


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

uber_franz said:


> My wife has a conspiracy theory that he faked the cancer to get a chance to use the drugs...


Your wife isnt alone, theres a lot of people that think exactly the same.


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

uber_franz said:


> My wife has a conspiracy theory that he faked the cancer to get a chance to use the drugs...


Exactly, additional to that I have a friend who knows someone who knows a person who heard the theory that his testical is not really missing it's just tucked in.


----------



## portnoy (Jan 19, 2004)

*You're a little late to the party...*

I believe it doesn't matter, nobody cares, and he won by the rules of the day. No more, no less.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

msylvan said:


> I believe it doesn't matter, nobody cares, and he won by the rules of the day. No more, no less.


LOL

First of all he didnt win by the rules of the day, he cheated and used drugs, and now his been caught out and he is to gutless to face the music.

''nobody cares'' lol, plenty care all over the world, the people he bullied, cheated and destoyed the careers of care, plenty of cycle and sport lovers care and you cared enough to make your above post, if nobody cared the media and all the people talking about this would not be bothered talking, its the sporting story of the last 50 years incase you havnt noticed.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

uber_franz said:


> My wife has a conspiracy theory that he faked the cancer to get a chance to use the drugs...


This thread has gone from who gives a shyte, to friggin' stupid, and now to totally whacked out


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

msylvan said:


> i believe it doesn't matter, nobody cares, and he won by the rules of the day. No more, no less.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

One thing good to come out the "consideration for confession" debacle, the naysayers have all disappeared. Whatever doubt was left, it's now melted away.


----------



## joshh (Nov 14, 2012)

Tone's said:


> ... if nobody cared the media and all the people talking about this would not be bothered talking....


Now that's not technically true. Many times the media reports what they want people to care and talk about, to push their agenda. It's a great tool to get people to stop paying attention to more important issues.
Another tactic of theirs is to push as much bad news as possible. The whole deal with Lance is bad news from the bottom up, so it makes for great news to draw viewers to.

And I'm sure you know what msylvan meant by "the rules of the day". Obviously using performance enhancing drugs wasn't a legal rule, but it was what so many people were doing that if you wanted to stay competitive, it was just about your only option. 
Just like when Major League Baseball's PED problem came to light. Hitters were juicing, so pitchers started juicing. Backups started juicing because they couldn't get past the starters that were juicing to get their chance. Then you had players that were never accused of juicing like Ken Griffey Jr, who had their HOF careers hampered by injuries that they didn't miraculously recover from because they weren't using HGH. Now players like Junior, who should be holding the records of people like Bonds or McGwire (fux Sosa), are forgotten about. No one talks about Griffey or other players never accused of cheating that will be in the HOF. But they just can't stop talking about the sideshow spectacle that was Clemens and Bonds.

It doesn't make it right for any of them, but it doesn't make one juicer any more wrong then the others. Are you more mad because he juiced and won, or because others came clean after getting busted with positive piss tests but he didn't? If it's the former, I hope he's not the only one you have this hatred for. If it's the latter, he wasn't the only one lying until he got caught, they all lied until they got caught. It just took longer for the authorities that be to lock down the sufficient evidence to say he was also cheating.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Well, before I wasn't all that interested, but now I'm curious to see how any twists affect daves4mtb.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

joshh said:


> Now that's not technically true. Many times the media reports what they want people to care and talk about, to push their agenda. It's a great tool to get people to stop paying attention to more important issues.
> Another tactic of theirs is to push as much bad news as possible. The whole deal with Lance is bad news from the bottom up, so it makes for great news to draw viewers to.
> 
> And I'm sure you know what msylvan meant by "the rules of the day". Obviously using performance enhancing drugs wasn't a legal rule, but it was what so many people were doing that if you wanted to stay competitive, it was just about your only option.
> ...


First off josh, its not hatred i have for him, not even close, its a distain, dislike, lack of respect for the way he treaded others to get where he is, its the lying, the person he pretends to be, its the bullying of other riders, its the lack of owning up and trying to throw others under the bus to cover his own ass, these are the things i dont like or respect in a man.

Lance did piss positive tests, but were covered up by his doctors and team.
Secondly Lance comes across to me as entitled, as a liar, a bully, a guy that is boarderlining on a sociopath, actually is a sociopath.
I like to see guys like this get what they deserve, i also like to see his head in the sand supporters get proven wrong, simple as that.
Ive watched every one of lances tour victories, and ever stage of the tour for the last 15 or so years, the way he tried to dominate the pack, and bully others was very apparent.
Go watch the documentry the world according to lance, or read the mountain of evidence in the USADA report, the guy is a disgrace to the values of sport all over the world and not just with the drugs.

Theres nothing i like more than people living with their heads in the sand and neglecting the facts being proven wrong, its a small simple joy in life that i enjoy .

I dont hate lance, im just really enjoying seeing a guy like him get his just desert and being exposed for what he is, its sweet poetic justice although it took a while to come.


----------



## uneek78 (Dec 10, 2012)

Seems like we will all find out soon. Oprah will be interviewing Lance Armstrong. The show will air at 9 p.m. EST on Jan. 17 on OWN and Oprah.com.

Here is a snippet from the article: 
Lance Armstrong has agreed to a tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey where he will address allegations that he used performance-enhancing drugs during his cycling career.

Oprah to interview Lance Armstrong - Yahoo! News


----------



## RJJ (Jul 19, 2006)

Tone's said:


> First off josh, its not hatred i have for him, not even close, its a distain, dislike, lack of respect for the way he treaded others to get where he is, its the lying, the person he pretends to be, its the bullying of other riders, its the lack of owning up and trying to throw others under the bus to cover his own ass, these are the things i dont like or respect in a man.
> 
> Lance did piss positive tests, but were covered up by his doctors and team.
> Secondly Lance comes across to me as entitled, as a liar, a bully, a guy that is boarderlining on a sociopath, actually is a sociopath.
> ...


+1

The reason I want to see justice done is nothing to do with the fact Lance juiced, plenty of people in sport have done that. It is the fact he lied, bullied, intimidated, sued anybody who spoke out against his deceit and brutally wrecked the careers of people that just told the truth. And still, after all that, there seems a shed load of people on here and elsewhere that think he's a man to be admired, and that it's all OK 'cause plenty of other cyclists took drugs.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

RJJ said:


> +1
> 
> The reason I want to see justice done is nothing to do with the fact Lance juiced, plenty of people in sport have done that. It is the fact he lied, bullied, intimidated, sued anybody who spoke out against his deceit and brutally wrecked the careers of people that just told the truth. And still, after all that, there seems a shed load of people on here and elsewhere that think he's a man to be admired, and that it's all OK 'cause plenty of other cyclists took drugs.


well said....:thumbsup:


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Lance can't own up to too much, the civil liabilities of his doing so would likely bankrupt him. I expect much waffling.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Lance can't own up to too much, the civil liabilities of his doing so would likely bankrupt him. I expect much waffling.


With out a doubt AZ, he will only admit to a very small amount if anything, it will be self serving, the only reason he will admit to anything is if he can nut a deal out to lift a lifetime ban.


----------



## joshh (Nov 14, 2012)

RJJ said:


> +1
> 
> The reason I want to see justice done is nothing to do with the fact Lance juiced, plenty of people in sport have done that. It is the fact he lied, bullied, intimidated, sued anybody who spoke out against his deceit and brutally wrecked the careers of people that just told the truth. And still, after all that, there seems a shed load of people on here and elsewhere that think he's a man to be admired, and that it's all OK 'cause plenty of other cyclists took drugs.


So it's almost a mirror image of Barry Bonds situation then.... Some fans will never believe he cheated, and some will never forgive him for it.

And Tone's your disdain for Lance is greater then someone like FLoyd Landis because Landis came clean only after being caught in lies that discredited and ruined poeple, and Lance is still holding on to his which have discredited and ruined more people? Understandable.


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

So, how's he going to play it? Find god?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

AZ.MTNS said:


> I expect much waffling.


An investment opportunity for Armstrong perhaps then?

DineEquity Inc., DIN Stock Quote - (NYSE) DIN, DineEquity Inc. Stock Price

(ya, bad joke, couldn't resist...)


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

Strange things happen on Oprah...


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Lance can't own up to too much, the civil liabilities of his doing so would likely bankrupt him. I expect much waffling.


The civil liabilities came due with the USADA determinations and loss of titles. The big ones are the British paper the Sunday Times and SCA Promotions .

From a New York Times article on January 4th: 
But what worries Armstrong and his lawyers most, two of the people with knowledge of the situation said, is that he could face *charges of perjury* if he confesses because in *sworn testimony *in the SCA case he said he had never doped.

In terms of product endorsement, the companies likely do not want to attract bad publicity, so maybe he's OK there.

The big fear should be the Floyd Landis lawsuit. Again from the NYT January 4th article:

The timeline for Armstrong's deciding whether to confess is unclear, but it is partly based on whether the United States Justice Department will join the whistle-blower lawsuit, which was filed under the False Claims Act. The sole plaintiff of that lawsuit is Floyd Landis, Armstrong's former Postal Service teammate, who was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title for doping.

If the Justice Department joins the lawsuit as a plaintiff, the case would be more formidable than if Landis pursued it alone. Landis stands to collect up to 30 percent of any money won in the case, which could be in the millions. The team's contract with the Postal Service from 2000 to 2004 was more than $30 million.

If anyone has more updated information on the status of the Justice Dept.re: the Landis whistle-blower suit, please post up.


----------



## edley (Dec 8, 2006)

nuffink said:


> Strange things happen on Oprah...


Made my day! Only one certainty - BIG payday for Lance with money wired to off-shore account. Otherwise, no sane reason whatsoever to expose yourself to a TV interview (remember Sandusky?).

Then again, maybe Oprah will make it all better...


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

nuffink said:


> So, how's he going to play it? Find god?


The Devil made him do it.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Lance can't own up to too much, the civil liabilities of his doing so would likely bankrupt him. I expect much waffling.


yup. count me amazed if it's anything even remotely more substantive than copious amounts of unicorn farts and blathering obfuscation.


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

I wonder if Oprah will talk about the deception, lies, bullying, threatening, ending carrers, intimidation etc etc with LA. I have a feeling it won't be discussed.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

SV11 said:


> I wonder if Oprah will talk about the deception, lies, bullying, threatening, ending carrers, intimidation etc etc with LA. I have a feeling it won't be discussed.


Lance doesn't care what Oprah did to get to the top.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Lance doesn't care what Oprah did to get to the top.


lol, ouch...

true story...


----------



## Stugotz (Dec 14, 2011)

*A few questions I would like to see Oprah ask Lance:*

1. Will you admit that the hospital incident happened and will you describe it in detail?

2. Did you intimidate or tamper with witnesses who implicated you in doping?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

I wonder if Lance will ask Oprah about her past cocaine addiction. That would be funny!


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

dear god...the video begins with lance riding a mountain bike:

AP source: Armstrong 'sorry' to Livestrong staff - SFGate


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

shekky said:


> dear god...the video begins with lance riding a mountain bike:
> 
> AP source: Armstrong 'sorry' to Livestrong staff - SFGate


I'm pretty sure he is still allowed to do that.


----------



## joshh (Nov 14, 2012)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I'm pretty sure he is still allowed to do that.


I lol'd. Perfect response. :thumbsup:


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I'm pretty sure he is still allowed to do that.


that would be interesting to find out...NORBA does fall under the umbrella of USA cycling, which is governed by the UCI...

anybody have a take on this?

would lance be allowed to race mountain bikes at a sanctioned race?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

shekky said:


> dear god...the video begins with lance riding a mountain bike:
> 
> AP source: Armstrong 'sorry' to Livestrong staff - SFGate





shekky said:


> that would be interesting to find out...NORBA does fall under the umbrella of USA cycling, which is governed by the UCI...
> 
> anybody have a take on this?
> 
> would lance be allowed to race mountain bikes at a sanctioned race?


You didn't say race, you said riding.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

shekky said:


> would lance be allowed to race mountain bikes at a sanctioned race?


No. He's currently banned from any sanctioned activities for any sport that falls under the WADA umbrella, which is also why he can't compete in sanctioned triathlons and had to pull his plans for competing in the last Hawaii Ironman.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

He just raced a mountain bike a couple weeks ago. I saw it on TV. I don't know what sanctioning body though.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

I don't believe in lance Armstrong.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> He just raced a mountain bike a couple weeks ago. I saw it on TV. I don't know what sanctioning body though.


this one?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/s...d-in-mountain-bike-race-in-colorado.html?_r=0

this one?

Race to let Armstrong compete Saturday - Cycling- NBC Sports

if it's the second one, it was unsanctioned.


----------



## mbco1975 (Feb 28, 2012)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I wonder if Lance will ask Oprah about her past cocaine addiction. That would be funny!


:lol:


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

mbmb65 said:


> I don't believe in lance Armstrong.


Well, I don't believe in god, as I have never seen or talked to him. I've seen and talked to Lance Armstrong, so therefore, I believe in him.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

shekky said:


> this one?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/s...d-in-mountain-bike-race-in-colorado.html?_r=0
> 
> ...


I don't really recall which one it was. I was doing something else while the tv was on and didn't get the whole story. I was just surprised to see that he was able to race.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I don't really recall which one it was. I was doing something else while the tv was on and didn't get the whole story. I was just surprised to see that he was able to race.


prolly the second one. i remember hearing something about it in passing as well...


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Well, I don't believe in god, as I have never seen or talked to him. I've seen and talked to Lance Armstrong, so therefore, I believe in him.


I have seen, talked to, and had beers with Greg LeMond. I believe in him.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

All i want to know is where is the 10% of total naive muppets in this thread that voted 'no he never doped are..???
Honestly, you guys put your hand up because you are officially amongst the stupidest and most naive human beings on planet earth..
You all should be banned from breeding you are so stupid, and if you have bred i feel sorry for your children because you have passed on the stupidest genes in the planet...
Hang your heads in shame, spit the sand out of your mouth from having had your heads buried under the sand for so long,...

Carry on......:thumbsup:


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Well, I don't believe in god, as I have never seen or talked to him. I've seen and talked to Lance Armstrong, so therefore, I believe in him.


You would have also believed in jim jones too.......and youd be dead.....


----------



## joshh (Nov 14, 2012)

Tone's said:


> All i want to know is where is the 10% of total naive muppets in this thread that voted 'no he never doped are..???
> Honestly, you guys put your hand up because you are officially amongst the stupidest and most naive human beings on planet earth..
> You all should be banned from breeding you are so stupid, and if you have bred i feel sorry for your children because you have passed on the stupidest genes in the planet...
> Hang your heads in shame, spit the sand out of your mouth from having had your heads buried under the sand for so long,...
> ...


Tone's, I will gladly raise my hand again and tell you I voted No. Not that I think he is innocent. I have posted a few times that I don't care about it nearly as much as you, and some others here. I voted No just because that part of the poll was lagging behind and I wanted to boost the number. And it's funny to see people froth at the mouth, furiously slamming away at their keyboard about it. :madman:

To base your opinion of people simply because they clicked a voting button on an MTBR thread, without knowing why they clicked it, makes you seem shallow. Going off on those people, and saying the things you did, makes you come off like an irrational prick.

I know you have previously said you don't hate LA, but it's more of a disdain you have for him. But the venom you spew about him makes me believe he hurt you directly. You shouldn't spend so much time and energy on LA if he didn't hurt you on a personal level.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

joshh said:


> Tone's, I will gladly raise my hand again and tell you I voted No. Not that I think he is innocent. I have posted a few times that I don't care about it nearly as much as you, and some others here. I voted No just because that part of the poll was lagging behind and I wanted to boost the number. And it's funny to see people froth at the mouth, furiously slamming away at their keyboard about it. :madman:
> 
> To base your opinion of people simply because they clicked a voting button on an MTBR thread, without knowing why they clicked it, makes you seem shallow. Going off on those people, and saying the things you did, makes you come off like an irrational prick.
> 
> I know you have previously said you don't hate LA, but it's more of a disdain you have for him. But the venom you spew about him makes me believe he hurt you directly. You shouldn't spend so much time and energy on LA if he didn't hurt you on a personal level.


LOL, Whats venomous about saying the people who thought he never doped are amounst the stupidest and most naive people in the planet, thats almost a fact lol.
With all the evidence they still buried their heads in the sand...
And to say they shouldnt breed is pretty close to the mark, thats not venomous, thats a dark aussie sense of humour, im never venomous on this site, if i wanted to be i could and youd know about it lol, i just like to make a few dramatic statements...:thumbsup:


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Armstrong tells Oprah he used performance-enhancing drugs - The Globe and Mail

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/s...ill-testify-against-cycling-officials.html?hp


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Richard0son said:


> This appears to me to be either a personal vendetta or publicity stunt by USADA and its management.


LOL, Richo, whats doing ????:yikes::yikes::crazy::crazy:ut::headphones::madman::nonod: your not on any substances are you Rich, come on you can tell me, i was there once, it helps to talk to others that have been there too......


----------



## Wishful Tomcat (Mar 6, 2009)

rockcrusher said:


> Armstrong tells Oprah he used performance-enhancing drugs - The Globe and Mail
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/s...ill-testify-against-cycling-officials.html?hp


And in other news.....sun rises in east.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

Trail6 said:


> And in other news.....sun rises in east.


...Bears proven to defecate in the wild
...Pope decides Catholicism is 'for him'.


----------



## Stugotz (Dec 14, 2011)

mbmb65 said:


> I have seen, talked to, and had beers with Greg LeMond. I believe in him.


I have been close friends with Greg, his wife Kathy and their 3 kids. I have been on numerous trips out west hunting, fishing and skiing with Greg over the last 23 years. I spent 2 weeks last summer at Greg and Kathy's place at the Yellowstone Club up in Big Sky Mt. with my kids last summer...

I have always believe in Greg...


----------



## joshh (Nov 14, 2012)

Tone's said:


> .... i just like to make a few dramatic statements...:thumbsup:


Well if that's what you were going for, I think you are there.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Stugotz said:


> I have been close friends with Greg, his wife Kathy and their 3 kids. I have been on numerous trips out west hunting, fishing and skiing with Greg over the last 23 years. I spent 2 weeks last summer at Greg and Kathy's place at the Yellowstone Club up in Big Sky Mt. with my kids last summer... I believe in Greg...


I'd say he's a top notch fellow. Seemed to be anyway.


----------



## ryguy135 (Sep 24, 2010)

Haven't paid attention to this thread since I posted it and saw the results a few days later.

All I have to add is it sucks finding out all your childhood heroes are frauds, liars, and cheats. Not just LA, but Mark McGwire was my hero. Watching him hit a homerun in his big season as an 8 year old is something that I'll never forget. Sucks now that I know what really propelled that ball.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Trail6 said:


> And in other news.....sun rises in east.


confirmed in the west as well.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Tone's said:


> You all should be banned from breeding you are so stupid, and if you have bred i feel sorry for your children because you have passed on the stupidest genes in the planet...





joshh said:


> Tone's, I will gladly raise my hand again and tell you I voted No. Not that I think he is innocent. I have posted a few times that I don't care about it nearly as much as you, and some others here. I voted No just because that part of the poll was lagging behind and I wanted to boost the number. And it's funny to see people froth at the mouth, furiously slamming away at their keyboard about it. :madman:
> 
> To base your opinion of people simply because they clicked a voting button on an MTBR thread, without knowing why they clicked it, makes you seem shallow. Going off on those people, and saying the things you did, makes you come off like an irrational prick.
> 
> I know you have previously said you don't hate LA, but it's more of a disdain you have for him. But the venom you spew about him makes me believe he hurt you directly. You shouldn't spend so much time and energy on LA if he didn't hurt you on a personal level.


It was a little more then, "naive" comment. I think it was the stupid and breeding comment. It really was way overboard and not called for. And, deserves neg rep!

EDIT: Neg rep to Tone's, that is.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I think it was the stupid and breeding comment.


As Tone's has described many times in his previous posts, he has tried enough ways of breeding to pick up the slack for others. In his own way, I think he is just encouraging others to breed a little less to keep the global breeding equilibrium at a good balance point, given his excesses.


----------



## gregg (Sep 30, 2000)

I just gave two people in here a 7 day timeout for name calling and flaming.

Disagree, okay. Debate, fine. But do it without name calling.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Tone's said:


> Mate your a bloke that belittles others and name calls then at the same time accuse others of doing it, you love to make out your a victim and a saint, your above few posts are prime


I find this ironic after reading some of your posts!


----------



## ArmySlowRdr (Dec 19, 2003)

talent propelled that ball and legs and lungs propelled the other. He hit 70 that season and the other doper hit 72 the next year. So what. Neither are in the hall yet but i'd bet BB gets there before Mark (who will never be elected at least in category and the way voting works now).

i don't really care what happens and yes I think it bad to cheat but I will always be a fan of Pete Rose, Mark McGwire, and the late 20th/early 21st century pro-peloton :thumbsup: edit--oh, less the Schleck Bros--something seems extra smart-alecky/pretentious/snob-ridden and etc about those two.



ryguy135 said:


> Haven't paid attention to this thread since I posted it and saw the results a few days later.
> 
> All I have to add is it sucks finding out all your childhood heroes are frauds, liars, and cheats. Not just LA, but Mark McGwire was my hero. Watching him hit a homerun in his big season as an 8 year old is something that I'll never forget. Sucks now that I know what really propelled that ball.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

ArmySlowRdr said:


> edit--oh, less the Schleck Bros--something seems extra smart-alecky/pretentious/snob-ridden and etc about those two.


I agree, and don't forget whiny, wimpy and nerdy. You can't be a grand tour winner if you don't have sand to Time Trial competitively. These two are one trick ponies, climbers only.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

If Lance says he doped in the Oprah interview I won't believe him.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> If Lance says he doped in the Oprah interview I won't believe him.


who would believe him anyway, big deal.

it was never proven in court. i don't care if he says he did.


----------



## big terry (Apr 22, 2012)

who fvcking cares.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

big terry said:


> who fvcking cares.


I can only speak for myself and confirm that I care.

However, thousands of posts on mtbr, tens of thousands of posts on roadie forums, endless media coverage in print, web, radio, and TV, etc. does suggest that others also care.


----------



## big terry (Apr 22, 2012)

why? does it affect your life, personally, to know if he doped? for some reason i doubt it, other than to give you some inner peace or self-satisfaction to "know the truth."

i think he did, and everyone else did- and i dont care, nor should anyone else. there are far more important things in life to worry about besides the uniball rider and his needle tracks.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

big terry said:


> why? does it affect your life, personally, to know if he doped? for some reason i doubt it, other than to give you some inner peace or self-satisfaction to "know the truth."
> 
> i think he did, and everyone else did- and i dont care, nor should anyone else. there are far more important things in life to worry about besides the uniball rider and his needle tracks.


Actually it does affect me personally. I am closely involved with organized cycling in many capacities at a club, events, and regional level. The massive negative publicity surrounding he Armstrong affair impacts the efforts of me and my colleagues when handling sponsorships, program donations, interest in youth programs, etc. It has caused many people to think twice about getting involved, and becomes a topic in many of those discussions with people who might have been very willing to help, but now think that maybe they should put their sponsorships, participation of their kids, etc. toward other pursuits.

Whether there's any legitimate reason for thinking cycling is worse than a number of other sports is up for debate, but regardless of the merits that's not a preferred way to start a dialogue with potential new entrants and contributors to the cycling community.

Is that real enough for you?


----------



## big terry (Apr 22, 2012)

i think it should have no relevance at all to whatever your pursuits may be. lance was a pro athlete who used PEDs, just like countles other pro athletes over the years who used PEDs and got caught. And kids still play football, and baseball, and run track, and ride bikes... and parents still let their kids play sports, and companies big and small still sponsor youth sporting organizations despite the alleged misconduct by certain athletes.

If it bothers you that much, by all means continue to get your panties in a wad. Whether he admits it or not, life will still go on and people are still going to race, kids are still going to ride bikes, and parents are still going to spend their money to keep little johnny on his bike. If you have prospective clients who are thinking twice about becoming involved with your pursuits, based on the fact that Lance Armstrong used drugs to win 7 titles, then maybe its better for you that you dont have them involved with your ventures since they are so narrow minded as to make their decisions based on the actions of someone not remotely involved in your gig. Thats as ridiculous as me telling my son hes not allowed to go swimming at the pool this summer because Michael Phelps smoked a bong.

But it sounds like you are ready to DVR that Oprah episode and watch it over and over again trying to glean whatever tidbits of truth you can. Do what you must.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Drawing a blank


----------



## Mazukea (Jul 9, 2012)

hey guys, lets talk mountain biking again.

All this Lance "Roadie Cirque Du Soleil" Armstrong debate has gone on long enough.

I was trying to avoid posting in any of these threads but it was inevitable considering how often and how much new Lance threads pop up. 

I say converge all the Lance threads into one big thread and leave it like that. You could probably even make a new section in the forum dedicated to Lance. I'm sure it would be a very active forum. All the sponsors would love to get an ad in that section.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

"If you have prospective clients who are thinking twice about becoming involved with your pursuits, based on the fact that Lance Armstrong used drugs to win 7 titles, then maybe its better for you that you dont have them involved with your ventures since they are so narrow minded as to make their decisions based on the actions of someone not remotely involved in your gig."

it's not lance alone. lance is just the tip of the iceberg. the actions of lance and many others have cast a negative light on competitive cycling.

read this and focus on the twenty years between 1992 and 2012. it's pretty massive:

List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Mazukea (Jul 9, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I don't mean to sidetrack this beautiful decade long debate but&#8230;&#8230;
> Could someone point out the post or posts in this thread that got Tone and someone else a 7 day time out. I'm not seeing it. All I see in Tone making an opinionated blanket statement of a group of posters that have a different opinion than he does. Did I miss something?


sorry for the added sidetrack...

You should know by now DJ. Anyone from the OC is already on thin ice once they venture to the other forums. 

But yeah, I hope it gets pointed out too. 

/sidetrack

carry on with the debate.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

there's a lot of reason to care.

like many others i love the sport of cycling and because of LA's actions this has blown open just how corrupt it is from top to bottom. it's concerning that someone can get away with as much as LA did, even more so because he was able to via being enabled and protected by the very governing bodies that are put in place to prevent such fraud. 

am i glad it happened? sure. it exposes how dirty and corrupt cycling is at top levels. maybe now this corruption will be eradicated.

is it just a sport? no. it's also a multi-trillion dollar business. from either the sport or business aspect if one is going to be a pro athlete and agree to be bound by certain rules/policies/procedures then it's not out of line to be angry when someone dominates the sport by disregarding them, is enabled by the very ones put in place to police the sport, and destroys those who stand in his way.

time and again what seems to be of more insult is not so much that LA doped, but his behavior in general. his character of throwing everyone under the bus. of being a bully. he has demonstrated that he is a sociopath who genuinely believed the rules did not apply to him and when cornered used power, influence, money, and even the legal system to silence any who called him out for his abhorrent actions.

almost a decade of LA's sociopathic shenanigans is quite different from just making a mistake, realizing it, coming clean out of searing of conscience, and making amends.

the general ire seems to be not just that he cheated but that he went to such great lengths to cover it up and continued to lie about it in the face of overwhelming evidence. that he destroyed peoples lives when they came clean about it. that he vociferously denied and went after people privately and publicly destroying lives and careers in the process of covering up his actions.

and now that it will benefit him he wants to come clean and apologize? now that he wants something, i.e. to be reinstated to compete in triathlons, he's willing to make a full admission? 

imho his apology is nothing but the next very thought out and calculated move by a sociopath.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

big terry said:


> If it bothers you that much, by all means continue to get your panties in a wad. Whether he admits it or not, life will still go on and people are still going to race, kids are still going to ride bikes, and parents are still going to spend their money to keep little johnny on his bike.


Kids are always going to continue riding their bikes. I could get more sponsors involved to help support even more kids riding their bikes if the doping went down.



big terry said:


> If you have prospective clients who are thinking twice about becoming involved with your pursuits


Clients are accounts one makes money from. I volunteer my time and effort to non-profits (small and large) involved in cycling. We don't have "clients".



big terry said:


> based on the fact that Lance Armstrong used drugs to win 7 titles, then maybe its better for you that you dont have them involved with your ventures since they are so narrow minded as to make their decisions based on the actions of someone not remotely involved in your gig.


Wish that were the case, but that's not my reality. Every doper in cycling makes it more difficult for me to do my stuff. Armstrong has made it more difficult than any other 10 combined.



big terry said:


> But it sounds like you are ready to DVR that Oprah episode and watch it over and over again trying to glean whatever tidbits of truth you can. Do what you must.


I won't be watching Oprah, but if you want you can post up a summary here after it airs.


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

Mazukea said:


> sorry for the added sidetrack...
> 
> You should know by now DJ. Anyone from the OC is already on thin ice once they venture to the other forums.
> 
> ...


I think it's a different LA thread. Heck there are like 30.


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

big terry said:


> i think it should have no relevance at all to whatever your pursuits may be. lance was a pro athlete who used PEDs, just like countles other pro athletes over the years who used PEDs and got caught. And kids still play football, and baseball, and run track, and ride bikes... and parents still let their kids play sports, and companies big and small still sponsor youth sporting organizations despite the alleged misconduct by certain athletes.
> 
> If it bothers you that much, by all means continue to get your panties in a wad. Whether he admits it or not, life will still go on and people are still going to race, kids are still going to ride bikes, and parents are still going to spend their money to keep little johnny on his bike. If you have prospective clients who are thinking twice about becoming involved with your pursuits, based on the fact that Lance Armstrong used drugs to win 7 titles, then maybe its better for you that you dont have them involved with your ventures since they are so narrow minded as to make their decisions based on the actions of someone not remotely involved in your gig. Thats as ridiculous as me telling my son hes not allowed to go swimming at the pool this summer because Michael Phelps smoked a bong.
> 
> But it sounds like you are ready to DVR that Oprah episode and watch it over and over again trying to glean whatever tidbits of truth you can. Do what you must.


Damn, I wish I could rep this comment! I'll be back.


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

monogod said:


> there's a lot of reason to care.
> 
> like many others i love the sport of cycling and because of LA's actions this has blown open just how corrupt it is from top to bottom.


Corrupt top to bottom? Is this where I should confess I did caffeine shots on my way to my Cat 3 Short Track podium last summer?

Are we big into drama?


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Malibu412 said:


> Corrupt top to bottom? Is this where I should confess I did caffeine shots on my way to my Cat 3 Short Track podium last summer?


That would depend on whether or not it stipulates that caffeine is yay or nay in the rules and regulations, it's the riders responsibility to be up to date with what they can/can't comsume during an event.



Malibu412 said:


> Are we big into drama?


It seems to me you're trying to create some.


----------



## Mazukea (Jul 9, 2012)

I say lock this thread. Too much drama, members being banned, and lots of unnecessary butthurt. 

We can all see that this is starting to head south.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

this from ned overend. remember him?

Overend Calls For Cycling's Dopers To Be Treated As Criminals | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

shekky said:


> this from ned overend. remember him?
> 
> Overend Calls For Cycling's Dopers To Be Treated As Criminals | Cyclingnews.com


The Lung speaks!

Not giving my opinion on criminalizing sports doping, but "sporting fraud" (including doping) is already a criminal offence in some other countries.


----------



## big terry (Apr 22, 2012)

daves4mtb said:


> Just lock out the hitler youth who can't discuas the issue like adults. Virtually no one is arguing he is clean. For the most part there is a disagreement about what should be done about his dirtyness...


Michael Vick is back playing football. Why not let lance ride TDF?

Sent from somewhere not sitting on my ass in front of the computer.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

big terry said:


> Michael Vick is back playing football. Why not let lance ride TDF?


Vick didn't cheat within competition.

(or at least not that we know of )


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

shekky said:


> this from ned overend. remember him?


I do know who Ned Overend is, and respect him greatly, as should every mtn biker. He had is glory days (NORBA and UCI) and has just kept racing (XTERRA, triathlon, cyclocross and 5-time winner of the Durango Iron Horse race as recently as 2011) and at least in the recent past has ridden in the open pro class at some mountain bike races. I think now he is more focused on age group racing. He is an athlete and competitor at heart. I suspect that Specialized now pays the rent, but he just keeps turning the pedals.
Awesome guy.


----------



## ArmySlowRdr (Dec 19, 2003)

DJ------AEDubber's offense was in a different LA thread where he told someone in less genteel words to blow him.



Mazukea said:


> sorry for the added sidetrack...
> 
> You should know by now DJ. Anyone from the OC is already on thin ice once they venture to the other forums.
> 
> ...


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

shekky said:


> this from ned overend. remember him?
> 
> Overend Calls For Cycling's Dopers To Be Treated As Criminals | Cyclingnews.com


:thumbsup:


----------



## big terry (Apr 22, 2012)

Circlip said:


> Vick didn't cheat within competition.
> 
> (or at least not that we know of )


Touché.

Sent from somewhere not sitting on my ass in front of the computer.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

here is doping from an amateur mountain bike racer's perspective:

Doping in Amateur Cycling | The Bikinator | Angie Sokorai

and if you don't click the link in this young lady's blog, i've clicked it for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/s...cycling-reaches-into-amateur-ranks.html?_r=2&


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

monogod said:


> am i glad it happened? sure. it exposes how dirty and corrupt cycling is at top levels. maybe now this corruption will be eradicated.
> 
> is it just a sport? no. it's also a multi-trillion dollar business.


Whoa. What? A _multi-trillion_ dollar business?

Do you have the accounting data to substantiate that financial figure?

Multi-trillion?:nono::madman:


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

shekky said:


> this from ned overend. remember him?
> 
> Overend Calls For Cycling's Dopers To Be Treated As Criminals | Cyclingnews.com


personally, i'm in total agreement with uncle ned. :thumbsup:


----------



## lapinGTI (Dec 30, 2009)

Ned has a good idea, cheater in sport steal money! It's not just a game when there money involve, Olympic is supposed to be for amatory, there are no money involve our very little, except for some number 1... 

Do you think Lance could have a deal with Oprah in order to make money with is tonight show? Oprah will most likely have a good auditor tonight, Publicity will be expensive tonight.

Just an idea, he may earn the money to pay is law suit at least National Post (UK) and the insurance companies in Texas...

Would be an Armstrong Performance to take advantage (cheat) on its cheat confession...


----------



## twenty6black (Jan 12, 2009)

*100% agree*



monogod said:


> there's a lot of reason to care.
> 
> like many others i love the sport of cycling and because of LA's actions this has blown open just how corrupt it is from top to bottom. it's concerning that someone can get away with as much as LA did, even more so because he was able to via being enabled and protected by the very governing bodies that are put in place to prevent such fraud.
> 
> ...


He is caught and he is desperate ... The only good thing that can come from this would the doctors and pushers of dope get punished. LA needs to be sued by everyone he has sued. Then he needs to serve time, yes he is a criminal. He is done.


----------

