You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Lance Armstrong
Legalize doping. What they're doing is not healthy to begin with, so why not level the playing field? For once competitions would be certified "clean" too.
As to Lance, he should call Travolta. They both excel at keeping a sinking ship afloat for as long as possible.
Re: Lance Armstrong
Well, sure, to legalize it is another debate.
This years tour was the slowest since the 80's. Gee, I wonder why. LOL. They can finally catch those EPO cheaters.
Because they are cheaters unless they change the rules.
1998 winner was doped.
1999-2005 Lance wins (most of top 5 riders these years has been sanctioned for doping during their careers)
2006 Winner (former Lance team mate) disqualified
2007, 2009 and 2010 winner doped.
Just caught me off guard that I was called "hateful" for saying his team was doped, as they were.
Re: Lance Armstrong
well i always assumed he was a cheat. from the moment he got mixed up w/ferrari.
the old adage was there for a reason: if a cyclist is too good to be true then he probably is.
i'm glad he's finally, kind of, admitted the truth. or that he's been forced into it. whatever, just that the truth is finally out.
i do like the idea of allowing athletes to dope tho. they're gonna do it anyway, so let's have it. & besides, the amount of legal or legitimate crap a lot of them put into their bodies already alienates them from natural performance.
there's an irish comedian who does a bit about holding the drug olympics in donegal, sure if someone wants to run the 100m in half a second just let them.
however, on a serious note. it is sad what they've done to tarnish what is one of the planets great sporting events. it really is an amazing, awe-inspiring competition. a competition that for too long was beholden to armstrongs influence & team of lawyers, & riddled w/cheaters.
Re: Lance Armstrong
From my understanding they have all basically systematically doped for years, it was almost like an open secret.
I remember when I first became aware of it I was very surprised. My old boss used to be right into cycling, he used to have Lance Armstrongs coach as his coach,
Paid something stupid like $10,000 per month for the privilege. I remember we were talking about cycling and he was the one that said to me that most of them systematically dope and it was his opinion that they should just legalize it for everyone.
Re: Lance Armstrong
I don't really "get" this whole situation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lance never failed any drug test that he was administered. How is it that he's assumed guilty? Just because his teammates claim he was doping? Again, I could be wrong, but there's no physical evidence to back up these claims, is there? It wouldn't shock me in the least if he WAS guilty, but I don't understand how all his titles can be taken away based on the testimonials of others.
Re: Lance Armstrong
People say that, but it's not correct. They froze his urine sample from 99 because they did not have technology then to trace for EPO. Now, they did and voila, they found EPO in it. It won't hold in court because it's too old, but it's there.
The dude was like 8 minutes in front of number two, and number two DID admit to doping, so anyone with any brain cells left sees the logical problem there. 
Re: Lance Armstrong
I don't really "get" this whole situation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lance never failed any drug test that he was administered. How is it that he's assumed guilty? Just because his teammates claim he was doping? Again, I could be wrong, but there's no physical evidence to back up these claims, is there? It wouldn't shock me in the least if he WAS guilty, but I don't understand how all his titles can be taken away based on the testimonials of others.
he had a system of power & intimidation, of people out to protect him.
it was covered up. until he retired & the system & support he had collapsed & the truth was finally brought into the open.
Re: Lance Armstrong
faldor wrote:I don't really "get" this whole situation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lance never failed any drug test that he was administered. How is it that he's assumed guilty? Just because his teammates claim he was doping? Again, I could be wrong, but there's no physical evidence to back up these claims, is there? It wouldn't shock me in the least if he WAS guilty, but I don't understand how all his titles can be taken away based on the testimonials of others.
he had a system of power & intimidation, of people out to protect him.
it was covered up. until he retired & the system & support he had collapsed & the truth was finally brought into the open.
Yup.
