You are here: Home → Forum → General Bullshit → 'Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling. He deserves to be forgotten.'
'Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling. He deserves to be forgotten.'
Users viewing topic: & 2 Guests
| AdamT |  | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 10:46 |
AKA the great reset Member 4056, 5207 posts | davycummings said: Pretty crazy percentage. I agree, drugs dont make athletes, they give them a chance to push on beyond their natural capabilities. No quantity of EPO would make me a world class cyclist, nor do i believe any quantity of PEDs would make me world class at any sport. You need the talent and the disire also, and this is why I dont think they should be forgotten as is being suggested, they were still world class athletes He broke the rules of his sport, and should thus be treated exactly the same way as others who broke the same rules. It seems pretty straightforward to me Probably the most sensible quote on this subject. I agree | ||
| Steve | | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 10:48 |
nothing to hide, please follow my life on webcam Member 255, 3732 posts | bryce said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearms... UCI looking like idiots in this... It's difficult to tell with quotes out of context, but that doesn't look that bad to me. Tyler and Hamilton are certainly not some sort of brave heroes for coming forward. They are both drug cheats who had been caught. McQuaid seems perfectly correct in stating they have both damaged the sport of cycling as long as he wasn't suggesting they should have kept quiet about Armstrong. | ||
| bryce | | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 10:49 |
 Juice loose aboot this hoose Member 1401, 3962 posts SQ 160, BP 107.5, DL 210477.5 kgs @ 88kgs UnEq | chaos said:Not long till lockdown now! http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4646360802001786&pid=1.9 Appropriate... | ||
| FAT_SAM | | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 10:51 |
 more like 'FAT TROLL' Member 984, 6331 posts SQ 420, BP 260, DL 3351015.0 kgs @ 165kgs UnEq | But he passed the drug tests, Davy. He is being snitched on by former team mates, there is no concrete evidence he is a cheat. | ||
| samevans | | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 10:53 |
just got PM'd Member 1945, 685 posts | In... don't know if it'll be locked but made me happy to do this | ||
| davycummings | | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 10:54 |
 he's got betty davis eyes Member 1684, 6001 posts SQ 250, BP 186, DL 291727.0 kgs @ 118kgs UnEq | FAT_SAM said:But he passed the drug tests, Davy. He is being snitched on by former team mates, there is no concrete evidence he is a cheat. I can see your point, although he did have a fail covered up didn't he? I do agree that there needs to be evidence beyond just testimonies, but from what I understand there is much more evidence than just the snitching? I do have a feeling that just peoples testimonies should not be enough | ||
| FAT_SAM | | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 10:58 |
more like 'FAT TROLL' Member 984, 6331 posts SQ 420, BP 260, DL 3351015.0 kgs @ 165kgs UnEq | davycummings said: I can see your point, although he did have a fail covered up didn't he? I do agree that there needs to be evidence beyond just testimonies, but from what I understand there is much more evidence than just the snitching? I do have a feeling that just peoples testimonies should not be enough Yup. If 5 so called mates of yours testified to a court that you were in possession of a kilo of coke (but no drugs were found) that is obviously not enough evidence... I don't see why this case should be any different! | ||
| JC | | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 10:58 |
 technical retard Member 172, 36827 posts SQ 310, BP 205, DL 335850.0 kgs @ 108kgs UnEq | maybe the cycling nuts can help me with this one? from what I can gather, advancement in testing means drug use is not and has not been as rife in recent years, so a situation that has occurred now, is never likely to occur again However, in 2009, after a 3 (or was it 4) year break, Armstrong comes back and finishes 3rd...a phenomenal acheivement given his time out and his obviously ageing body As far as I'm aware he never failed a drug test in 2009. this would lead me to one of 2 conclusions (a) as with '99-'05 he was clean (this now seems highly unlikely) (b) the "advancements" made in drug testing were still not advanced enough to catch Armstrong when he was likely full of the most "good stuff" If its (a) then its a dam dam shame what has happened to this man, and if it's (b) the worry would be up until only the last few years, cycling was still one of the "dirtiest" sports around | ||
| davycummings | | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 11:04 |
he's got betty davis eyes Member 1684, 6001 posts SQ 250, BP 186, DL 291727.0 kgs @ 118kgs UnEq | FAT_SAM said: Yup. If 5 so called mates of yours testified to a court that you were in possession of a kilo of coke (but no drugs were found) that is obviously not enough evidence... I don't see why this case should be any different! It shouldn't, you are right. I have not read all 1000 pages of the report to find the scientific evedence, but USADA claim to have a substantial body of scientific and circumstancial eveidence as well as testimonies to back it up. | ||
| BenMac | | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 11:06 |
 'Looks like Ben Affleck according to Pagan' Member 876, 2506 posts SQ 220, BP 140, DL 260620.0 kgs @ 110kgs UnEq | If you read the other cyclists statements, or Victor Conte's open letter to BOA, then it really didnt seem hard to avoid the testers or have enough prior knowledge to let the doctors work their magic and get you passed. Im of the opinion that the heads of cycling, and indeed athletics, baseball etc, were happy to be seen to be "doing everything possible" to catch users when in actual fact they were happy to be doing very little and seeing records broken all over the place. There hasnt been a witch-hunt against Armstrong, but he's the highest profile tour cyclist by a huge distance and in my opinion always came across as very sanctimonious on this subject of doping - something that is bound to upset other, less well known cyclists who were well aware of his use, which is why I think so many people have lined up to give evidence against him. | ||
| Cuddles | | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 11:10 |
 Eat.Cycle.Sleep.Win Member 2, 12511 posts SQ 190, BP 150, DL 280620.0 kgs @ 99kgs UnEq Administrator | BenMac said:If you read the other cyclists statements, or Victor Conte's open letter to BOA, then it really didnt seem hard to avoid the testers or have enough prior knowledge to let the doctors work their magic and get you passed. Im of the opinion that the heads of cycling, and indeed athletics, baseball etc, were happy to be seen to be "doing everything possible" to catch users when in actual fact they were happy to be doing very little and seeing records broken all over the place. There hasnt been a witch-hunt against Armstrong, but he's the highest profile tour cyclist by a huge distance and in my opinion always came across as very sanctimonious on this subject of doping - something that is bound to upset other, less well known cyclists who were well aware of his use, which is why I think so many people have lined up to give evidence against him. I agree with pretty much 100% of that. Good post. | ||
| IrishMarc | | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 11:10 |
no really Irish Member 1196, 5908 posts SQ 312, BP 230, DL 320862.0 kgs @ 114kgs UnEq | davycummings said:I have mixed feelings on it. He has cheated, so stripping him of his titles is fine, others have lost theirs retrospectively as well, so in that respect its fair enough. He has been caught, he should have to give back the prize money too, fair enough, if they also did, and others caught also will? (I am not sure if others had to give back money yet?) I disagree with the "deserves to be forgotten" part. He was a massive part of the sport, and should not be forgotten. Drugs or no drugs, he was an incredible athlete and dominated the sport when it was at its peak of both preformance and usage. All the riders are tarnished, the period on the sport is tarnished, but he should not be forgotten any more than any other rider. The "They all cheated, but he cheated more" argument is a bit of a red herring imo. Good post. | ||
| brownbear | | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 11:12 |
 Morrisons - rump - 7£ Member 2206, 11578 posts SQ 228, BP 150, DL 260638.0 kgs @ 98kgs UnEq | chaos said:Not long till lockdown now! Tren and counting | ||
| Cuddles | | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 11:14 |
Eat.Cycle.Sleep.Win Member 2, 12511 posts SQ 190, BP 150, DL 280620.0 kgs @ 99kgs UnEq Administrator | JC said:maybe the cycling nuts can help me with this one? from what I can gather, advancement in testing means drug use is not and has not been as rife in recent years, so a situation that has occurred now, is never likely to occur again However, in 2009, after a 3 (or was it 4) year break, Armstrong comes back and finishes 3rd...a phenomenal acheivement given his time out and his obviously ageing body As far as I'm aware he never failed a drug test in 2009. this would lead me to one of 2 conclusions (a) as with '99-'05 he was clean (this now seems highly unlikely) (b) the "advancements" made in drug testing were still not advanced enough to catch Armstrong when he was likely full of the most "good stuff" If its (a) then its a dam dam shame what has happened to this man, and if it's (b) the worry would be up until only the last few years, cycling was still one of the "dirtiest" sports around It is a 'fairly' commonly held view that (b) is the truth. And your assumption that it is still one of the 'dirtiest' sports around is also quite widely held. FYI, I'm a cycling nut, I have been since I was about 8. I grew up watching some of the legends of the sport and watched the EPo era with blissful ignorance. It saddens me to see some of the big changes in cycling (no rabobank for eg). But for me, clean racing is still racing. The stupid times arent what makes it fun for me, it's the racing and the suffering. That happens either way. | ||
| Steve | | ... | 23-10-2012 @ 11:16 |
nothing to hide, please follow my life on webcam Member 255, 3732 posts | JC said:maybe the cycling nuts can help me with this one? from what I can gather, advancement in testing means drug use is not and has not been as rife in recent years, so a situation that has occurred now, is never likely to occur again However, in 2009, after a 3 (or was it 4) year break, Armstrong comes back and finishes 3rd...a phenomenal acheivement given his time out and his obviously ageing body As far as I'm aware he never failed a drug test in 2009. this would lead me to one of 2 conclusions (a) as with '99-'05 he was clean (this now seems highly unlikely) (b) the "advancements" made in drug testing were still not advanced enough to catch Armstrong when he was likely full of the most "good stuff" If its (a) then its a dam dam shame what has happened to this man, and if it's (b) the worry would be up until only the last few years, cycling was still one of the "dirtiest" sports around You missed a third conclusion - he might have been clean (or able to get away with a lot less) in 2009, but not clean in 99-05, and was able to compete because the other cyclists were also clean(er) Has the standard of tour cycling come down? I don't know how true it is, but somebody posted that on the few comparable courses the times in the Tour have increased by something like 10% to 15% | ||