| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 125696 | 2012-07-13 09:17:00 | lance armstrong - dope ? | globe (11482) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1288353 | 2012-08-25 05:32:00 | If he wasn't doping then its pretty sad for him to have his entire career and character destroyed like this. I don't see it as an admission of guilt, but as a defeat in the face of a corrupt and sick sports body. 4148 It will be interesting to see the UCI's reaction to this and their actions. The USADA stripping Armstrong of his titles is like the government of Belarus stripping the Olympic shot put gold from Nadzeya Ostapchuk (irrespective of whether she cheated or not). They can't, because it's the prerogative of the Olympic governing body to manage that process, not the prerogative of some unrelated organisation... The USADA still won't even release the alleged evidence of wrongdoing to Armstrong so he can build a defence case. They will only release said 'evidence' once he's across the table being 'tried' for his 'crimes'. Bit hard to defend oneself without knowledge of what exactly you're being accused of... "Corrupt" describes the USADA very well.... |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 1288354 | 2012-08-26 10:21:00 | www.guardian.co.uk Some good articles here |
globe (11482) | ||
| 1288355 | 2012-08-26 10:26:00 | I still think that he didnt, if their evidence against him is hearsay and not actual proof that he did dope up then they are as corrupt as the people who do get caught fair and square. this isnt fair and square |
GameJunkie (72) | ||
| 1288356 | 2012-08-26 16:11:00 | 4148 It will be interesting to see the UCI's reaction to this and their actions. The USADA stripping Armstrong of his titles is like the government of Belarus stripping the Olympic shot put gold from Nadzeya Ostapchuk (irrespective of whether she cheated or not). They can't, because it's the prerogative of the Olympic governing body to manage that process, not the prerogative of some unrelated organisation... The USADA still won't even release the alleged evidence of wrongdoing to Armstrong so he can build a defence case. They will only release said 'evidence' once he's across the table being 'tried' for his 'crimes'. Bit hard to defend oneself without knowledge of what exactly you're being accused of... "Corrupt" describes the USADA very well.... People have been burned at the stake for less. |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 1288357 | 2012-08-27 00:13:00 | As well as quite a number of really good articles in the Guardian (as noted by globe above) there is this article on Stuff: www.stuff.co.nz Note that our own Stephen Swart is quoted, as he has been before, about his observation of Armstrong's drug abuse. In some of the recent articles there are accounts that (contrary to his claims to have never failed any drug tests), Armstrong in fact failed two. One of which he wriggled out of by 'obtaining' a pre-dated prescription for some cream for saddle sores that contained the substance that had been found in his already failed drug test. I don't think that would work nowadays - witness Contador being banned and stripped of his Tour de France title for drug use even though he claimed that he had innocently ingested the drug in a steak he had eaten. 'Innocent' use is no longer a defence; the presence of the drug is sufficient. Notice in the Stuff article the kind of strategies Armstrong used when he was challenged, in particular his abusive behaviour towards his masseuse. The Guardian articles point out that 86% of recent Tour de France winners were drug cheats, and speeds on the Tour de France have dropped significantly since drug abuse scrutiny has increased. We are unlikely to see extraordinary feats (such as those displayed by Armstrong and Landis) happening again on the Tour. As the Guardian points out, if you think a rider's performance is too good to be true, you are probably right (e.g. Landis on that unbelievable day that won him the Tour). Personally, I still think that it is an extraordinary feat just to complete a Tour - as a fan, I don't need the cheats to be drugged-up to make the event more exciting. |
John H (8) | ||
| 1288358 | 2012-08-27 00:56:00 | "lance armstrong - dope ?" Moron more like.................. |
Zippity (58) | ||
| 1288359 | 2012-08-27 04:14:00 | Doped-up moran - (mis-spelling intentional) | zqwerty (97) | ||
| 1288360 | 2012-08-27 09:27:00 | As well as quite a number of really good articles in the Guardian (as noted by globe above) there is this article on Stuff: www.stuff.co.nz Note that our own Stephen Swart is quoted, as he has been before, about his observation of Armstrong's drug abuse. In some of the recent articles there are accounts that (contrary to his claims to have never failed any drug tests), Armstrong in fact failed two. One of which he wriggled out of by 'obtaining' a pre-dated prescription for some cream for saddle sores that contained the substance that had been found in his already failed drug test. I don't think that would work nowadays - witness Contador being banned and stripped of his Tour de France title for drug use even though he claimed that he had innocently ingested the drug in a steak he had eaten. 'Innocent' use is no longer a defence; the presence of the drug is sufficient. Notice in the Stuff article the kind of strategies Armstrong used when he was challenged, in particular his abusive behaviour towards his masseuse. The Guardian articles point out that 86% of recent Tour de France winners were drug cheats, and speeds on the Tour de France have dropped significantly since drug abuse scrutiny has increased. We are unlikely to see extraordinary feats (such as those displayed by Armstrong and Landis) happening again on the Tour. As the Guardian points out, if you think a rider's performance is too good to be true, you are probably right (e.g. Landis on that unbelievable day that won him the Tour). Personally, I still think that it is an extraordinary feat just to complete a Tour - as a fan, I don't need the cheats to be drugged-up to make the event more exciting. Good summary man. |
globe (11482) | ||
| 1288361 | 2012-08-27 09:39:00 | As well as quite a number of really good articles in the Guardian (as noted by globe above) there is this article on Stuff: www.stuff.co.nz Note that our own Stephen Swart is quoted, as he has been before, about his observation of Armstrong's drug abuse. In some of the recent articles there are accounts that (contrary to his claims to have never failed any drug tests), Armstrong in fact failed two. One of which he wriggled out of by 'obtaining' a pre-dated prescription for some cream for saddle sores that contained the substance that had been found in his already failed drug test. I don't think that would work nowadays - witness Contador being banned and stripped of his Tour de France title for drug use even though he claimed that he had innocently ingested the drug in a steak he had eaten. 'Innocent' use is no longer a defence; the presence of the drug is sufficient. Notice in the Stuff article the kind of strategies Armstrong used when he was challenged, in particular his abusive behaviour towards his masseuse. The Guardian articles point out that 86% of recent Tour de France winners were drug cheats, and speeds on the Tour de France have dropped significantly since drug abuse scrutiny has increased. We are unlikely to see extraordinary feats (such as those displayed by Armstrong and Landis) happening again on the Tour. As the Guardian points out, if you think a rider's performance is too good to be true, you are probably right (e.g. Landis on that unbelievable day that won him the Tour). Personally, I still think that it is an extraordinary feat just to complete a Tour - as a fan, I don't need the cheats to be drugged-up to make the event more exciting.So he got a note from his doctor for taking it up the backside? |
plod (107) | ||
| 1288362 | 2012-08-27 15:31:00 | If he wasn't doping then its pretty sad for him to have his entire career and character destroyed like this. I don't see it as an admission of guilt, but as a defeat in the face of a corrupt and sick sports body. I've thought about this statement and although it appears like he got snowballed by the process and couldn't afford a war chest with which to fight the accusations - if he had even the smallest leg upon which to stand, some legal defense league and/or group or even an anonymous donor would have paid to defend him. With no-one coming forth, it obviates the point that he was guilty as charged, |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||