|
Armstrong stops fighting doping charges - USADA wants him banned and stripped for titles
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 13:18
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Gaffeff |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:13
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 284
Joined: 23-09-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Surely theres a bigger question here: If we assume for the sake of argument that he did, then how did he pass all the dope tests. Were the tests badly designed (if so are we still using the same ones?), was he forewarned when the tests would happen so he could prepare (if so, by whom), or were results suppressed (again, who by)? |
| |
|
|
| valverde321 |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:13
|
World Champion
Posts: 12986
Joined: 20-05-2009
PCM$: 530.00
|
Pellizotti2 wrote:
It's almost disturbing how blind some people are when reading through opinions about this around the web. I can't understand how they can claim things like that "the whole case is just based on accusations" and "there's no evidence".
A lot of people doesn't seem to know anything about this.
This
And also agree with 9-Ball.
And I agree with Wacko too.
(look at that, I dont even have to write my opinions, there already here  )
|
| |
|
|
| dienblad |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:25
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3772
Joined: 10-09-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Gaffeff wrote:
Surely theres a bigger question here: If we assume for the sake of argument that he did, then how did he pass all the dope tests. Were the tests badly designed (if so are we still using the same ones?), was he forewarned when the tests would happen so he could prepare (if so, by whom), or were results suppressed (again, who by)?
And.... did he paid off his positive tests as commented often before??
|
| |
|
|
| 9-Ball |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:28
|
Domestique
Posts: 477
Joined: 16-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Baseball
Why the focus on '96-2002? On what do you base the idea that those before were somehow 'clean'?
It was eleven more than necessary.
Jacques Anquetil
|
| |
|
|
| pcm2009fan |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:29
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1105
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
baseballlover312 wrote:
I totally agree. Anyone from 92-2006 should just be gone. Those tourse never existed.
yeah if Armstrong can't win no-one else should be able to!
I'm joking of course, and I can see your point - there probably isn't a true 'worthy' winner of those Tours... although it raises the question as to whether this attitude can/should be applied to the whole existence of the Tour, not just those years... and that's just depressing.
Oh but those Tours did still exist - I watched some of them on YT recently so I can assure you of that  And thus Armstrong will continue to be remembered as a sporting legend, if not a champion. |
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:35
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Gaffeff wrote:
Surely theres a bigger question here: If we assume for the sake of argument that he did, then how did he pass all the dope tests. Were the tests badly designed (if so are we still using the same ones?), was he forewarned when the tests would happen so he could prepare (if so, by whom), or were results suppressed (again, who by)?
Many, many substances are designed solely to hide blood doping. They were widely used in Armstrong's period (just as they are today) and evidence that they work can be seen from the fact that a lot of people who rode with Armstrong have confessed to doping or have been found guilty of it in that period and yet they failed no drug tests.
|
| |
|
|
| Koener |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:45
|
Junior Rider
Posts: 46
Joined: 08-02-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
All you who now spit on him. look at yourself and ask this question ? Would you rob the bank if they could guarantee you they can only catch you in 15 years.
If you consider him a criminal, know he's ratted out by his accomplices who would be nobodies without him, otherwise he maybe got away with it.
Still thinking as criminal, who gets punished without a single thread of evidence, except this other criminals who confessed. Very believable.
WADA being frustrated to be unable to proof what i know, you know, everybody knows turns into a Stalinjustice.
Or more fitting McCarthy commiewitchhunt
There a doper - get him.
2023 Serge Baguet, opens the door and get handed over 3 tourtitles, for finishing them
Serge who ??? Right
anyway i don't even like lance.
Edited by Koener on 24-08-2012 15:48
Koener
|
| |
|
|
| 9-Ball |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:48
|
Domestique
Posts: 477
Joined: 16-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Koener wrote:
... who gets punished without a single thread of evidence, except this other criminals who confessed.
This simply isn't true, Koener. Look deeper into the history and available evidence.
It was eleven more than necessary.
Jacques Anquetil
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:52
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Koener wrote:
All you who now spit on him. look at yourself and ask this question ? Would you rob the bank if they could guarantee you they can only catch you in 15 years.
No. Because it is the wrong thing to do. Seriously, what was that supposed to even mean?
|
| |
|
|
| 9-Ball |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:58
|
Domestique
Posts: 477
Joined: 16-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Meanwhile, Reuters is reporting that Jacques Anquetil's family have confirmed he'll be riding in the 2013 Tour de France. The UCI published a press release indicating they'd "be rather keen to conduct pre-race testing on Mr. Anquetil".
It was eleven more than necessary.
Jacques Anquetil
|
| |
|
|
| tonymcf |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:58
|
Stagiare
Posts: 215
Joined: 30-11-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Rob the bank and get caught in 15 years, at which point I'd deservedly go to jail? I think I'd pass on that.
Are you trying to say we're all stupid or something because you say "Serge who" in regards to Serge Baguet? You know there's a lot of people out there who didn't just pick up cycling recently and do indeed know who Serge Baguet is. |
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:58
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
Well, its the same scenario with 2010, no?
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 24-08-2012 16:00
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Koener wrote:
All you who now spit on him. look at yourself and ask this question ? Would you rob the bank if they could guarantee you they can only catch you in 15 years.
i fear someones missing the point...
and yes!!! 15 years of unadulterated fun!!!!!!!!
|
| |
|
|
| Gaffeff |
Posted on 24-08-2012 16:01
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 284
Joined: 23-09-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
CountArach wrote:
Gaffeff wrote:
Surely theres a bigger question here: If we assume for the sake of argument that he did, then how did he pass all the dope tests. Were the tests badly designed (if so are we still using the same ones?), was he forewarned when the tests would happen so he could prepare (if so, by whom), or were results suppressed (again, who by)?
Many, many substances are designed solely to hide blood doping. They were widely used in Armstrong's period (just as they are today) and evidence that they work can be seen from the fact that a lot of people who rode with Armstrong have confessed to doping or have been found guilty of it in that period and yet they failed no drug tests.
That to me would count as the testing not being good enough. Maybe it's just the tax auditor in me (don't all boo at once) but this feels unresolved to me.
I believe (feel free to correct me if wrong) that the tests are also for the presence of masking agents, which I assume is what you're talking about. Have we added the masking agents these riders took to the list of banned substances? |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 24-08-2012 16:03
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Gaffeff wrote:
CountArach wrote:
Gaffeff wrote:
Surely theres a bigger question here: If we assume for the sake of argument that he did, then how did he pass all the dope tests. Were the tests badly designed (if so are we still using the same ones?), was he forewarned when the tests would happen so he could prepare (if so, by whom), or were results suppressed (again, who by)?
Many, many substances are designed solely to hide blood doping. They were widely used in Armstrong's period (just as they are today) and evidence that they work can be seen from the fact that a lot of people who rode with Armstrong have confessed to doping or have been found guilty of it in that period and yet they failed no drug tests.
That to me would count as the testing not being good enough. Maybe it's just the tax auditor in me (don't all boo at once) but this feels unresolved to me.
I believe (feel free to correct me if wrong) that the tests are also for the presence of masking agents, which I assume is what you're talking about. Have we added the masking agents these riders took to the list of banned substances?
also there is a possibility that the UCI are covering stuff up. They've ignored such findings before, and may be doing so again
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 24-08-2012 16:05
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Gaffeff wrote:
CountArach wrote:
Gaffeff wrote:
Surely theres a bigger question here: If we assume for the sake of argument that he did, then how did he pass all the dope tests. Were the tests badly designed (if so are we still using the same ones?), was he forewarned when the tests would happen so he could prepare (if so, by whom), or were results suppressed (again, who by)?
Many, many substances are designed solely to hide blood doping. They were widely used in Armstrong's period (just as they are today) and evidence that they work can be seen from the fact that a lot of people who rode with Armstrong have confessed to doping or have been found guilty of it in that period and yet they failed no drug tests.
That to me would count as the testing not being good enough. Maybe it's just the tax auditor in me (don't all boo at once) but this feels unresolved to me.
I believe (feel free to correct me if wrong) that the tests are also for the presence of masking agents, which I assume is what you're talking about. Have we added the masking agents these riders took to the list of banned substances?
The tests for masking agents were insufficient at that time and are still not perfect, though they are getting better (and yes they are on the list of banned substances). The problem is that doping technology is also constantly advancing, and it is just not possible to preempt these things (at this point I'm assuming...).
Look at the Tour where the WADA announced that they had a new test for EPO. If I recall the wattage outputs for that Tour were far lower than the previous ones because everyone was scared to death about being caught.
|
| |
|
|
| Koener |
Posted on 24-08-2012 16:08
|
Junior Rider
Posts: 46
Joined: 08-02-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
tonymcf wrote:
Rob the bank and get caught in 15 years, at which point I'd deservedly go to jail? I think I'd pass on that.
Are you trying to say we're all stupid or something because you say "Serge who" in regards to Serge Baguet? You know there's a lot of people out there who didn't just pick up cycling recently and do indeed know who Serge Baguet is.
İ didn't want ot insult anybody, but maybe WADA.
Pointing out (the obvious) that in those days, the few riders who were clean were outside the time limit (like the entire Lotto team on Alpe D'Huez, and sayings are they 'learned' from that experience)
ı just find it strange Armstrong is criminalized and spit out by everyone while he was defenitly the best (wheter it is cycling, doping yourself or the perfect combination of those).
Ok maybe i wouldn't rob a bank either.
But the tour is....magical
Koener
|
| |
|
|
| 9-Ball |
Posted on 24-08-2012 16:09
|
Domestique
Posts: 477
Joined: 16-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Gaffeff wrote:
...Maybe it's just the tax auditor in me ...
Good god. Admin, can't we have this individual banned?? (Just got my 2011 tax bill  )
On your wider point, the technology for testing is always somewhat behind that of masking agents. So long as there's big money invested in masking for athletic purposes this seems likely to continue. Even the testers themselves will readily admit to being 2-4 years behind, which is the main logic behind archiving samples.
It was eleven more than necessary.
Jacques Anquetil
|
| |
|
|
| 9-Ball |
Posted on 24-08-2012 16:13
|
Domestique
Posts: 477
Joined: 16-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
For the record, he's not being/been criminalized here. It's a civil process (no pun intended), not criminal. It's a limited civil process at that, where the US courts had limited input.
You might argue he's being demonized to levels no other doped cyclist has but then he also won to levels no other doped cyclist ever did. If he hadn't gone and won all those TDF's people wouldn't be so hot under the collar about his doping. Perhaps that was his second biggest oversight - excessive success! 
Edited by 9-Ball on 24-08-2012 16:14
It was eleven more than necessary.
Jacques Anquetil
|
| |
|
|
| Koener |
Posted on 24-08-2012 16:15
|
Junior Rider
Posts: 46
Joined: 08-02-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
i should have just sticked with my old heroes
Janis Joplin used dope
Koener
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
