Believe me, you have the best case I've ever seen. Mike will let you get a new nickname.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Damn Mike if he does, I wish golance123 and all the other Armstrong worshippers would have to keep bearing their nicknames as a punishment for their past blindness and denial of the obvious. XD
Edited by Aquarius on 20-01-2013 22:08
Aquarius wrote:
Damn Mike if he does, I wish golance123 and all the other Armstrong worshippers would have to keep bearing their nicknames as a punishment for their past blindness and denial of the obvious. XD
PCM.Daily NFL Fantasy Football Champion: 2012 PCM.Daily NHL Prediction Game Champion: 2013 PCM.Daily NFL Prediction Game Champion: 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2021
Aquarius wrote:
Damn Mike if he does, I wish golance123 and all the other Armstrong worshippers would have to keep bearing their nicknames as a punishment for their past blindness and denial of the obvious. XD
Le Monde have managed to get hold of the anti-doping control form from the day Armstrong tested positive for steroids but got that backdated exception. Guess what it says at the bottom under medicines being taken...
Pierre Ballester has him on tape days before the positive saying "No. No TUEs whatsoever"
(TUE = prescription)
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Aquarius wrote:
His was some sort of climax though. Things had never/rarely gone that far. Maybe only the 1996-1998 years were worst, but that's arguable.
Aquarius wrote:
His was some sort of climax though. Things had never/rarely gone that far. Maybe only the 1996-1998 years were worst, but that's arguable.
Maybe those 90's and older times were even worse ,as we have bunch of people dying right because of doping? Or are there such a cases after 2000?I cant remember...
i didnt believe he had up until all this stuff came up. When me and my dad heard he had stopped fighting charges we believed it was true. (I voted yes by the way! )
Aquarius wrote:
His was some sort of climax though. Things had never/rarely gone that far. Maybe only the 1996-1998 years were worst, but that's arguable.
Maybe those 90's and older times were even worse ,as we have bunch of people dying right because of doping? Or are there such a cases after 2000?I cant remember...
I don't know if that's right, though.
I mean, sure, about the deaths, but there are so many external factors that you can't say #deaths = #doping.
The era in question is so wrapped up in doping, that to strip Lance, they need to test the samples of the winners about 3-4 years before also. Bet every one has some type of doping in it. Jan tested positive, yet has a TDF win...backdate that wins tests it 95% sure a positive. Marco...not even a question. He was a coke addict before he passed, so Im pretty sure he was doping. And so on. The biological passport is helping some. But dopping is all over still. If it was gone, we wouldnt see such strong rides by 1-2 riders each year (Froome and Wigging?) as an example. No positives but Froome had to slack up for Wiggins to stay with him. And both went past other great riders at times like they where stuck in mud. How is that explained? Evans couldnt hold riders wheels this year, yet the year he won he was able to hold and/or catch almost anyone.
Bottom line, doping is ahead if the testing. Always has been. The ones that get caught...goof up at some point on dosage or on cleaning the body before the tests. Year round testing is needed to in reality, hope to clean it up.
Back in the old days, stimulants of all types where used. Cocaine, uppers and more. But riders where far less tested if at all then. I even still wonder if LeMonde was clean...for now, we will never know.
Matrix wrote:
The era in question is so wrapped up in doping, that to strip Lance, they need to test the samples of the winners about 3-4 years before also. Bet every one has some type of doping in it. Jan tested positive, yet has a TDF win...backdate that wins tests it 95% sure a positive. Marco...not even a question. He was a coke addict before he passed, so Im pretty sure he was doping. And so on. The biological passport is helping some. But dopping is all over still. If it was gone, we wouldnt see such strong rides by 1-2 riders each year (Froome and Wigging?) as an example. No positives but Froome had to slack up for Wiggins to stay with him. And both went past other great riders at times like they where stuck in mud. How is that explained? Evans couldnt hold riders wheels this year, yet the year he won he was able to hold and/or catch almost anyone.
Bottom line, doping is ahead if the testing. Always has been. The ones that get caught...goof up at some point on dosage or on cleaning the body before the tests. Year round testing is needed to in reality, hope to clean it up.
I agree with you 100% man. I was curious of Wiggins and Froome too but I guess it's probably cause they beat Cadel! I'm Aussie so that of course means im 99% sure Cadel hasn't been doping at all. But then again I almost felt the same way with Armstrong until he said he'd stop fighting charges. It may also be the fact (back on Cadel now) that he is just getting a little old. He's mid 30's now so that may be why. But I agree 100%. They're gonna have to do testing before and after every race and everywhere in between if they even want to think about catching up with people doping.
