|
Armstrong stops fighting doping charges - USADA wants him banned and stripped for titles
|
| Pellizotti2 |
Posted on 31-08-2012 21:18
|
World Champion
Posts: 10121
Joined: 01-05-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Eden95 wrote:
If anyone wants to have a bit of fun, or practise their argumentitive skills, I suggest you head over to Lance's official facebook page. The thousands upon thousands of messages being posted claiming he is 'innocent till proven guilty' make for some quality fun. One post has 130,000 likes and almost 7,000 comments supporting him, if anyone suggests otherwise they get bombarded with threats and backwards arguments that have been used so many times they've lost their originality.
Had a brief look at this earlier today. It's almost painful to read how blind people are.
Some even go as far as responding to those who say that Armstrong wasn't clean with, for example, "You have no proof for that he was doped. Get your facts straight before posting something like that."
I fail to understand how people can be that stupid.
|
| |
|
|
| lluuiiggii |
Posted on 31-08-2012 22:18
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8542
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
Hamilton's book explains how Armstrong got UCI to threaten or target his main rivals specifically when they seemed to have a product better than his. Read cyclingnews article if you want to know more.
How despicable is that guy ? :x
Well, the organization in his system to cover doping is impressive, you gotta give him that. It kinda remembers me of the mafias 
Pellizotti2 wrote:
I fail to understand how people can be that stupid.
I wouldn't call them stupid (most of them at least), more like knowledge-less of the facts around cycling, especially that era, and sometimes even quite 'alienated' by the Armstrong-propaganda. For example, when first getting in contact with cycling (because of the man), I had no idea how doped some of those guys were in those years, neither about Armstrong "facts". Stupid would be to be put in front of the truth again and again and again, and still refute it.. but even that would be kinda understandable. Changing mentalities can be a real hard thing, and a couple of Facebook posts will hardly do it for most people.
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 31-08-2012 22:20
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
lluuiiggii wrote:
Aquarius wrote:
Hamilton's book explains how Armstrong got UCI to threaten or target his main rivals specifically when they seemed to have a product better than his. Read cyclingnews article if you want to know more.
How despicable is that guy ? :x
Well, the organization in his system to cover doping is impressive, you gotta give him that. It kinda remembers me of the mafias
Kinda? Where do you think the word omertà come from?
|
| |
|
|
| jack888 |
Posted on 01-09-2012 06:51
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1280
Joined: 09-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Not sure if it's been posted yet. But this was written by Lance's former assistant.
https://www.outsid...=167790055
I was Lance’s personal assistant for two years, during the height of his racing career. Do I think he cheated? Yep. But my real problem is something that diehard fans seem unable to grasp: the vengeful tactics he uses against people who tell the truth about him, on and off the bike.
|
| |
|
|
| Cordelier |
Posted on 01-09-2012 07:30
|
Under 23
Posts: 60
Joined: 24-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Cycling is about pushing the envelope - how fast do you take downhills? How close to the edge of your endurance do you go? How far can you push technology to give you that edge?
Pushing the edge is the essence of the sport. Now, admittedly, sometimes people go over the edge and break the rules and they deservedly get punished for it. That's part of the game. If Armstrong had failed a drug test - and he had plenty of them - that's one thing, but to be convicted on hearsay evidence years after the fact is entirely another.
If we take away the edge, if we draw the lines so stark that nobody dares to come close to them then we take away something we won't be able to get back. Without a little darkness, the light is meaningless.
Edited by Cordelier on 01-09-2012 07:30
|
| |
|
|
| Jupi |
Posted on 01-09-2012 08:24
|
Amateur
Posts: 14
Joined: 13-06-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Cordelier wrote:
If Armstrong had failed a drug test - and he had plenty of them - that's one thing, but to be convicted on hearsay evidence years after the fact is entirely another.
Prisons are full of people who have been convicted based on "hearsay" evidence, since most criminals don't get caught in the act. Sometimes it happens years later, yet nobody seems to have any problem with the way courts work. Why is the process suddenly wrong? |
| |
|
|
| Bookie |
Posted on 01-09-2012 08:55
|
Under 23
Posts: 83
Joined: 24-07-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Cordelier wrote:
If we take away the edge, if we draw the lines so stark that nobody dares to come close to them then we take away something we won't be able to get back. Without a little darkness, the light is meaningless.
That's eloquently worded, but it basically means 'you can cheat'.
I don't agree. Cheating is wrong, making millions with cheating is criminal, continuously lying about it while playing the wronged hero is pathetic.
Edited by Bookie on 01-09-2012 08:55
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 20:20
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 01-09-2012 09:14
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Cordelier wrote:
If Armstrong had failed a drug test - and he had plenty of them - that's one thing, but to be convicted on hearsay evidence years after the fact is entirely another.
Here is one that was covered-up in 2001 - https://www.cyclin...-says#null
Here are multiple positives from the 1999 Tour - https://www.usatod...ails_x.htm
Armstrong was busy in 1999: He had steroid levels above normal and produced a backdated prescription for corticosteroids. He had earlier declared that he had no prescriptions - https://sportsillu...index.html
The first one could be argued as hearsay, but the second and third ones cannot be. The second one is undeniably evidence of a positive test, though he could not be convicted on B samples alone. The third one is also evidence of a positive test and evidence that many others were complicit in covering it up.
|
| |
|
|
| mbrouwers |
Posted on 01-09-2012 09:24
|
Amateur
Posts: 1
Joined: 01-09-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
I think this is more a personal attack on Lance Armstrong by the anti-dopingagency they couldn't find anything on him. And now they give people a better punishment when they testify against Armstrong |
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 01-09-2012 09:30
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
mbrouwers wrote:
I think this is more a personal attack on Lance Armstrong by the anti-dopingagency they couldn't find anything on him. And now they give people a better punishment when they testify against Armstrong
That implies that they knew people had something on him.
Which implies they had enough evidence to have something on him.
Which implies he was doping.
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 01-09-2012 09:31
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
mbrouwers wrote:
I think this is more a personal attack on Lance Armstrong by the anti-dopingagency they couldn't find anything on him. And now they give people a better punishment when they testify against Armstrong
1) It's not about Armstrong, it's also about his organisations, staff, etc. people who're still in cycling nowadays and harming it.
And who cares what their motivations are. If he cheated he ought to be punished. Simple as that.
2) They've nothing against him ? Get your facts straight, there's an arm-long list (maybe the longest arm is still too short actually).
3) So, they confessed their own doping at USP/DSC, they should be punished, based on their words, but the strongest of them all cannot be convicted based on the words of those same persons ? *Logical failure.* |
| |
|
|
| Pellizotti2 |
Posted on 01-09-2012 09:40
|
World Champion
Posts: 10121
Joined: 01-05-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
lluuiiggii wrote:
Pellizotti2 wrote:
I fail to understand how people can be that stupid.
I wouldn't call them stupid (most of them at least), more like knowledge-less of the facts around cycling, especially that era, and sometimes even quite 'alienated' by the Armstrong-propaganda. For example, when first getting in contact with cycling (because of the man), I had no idea how doped some of those guys were in those years, neither about Armstrong "facts". Stupid would be to be put in front of the truth again and again and again, and still refute it.. but even that would be kinda understandable. Changing mentalities can be a real hard thing, and a couple of Facebook posts will hardly do it for most people.
That's true, although my post was directed at the worst fanboys who attack everyone not defending Armstrong. It's still pathetic to claim that there's no evidence though.
|
| |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 01-09-2012 10:05
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3936
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
It was very exciting to read the article about Armstrongs former "PA". It does highlight something which I think is overlooked when it comes to Armstrong. Nevermind his use of banned substances, what is (almost) more despicable is his relentless attacks on anyone who tried to go against him.
Armstrong has a small army of lawyers and contacts that makes it impossible for anyone to go oppose him. My impression is that if someone even just thinks about going to court Armstrong unleashes a stampede of lawyers before you can even blink.
Lance Armstrong; master of the preemptive strike.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 01-09-2012 10:06
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
mbrouwers wrote:
I think this is more a personal attack on Lance Armstrong by the anti-dopingagency they couldn't find anything on him. And now they give people a better punishment when they testify against Armstrong
That's a common misconception by people who are uninformed.
Actually, the investigation isn't about Armstrong. That's just what the media makes it look like.
The investigation is about dismantling the doping conspiracy on the Postal/Discovery/Radioshack team. 11 riders were offered immunity in exchange for their testimony. 10 of them accepted. Armstrong was the only one who refused, and as such is being charged along with the rest of the doping ring.
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
|
| |
|
|
| GreenEDGEFan |
Posted on 01-09-2012 11:15
|
Under 23
Posts: 81
Joined: 18-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
On a different note, I found this article on the most manliest names ever. Lance comes in at #9, and guess who is number 2? That's right, Dick Pound.
https://www.cracke...world.html
GreenEDGE 100%
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 01-09-2012 11:26
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Pffft. No Steele Von Hoff?
Lance's doesn't count since his birthname is actually Lance Gunderson
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
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 01-09-2012 11:36
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
where is chuck noris???!!!!!
and issoisso beat me to the next point.... Neil Armstrong would have been better
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 01-09-2012 12:47
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Isn't Danny Pate named after Danny Pate (well actually he's Danny Pate himself) ? He should easily top the rankings with that only.  |
| |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 01-09-2012 13:08
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3936
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
where is chuck noris???!!!!!
and issoisso beat me to the next point.... Neil Armstrong would have been better
Lance is a way more manly name than Neil.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 01-09-2012 13:26
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
cactus-jack wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
where is chuck noris???!!!!!
and issoisso beat me to the next point.... Neil Armstrong would have been better
Lance is a way more manly name than Neil.
but its not about first name, its full name and its Lance Gunderson not Armstrong, if its Armstrong it must be Neil. If its Lance it must be Sir Lancealot
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
