basically says that even if there is proof of doping in Armstrong's past, it is no longer relevant since he's now retiring from the sport and will not be a factor in this year's TDF. The writer compares Armstrong to Moby [censored], and suggests "that there comes a time when you should just let the big fish go".
Do most fans feel this way? If he truly is guilty of doping, is it reasonable to suggest letting him off the hook if he won't even admit it himself? The investigation by Sports Illustrated in January chronicles years of doping, test evasion, lies, and psychological manipulation. Is it reasonable to sweep all of that under the rug to protect his legacy?
I'm disgusted by what seems to be a prevalent attitude of burying our heads in the sand and pretending that none of this kind of ugliness is happening, or that it doesn't matter anyway.
Lance is clean so it doesn't matter! Never failed a test, and he had a LOT! No proof just an ex dopper stating he saw him take some drugs! [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif[/IMG]
Ullrich has been hounded by the German media ever since he retired but that is Europe and it won't happen in the US with Armstrong. Armstrong won't race a TDF again but will still be active on several levels in the cycling community. That is my prediction.
Ullrich has been hounded by the German media ever since he retired but that is Europe and it won't happen in the US with Armstrong. Armstrong won't race a TDF again but will still be active on several levels in the cycling community. That is my prediction.
thats Germany -- not all Europe -- they have less of a racing cycling tradition compare to the big cycling countries. That said doping scandals hit common people harder there making even the TOUR broadcast coming to an end.
Hundreds and hundreds of tests and no positives, so surely you can't mean doping.
[IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/ROTF.gif[/IMG] You oughta take that attitude over to the 'The Clinic' at Cyclingews's Forum. They'll get your mind right...LOL!
It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is what you can prove.
On one hand there's rumours and innuendo and on the other there's hundreds and hundreds of tests with no positives. Whether you like it or not, the preponderance of evidence says Lance has no sins to be forgiven.
It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is what you can prove.
On one hand there's rumours and innuendo and on the other there's hundreds and hundreds of tests with no positives. Whether you like it or not, the preponderance of evidence says Lance has no sins to be forgiven.
Sorry, but I know he must be guilty of cheating. The alternative story, that he was raised by a poor but supportive mother who inspired him to strive for success, that he discovered as a kid that he had one-in-a-million ability for aerobic sports and then applied amazing determination over years to reach the top.....that kind of story just doesn't happen in real life, does it?
It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is what you can prove.
On one hand there's rumours and innuendo and on the other there's hundreds and hundreds of tests with no positives. Whether you like it or not, the preponderance of evidence says Lance has no sins to be forgiven.
[IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/ROTF.gif[/IMG]Naivete is so cute...
If you take the hundreds of negative tests as a yard stick then pretty much all the scandalized cyclists are without sin. A large portion of them never tested positive.
Sorry, but I know he must be guilty of cheating. The alternative story, that he was raised by a poor but supportive mother who inspired him to strive for success, that he discovered as a kid that he had one-in-a-million ability for aerobic sports and then applied amazing determination over years to reach the top.....that kind of story just doesn't happen in real life, does it?
I know that you like to get it on with chickens. Doesn't make it true though does it.
It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is what you can prove.
On one hand there's rumours and innuendo and on the other there's hundreds and hundreds of tests with no positives. Whether you like it or not, the preponderance of evidence says Lance has no sins to be forgiven.
You're right, but many people are biased and have a closed mind to the matter. There is no proof, but these people will still show you a hundred articles and news stories they've read over the years that say Lance is a cheater anyway. For many of them it's just become a fact now in their minds that Lance did use drugs. They don't even know what the words "proof" or "fact" mean anymore. To them a well written article from a credible person is proof, and then they will obnoxiously demand that Lance step down and give up all his victories. You'll never hear these people admit they don't know for sure and that it's possible Lance didn't cheat, they like to think they know the real story.
You're right, but many people are biased and have a closed mind to the matter. There is no proof, but these people will still show you a hundred articles and news stories they've read over the years that say Lance is a cheater anyway. For many of them it's just become a fact now in their minds that Lance did use drugs. They don't even know what the words "proof" or "fact" mean anymore. To them a well written article from a credible person is proof, and then they will obnoxiously demand that Lance step down and give up all his victories. You'll never hear these people admit they don't know for sure and that it's possible Lance didn't cheat, they like to think they know the real story.
so you're saying he rode clean?[IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/rolleyes.gif[/IMG]
In the film Wall Street just before the main character Bud Fox (played by Charlie Sheen ironically [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif[/IMG]) is arrested by the FBI/SEC for cheating (ironically[IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif[/IMG]), Lou Mannheim (played by Hal Holbrook) says to Fox.
"Bud, I don't know where you get your information from son but I don't like it."
You're right, but many people are biased and have a closed mind to the matter. There is no proof, but these people will still show you a hundred articles and news stories they've read over the years that say Lance is a cheater anyway. For many of them it's just become a fact now in their minds that Lance did use drugs. They don't even know what the words "proof" or "fact" mean anymore. To them a well written article from a credible person is proof, and then they will obnoxiously demand that Lance step down and give up all his victories. You'll never hear these people admit they don't know for sure and that it's possible Lance didn't cheat, they like to think they know the real story.
I've said it before, and it appears this comment is indeed a situation where I can say it again: "Now, I can fully understand how O.J. got off during his criminal trial"...cast a bit of reasonable doubt on the allegations, present this doubt to the right jury, and you can literally and figuratively get away with murder... Those "articles and news stories" contain information from individuals who attest they heard LA say he personally used PEDs. Obviously, you have decided to close your mind to the possibly LA is dirty, so be it... It is true enough that dogma can become reality for some, and the sword cuts both ways - lest you forget...
You're right, but many people are biased and have a closed mind to the matter. There is no proof, but these people will still show you a hundred articles and news stories they've read over the years that say Lance is a cheater anyway. For many of them it's just become a fact now in their minds that Lance did use drugs. They don't even know what the words "proof" or "fact" mean anymore. To them a well written article from a credible person is proof, and then they will obnoxiously demand that Lance step down and give up all his victories. You'll never hear these people admit they don't know for sure and that it's possible Lance didn't cheat, they like to think they know the real story.
Finally someone with a shred of intelligence who understands the difference between proof and innuendo.
so you're saying he rode clean?[IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/rolleyes.gif[/IMG]
Zoom. Know what that was? It was the entire point of the original remark going over your head.
It's not about what people believe, it's about what people can prove. And with hundreds and hundreds of negative tests nothing is going to stick whether it happened or not.
