From Lance to Landis: Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France (H



Status
Not open for further replies.

ad9898

New Member
Jun 16, 2004
206
0
0
Ok i don't want to go on with this back and forth on a forum...i'll give you my phone number and we can argue over the phone instead :D

Seriously though if and when concrete evidence arises that he can be convicted for, i will be the the first person to say you were right and i was wrong...but until...............................
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
ad9898 said:
Other reasons regarding why he was better later in his career

1 Some people develop later in their career
You are right.
I remember from Flo-Jo, Ben Johnson, Riis, Chiappucci, Berzin, ...:rolleyes: :D:D
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
poulidor said:
You are right.
I remember from Flo-Jo, Ben Johnson, Riis, Chiappucci, Berzin, ...:rolleyes: :D:D
Don't forget Hamilton, Landis, Ugramov, Tonkov, Bugno, and Rumsas. All those guys were late bloomers. ;)
 

ad9898

New Member
Jun 16, 2004
206
0
0
such cynicism.......guilty until proven innocent.....glad you guys aren't members of the legal system
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
You make a mistake, we aren't the legal system, so the vox populi can point some problems despite that cannot be been resolved by legal system.
 

ad9898

New Member
Jun 16, 2004
206
0
0
ok ok...you guys have a set train of thought, i'm not here to convince anyone of my way of thinking.......most people here think most of the peloton was doped.....proof or not.....so whats the problem....If everyone was doped then Lance still wins anyway....

Its like if everyone cheated and had a small electric motor on their bike....someone has to win.....someone has to better than everyone else.

So what if Lance was doped and responded better than say Ullrich??, thats life.....the only thing it could be is better training, better diet, better genes....less drag on his skin suit, less drag on the crank bearings you could go on and on either way he won. Again give me the concrete proof and the discussion is over, you guys win.
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
ad9898 said:
the only thing it could be is better training, better diet, better genes....less drag on his skin suit, ...
Good propaganda for uneducated people, you forgot "harder training and works than others", but the most probale reasons are only the best and more expensive doctor, the best and more expensive PEDs.
And I don't forget the best lies!
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
I believe having only one testicle caused less drag and also was less intrusive therefore allowing a higher cadence.

This theory is illustrated in the chart below.
 

House

Banned
Aug 9, 2004
850
0
0
ad9898 said:
such cynicism.......guilty until proven innocent.....glad you guys aren't members of the legal system
You have to realize who you are discussing this with. People like Bro Deal have such a hate-on for LA that they will ignore anything (like lack of chain of custody) to be able to claim LA is guilty because it's an obsession of hate for them. If God came down and told everyone that LA was clean these guys would be claiming God doesn't really know. Don't even easte your time with people like him. Poulidor, though will actually attempt to discuss things in an intelligent manner...even if he is misguided.;)
 

helmutRoole2

New Member
Jul 7, 2006
1,948
0
0
58
obxbes said:
When you look death in the face and beat it what else can scare you.
A doping scandal that leads to your front door. Armstrong's silence on OP speaks volumes... cowboy.
 

ad9898

New Member
Jun 16, 2004
206
0
0
helmutRoole2 said:
A doping scandal that leads to your front door. Armstrong's silence on OP speaks volumes... cowboy.

ok guys i can see it now.......Lance is in the dock....under cross examination the prosecution says " Lance with you coming from Texas...has anyone ever called you cowboy".....Lance says "yes"....Judge intervines and says " ok Lance your guilty, take him to the gallows".....err i don't think so.

Look you guys with the hate on Lance you MUST know something the governing bodies don't, you cant say that hes guilty without knowing something.....please tell us all what that is....goto the media and earn a few hundred thousand pound/dollars whatever.....do something, and please don't tell me its as laughable as the above quote, because that means zero. How many more times CONCRETE EVIDENCE is required otherwise he will always be 7 times TDF champ.....if some of you guys hate him so much and have something on him ................come forward...........phew!!! anyone else out their on my side instead of the "hang em now ask questions later brigade"
 

Leafer

New Member
Apr 11, 2006
317
0
0
ad9898 said:
Lance won 7 TDF's in a row, its not going to change, he passed all the tests that were put in front of him at the time....what more can anyone want.....its time to move on
I dunno, don't think I'll be moving on until Lance gets around to explaining those 6 vials of EPO-positive ****.
 

ad9898

New Member
Jun 16, 2004
206
0
0
Leafer said:
I dunno, don't think I'll be moving on until Lance gets around to explaining those 6 vials of EPO-positive ****.

He doesn't have to, the B samples were destroyed so the whole test is invalid....the B test was put in their specifically for this reason, people have tested positive in an A sample and negative in a B sample.....i remember a cross country skier, cant think of his name though, but it has happened...the '99 tests are irrelevant, if they weren't he would be in the same position has Riis and last i checked, he isn't
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
Are 6 B samples greater than 1 couple A +B ?

Because of almost all riders doped, i think it's better to reverse the law: everyone is guilty until proven innocent. In US you are innocent until guilty because of the guilty guy are very fewer than innocent people, that seems not the same in world of recent cycling! Above all if you had a testicle cancer, failed 6 testing EPO, you lost rubbish full of PEDs, you did superhuman performance, you beat the best riders doped with EPO and blood doping,...

It's very reasonable for everyone to believe that Armstrong doped. Not believe that is only stupid or at least naive
 

helmutRoole2

New Member
Jul 7, 2006
1,948
0
0
58
ad9898 said:
... anyone else out their on my side instead of the "hang em now ask questions later brigade"
Look, I don't mean to cap on you, but it's telling of your intellect when you don't know the difference between their and there. You've done it couple times on this thread.

Anyway, if you understand physiology you'll understand that's it's not possible for a clean athlete to beat a doped athlete if all other things are equal. Now, I don't agree with Bro at all about Armstrong's pedigree. I think he was a rare talent. I mean, he won the Tour seven times. But I don't for a second believe that he did that as a clean athlete, towering 15+ percent over his opponents who were doping.

I am a Lance hater, though. I'll freely admit that. I guess my evolution in thought on this topic was brought about when he seemed to seriously entertain the possibility of running for president. What kind of egomaniacal a-hole could possibly believe that his experiences racing bicycles has prepared him to run a super power? He's like our current leader, a made for tv idiot.

Anyone else out there agree with me on that point?
 

helmutRoole2

New Member
Jul 7, 2006
1,948
0
0
58
ad9898 said:
He doesn't have to, the B samples were destroyed so the whole test is invalid....the B test was put in their specifically for this reason, people have tested positive in an A sample and negative in a B sample.....i remember a cross country skier, cant think of his name though, but it has happened...the '99 tests are irrelevant, if they weren't he would be in the same position has Riis and last i checked, he isn't
Yeah, but you have to admit, six positives? Sure, the rules stipulate that the B sample confirms the A sample, but six positives? I mean, you'd have to think that, had WADA been testing for EPO, one of his A samples would have come up hot, right?

Conspiracy, incompetent lab technicians... all that looks pretty flimsy in the face of six positives for EPO.
 

Leafer

New Member
Apr 11, 2006
317
0
0
ad9898 said:
He doesn't have to, the B samples were destroyed so the whole test is invalid....the B test was put in their specifically for this reason, people have tested positive in an A sample and negative in a B sample.....i remember a cross country skier, cant think of his name though, but it has happened...the '99 tests are irrelevant, if they weren't he would be in the same position has Riis and last i checked, he isn't
From a sanctioning or legal perspective, I agree - it's too late for any of that. But that's not what this is about, nor does it really matter - the only question I care about as a cycling fan is whether or not Armstrong doped, period. I don't care whether he can still be sanctioned for it, I don't care whether he keeps his Tour wins or not, etc. And as a cycling fan, I would like to know why EPO was found in six vials of his **** in the '99 Tour. And it's no different for Riis, Ullrich, Pantani, Indurain, etc - I want to know if any or all of them were/are doping. Yet for some reason some of you who have no problems with knowing that the others were doping seem to draw the line at Armstrong, as if it becomes personal if you were to learn that he was doping (which, sorry to say, he almost certainly was). I find that very odd. What's the difference to you whether Riis was doping or whether Armstrong was doping?
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Leafer said:
I find that very odd. What's the difference to you whether Riis was doping or whether Armstrong was doping?

At least Riis admitted to it.

Lance and his supporters can't.
And remember Armstrong's "wins" are tied in to insurance deals/bonus payments.
If he was ever to admit his guilt, those insurance companies would seek redress for, is wirefraud the correct terminology.
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
ad9898 said:
such cynicism.......guilty until proven innocent.....glad you guys aren't members of the legal system
This is not a court of law. It's a court of public opinion, and courts of public opinion don't let people off on technicalities. Armstrong doped and got away with it. He will not be sanctioned. That does not mean the public or racing fans have to give up common sense and not form the obvious conclusion based on the facts. Even without the EPO positives there is more than enough evidence to say Armstrong doped.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
Replies
6
Views
185
Road Cycling
Fred Fredburger
F