What will the Lance-haters want to happen if it's true?

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Preston Crawford, Aug 26, 2005.

  1. I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is obviously a
    group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what they'd like to see
    happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty. Would we need to set
    aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium ceremonies for the last 7
    years. Stage wins and everything. Go back and get everyone and put them
    in their team jerseys (Ulrich would have to wear his Bianchi jersey
    during that year's ceremonies) and we could have a do-over.

    That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.

    Preston
     
    Tags:


  2. Bill H.

    Bill H. Guest

    Nothing would happen, obviously.

    However, when Raffy Palmeiro tested positive, I, for one, wanted him
    kicked out of the game. I still do. I think the integrity of the game
    is more important than any one player, and I think he should be banned,
    just as Pete Rose was banned for gambling. I also don't think he
    should be eligible for the Hall of Fame.

    What's done is done, and nothing is going to be "done" to Lance, even
    if he were 100% guilty. He's announced his retirement from the Tour,
    so preventing him from competing in the future won't mean anything. I
    suppose the Tour could "strip" him of his awards and jerseys (not
    literally), but give awards to other bicyclists, but that'll never
    happen either.
     
  3. Bill Sornson

    Bill Sornson Guest

    Preston Crawford wrote:
    > I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is
    > obviously a group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what
    > they'd like to see happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty.
    > Would we need to set aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium
    > ceremonies for the last 7 years. Stage wins and everything. Go back
    > and get everyone and put them in their team jerseys (Ulrich would
    > have to wear his Bianchi jersey during that year's ceremonies) and we
    > could have a do-over.
    >
    > That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.


    Lousy troll or just a silly post. He tested negative (clean) every year,
    every time. You can't go back and get a 6-year-old sample and /prove/
    anything without much better documentation and protocol than was exhibited
    here.

    It's bogus (whether accurate or not) because it's unfair and unreliable.

    (Also, IF he used EPO in '99, how did he win the next 6? Surely if he
    needed an unfair advantage once, he'd need it all or at least most of the
    time.)

    More will be revealed...
     
  4. On 2005-08-26, Bill H. <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Nothing would happen, obviously.
    >
    > However, when Raffy Palmeiro tested positive, I, for one, wanted him
    > kicked out of the game. I still do. I think the integrity of the game
    > is more important than any one player, and I think he should be banned,
    > just as Pete Rose was banned for gambling. I also don't think he
    > should be eligible for the Hall of Fame.
    >
    > What's done is done, and nothing is going to be "done" to Lance, even
    > if he were 100% guilty. He's announced his retirement from the Tour,
    > so preventing him from competing in the future won't mean anything. I
    > suppose the Tour could "strip" him of his awards and jerseys (not
    > literally), but give awards to other bicyclists, but that'll never
    > happen either.


    I agree with all of the above, actually. I was just tossing it out
    there, because the sharks are circling. A German paper is even talking
    about Ulrich suing Lance for all the money he would have made that Lance
    made instead.

    I made the post more as a joke.

    Preston
     
  5. On 2005-08-26, Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Preston Crawford wrote:
    >> I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is
    >> obviously a group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what
    >> they'd like to see happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty.
    >> Would we need to set aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium
    >> ceremonies for the last 7 years. Stage wins and everything. Go back
    >> and get everyone and put them in their team jerseys (Ulrich would
    >> have to wear his Bianchi jersey during that year's ceremonies) and we
    >> could have a do-over.
    >>
    >> That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.

    >
    > Lousy troll or just a silly post. He tested negative (clean) every year,
    > every time. You can't go back and get a 6-year-old sample and /prove/
    > anything without much better documentation and protocol than was exhibited
    > here.
    >
    > It's bogus (whether accurate or not) because it's unfair and unreliable.
    >
    > (Also, IF he used EPO in '99, how did he win the next 6? Surely if he
    > needed an unfair advantage once, he'd need it all or at least most of the
    > time.)
    >
    > More will be revealed...


    I was joking. Poking fun at the haters. It's just a train of thought I
    was on after reading an article where the German press is calling for
    Ulrich to sue for all the money he would have made (including
    endorsements) that Lance made instead.

    Preston
     
  6. Bill Sornson

    Bill Sornson Guest

    Preston Crawford wrote:
    > On 2005-08-26, Bill Sornson
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Preston Crawford wrote:
    >>> I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is
    >>> obviously a group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what
    >>> they'd like to see happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty.
    >>> Would we need to set aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium
    >>> ceremonies for the last 7 years. Stage wins and everything. Go back
    >>> and get everyone and put them in their team jerseys (Ulrich would
    >>> have to wear his Bianchi jersey during that year's ceremonies) and
    >>> we could have a do-over.
    >>>
    >>> That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.

    >>
    >> Lousy troll or just a silly post. He tested negative (clean) every
    >> year, every time. You can't go back and get a 6-year-old sample and
    >> /prove/ anything without much better documentation and protocol than
    >> was exhibited here.
    >>
    >> It's bogus (whether accurate or not) because it's unfair and
    >> unreliable.
    >>
    >> (Also, IF he used EPO in '99, how did he win the next 6? Surely if
    >> he needed an unfair advantage once, he'd need it all or at least
    >> most of the time.)
    >>
    >> More will be revealed...

    >
    > I was joking. Poking fun at the haters. It's just a train of thought I
    > was on after reading an article where the German press is calling for
    > Ulrich to sue for all the money he would have made (including
    > endorsements) that Lance made instead.


    Maybe they're joking too :)
     
  7. On 2005-08-26, Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Preston Crawford wrote:
    >> On 2005-08-26, Bill Sornson
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> Preston Crawford wrote:
    >>>> I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is
    >>>> obviously a group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what
    >>>> they'd like to see happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty.
    >>>> Would we need to set aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium
    >>>> ceremonies for the last 7 years. Stage wins and everything. Go back
    >>>> and get everyone and put them in their team jerseys (Ulrich would
    >>>> have to wear his Bianchi jersey during that year's ceremonies) and
    >>>> we could have a do-over.
    >>>>
    >>>> That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.
    >>>
    >>> Lousy troll or just a silly post. He tested negative (clean) every
    >>> year, every time. You can't go back and get a 6-year-old sample and
    >>> /prove/ anything without much better documentation and protocol than
    >>> was exhibited here.
    >>>
    >>> It's bogus (whether accurate or not) because it's unfair and
    >>> unreliable.
    >>>
    >>> (Also, IF he used EPO in '99, how did he win the next 6? Surely if
    >>> he needed an unfair advantage once, he'd need it all or at least
    >>> most of the time.)
    >>>
    >>> More will be revealed...

    >>
    >> I was joking. Poking fun at the haters. It's just a train of thought I
    >> was on after reading an article where the German press is calling for
    >> Ulrich to sue for all the money he would have made (including
    >> endorsements) that Lance made instead.

    >
    > Maybe they're joking too :)
    >
    >


    No, they're serious, unfortunately.

    Preston
     
  8. Pete

    Pete Guest

    You could all start by being honest with yourselves. If the soiled champion
    were from another country, say Jan Ullrich or Jalabert, and Lance had come
    in second the past seven years, the same guys who support Lance no matter
    what now would be screaming for the guy to be disqualified retroactively so
    Lance could be declared the winner. Based on all similar circumstancial and
    hard evidence, you would all be screaming bloody murder.

    Poulidor said why not just go back to 1903 while they are at it. Well, 6
    years ago is not the same as a century ago. Cheats have lost Olympic gold
    medals retroactively. What's so special about cycling?
     
  9. Peeter

    Peeter Guest

    Yeah, all of the above ... PLUS ...

    Lance should pose for a group photo with Bobby Abreu, Andrian Beltre,
    Barry Bonds, Bret Boone, Carlos DelGado, Steve Finley, Jason Giambi,
    Brian Giles, Luis E. Gonzalez, Shawn Green, Todd Helton, Raffy
    Palmeiro, Gary Sheffield, Sammy, Jim Thome, and other HR supermen.


    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Preston Crawford wrote:
    > I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is obviously a
    > group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what they'd like to see
    > happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty. Would we need to set
    > aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium ceremonies for the last 7
    > years. Stage wins and everything. Go back and get everyone and put them
    > in their team jerseys (Ulrich would have to wear his Bianchi jersey
    > during that year's ceremonies) and we could have a do-over.
    >
    > That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.
    >
    > Preston
     
  10. Bill Sornson

    Bill Sornson Guest

    Pete wrote:
    > You could all start by being honest with yourselves. If the soiled
    > champion were from another country, say Jan Ullrich or Jalabert, and
    > Lance had come in second the past seven years, the same guys who
    > support Lance no matter what now would be screaming for the guy to be
    > disqualified retroactively so Lance could be declared the winner.


    That might be true if there were solid /evidence/ and not just dark-room
    frozen-sample funny biz.

    Why did they wait until AFTER the Tour to dump all this? Seems like they
    wanted to milk the Lance Money Machine as long as they could, and then find
    another (sleazy in this case) way to keep it rolling.

    > Based on all similar circumstancial and hard evidence, you would all
    > be screaming bloody murder.
    > Poulidor said why not just go back to 1903 while they are at it.
    > Well, 6 years ago is not the same as a century ago. Cheats have lost
    > Olympic gold medals retroactively. What's so special about cycling?


    Give it a few more days and see what happens. This drug test itself tests
    dirty IMO...
     
  11. Bill Sornson

    Bill Sornson Guest

    Peeter wrote:

    > Yeah, all of the above ... PLUS ...


    Umm, there's NOTHING above what you wrote.

    HTH, BS

    > Lance should pose for a group photo with Bobby Abreu, Andrian Beltre,
    > Barry Bonds, Bret Boone, Carlos DelGado, Steve Finley, Jason Giambi,
    > Brian Giles, Luis E. Gonzalez, Shawn Green, Todd Helton, Raffy
    > Palmeiro, Gary Sheffield, Sammy, Jim Thome, and other HR supermen.
    >
    >
    > $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    >
    > Preston Crawford wrote:
    >> I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is
    >> obviously a group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what
    >> they'd like to see happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty.
    >> Would we need to set aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium
    >> ceremonies for the last 7 years. Stage wins and everything. Go back
    >> and get everyone and put them in their team jerseys (Ulrich would
    >> have to wear his Bianchi jersey during that year's ceremonies) and
    >> we could have a do-over.
    >>
    >> That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.
    >>
    >> Preston
     
  12. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >You could all start by being honest with yourselves. If the soiled champion
    >were from another country, say Jan Ullrich or Jalabert, and Lance had come
    >in second the past seven years, the same guys who support Lance no matter
    >what now would be screaming for the guy to be disqualified retroactively so
    >Lance could be declared the winner. Based on all similar circumstancial and
    >hard evidence, you would all be screaming bloody murder.


    Hardly. There's a BIG difference between testing someone "real time"
    and doing it six loooooooong years later.

    If he had tested positive during the '99 Tour, he could have appealed,
    and taken another test which would provide either vindication or
    further damnation (even if it didn't prevent him from being pulled
    from the race before that happened).

    But to dig a six-year old sample out of a freezer, after who knows WHO
    had a chance to access it, and for an "anonymous test" to just
    "happen" to filter to the tabloid that has had Lance in the
    cross-hairs for most of his career all speaks of "less than certain"
    results (to be charitable).

    I don't care who it is - that's NOT a credible scenario with which to
    ruin someone's credibility.

    >Poulidor said why not just go back to 1903 while they are at it. Well, 6
    >years ago is not the same as a century ago. Cheats have lost Olympic gold
    >medals retroactively. What's so special about cycling?


    Why stop there? Why not use other experimental processes to test
    every bit of stored urine everywhere. Heck, for those we can't locate
    we'll just assume they're dirty. It'll turn out that there's only one
    guy in 1910 who was ever clean, so we'll award him every yellow jersey
    since then - will that make you feel better? ;-)

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $795 ti frame
     
  13. Preston Crawford <[email protected]> wrote:
    >I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is obviously a
    >group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what they'd like to see
    >happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty. Would we need to set
    >aside a day to do a "redo" of all the podium ceremonies for the last 7
    >years. Stage wins and everything. Go back and get everyone and put them
    >in their team jerseys (Ulrich would have to wear his Bianchi jersey
    >during that year's ceremonies) and we could have a do-over.
    >
    >That and Lance would have to give back all his Lions.


    I think they should resurrect Marco Pantani before they
    start considering knocking LA off the podium.

    --Blair
    "Should be about as easy as
    actually proving the B samples
    weren't stepped on."
     
  14. > Hardly. There's a BIG difference between testing someone "real time"
    > and doing it six loooooooong years later.
    >
    > If he had tested positive during the '99 Tour, he could have appealed,
    > and taken another test which would provide either vindication or
    > further damnation (even if it didn't prevent him from being pulled
    > from the race before that happened).
    >
    > But to dig a six-year old sample out of a freezer, after who knows WHO
    > had a chance to access it, and for an "anonymous test" to just
    > "happen" to filter to the tabloid that has had Lance in the
    > cross-hairs for most of his career all speaks of "less than certain"
    > results (to be charitable).
    >
    > I don't care who it is - that's NOT a credible scenario with which to
    > ruin someone's credibility.



    And this isn't just about Lance's credibility, but that of drug-testing as
    well. I think Dick Pound (WADA) is doing a tremendous amount of damage to
    his cause (eliminating drugs from athletics) by getting involved in this. If
    I were him, I would be more concerned about the present and future, not the
    past.

    While this is all interesting to speculate about, there is nothing that can
    come from it other than creating questions about the legitimacy of drug
    testing in general. It is dangerous to go back six or seven years and try to
    retroactively determine guilt or innocence. The system wasn't set up at the
    time to allow for that. They didn't anticipate, or plan for, this scenario.
    As a result, any "results" produced from such testing will not likely pass
    modern tests for storage, custody and reporting requirements. They will be
    successfully challenged every step of the way, yet with no possibility that
    anyone will be considered definitively villain or victim. And people won't
    distinguish between modern, reliable methods that would hold up to serious
    scrutiny; rather, all drug testing will be considered a joke, and every
    rider suspect.

    Dick Pound should be concentrating on the sure thing, rather than an agenda
    that says anything that might possibly be indicative of drug use needs to be
    persecuted and eliminated. That would greatly strengthen his ability to deal
    with the current situation, as he needs to be fighting things he can prove,
    not demons of the past (which cannot be proven decisively one way or the
    other, and will only serve to create fear, doubt & uncertainty about what
    the WADA's doing now).

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


    "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>You could all start by being honest with yourselves. If the soiled
    >>champion
    >>were from another country, say Jan Ullrich or Jalabert, and Lance had come
    >>in second the past seven years, the same guys who support Lance no matter
    >>what now would be screaming for the guy to be disqualified retroactively
    >>so
    >>Lance could be declared the winner. Based on all similar circumstancial
    >>and
    >>hard evidence, you would all be screaming bloody murder.

    >
    > Hardly. There's a BIG difference between testing someone "real time"
    > and doing it six loooooooong years later.
    >
    > If he had tested positive during the '99 Tour, he could have appealed,
    > and taken another test which would provide either vindication or
    > further damnation (even if it didn't prevent him from being pulled
    > from the race before that happened).
    >
    > But to dig a six-year old sample out of a freezer, after who knows WHO
    > had a chance to access it, and for an "anonymous test" to just
    > "happen" to filter to the tabloid that has had Lance in the
    > cross-hairs for most of his career all speaks of "less than certain"
    > results (to be charitable).
    >
    > I don't care who it is - that's NOT a credible scenario with which to
    > ruin someone's credibility.
    >
    >>Poulidor said why not just go back to 1903 while they are at it. Well, 6
    >>years ago is not the same as a century ago. Cheats have lost Olympic gold
    >>medals retroactively. What's so special about cycling?

    >
    > Why stop there? Why not use other experimental processes to test
    > every bit of stored urine everywhere. Heck, for those we can't locate
    > we'll just assume they're dirty. It'll turn out that there's only one
    > guy in 1910 who was ever clean, so we'll award him every yellow jersey
    > since then - will that make you feel better? ;-)
    >
    > Mark Hickey
    > Habanero Cycles
    > http://www.habcycles.com
    > Home of the $795 ti frame
     
  15. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:31:54 -0500,
    <[email protected]>, Preston Crawford
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is obviously a
    >group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what they'd like to see
    >happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty.


    What happened to Carl Lewis? Squat, that's what.
    The cancer conglomerate won't let its poster boy get dirtied.
    --
    zk
     
  16. Bill Sornson

    Bill Sornson Guest

    Zoot Katz wrote:
    > Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:31:54 -0500,
    > <[email protected]>, Preston Crawford
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm not passing judgement one way or the other. But there is
    >> obviously a group who really hates Lance. So I'm wondering what
    >> they'd like to see happen if it turns out that Lance were guilty.

    >
    > What happened to Carl Lewis? Squat, that's what.
    > The cancer conglomerate won't let its poster boy get dirtied.


    Ben Johnson was the raging 'roider -- yet another Canadian embarrassment.

    (Gotta admit Carl can't sing, though!)
     
  17. Pete

    Pete Guest

    "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]ocal.rr.com...

    >>
    >> What happened to Carl Lewis? Squat, that's what.
    >> The cancer conglomerate won't let its poster boy get dirtied.

    >
    > Ben Johnson was the raging 'roider -- yet another Canadian embarrassment.
    >


    Yes, he certainly was, and for weeks and even months after the
    disqualification at the 88 Olympics, we were hearing all the same arguments
    about Ben Johnson we're hearing now about Lance Armstrong. It's like deja vu
    all over again.

    "The test must be faulty... The urine sample was switched... Ben was framed
    by someone... The Americans (you can always substitute any other country in
    this argument) don't want a Canadian to win the 100 meters...

    .... ad infinitum

    And this was combined with vehement denials by Johnson himself, by his
    coach, by everyone, pretty much, until it could no longer be denied. Sound
    familiar?

    Then from the other side, we had derogatory comments from Carl Lewis and his
    bunch, saying that they knew all along Ben Johnson had to be doping.
    Meanwhile, Carl Lewis was doping even more than Ben Johnson, as we found out
    later.

    It's important to have heroes, but it's even more important that these
    heroes not be lying cheats.

    Pierre
     
  18. Jeff Starr

    Jeff Starr Guest

    On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:03:48 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
    <[email protected]> wrote:


    >> I don't care who it is - that's NOT a credible scenario with which to
    >> ruin someone's credibility.

    >
    >
    >And this isn't just about Lance's credibility, but that of drug-testing as
    >well. I think Dick Pound (WADA) is doing a tremendous amount of damage to
    >his cause (eliminating drugs from athletics) by getting involved in this. If
    >I were him, I would be more concerned about the present and future, not the
    >past.
    >
    >While this is all interesting to speculate about, there is nothing that can
    >come from it other than creating questions about the legitimacy of drug
    >testing in general. It is dangerous to go back six or seven years and try to
    >retroactively determine guilt or innocence. The system wasn't set up at the
    >time to allow for that. They didn't anticipate, or plan for, this scenario.
    >As a result, any "results" produced from such testing will not likely pass
    >modern tests for storage, custody and reporting requirements. They will be
    >successfully challenged every step of the way, yet with no possibility that
    >anyone will be considered definitively villain or victim. And people won't
    >distinguish between modern, reliable methods that would hold up to serious
    >scrutiny; rather, all drug testing will be considered a joke, and every
    >rider suspect.
    >
    >Dick Pound should be concentrating on the sure thing, rather than an agenda
    >that says anything that might possibly be indicative of drug use needs to be
    >persecuted and eliminated. That would greatly strengthen his ability to deal
    >with the current situation, as he needs to be fighting things he can prove,
    >not demons of the past (which cannot be proven decisively one way or the
    >other, and will only serve to create fear, doubt & uncertainty about what
    >the WADA's doing now).
    >
    >--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    >www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
    >


    What Mike has posted above makes perfect sense. Nothing good or
    definitive can come out of all this. The Lance detractors will claim
    this as proof and the uninformed may believe what they read.

    Many of us will see this as accomplishing nothing good. As Mike said,
    it hurts future testing, it hurts pro cycling, and I believe it hurts
    the French. They come off as sore losers, looking for anyway to
    discredit the Americans. I'm not saying that it is necessarily the
    case, just the perception.

    One thing I have never seen mentioned, although it may well have been.
    I wonder how often, mostly before testing, that coaches, trainers, or
    team physicians were doping their athletes, without the athletes
    knowledge. It wouldn't be hard, for any drug that could be
    administered orally. There is often a lot of money at stake and with
    money, corruption is often close by.

    I will continue to support Lance, until I'm given a real reason not
    to.


    Life is Good!
    Jeff
     
  19. jj

    jj Guest

    On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:56:31 GMT, Jeff Starr <[email protected]> wrote:

    <snip good stuff from Mike>

    >What Mike has posted above makes perfect sense. Nothing good or
    >definitive can come out of all this. The Lance detractors will claim
    >this as proof and the uninformed may believe what they read.
    >
    >Many of us will see this as accomplishing nothing good. As Mike said,
    >it hurts future testing, it hurts pro cycling, and I believe it hurts
    >the French. They come off as sore losers, looking for anyway to
    >discredit the Americans. I'm not saying that it is necessarily the
    >case, just the perception.
    >
    >One thing I have never seen mentioned, although it may well have been.
    >I wonder how often, mostly before testing, that coaches, trainers, or
    >team physicians were doping their athletes, without the athletes
    >knowledge. It wouldn't be hard, for any drug that could be
    >administered orally. There is often a lot of money at stake and with
    >money, corruption is often close by.
    >
    >I will continue to support Lance, until I'm given a real reason not
    >to.
    >
    >
    >Life is Good!
    >Jeff


    I don't know about others, but I still have a lot of respect for any pro
    cyclist. What they must go through. What the non-dopers must go through.

    I'd imagine that even dumbasses who are riding Cat 2 and 3 racers are
    experimenting doing PEDs. I don't know if it starts out as so much wanting
    to -win- races, but just wanting to ride better, deal with the pain better.

    Even as a rider who largely rides alone, I do all I can to ride better,
    including taking pain meds, coffee, vitamins, supplements (even somewhat
    questionable supplements, anything legal is worth an experiment or two),
    and I do research and I work as hard as I can every day. Do I have a goal?
    Not exactly, though I want to ride some hilly centuries.

    Is this unnatural? Am I the only one who tries to do everything they can to
    ride better, including working hard?

    jj
     
  20. Bill Sornson

    Bill Sornson Guest

    Pete wrote:
    > "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>>
    >>> What happened to Carl Lewis? Squat, that's what.
    >>> The cancer conglomerate won't let its poster boy get dirtied.

    >>
    >> Ben Johnson was the raging 'roider -- yet another Canadian
    >> embarrassment.

    >
    > Yes, he certainly was, and for weeks and even months after the
    > disqualification at the 88 Olympics, we were hearing all the same
    > arguments about Ben Johnson we're hearing now about Lance Armstrong.
    > It's like deja vu all over again.
    >
    > "The test must be faulty... The urine sample was switched... Ben was
    > framed by someone... The Americans (you can always substitute any
    > other country in this argument) don't want a Canadian to win the 100
    > meters...
    > ... ad infinitum
    >
    > And this was combined with vehement denials by Johnson himself, by his
    > coach, by everyone, pretty much, until it could no longer be denied.
    > Sound familiar?


    The difference, of course, was that Johnson was on steroids. It was obvious
    from looking at him -- especially his wild-eyed demeanor after winning the
    Olympic 100 -- that something was up. (Also, sprinters generally aren't
    /ripped/ like that.)

    > Then from the other side, we had derogatory comments from Carl Lewis
    > and his bunch, saying that they knew all along Ben Johnson had to be
    > doping. Meanwhile, Carl Lewis was doping even more than Ben Johnson,
    > as we found out later.


    Doping even MORE? Don't think so. (After all, he was still allowed to
    compete IIRC; BJ was /banned/.)

    > It's important to have heroes, but it's even more important that these
    > heroes not be lying cheats.


    Didn't really like either one of them.

    Let's let the facts unfold re. Armstrong before throwing around terms like
    lying cheats. There are LOTS of problems with the allegations so far.

    Sorni
     
Loading...
Loading...