Dermo said:
Well thanks for making that clear - we have no need to discuss anything
more, do we ?
What would it take to convince you Armstrong is clean?
- Thread starter Beastt
- Start date
Well thanks for making that clear - we have no need to discuss anything
more, do we ?
I think you are right in looking at the"primary data" but keep in mind by 96 Armstrong WAS becoming more than competitive in all but the grand tours (classics, shorter stage races etc.). Also from 92-96 you are talking about someone who was 20-24 years old.limerickman said:
I would very much like to believe that Lance is not doping - and will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt until such time as any real evidence is provided to the contrary. What would remove a lot more doubt from my mind would be if his actions were more conclusively in support of ridding the peleton of this plague.Beastt said:
I only became a fan of Lance's after the 2003 Tour where he finally had to battle for a win. Some events since then have tested my support of him.
Why battle **** Pound earlier in the year when it is patently obvious that drug use continues to be a problem within the peleton. There were at least 8 deaths in a short space of time and some riders have admitted to using banned substances. Lance should be working with WADA to spread the word that doping is dangerous and threatens the existence of the sport on which his successes are based.
Personally chasing down Filippo Simeoni then returning to the peleton smirking like a schoolboy and making "zipping the mouth" signs was an action that horrified me. Did I misunderstand his gestures? It looked to me like it was an indication that noone can break "The Code of Silence" and get away with it.
I would personally be a lot more convinced that Lance is clean when he chooses to take a positive stand against the use of illegal substances in the peleton and his actions reflect that stand. Lance should support the efforts of WADA and assist in ridding the sport of cheats. Stay out of the Simeoni situation until the investigation of Michele Ferrari is completed. I really hope Lance is clean - the resultant scandal if he is not will be a huge blow to cycling.
Dermo said:
Well, I disagree with a lot of what Limerickman posts, but I always enjoy reading what he writes. I think there are quite a few of us that like to poke holes in his *cough* flimsy *cough* arguments. In a way, it probably educates us a little bit, we do a little research on some cycling history, and come back loaded for bear. You brought up a good a point Dermo about Indurain being 3 hours down. See, once again he had to shift the goalposts a little further back.
Dunno, I think it would be kind of boring without ol' Limerick around, he's good company.
Jakebrake said:Well, I disagree with a lot of what Limerickman posts, but I always enjoy reading what he writes. I think there are quite a few of us that like to poke holes in his *cough* flimsy *cough* arguments. In a way, it probably educates us a little bit, we do a little research on some cycling history, and come back loaded for bear. You brought up a good a point Dermo about Indurain being 3 hours down. See, once again he had to shift the goalposts a little further back.
Dunno, I think it would be kind of boring without ol' Limerick around, he's good company.
Jake,
You see Dermot - sorry DERMO ! - is a Lance Armstrong fan and he gets upset
when he reads someone giving another point of view.
If Dermot - sorry DERMO ! - had taken the time to read what I posted, he will know that I am taking statistical analysis and I am putting an opinion forward.
As I have said, none of us are with these guys 24/7 : so at the end of the day, we're only all offering opinions.
Dermot - sorry DERMOT - won't take me up on my invitation to meet me in Dublin this weekend when I am home for a cycle.
Which is a pity - cause we could discuss this and he might just see where I am coming from.
But Jake, we're all fans here and we're only putting our 2 cents worth.
mattv2099 said:Although I believe that Lance is most likely clean. It would take an autopsy to prove to me that he's clean
and I thought that I was cynical !
(two birds, one stone ??????????)
mattv2099 said:Although I believe that Lance is most likely clean. It would take an autopsy to prove to me that he's clean
If a drug test comes up clean, an autopsy likely would as well.
As for some of you, what's up with all the cussing now? Is someone making up usernames and having conversations with himself? I kind of wonder about that sometimes. It's one of those imponderables, I guess.
gntlmn said:If a drug test comes up clean, an autopsy likely would as well.
As for some of you, what's up with all the cussing now? Is someone making up usernames and having conversations with himself? I kind of wonder about that sometimes. It's one of those imponderables, I guess.
In Pantani's autopsy report they mentioned that his bone marrow had no trace of performence enhancing drugs... So I was thinking that maybe the bone marrow test was better than a blood or pee test...
You Yanks are really dumb. the European peloton is full of dope and there is too much money involved to clean it up. can Armstrong be the one clean rider? of course not! how can he always beat riders on EPO? it's impossible. if EPO lets a talented cyclist ride even faster, how can Armstrong beat that rider year after year? you all need to get your heads out of the sand and realize your champion is a doper. unfortunately, he has too much money and fans behind him to ever get caught.
p.s.this whole debate reminds me of your tobacco companies saying that there is no proof smoking causes cancer.
p.s.this whole debate reminds me of your tobacco companies saying that there is no proof smoking causes cancer.
1) It is not a fair comparison to look at a riders GC result in a previous TdF. It is common for riders to drop down in GC so that they can attack for stages and be let go by the peleton. I think Rasmussen did this year in some early stage race.
2) rider X may save himself for a particular stage, thus ride a poor GC.
3) rider X may be riding for someone else, thus a poor GC.
4) Previous GC is not the same as a marathon runner doing a 3 1/2 hr marathon, then rocking up with a 2hr 10min marathon. You can improve GC if that is what you are going for the the exclusion of stage wins.
5) That said you would assume the greatest tour rider ever would be able to do a good GC on talent alone, irrespective of age/experience (see Jan Ullrich).
6) Was Postal riding for Lance when he first won the Tour?, If so what made them think he could win?
7) If the victories have been drug induced, surely you would have a bad day when the gear did not kick in properly? Ie loose 20 minutes one day.
8) You would need to update your drugs as old ones would become detectable, if using them for a long period (I would hope?)
9) The greatest tour rider ever, if overweight why did he not do a Boonan and win a couple of sprint stages in his first Tour?
10) Jalabert proved himself first as a sprinter, then as a TTer and KOM before trying GC. Is it not fair to expect Armstrong to show similiar talents before dominating GC?
11) If it only comes down to hard work, why is every other director not fired. If I ran a business staffed by employees sleeping on the job I would fire them.
12) O'Grady,McGee were 4000m pursuit track champs, then TdF stage winners. You can be a cycling champ in short events and long events as well. 400m athletics compared to marathon is dependant on body type/muscle type.
13) I would assume other Tour winners have won short prologues and long road stages.
Just some random thoughts. I want to believe Armstrong is clean but who knows?
2) rider X may save himself for a particular stage, thus ride a poor GC.
3) rider X may be riding for someone else, thus a poor GC.
4) Previous GC is not the same as a marathon runner doing a 3 1/2 hr marathon, then rocking up with a 2hr 10min marathon. You can improve GC if that is what you are going for the the exclusion of stage wins.
5) That said you would assume the greatest tour rider ever would be able to do a good GC on talent alone, irrespective of age/experience (see Jan Ullrich).
6) Was Postal riding for Lance when he first won the Tour?, If so what made them think he could win?
7) If the victories have been drug induced, surely you would have a bad day when the gear did not kick in properly? Ie loose 20 minutes one day.
8) You would need to update your drugs as old ones would become detectable, if using them for a long period (I would hope?)
9) The greatest tour rider ever, if overweight why did he not do a Boonan and win a couple of sprint stages in his first Tour?
10) Jalabert proved himself first as a sprinter, then as a TTer and KOM before trying GC. Is it not fair to expect Armstrong to show similiar talents before dominating GC?
11) If it only comes down to hard work, why is every other director not fired. If I ran a business staffed by employees sleeping on the job I would fire them.
12) O'Grady,McGee were 4000m pursuit track champs, then TdF stage winners. You can be a cycling champ in short events and long events as well. 400m athletics compared to marathon is dependant on body type/muscle type.
13) I would assume other Tour winners have won short prologues and long road stages.
Just some random thoughts. I want to believe Armstrong is clean but who knows?
Big nose froggy frog,paris_boy said:
Thanks for informing us of our stupidity. There are plenty of us Yanks that believe the majority of top level cyclists are doping.
The rate of tobacco use in France and most every other industrialized nation is higher than the USA. Yet the USA is the largest exporter of tobacco products in the world. Please remind me; who are the dumb people?
To those who believe Armstrong dopes, do you think he hasn't tested positive yet or do you think he has tested positive and the UCI and/or the Tour organizers have suppressed the positive test(s)? Who else in the GC - specifically - do you believe takes drugs? Who doesn't?babylou said:
For the record, for a variety of reasons - many of which I've previously expressed - I don't believe he uses performance enhancing drugs.
paris_boy said:
Your proof please?
If you can't offer proof then all you have are words and they're no better than those provided by anyone else.
The proof against cigarettes was there, but of course the tobacco companies didn't want to just sit quietly and watch sales drop. Eventually the proof won out. The same thing is now going on with a number of other industries producing consumables which, I'm willing to bet, are on your shopping list so perhaps a little less arrogance would be appropriate on your part.
You Yanks are so innocent. actually it's very cute. difficult to believe such people still exist! do you also believe your Olympic athletes are clean too? or that Bush is the one making decisions?
Anyway, congratulations to your Armstrong for winning. He is a better doper than the others. I just hope he is not sharing needles, that is too dangerous.
Anyway, congratulations to your Armstrong for winning. He is a better doper than the others. I just hope he is not sharing needles, that is too dangerous.
Similar threads
