136 replies to this topic 3 votes

[+Blank]

Bun-Bun, on 22 October 2012 - 13:03, said:

Or perhaps he knew they had him dead to rights and a long drawn out battle would not change the outcome but would do further damage to his public image and tank his LiveStrong foundation/endorsements? He certainly is quite the hero for proving he was the best doped to the gills guy of them all, his EPO was just a cut above the rest.

Well if he was so doped, then they could've easily came up with actual proof.
it's all bs.

[Enron]

Charisma, on 22 October 2012 - 12:23, said:

Wow. Don't even know what to say. He was an inspiration to so many and then you find out out's all a lie.

Yeah now I'm questioning whether he actually landed on the moon or not.

[Astra.Xtreme]

My question still stands to whether they actually had any physical proof. For the past 10 years, it's always been a group of washed-up cheaters that have been trying to bring Armstrong down with only "their word" as their proof. In my opinion, that's a bunch of BS.

[theyarecomingforyou]

muggerfugger, on 22 October 2012 - 13:06, said:

Well if he was so doped, then they could've easily came up with actual proof.
it's all bs.

They have financial records, testimony from teammates, anecdotal evidence (skipping practice when drug tests were due), tests that indicated he was on hormones (these failed to be reproduced which is highly unusual, suggesting collusion with anti-doping employees), a test that was positive for EPO (single test, so not admissible for anti-doping but valid in federal court), emails, he gave up contesting the charges, etc. Due to the nature of doping it's very difficult to obtain absolute proof but the evidence is overwhelmingly against him.

Occam's razor dictates that it is more likely he is guilty than the victim of a massive conspiracy. Nobody can speak with absolute certainty but it's naive to believe his word against the testimony of dozens of teammates and other evidence.

[ahhell]

The "But..but...they all were doping!!" guys seem to be quite quiet now.

LOL.

[Chasethebase]

So hang on, what happens to records of the previous Tours then? Since Lance never 'won' them anymore, do the record books say 'No winner' since the winner isn't reassigned, or something else? I'm wondering about this.

[Javik]

I couldn't see a decision like this being made lightly and without recourse so if the evidence against him is as telling as it seemed I believe the right decision has been made. Cheating in sport should be punished with lifetime bans and nothing less in my opinion.

And from what I can gather the options to both re-assign the wins to someone else or declare them as having no winner are open.

[WooHoo!!!]

theyarecomingforyou, on 22 October 2012 - 13:22, said:

They have financial records, testimony from teammates, anecdotal evidence (skipping practice when drug tests were due), tests that indicated he was on hormones (these failed to be reproduced which is highly unusual, suggesting collusion with anti-doping employees), a test that was positive for EPO (single test, so not admissible for anti-doping but valid in federal court), emails, he gave up contesting the charges, etc. Due to the nature of doping it's very difficult to obtain absolute proof but the evidence is overwhelmingly against him.

Occam's razor dictates that it is more likely he is guilty than the victim of a massive conspiracy. Nobody can speak with absolute certainty but it's naive to believe his word against the testimony of dozens of teammates and other evidence.

Also the fact he beat dopers in the races. Someone clean wouldn't be able to do that so convincenly.

I know he was amazing to watch and a great hero but he is a fraud now. The time to defend him is over, people are starting to sound like the wife who defends her partner even though he beats her.

I don't think they should even bother awarding the titles to other riders, you just can't be sure during that time and way before that. Just take the black mark on cycling history and start now, clean and lean.

[HawkMan]

muggerfugger, on 22 October 2012 - 13:06, said:

Well if he was so doped, then they could've easily came up with actual proof.
it's all bs.

Tests weren't good enough back thn, and it's a really hard doping method to detect to start with.

[Charisma]

DrunkenBeard, on 22 October 2012 - 12:39, said:

Charisma, it's not all a lie. He still beat other people who "cheated". In my opinion, and I now this isn't shared by everyone, I think doping should become legal and call it a day. As a viewer that just wants to be entertained (and I stress that), I'd much rather watch people doing extraordinary feats.

Well, I thought about it a bit and you're partially right. He did still beat others who cheated, and it still took a lot of hard work and discipline--I mean, I could take the same drugs and I couldn't just go and win this thing, it takes a lot more. But it's still 1) cheating with an added edge, and 2) against the rules.

But I disagree with your second point. This is about more than just entertainment, it's a competition and people take it seriously, especially when you factor in the prizes they receive and the records that are set. It's not just about what you and I want to see--if you just want to see people doing crazy extraordinary things, there are other programs on TV for that.

[MightyJordan]

theyarecomingforyou, on 22 October 2012 - 12:55, said:

By allowing doping you effectively make it impossible for anyone not doping to compete. If all you care about is entertainment then go watch Honey Boo Boo but I don't want to see international sport turned into a competition to see who can inject the most dangerous substances into their bodies without stroking out. If that's what you consider "entertainment" then that's very sad.

I think a more appropriate option (as Andy Parsons said on Mock the Week) would be to separate the dopers into their own categories. Let them have their own events and records. I'm a firm believer in natural selection; if someone wants to deliberately screw up their bodies, let them. The gene pool needs a little chlorine.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Charisma, on 22 October 2012 - 13:42, said:

Well, I thought about it a bit and you're partially right. He did still beat others who cheated, and it still took a lot of hard work and discipline--I mean, I could take the same drugs and I couldn't just go and win this thing, it takes a lot more. But it's still 1) cheating with an added edge, and 2) against the rules.

There's no doubt that even as a cheater he was a great athlete and an incredibly dedicated individual. You can't simply inject a few substances into your body and win international competitions. However, the rules are absolutely explicit when it comes to cheating being unacceptable, and both morally and legally he was wrong to do so. He committed fraud and that shouldn't be tolerated and certainly shouldn't be idolised.

MightyJordan, on 22 October 2012 - 13:53, said:

I think a more appropriate option (as Andy Parsons said on Mock the Week) would be to separate the dopers into their own categories. Let them have their own events and records. I'm a firm believer in natural selection; if someone wants to deliberately screw up their bodies, let them. The gene pool needs a little chlorine.

Unfortunately that won't stop cheating and it will take away advertising from the true sportsmen.

[+remixedcat]

He was still a damn good person and role model. The people that wanna shame him should be ashamed of themselves for being such pitiful jealous babies that throw a fit when someone is better then them.

[ahhell]

remixedcat, on 22 October 2012 - 14:07, said:

He was still a damn good person and role model. The people that wanna shame him should be ashamed of themselves for being such pitiful jealous babies that throw a fit when someone is better then them.

LOL WAT?

He was a ****ty person and a fraud. How exactly does that make him a good role model?

[+Chicane-UK]

A pretty sad story all round