Lance Armstrong in the clear...

[mcelliott]

Two years of investigation and apparently no charges to be brought.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-in...

[Rouleur]

The US Anti-Doping Agency hasn't dropped it yet...

http://www.usada.org/files/active/resources/press_...

[Reardy Mister]

Its a witch-hnt now, not due process for protecting the sport.

If someone passes the drug test, you dont just keep testing or changing the test until you catch them. thye either pass the test or they dont. If youre unhappy with the testing process' capacity to uncover cheating, design a better test for next year.

Its like measuring 2003 F1 cars using today's regulation book and then stripping them of their 2003 results.

Stupid. He won. He passed all the testing appicable at the time. That should be end of.

[Rich_W]

Reardy Mister said:

Its a witch-hnt now, not due process for protecting the sport.

If someone passes the drug test, you dont just keep testing or changing the test until you catch them. thye either pass the test or they dont. If youre unhappy with the testing process' capacity to uncover cheating, design a better test for next year.

Its like measuring 2003 F1 cars using today's regulation book and then stripping them of their 2003 results.

Stupid. He won. He passed all the testing appicable at the time. That should be end of.

Not a good comparisson. The rules change every year in F1 (as you know)

The rules for athletic sport has always been "don't use performance enhancing chemicals" So if (as is almost certainly the case) Armstrong DID use Blood doping to get greater performance (lets be real, he outride other riders who were subsequently found to have cheated and all this after survivng seriosu cancer! FFS ) then he's stripped the clean riders of not only the glory of winning. But also the MILLIONS of dollars he got over the years.

I'd much rather they did a full investigation and found him innocent than just dropping it.


On a related note, why the fk is the CAS taking so long on Bertie and his "oh I must have eaten the only tainted beef in all of France. I'm so unlucky" st

[Rouleur]

Rich_W said:

On a related note, why the fk is the CAS taking so long on Bertie and his "oh I must have eaten the only tainted beef in all of France. I'm so unlucky" st

So that when they clear him, and they will clear him, people will be glad that it's all over and the whole episode will be swept under the carpet. If he'd been cleared when the alleged doping came to light there would have been much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but now people will just be glad it's all over and the file closed.

[Rocksteadyeddie]

Rouleur said:

Rich_W said:

On a related note, why the fk is the CAS taking so long on Bertie and his "oh I must have eaten the only tainted beef in all of France. I'm so unlucky" st

So that when they clear him, and they will clear him, people will be glad that it's all over and the whole episode will be swept under the carpet. If he'd been cleared when the alleged doping came to light there would have been much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but now people will just be glad it's all over and the file closed.

^^ this ^^

[anonymous-user]

Reardy Mister said:

Its a witch-hnt now, not due process for protecting the sport.

If someone passes the drug test, you dont just keep testing or changing the test until you catch them. thye either pass the test or they dont. If youre unhappy with the testing process' capacity to uncover cheating, design a better test for next year.

Its like measuring 2003 F1 cars using today's regulation book and then stripping them of their 2003 results.

Stupid. He won. He passed all the testing appicable at the time. That should be end of.

It's not a witch hunt. Armstrong is just in the clear of defrauding his sponsor when he rode with and part owned US postal. Riders will always be able to cheat and beat the tests.

What are the facts? Armstrong has ex team mates who were doping, he has friends testifying that they saw him doping, he was friends with the infamous doping boffin Dr Ferrari. Do people seriously believe he was clean?

Edited by el stovey on Sunday 5th February 11:19

[Rouleur]

Don't forget that he won at least some, if not all, of his Tours against EPO users. If a significant proportion of the peloton were doped up to the eyeballs then how did LA manage to beat them every year?

Oh, and the ascent times for Alpe d'Huez tell an interesting story - in 2001 LA climbed it in 38' 01" compared with Contador in 41' 30" last year, which is the fastest time of recent years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez#Ascent_ti...

[anonymous-user]

el stovey said:

It's not a witch hunt. Armstrong is just in the clear of defrauding his sponsor when he rode with and part owned US postal. Riders will always be able to cheat and beat the tests.

What are the facts? Armstrong has ex team mates who were doping, he has friends testifying that they saw him doping, he was friends with the infamous doping boffin Dr Ferrari. Do people seriously believe he was clean?

Edited by el stovey on Sunday 5th February 11:19

yes, i do. i dont hero worship the guy, i'm not blind to the claims, i just dont think that he would have been that stupid. he was talented before he was diagnosed with cancer, people forget this but he was WORLD CHAMPION when he was 21, 2nd in Leige-Bastone-Leige etc.... there is no reason for him to have doped. when you are told you have a 5% chance of survivng an illness, i'm pretty sure it puts a lot into perspective. could it not be that putting his body through chemotherapy may well have done somthing quite odd to his hemotocrit, red blood cells, recover capability, vo2, whatever....some who claim to have seen him doping are hardly credible witnesses, themselves having been caught cheating and thus have nothing to lose, they are bitter individuals and rather than "do a Miller" they went the other way...

ah well, haters gonna hate....

[Reardy Mister]

Its still not the point though is it?

THere was a test in place to catch to cheats. Those tests DID NOT identify him as one. End of.

If we were to take some folks argument and say "Everyone was cheatig so he must have as well." That still makes him the best. The best of all the cheaters but the best nevertheless. So whats the real difference?

[Gizmo!]

Reardy Mister said:

Its still not the point though is it?

THere was a test in place to catch to cheats. Those tests DID NOT identify him as one. End of.

If we were to take some folks argument and say "Everyone was cheatig so he must have as well." That still makes him the best. The best of all the cheaters but the best nevertheless. So whats the real difference?

Agreed 100%.

[anonymous-user]

Reardy Mister said:

Its still not the point though is it?

THere was a test in place to catch to cheats. Those tests DID NOT identify him as one. End of.

If we were to take some folks argument and say "Everyone was cheatig so he must have as well." That still makes him the best. The best of all the cheaters but the best nevertheless. So whats the real difference?

I think we should expect a bit more than just saying it doesn't matter. It does matter. Armstrong denied cheating he's tried to rubbish ex team mates and their reputations and threatened every journo and blogger that has suggested he's a cheat with his influence in the UCI and huge legal team. It matters to me if he won through cheating regardless of who else did what.

[Reardy Mister]

el stovey said:

Reardy Mister said:

Its still not the point though is it?

THere was a test in place to catch to cheats. Those tests DID NOT identify him as one. End of.

If we were to take some folks argument and say "Everyone was cheatig so he must have as well." That still makes him the best. The best of all the cheaters but the best nevertheless. So whats the real difference?

I think we should expect a bit more than just saying it doesn't matter. It does matter. Armstrong denied cheating he's tried to rubbish ex team mates and their reputations and threatened every journo and blogger that has suggested he's a cheat with his influence in the UCI and huge legal team. It matters to me if he won through cheating regardless of who else did what.

Have you considered the possiblity that he just didnt cheat? There are stand-out athletes in most disciplines. Why not LA in cycling?

[anonymous-user]

Reardy Mister said:

el stovey said:

Reardy Mister said:

Its still not the point though is it?

THere was a test in place to catch to cheats. Those tests DID NOT identify him as one. End of.

If we were to take some folks argument and say "Everyone was cheatig so he must have as well." That still makes him the best. The best of all the cheaters but the best nevertheless. So whats the real difference?

I think we should expect a bit more than just saying it doesn't matter. It does matter. Armstrong denied cheating he's tried to rubbish ex team mates and their reputations and threatened every journo and blogger that has suggested he's a cheat with his influence in the UCI and huge legal team. It matters to me if he won through cheating regardless of who else did what.

Have you considered the possiblity that he just didnt cheat? There are stand-out athletes in most disciplines. Why not LA in cycling?

I think there's enough smoke and testimonies from friends and ex team mates , his association with Ferrari etc to prove he doped. I don't know any other 'clean' athlete with this kind of background. I'd love to think he was there beating all the dopers clean but I don't believe it.

The USDA don't believe it and neither do ex team mates and ex friends of his. It's easy for Armstrong fans to discredit Floyd Landis but people like Hincapie and Hamilton have everything to lose and nothing to gain by talking out against Armstrong. When they appeared that was the end for most people still believing in Lance as a clean athlete.

What's more likely? Lance beat all these guys clean and his ex team mates and ex friends are all lying or . . . that he was doping?

I think he's an amazing sportsman and has put cycling on the board in many countries, his cancer work is hugely important for many cancer sufferers.

[anonymous-user]

Reardy Mister said:

el stovey said:

Reardy Mister said:

Its still not the point though is it?

THere was a test in place to catch to cheats. Those tests DID NOT identify him as one. End of.

If we were to take some folks argument and say "Everyone was cheatig so he must have as well." That still makes him the best. The best of all the cheaters but the best nevertheless. So whats the real difference?

I think we should expect a bit more than just saying it doesn't matter. It does matter. Armstrong denied cheating he's tried to rubbish ex team mates and their reputations and threatened every journo and blogger that has suggested he's a cheat with his influence in the UCI and huge legal team. It matters to me if he won through cheating regardless of who else did what.

Have you considered the possiblity that he just didnt cheat? There are stand-out athletes in most disciplines. Why not LA in cycling?

people have tried arguing this before but the general consensus here, though i'm not a subscriber myself, is thus; "Everyone else was doping, lance won stuff, lance must have been doping, everyone in sport cheats, some just dont get caught..."

In many circumstnaces, its little more than his reputation as a brash texan and not some flouncy european with a surname to match pisses people off.

[Rocksteadyeddie]

pablo said:

Reardy Mister said:

el stovey said:

Reardy Mister said:

Its still not the point though is it?

THere was a test in place to catch to cheats. Those tests DID NOT identify him as one. End of.

If we were to take some folks argument and say "Everyone was cheatig so he must have as well." That still makes him the best. The best of all the cheaters but the best nevertheless. So whats the real difference?

I think we should expect a bit more than just saying it doesn't matter. It does matter. Armstrong denied cheating he's tried to rubbish ex team mates and their reputations and threatened every journo and blogger that has suggested he's a cheat with his influence in the UCI and huge legal team. It matters to me if he won through cheating regardless of who else did what.

Have you considered the possiblity that he just didnt cheat? There are stand-out athletes in most disciplines. Why not LA in cycling?

people have tried arguing this before but the general consensus here, though i'm not a subscriber myself, is thus; "Everyone else was doping, lance won stuff, lance must have been doping, everyone in sport cheats, some just dont get caught..."

In many circumstnaces, its little more than his reputation as a brash texan and not some flouncy european with a surname to match pisses people off.

The contra argument can be boiled down to "The drugs don't work"...

[BMWBen]

Reardy Mister said:

el stovey said:

Reardy Mister said:

Its still not the point though is it?

THere was a test in place to catch to cheats. Those tests DID NOT identify him as one. End of.

If we were to take some folks argument and say "Everyone was cheatig so he must have as well." That still makes him the best. The best of all the cheaters but the best nevertheless. So whats the real difference?

I think we should expect a bit more than just saying it doesn't matter. It does matter. Armstrong denied cheating he's tried to rubbish ex team mates and their reputations and threatened every journo and blogger that has suggested he's a cheat with his influence in the UCI and huge legal team. It matters to me if he won through cheating regardless of who else did what.

Have you considered the possiblity that he just didnt cheat? There are stand-out athletes in most disciplines. Why not LA in cycling?

Quite. Also, having read his book I find it hard to believe that he'd do that. Unless he's the most fantastic liar...

It's a really sad problem for the sport of cycling this. One of the greatest riders of all time (perhaps) will have this hanging over his legacy for ever.

WRT outstanding athletes:
Usain bolt - jogged the last 10m in bejing and still set a new WR. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u18_-87Pb6U
Ben Ainslie - Unbeatable at the top level. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-4599n2jT8
Chris Hoy - Need I say more than this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD5UK-qt9HY

On a backdrop of these kinds of people (those are 3 off the top of my head, there are many many more), you can't doubt that what lance did was possible in principle. I think the argument that he must have been doping because of his performance doesn't stand up. Other evidence is needed.

[anonymous-user]

BMWBen said:

WRT outstanding athletes:
Usain bolt - jogged the last 10m in bejing and still set a new WR. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u18_-87Pb6U
Ben Ainslie - Unbeatable at the top level. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-4599n2jT8
Chris Hoy - Need I say more than this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD5UK-qt9HY

On a backdrop of these kinds of people (those are 3 off the top of my head, there are many many more), you can't doubt that what lance did was possible in principle. I think the argument that he must have been doping because of his performance doesn't stand up. Other evidence is needed.

But nobody is saying these guys doped. Why not, they're outstanding athletes? The default position isn't to suggest top athletes are cheats, people want to believe them.

No ex team mates and friends are saying they saw them doping. These athletes aren't associates of Doctors famed for being involved with doping. Hoy has taken an anti doping stance, Lance has never spoken out against doping.

People think LA was cheating because friends and ex team mates say they saw him doping. Which other athlete has had friends and ex team mates apparently lying about them? It's just not credible that all these people are liars and Lance is the only one telling the truth.

Edited by el stovey on Monday 6th February 13:37

[IroningMan]

Regrave is a better comparison, but the point is that neither Armstrong nor anyone else in a similar position can 'clear his name', because of the impossibility of proving a negative.

[The Stiglet]

Rocksteadyeddie said:

pablo said:

Reardy Mister said:

el stovey said:

Reardy Mister said:

Its still not the point though is it?

THere was a test in place to catch to cheats. Those tests DID NOT identify him as one. End of.

If we were to take some folks argument and say "Everyone was cheatig so he must have as well." That still makes him the best. The best of all the cheaters but the best nevertheless. So whats the real difference?

I think we should expect a bit more than just saying it doesn't matter. It does matter. Armstrong denied cheating he's tried to rubbish ex team mates and their reputations and threatened every journo and blogger that has suggested he's a cheat with his influence in the UCI and huge legal team. It matters to me if he won through cheating regardless of who else did what.

Have you considered the possiblity that he just didnt cheat? There are stand-out athletes in most disciplines. Why not LA in cycling?

people have tried arguing this before but the general consensus here, though i'm not a subscriber myself, is thus; "Everyone else was doping, lance won stuff, lance must have been doping, everyone in sport cheats, some just dont get caught..."

In many circumstnaces, its little more than his reputation as a brash texan and not some flouncy european with a surname to match pisses people off.

The contra argument can be boiled down to "The drugs don't work"...

According to Ferrari, 90% of them don't work.

Don't forget Lance was the youngest person ever to win a Stage before he got cancer. World Champion, very successful triathlete - who says he isn't genetically superior? We know he produces less lactic acid, for example.