The drug tests are the only thing you can really 'prove' him guilty with, and he never failed one. This witch hunt seems to be more about "he was so great, obviously he had help". Show in one of his drug tests where he failed, and then you can call him a cheat. Until then, this just comes off as a witch hunt that Lance obviously feels he can never win.

I just don't think they would strip his titles and ban him for life if they didn't have something. He's a great human being, which I think makes some of us wear the blinders, but he probably cheated.

Interesting and not surprising... all 7 of the "new" Tour winners from 1999-2005 also have been involved in doping shit.

http://deadspin.com/5937591/all-seven-of-lance-armstrongs-tour-de-france-wins-would-now-go-to-cyclists-with-doping-scandals-of-their-own

Deadspin wrote: 1999: Alex Zülle (confessed to EPO use)
2000: Jan Ullrich (suspended from 2006 Tour; banned this year and stripped of all results from 2005 on)
2001: Jan Ullrich
2002: Joseba Beloki (kept out of 2006 Tour while under doping investigation, later cleared)
2003: Jan Ullrich
2004: Andreas Klöden (accused of illegal blood transfusion in the 2006 Tour)
2005: Ivan Basso (confessed to attempted doping, suspended)

baseballstud24;1253797 wrote:I just don't think they would strip his titles and ban him for life if they didn't have something. He's a great human being, which I think makes some of us wear the blinders, but he probably cheated.

And he banged an Olsen!

http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/story/us-anti-doping-agency-will-ban-lance-armstrong-for-life-strip-tour-de-france-titles-082312

TedSheckler;1253535 wrote:Paterno did lots of good things too, emirite? Yes, he's just like a person who covered up child rape.

Paterno's negligence allowed children to be raped. Armstrong stuck a needle in his ass and rode his bike faster.

urine idiot

baseballstud24;1253797 wrote:I just don't think they would strip his titles and ban him for life if they didn't have something. He's a great human being, which I think makes some of us wear the blinders, but he probably cheated.

If they have something then announce it.

wildcats20;1253412 wrote:Definitely an admission guilt. And I would like to add that I really don't give a ****. Literally everyone in cycling used.

2kool4skool;1253512 wrote:Who cares? It was always obvious he used something. Everyone in cycling is using, what is the likelihood that someone could be the greatest ever WHILE competing on an uneven playing field? It doesn't change the fact he got off his death bed to win 7 titles.

This is true. I have talked with some real big cyclists who travel worldwide for the tours...there is an allowable limit of "doping" that cyclists CAN do. The problem is, people do too much. So, some doping is legal, just to a certain extent.

This is something that caught me completely off guard. I had no idea. I also do not know what the limit is.

First what Lance may have done is a victimless crime what Paterno covered up was a crime against children.

Lance has spend over 50 million to defend himself at what point does it just become to much. Also I'm sick of the government funding these witch hunts against athletes who sed performance enhancers. Stop spending millions of tax dollars to go after people like Clemons, Bonds, and Armstrong when no one cares except for your resume. The USADA doesn't even have the power to strip his titles but are claiming they do because the uic signed the world anti doping agreement. This is going to lead to another lawsuit using our tax dollars to fight over bullshit while our country has huge amounts of debt.

Just think in MMA with a doctors note you can take enough testosterone to feel 20 again when your 40.

While I find it hard to believe that one man can be clean and dominate for years where nearly every top opponent was cheating, if the testing system is so flawed that it failed 500 times, it is an injustice to find him guilty of anything. Why have a system if you're just going to do whatever you want?

Armstrong's foundation took in 78K today in donations, up from 3k yesterday. Also, all his sponsors have come out in support of Lance. Looks like Lance is the real winner here, once again.

Landis was a rat. He knew he'd go down if they examined the accusations. Probably a smart move on his part.

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8298135/usada-said-friday-officially-banned-lance-armstrong-life-stripping-seven-tour-de-france-titles-charges-used-performance-enhancing-drugs-cycling-career

Sykotyk;1253795 wrote:The drug tests are the only thing you can really 'prove' him guilty with, and he never failed one. This witch hunt seems to be more about "he was so great, obviously he had help". Show in one of his drug tests where he failed, and then you can call him a cheat. Until then, this just comes off as a witch hunt that Lance obviously feels he can never win.

Just like Barry Bonds never failed a test...Anyone think he is clean? Of course Armstrong cheated..just like everyone else in the sport. Thnik he was the only clean cyclist in the sport for a decade, when every other TDF winner before and after him have been proved cheaters? And he dominated all the other dopers while he was the only clean one? Really? His team just had the technology to keep him clean during the testing. (same as Bonds) The writing was on the wall, and rather have it be "proved" he was a cheat, he "quit" , with the statement "tired of dealing with this..blah blah".
Doper or not, agreed his Livestrong org. has brought in millions and has done tons in the fight for cancer. But that doesnt prove his doping innocence. He's been a fraud for years.

ricola;1254480 wrote:Just like Barry Bonds never failed a test...Anyone think he is clean? Of course Armstrong cheated..just like everyone else in the sport. Thnik he was the only clean cyclist in the sport for a decade, when every other TDF winner before and after him have been proved cheaters? And he dominated all the other dopers while he was the only clean one? Really? His team just had the technology to keep him clean during the testing. (same as Bonds) The writing was on the wall, and rather have it be "proved" he was a cheat, he "quit" , with the statement "tired of dealing with this..blah blah".
.

Let me get this straight, Barry Bonds, an athlete in a sport that actively ignored PED's didn't get caught, therefore, Lance Armstrong probably did the same thing? Considering the differences in their respective sports' approach to PED testing, that is quite the logical leap.

Also, since his fellow competitors, who were far less scrutinized and investigated, got caught years ago, Lance Armstrong had to do it too? Somehow Lance,, for over a decade has avoided any physical proof, while his competitors (including ex-teammates who should have be privy to his "methods") got caught on a yearly basis.

ricola;1254480 wrote:Doper or not, agreed his Livestrong org. has brought in millions and has done tons in the fight for cancer. But that doesnt prove his doping innocence. He's been a fraud for years.

But what proves he's guilty? He may or may not have taken PEDs, but there is no physical evidence.

elbuckeye28;1254540 wrote:Let me get this straight, Barry Bonds, an athlete in a sport that actively ignored PED's didn't get caught, therefore, Lance Armstrong probably did the same thing? Considering the differences in their respective sports' approach to PED testing, that is quite the logical leap.

Also, since his fellow competitors, who were far less scrutinized and investigated, got caught years ago, Lance Armstrong had to do it too? Somehow Lance,, for over a decade has avoided any physical proof, while his competitors (including ex-teammates who should have be privy to his "methods") got caught on a yearly basis.



But what proves he's guilty? He may or may not have taken PEDs, but there is no physical evidence.

Read the link I posted. They are claiming the evidence they had was damaging.

I believe he knew this and instead of deny and fight, he just felt it was better off to say "fuck it."

Automatik;1254548 wrote:Read the link I posted. They are claiming the evidence they had was damaging.

I believe he knew this and instead of deny and fight, he just felt it was better off to say "fuck it."

He's been fighting this for years and spent $50 million of his own money to prove his innocence. $50 million isn't exactly pocket change. I'd say fuck it too.

elbuckeye28;1254540 wrote:Let me get this straight, Barry Bonds, an athlete in a sport that actively ignored PED's didn't get caught, therefore, Lance Armstrong probably did the same thing? Considering the differences in their respective sports' approach to PED testing, that is quite the logical leap.

Also, since his fellow competitors, who were far less scrutinized and investigated, got caught years ago, Lance Armstrong had to do it too? Somehow Lance,, for over a decade has avoided any physical proof, while his competitors (including ex-teammates who should have be privy to his "methods") got caught on a yearly basis.



But what proves he's guilty? He may or may not have taken PEDs, but there is no physical evidence.

So far we don't have "proof"--just a smoking gun. making the same point with BB--no "proof"--just a smoking gun. If you--or anyone-- choses not to think BB took steroids--fine. making the comparison--the fact there's no "proof" doesn't mean he's not guilty, just that he's not been caught. Multiple ex-teammates have been caught.. AND have indicted him. Some of those indictments were what was to come out in the upcoming "fight"--- that he withdrew from. I happen to think the technology has finally caught up to his previous negative tests, and that was going to come out in the near future, so he finally decided to say he was "done figthing". Again, conjecture only--just looking at the smoking gun
So--you're right--SO FAR it has not been PROVEN that he doped. (just like it's never been proven BB doped; I haven't met ONE person who thinks BB was clean). people can make their own decisions. My decision is he's as guilty as every other biker, and is a fraud--mainly because he has protested his innocence for all this time. Just like i think BB and Clemens are frauds. I still think he was the best cyclist throughout that time period---that he was doping like all the other guys were doping, and still beat them. On a level playing field where NONE had doped, he may well have the same results---of that we'll never know.

Automatik;1254548 wrote:Read the link I posted. They are claiming the evidence they had was damaging.

I believe he knew this and instead of deny and fight, he just felt it was better off to say "**** it."

Well what were they going to say, that they didn't have anything?

ricola;1254571 wrote:So far we don't have "proof"--just a smoking gun. making the same point with BB--no "proof"--just a smoking gun. If you--or anyone-- choses not to think BB took steroids--fine. making the comparison--the fact there's no "proof" doesn't mean he's not guilty, just that he's not been caught. Multiple ex-teammates have been caught.. AND have indicted him. Some of those indictments were what was to come out in the upcoming "fight"--- that he withdrew from. I happen to think the technology has finally caught up to his previous negative tests, and that was going to come out in the near future, so he finally decided to say he was "done figthing". Again, conjecture only--just looking at the smoking gun
So--you're right--SO FAR it has not been PROVEN that he doped. (just like it's never been proven BB doped; I haven't met ONE person who thinks BB was clean). people can make their own decisions. My decision is he's as guilty as every other biker, and is a fraud--mainly because he has protested his innocence for all this time. Just like i think BB and Clemens are frauds. I still think he was the best cyclist throughout that time period---that he was doping like all the other guys were doping, and still beat them. On a level playing field where NONE had doped, he may well have the same results---of that we'll never know.

The problem with your comparison with baseball players is that baseball wasn't looking for PEDs while cycling was though. Whereas Lance got tested hundreds of times during his peak, baseball players were not put that that sort of testing. Lack of evidence in Lance's case is hardly analogous to Bonds, Clemens, or anybody else.

fine. like i said--everyone can make their own decision here. you and I have obviously come to different conclusions.

Would like to hear what these orgs have, but I am 1000% sure that Armstrong is not innocent.

The only evidence they have against Armstrong is 10 former teammates saying they saw him doping and I think it was like something like 8 out of the 10 were dopers themselves. They have no actual physical evidence besides their testimony. it's basically the same case they had would Landis came forward before just with more people saying the same thing. I'm 99 percent sure he cheated but what they found doesn't prove anything. The funny thing is the USADA literally has no power to strip his titles but are doing so.

^^ without things going further, we'll probably never know exactly "what they have". I'd be surprised if "all" they had was the testimony of numerous ex-teammates.Guessing there would be more, which is one reason he isn't pursuing things. "he said/they said" is pretty easy to refute. Other positives not so much. I'd agree it seems the USADA probably doesn't have the power to strip him of the titles--at least not the TDF titles.

sportchampps;1254636 wrote:The only evidence they have against Armstrong is 10 former teammates saying they saw him doping and I think it was like something like 8 out of the 10 were dopers themselves. They have no actual physical evidence besides their testimony. it's basically the same case they had would Landis came forward before just with more people saying the same thing. I'm 99 percent sure he cheated but what they found doesn't prove anything. The funny thing is the USADA literally has no power to strip his titles but are doing so.

And this is my main issue. It's one thing that people believe that he cheated, because that is at least reasonable, it is another thing altogether that the USADA may be basing their case on such little information.