Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Poll: Thoughts on Lannce Armstrong?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Poll: Thoughts on Lannce Armstrong?
Automatik's avatar

Automatik

Senior Member

14,632 posts
Aug 26, 2012 1:08 PM
Trueblue23;1255006 wrote:Everyone is saying there is no proof..

I can pretty much assume had Armstrong not backed down, we would have gotten a lot of proof. He bailed to save face.
Bingo.

But buttttt he was sick of fighting it. :laugh: Riiight.
Aug 26, 2012 1:08pm
C

Cher

Senior Member

276 posts
Aug 26, 2012 1:37 PM
Trueblue23;1255006 wrote:I can pretty much assume had Armstrong not backed down, we would have gotten a lot of proof. He bailed to save face.
They had over 10 years to dig up proof and they never found any.
Aug 26, 2012 1:37pm
Automatik's avatar

Automatik

Senior Member

14,632 posts
Aug 26, 2012 2:04 PM
ccrunner609;1255041 wrote:He is the most tested athlete on the planet and the most high profile for many years. If he was dirty, it would of came out. He has alot of enemies that would of done anything to see him get busted.

I doubt you can keep that covered up. Too much money involved to keep everyone quite.

If he was dirty and they (international cycling) had proof.....they kept it hush hush while he was making EVERYONE involved very rich. Now that he is retired and isnt making everyone rich they want him. Too bad they cant have him cause if anyone covered it up because he was the only name in the sport then they are just as guilty.
So you think he's clean? Never doped?
Aug 26, 2012 2:04pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Aug 26, 2012 2:05 PM
Cher;1255025 wrote:They had over 10 years to dig up proof and they never found any.
Only if your burden of proof is seeing the needle sticking out of his arm.

Sports, and cycling in particular, has an unwritten rule not to rat. But it's a different story when you get called before a grand jury and perjury charges are on the table. They have no less than 12 people, many of them former teammates, on record saying he's dirty. Armstrong also has a long history with a Dr. Ferraro (the Steve Jobs of doping), which he always claimed was perfectly legit and above board.

As it stands now, the guy doesn't have ANY titles or records. All, or nearly all, of his "accomplishments" in cycling have been wiped from the record books. He appealed, and lost. Now he's saying he's tired. A killer pit bull doesn't suddenly mellow and throw in the towel. Not to mention, he still competes in elite competitions such as triathlons, and he's been banned from doing that, as well. A competitor like Armstrong would never accept that unless he had no other choice.

Also, keep in mind the witch hunt was always France and Europe. This was the US going after its poster boy hero.
Aug 26, 2012 2:05pm
said_aouita's avatar

said_aouita

Banned

8,532 posts
Aug 26, 2012 2:13 PM
Automatik;1254988 wrote:Except for the fact that he's a fraud.
Whatever. He was not fraudulent to his sponsors, if they were behind the performance enhancers.
The swoosh logo has a good record of not getting caught for performance enhancers (stuff like epo) for endurance athletes.
Look at the distance events these past Olympics, for example.

That's another subject. Either way, I don't give a sh*t. The sport is dirty. I'd rather have an American winning and pissing off those stinky French bastards.
eff em.

Lance was a friggin stud in the mountains.

[video=youtube;6q38Gyjv4EE][/video]
Aug 26, 2012 2:13pm
SnotBubbles's avatar

SnotBubbles

Master of teh QQ

4,492 posts
Aug 26, 2012 2:35 PM
I need the choice, "one of the greatest ever, but potentially a cheater (had he used or not)." Armstrong was great and would have been great whether he cheated or not. Sort of like Bonds, Clemens and McGwire. They're all idiots for doping (if they did), they were all great prior to doing so.
Aug 26, 2012 2:35pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Aug 26, 2012 2:54 PM
I can go along with the "level playing field argument". I don't think it detracts from what he did on a bike.

For me the fraud part, the disgusting part, comes in projecting an image - in an aggressive manner never seen - of something he wasn't. The guy actually used his cancer to try to convince people he was clean. The guy "cheated" death, and then goes and takes stuff that had caused numerous deaths in cycling. If you were to believe Lemond, Armstrong even asked his doctor early in his treatment if the drugs may have caused his cancer. It's like an alcoholic with nearly fatal cirrhosis breaking in his new liver with a bottle of Wild Turkey. How do you imagine that all would make other survivors, or people who have lost loved ones to cancer, feel?
Aug 26, 2012 2:54pm
G

Gardens35

Senior Member

4,929 posts
Aug 26, 2012 3:46 PM
probably started with marijuana
Aug 26, 2012 3:46pm
M

mella

Senior Member

647 posts
Aug 26, 2012 3:49 PM
Proof for me will be a failed drug test. He has been tested and retested and has not failed a test in reference to the TDF. Even if someone is willing to say thay saw LA injecting "something", I want proof to what the "something" was. Too long ago and too many tests have been past. Vacating wins in any sport does not mean the victories did not happen.
Aug 26, 2012 3:49pm
Automatik's avatar

Automatik

Senior Member

14,632 posts
Aug 26, 2012 3:56 PM
mella;1255121 wrote:Proof for me will be a failed drug test. He has been tested and retested and has not failed a test in reference to the TDF. Even if someone is willing to say thay saw LA injecting "something", I want proof to what the "something" was. Too long ago and too many tests have been past. Vacating wins in any sport does not mean the victories did not happen.
Do you have similar thoughts regarding Barry Bonds?
Aug 26, 2012 3:56pm
said_aouita's avatar

said_aouita

Banned

8,532 posts
Aug 26, 2012 8:41 PM
Automatik;1255123 wrote:Do you have similar thoughts regarding Barry Bonds?
Great post but makes me wonder who was tested more throughout their professional career-

Lance Armstrong or Barry Bonds?
Aug 26, 2012 8:41pm
Rotinaj's avatar

Rotinaj

Senior Member

7,699 posts
Aug 26, 2012 9:10 PM
said_aouita;1255302 wrote:Great post but makes me wonder who was tested more throughout their professional career-

Lance Armstrong or Barry Bonds?
Armstrong. Probably about 100000000x more.
Aug 26, 2012 9:10pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Aug 26, 2012 9:29 PM
To compare Lance's situation to the MLB/Bond's situation is completely idiotic. Baseball didn't have a testing policy. The only thing they had on Bonds was hearsay. If Bonds was tested as much as Lance, and he didn't test positive, I would view his situation very similar to Lance's. However, Bonds wasn't tested over 1000 times throughout his career. I have to say Lance has a very good track record.
Aug 26, 2012 9:29pm
M

mella

Senior Member

647 posts
Aug 26, 2012 10:05 PM
Automatik;1255123 wrote:Do you have similar thoughts regarding Barry Bonds?
Yes, I can assume he was dirty but where is the failed drug test? Not much of a fan of Barry, was he any dirtier than the others that werre caught? Nope. Was he caught? I don't recall hearing about his failed tests. We can assume all day, but he was technically clean. Innocent until proven guilty.
Aug 26, 2012 10:05pm
Automatik's avatar

Automatik

Senior Member

14,632 posts
Aug 26, 2012 10:05 PM
like_that;1255338 wrote:To compare Lance's situation to the MLB/Bond's situation is completely idiotic. Baseball didn't have a testing policy. The only thing they had on Bonds was hearsay. If Bonds was tested as much as Lance, and he didn't test positive, I would view his situation very similar to Lance's. However, Bonds wasn't tested over 1000 times throughout his career. I have to say Lance has a very good track record.
No proof of Bonds using, unless I'm mistaken. No proof of Lance using, just hearsay and claims. Both have known relations with suppliers. Theres your comparison.
Aug 26, 2012 10:05pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Aug 26, 2012 10:08 PM
Automatik;1255354 wrote:No proof of Bonds using, unless I'm mistaken. No proof of Lance using, just hearsay and claims. Both have known relations with suppliers. Theres your comparison.
Yes I said that. Both hearsay, except Lance was tested thousands of times, and Bonds was not.
Aug 26, 2012 10:08pm
E

elbuckeye28

Senior Member

919 posts
Aug 26, 2012 10:15 PM
like_that;1255357 wrote:Yes I said that. Both hearsay, except Lance was tested thousands of times, and Bonds was not.
Exactly. There is little comparison between the two. Cycling was actively seeking out cheaters, while baseball was looking the other way. While both cases lack physical evidence, the lack of evidence is more meaningful in Lance's case. Considering US Attorneys investigated both Bonds and Armstrong but only brought a case against Bonds, makes it seem that there was more to Bonds' situation.
Aug 26, 2012 10:15pm
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
Aug 26, 2012 10:32 PM
like_that;1255338 wrote:... I have to say Lance has a very good track record.
Ummm... Lance didn't participate in track. It was cycling. :shrug:
Aug 26, 2012 10:32pm
E

elbuckeye28

Senior Member

919 posts
Aug 26, 2012 10:33 PM
gut;1255097 wrote:It's like an alcoholic with nearly fatal cirrhosis breaking in his new liver with a bottle of Wild Turkey. How do you imagine that all would make other survivors, or people who have lost loved ones to cancer, feel?
You had some good points then you had to go with the unnecessary irrational/emotional argument. First of all, it's nothing like the alcoholic since there is a proven causal connection between alcohol and cirrhosis; I've seen no evidence linking PEDs to testicular cancer. Second, I would imagine that the $500 million raised for cancer is far more important to most of those individuals than the possibility he may have cheated.
Aug 26, 2012 10:33pm
Sykotyk's avatar

Sykotyk

Senior Member

1,155 posts
Aug 26, 2012 10:48 PM
Look, the rules of doping are you're testing, if you're caught, you're punished. You don't get to 'pass the test' but the teacher still gives you an F anyways.

If the tests are insufficient, then the USADA (and WADA for that matter) need better tests. And the rules of testing are the A & B samples. You can't test a B sample if the A sample was clean. That's not the way the system works. B samples only get tested in the event of a failed A test when you can be present (with counsel) when the B sample is opened. That's why that case was never considered legit. They (the testers) went against the entire rules of how and when the B sample is tested. Who knows whether that was ever even his sample. They had no authority to open it or need to test it.

According to the USADA/WADA standards (i.e., the hundreds of tests), he was clean.

An officer can't pull you over and say "Even though my radar gun said you were doing 65 in a 65, I'm CERTAIN you were speeding before you came around that bend, here's your ticket". How exactly do you fight that? That's what Lance has been trying to fight for years. There is no 'proof' he can give to negate that claim. It's impossible. And it has been a witch hunt. The assumption being everyone else was dirty so he HAD to be dirty.
Aug 26, 2012 10:48pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Aug 26, 2012 11:44 PM
USADA was never part of the "witch-hunt". In all likelihood it was the last hurdle for him with regard to this issue. Armstrong quit with the finish line in sight? Don't buy it.

Tests are not hard to beat. Period. Even easier when you are tipped off or someone covers-up a failed test or two.

Same thing I said for Bonds. You don't need a smoking gun to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike Bonds, Armstrong had few detractors in America and was an absolute beloved icon. USADA did a lengthy investigation and found him guilty, and I doubt they were gleeful in attacking and tearing down a hero. I don't believe for one second that former teammates of Armstrong, some of whom were still friends, LIED to federal prosecutors.
Aug 26, 2012 11:44pm
E

elbuckeye28

Senior Member

919 posts
Aug 27, 2012 12:03 AM
gut;1255421 wrote: Tests are not hard to beat. Period. Even easier when you are tipped off or someone covers-up a failed test or two.
If they are not hard to beat why did so many of his rivals, and some of his former teammates (e.g. Floyd Landis) have trouble beating them?
gut;1255421 wrote: Same thing I said for Bonds. You don't need a smoking gun to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.
That often results in poor logic and, more importantly, poor conclusions, at least when there has been 500+ times for physical proof to be found.
gut;1255421 wrote: USADA did a lengthy investigation and found him guilty, and I doubt they were gleeful in attacking and tearing down a hero.
You're right. It's not like this would elevate the status of the USADA and those individuals within the USADA. I mean how many times do we see elected officials pursue how profile cases with little evidence to elevate their careers, let alone the Duke Lacrosse type cases. And those individuals are supposed to be held to a higher standard.
gut;1255421 wrote: I don't believe for one second that former teammates of Armstrong, some of whom were still friends, LIED to federal prosecutors.
Well the federal prosecutors decided to quit pursing the case. Obviously their stories weren't convincing enough for the federal government to pursue it further.
Aug 27, 2012 12:03am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Aug 27, 2012 12:24 AM
Landis took too much. That simple, really. Plus, you don't have quite the same bankroll for the cutting edge stuff and careful monitoring. Lance had his own personal super-doping expert.

Look, it's a fact that people can be found guilty without a smoking gun. That's not the only way to build a case. People don't make careers tearing down heroes. The Duke Lacrosse case was race baiting and not remotely comparable.

Like I said, go ahead and believe his friend lied to federal prosecutors. You have to be incredibly naive to still believe he's clean.

Federal prosectors ran into statute of limitations.
Aug 27, 2012 12:24am
S

sportchampps

Senior Member

7,361 posts
Aug 27, 2012 1:53 AM
Actually the reason his teammates said they saw Lance use PED's was because they were threathened with lifetime bans for their positive tests if they didn't say they saw him take it. It's not very fair to someone when it's either say someone else took PEDs and they get banned for life or you get banned for life. The USADA is a joke and it's the same guy who was behind the Roger Clemons trail. He is a joke.
Aug 27, 2012 1:53am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Aug 27, 2012 4:00 AM
sportchampps;1255451 wrote:Actually the reason his teammates said they saw Lance use PED's was because they were threathened with lifetime bans for their positive tests if they didn't say they saw him take it. It's not very fair to someone when it's either say someone else took PEDs and they get banned for life or you get banned for life. The USADA is a joke and it's the same guy who was behind the Roger Clemons trail. He is a joke.
Nice theory, but Hincapie is retired. And you're also accusing federal investigators of fraud. Somewhat hippocrytic, don't ya think?
Aug 27, 2012 4:00am