dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23
share rss forum feed


drslash
Goya Asma
Premium
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA
reply to ZZZZZZZ

Re: Armstrong getting caught up in lies

I am only taking sides with Armstrong because he won his Tours during the testing era of cycling. If testing came in to cycling in the post Armstrong era then I might be in your camp. Do you know how many tests Armstrong has been subject to?


DanHo
Premium
join:2002-05-20
Seattle, WA

1 recommendation

Now, don't go getting all logical on us. Doesn't work on the truly indignant.


ZZZZZZZ
Premium
join:2001-05-27
PARADISE
kudos:1
reply to drslash
quote:
Do you know how many tests Armstrong has been subject to?
Yes as he himself said,over 500.

But that doesn't mean squat if the athletes and their doctors found a way to bypass/fool the testing procedures,which is probably the case here.

And the fact that it's not just a doping lab in France that is bring accusations ,but the U.S.A.D.A............then they must have more proof cause they were the ones that didn't pursue the original charges in the 1st place.

There has been just too many stories and accusations over the years to not have some truth to them.

Look at Roger Clemens,the same thing is happening to him.......people are getting fed up with these cheats,and personally I think they should all be stripped of their records and ill gotten fame.
--
~~Get our troops home...now!!~~


drslash
Goya Asma
Premium
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA
How many tests was Roger Clemens subjected to?
Expand your moderator at work


AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
kudos:3
reply to drslash

Re: Armstrong getting caught up in lies

said by drslash:

I am only taking sides with Armstrong because he won his Tours during the testing era of cycling. If testing came in to cycling in the post Armstrong era then I might be in your camp.

Pro cycling has a reputation of being to modern steroids what the East German "ladies" swim team was to late 60s/early 70s steriod use. Everybody's on 'em.
Of course, that common impression doesn't count for anything as regards the legalities, testing methods, and results when a cyclist passes clean.

On the other hand, many don't come up clean when tested. And there seems to be plenty of evidence, both real and anecdotal, that steroid use is in fact common within that sport.
That a 'clean' Armstrong could not only compete with the steroid users, but beat them time and again-- even after coming back from battling cancer-- does strain credulity maybe more than just a little.

I'm not specifically pre-supposing him guilty as charged, btw-- just sayin' . . . .


aurgathor

join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to ZZZZZZZ
said by ZZZZZZZ:

But that doesn't mean squat if the athletes and their doctors found a way to bypass/fool the testing procedures,which is probably the case here.

That may very well be the case; however, as far as I concern he either should've caught cheacting while still active, or at least within a reasonable amount of time, and I think we're well beyond that period. Seems to me we got someone with a personal vendetta against him.


There has been just too many stories and accusations over the years to not have some truth to them..

Accusations need to be backed up by something more solid.
--
Wacky Races 2012!


drslash
Goya Asma
Premium
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA
reply to AB
I don't dispute the very dirty history of pro cycling. Armstrong was a very exceptional athlete for quite some time before he turned pro and before getting cancer. He was beating pro triathletes before he was a pro and he was pretty young. Was he cheating way back then? Perhaps. If he was not cheating back then, that gives him some history on which to base his future success. While the exact data is not available, many parameters by which endurance athletes are measured have always put Armstrong well above the pack. Have those measurements been taken while he was on a performance enhancing substance? Perhaps. The argument has been brought forth that he won time and time again and that seems implausible. I find it implausible for him to win time and time again while cheating and not get caught with a positive test.

I also submit that no other cyclist during Armstrong's time had better resources at their disposal regarding training, equipment, tactics, wind tunnel testing. Attention to the smallest detail in the wind tunnel gave Armstrong seconds and perhaps minutes advantage over other cyclists in a time trial. A Tour de France is sometimes won by less than a minute.

I don't worship the guy. I dislike some of his personal behavior. If I see the evidence, I'll call him a cheater.
--
Save water...drink beer!
--
#occupytheworkplace
--
Obama...it's junior high school all over again!
--
Democrats don't mind raising taxes because democrats don't pay taxes.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to DanHo
said by DanHo:

Now, don't go getting all logical on us. Doesn't work on the truly indignant.

He was tested over and over and passed all tests. Now they want to hang him based on the testimony of those who failed tests and who are promised amnesty to testify against him. And he was investigated by federal prosecutors who determined there was no case. Sounds like sour grapes by those he whooped for 7 yrs and want revenge.