T Nation

Lance Armstrong

ok,what are you lance lovers gonna say now?? 11 of his teammates seen him take drugs. his best friend george h FINALLY admitted he took drugs , as well as he seeing lance take them a bunch of times. i seen first hand all the belgium and dutch amatures taking drugs when i raced over there in europe. i seen it all. and thats at the level to TRY and make it to a bit bigger team. the pros is way worse… hope they fry this cheat and big liar!!!

kewl brocacho!~!!!

when you lose a nut, beat cancer, and win at an event that takes supreme physical ability, then you can come back and try to run your mouth. Until then, why don’t you go live your life.

Who cares, they were all doping.

^ Yea, of course he doped, and I dont really care either

srtungoutboy

i dont care either… . my post here, is directed at all the non cyclists that know nothing about cycling that think they do and think lance raced clean. a post here a few months ago on this forum, had tons of non cyclists giving their opinion on cycling and lance. not knowing the first bit about the harsh hard hard world of pro cycling… how wrong those clowns are…

[quote]spk wrote:
srtungoutboy

i dont care either… . my post here, is directed at all the non cyclists that know nothing about cycling that think they do and think lance raced clean. a post here a few months ago on this forum, had tons of non cyclists giving their opinion on cycling and lance. not knowing the first bit about the harsh hard hard world of pro cycling… how wrong those clowns are…[/quote]

who the fuck cares about cycling

No one thinks Lance was clean, dummy. The post that spawned all your hatred here was in response to his being chased around and litigated against for YEARS, for races he’d already completed. The problem was that drug tests were performed time and time and time again, probably more for him that almost any other athlete in his or any sport, and they couldn’t get the evidence they needed from it. So they just kept digging and digging and digging, at Armstrong, because he was the winner. They wanted to get him, and they were going to find any way in their power to do so. They are a bunch of sorry human beings, like you, who just want to tear down someone who was way, WAY better than they could ever dream of being.

Good for you, though. Now you have something to make you feel better for all the races you lost.

[quote]imhungry wrote:
[/quote]

holy shit that’s awesome on so many levels

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one thinks Lance was clean, dummy. The post that spawned all your hatred here was in response to his being chased around and litigated against for YEARS, for races he’d already completed. The problem was that drug tests were performed time and time and time again, probably more for him that almost any other athlete in his or any sport, and they couldn’t get the evidence they needed from it. So they just kept digging and digging and digging, at Armstrong, because he was the winner. They wanted to get him, and they were going to find any way in their power to do so. They are a bunch of sorry human beings, like you, who just want to tear down someone who was way, WAY better than they could ever dream of being.

Good for you, though. Now you have something to make you feel better for all the races you lost. [/quote]
Well to be fair, he was cheated, which is shitty.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one thinks Lance was clean, dummy. The post that spawned all your hatred here was in response to his being chased around and litigated against for YEARS, for races he’d already completed. The problem was that drug tests were performed time and time and time again, probably more for him that almost any other athlete in his or any sport, and they couldn’t get the evidence they needed from it. So they just kept digging and digging and digging, at Armstrong, because he was the winner. They wanted to get him, and they were going to find any way in their power to do so. They are a bunch of sorry human beings, like you, who just want to tear down someone who was way, WAY better than they could ever dream of being.

Good for you, though. Now you have something to make you feel better for all the races you lost. [/quote]

Perhaps “they” wanted to get him, not because he was a winner, but because it was obvious that he was cheating?

So now the word of a bunch of lying, drug using, perjurers is now considered proof? lol

These guys have all been offered plea deals to give their version of what happened… I’m sure they’re all very reliable.

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one thinks Lance was clean, dummy. The post that spawned all your hatred here was in response to his being chased around and litigated against for YEARS, for races he’d already completed. The problem was that drug tests were performed time and time and time again, probably more for him that almost any other athlete in his or any sport, and they couldn’t get the evidence they needed from it. So they just kept digging and digging and digging, at Armstrong, because he was the winner. They wanted to get him, and they were going to find any way in their power to do so. They are a bunch of sorry human beings, like you, who just want to tear down someone who was way, WAY better than they could ever dream of being.

Good for you, though. Now you have something to make you feel better for all the races you lost. [/quote]

Perhaps “they” wanted to get him, not because he was a winner, but because it was obvious that he was cheating?[/quote]

If it was “obvious” then why were they not able to get him when he was actually engaged in the cheating?

[quote]gregron wrote:
So now the word of a bunch of lying, drug using, perjurers is now considered proof? lol

These guys have all been offered plea deals to give their version of what happened… I’m sure they’re all very reliable.[/quote]

Yeah but, Lance is a cheater, and like, stuff, and it was so obvious from the very start of his career. So obvious that they’ve had to build a case after the fact based upon years old hearsay and testimony from confirmed liars.

Why even bother having drug tests in sports anymore? Just ask the other athletes. Hey, that guy with all the gold medals…you see him using? Yeah? Disqualified for life!

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
So now the word of a bunch of lying, drug using, perjurers is now considered proof? lol

These guys have all been offered plea deals to give their version of what happened… I’m sure they’re all very reliable.[/quote]

Yeah but, Lance is a cheater, and like, stuff, and it was so obvious from the very start of his career. So obvious that they’ve had to build a case after the fact based upon years old hearsay and testimony from confirmed liars.

Why even bother having drug tests in sports anymore? Just ask the other athletes. Hey, that guy with all the gold medals…you see him using? Yeah? Disqualified for life![/quote]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one thinks Lance was clean, dummy. The post that spawned all your hatred here was in response to his being chased around and litigated against for YEARS, for races he’d already completed. The problem was that drug tests were performed time and time and time again, probably more for him that almost any other athlete in his or any sport, and they couldn’t get the evidence they needed from it. So they just kept digging and digging and digging, at Armstrong, because he was the winner. They wanted to get him, and they were going to find any way in their power to do so. They are a bunch of sorry human beings, like you, who just want to tear down someone who was way, WAY better than they could ever dream of being.

Good for you, though. Now you have something to make you feel better for all the races you lost. [/quote]

You know how this works. On-the-day tests are only part of an anti-doping strategy. They will catch middle to low rung careless, ill-informed and unlucky dopers. Top echelon busts are not likely to happen through immediate positives because doping technology is going to be years ahead of the testing technology.

Just like Balco, Festina etc. its caught by specific investigation, retrospective tests and other valid forms of evidence. This will always be the case in many types of criminal activity e.g. financial fraud.

[quote]Kvetch wrote:
Just like Balco, Festina etc. its caught by specific investigation, retrospective tests and other valid forms of evidence. This will always be the case in many types of criminal activity e.g. financial fraud.

[/quote]
If I remember correctly (and I may not, somebody correct me if I’m wrong) I’m pretty sure Balco got caught because somebody who was involved grew a conscience and left a sample of their stuff on somebody’s front step (the front door of an anti-doping office or somebody’s personal home I don’t know, doesn’t really matter). They tested the sample, figured out what the sample was, everybody in anti-doping dropped a collective “HOLY FUCKING SHIT” and the specific investigation proceeded from there. That one person doesn’t grow a conscience, and Balco could still be going strong today.

[quote]Kvetch wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
So now the word of a bunch of lying, drug using, perjurers is now considered proof? lol

These guys have all been offered plea deals to give their version of what happened… I’m sure they’re all very reliable.[/quote]

Yeah but, Lance is a cheater, and like, stuff, and it was so obvious from the very start of his career. So obvious that they’ve had to build a case after the fact based upon years old hearsay and testimony from confirmed liars.

Why even bother having drug tests in sports anymore? Just ask the other athletes. Hey, that guy with all the gold medals…you see him using? Yeah? Disqualified for life![/quote]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No one thinks Lance was clean, dummy. The post that spawned all your hatred here was in response to his being chased around and litigated against for YEARS, for races he’d already completed. The problem was that drug tests were performed time and time and time again, probably more for him that almost any other athlete in his or any sport, and they couldn’t get the evidence they needed from it. So they just kept digging and digging and digging, at Armstrong, because he was the winner. They wanted to get him, and they were going to find any way in their power to do so. They are a bunch of sorry human beings, like you, who just want to tear down someone who was way, WAY better than they could ever dream of being.

Good for you, though. Now you have something to make you feel better for all the races you lost. [/quote]

You know how this works. On-the-day tests are only part of an anti-doping strategy. They will catch middle to low rung careless, ill-informed and unlucky dopers. Top echelon busts are not likely to happen through immediate positives because doping technology is going to be years ahead of the testing technology.

Just like Balco, Festina etc. its caught by specific investigation, retrospective tests and other valid forms of evidence. This will always be the case in many types of criminal activity e.g. financial fraud.

[/quote]

And what technology are they employing that has finally caught up with Lance?

Do tell.

@OP You said you saw loads of cyclists take drugs at lower levels and said that it’s worse at higher levels? so how is it cheating if pretty much everyone is doing it? Also the guy got diagnosed within one week with testicular cancer, around 13 tumours in his lungs and like 2 or 3 in his brain. I don’t care if he was doping or not 'cause 18 months after beating that he won one of the greatest endurance events there is which I think is pretty incredible whether he took PEDs or not. Also believe he set the world record in that race too.

I know a bit about cycling and the issue of doping. The issue of doping (and the Armstrong case) is, as any real-world issue really, not so black and white as people here make it out to be. Some thoughts:

Did Armstrong dope? Yes, there can be very little doubt now.

Was it obvious from the start? No, I would say not to people who were not directly involved in pro cycling.

Can the right blood doping turn a decent but not very talented endurance athlete (like some say Armstrong was) into a great one? Yes, certainly.

Was he still the best because “everyone else was doping” back then? Hmm, difficult to say. Perhaps, but there appears to be evidence that he and his team were ahead of the others in terms of doping strategies and avoidance of testing positive.