Torn Hammy
Johnnie Wallace (23)
Cadel Evans. This thread. Elephant.
Cadel Evans. This thread. Elephant.
Really? I wouldn't protect an Aussie cheat for a second, but what evidence is there for anything? He's about the only cyclist on the tour to consistently condemn drug cheats. It's a hell of an act if it is one. Until there a whiff of smoke I think your insinuation is totally unfair to Cadel.
If he is, then he must be good as it is assumed that EPO gives you 10% improvement in aerobic capacity and steroids and hgh give a 10% improvement in strength.
Think about it - you're a tour rider, close to the top. Scenario A: You know that all you have to do is stay clean for the period of your wins, then admit it all and still keep your tour wins. Scenario B: You know that the authorities will pursue you for the next 50 years, and one day they are going to strip the wins off you. Don't you think that makes a difference to the future of the sport.
Cadel Evans. This thread. Elephant.
Because it is cheating? That's like saying a rugby player who puts steel plates in his shoulder pads is allowed to get away with it. Armstrong is no different to anyone else, I could not give an arse how successful he was or his cancer story ect, if the prick cheated he deserves to be prosecuted and disgraced.So, Scarfy and others who suggest we hunt down Lance Armstrong and all other cycling cheats, can you elaborate upon the logical path that approach will follow and how that is to anyone's benefit.
Because it is cheating? That's like saying a rugby player who puts steel plates in his shoulder pads is allowed to get away with it. Armstrong is no different to anyone else, I could not give an arse how successful he was or his cancer story ect, if the prick cheated he deserves to be prosecuted and disgraced.
I could not give an arse how successful he was or his cancer story ect, if the prick cheated he deserves to be prosecuted and disgraced.
Does anyone think that (with the exception of a couple of stage winners) the riders look to be doing it tougher this year? Is the sport cleaning up and so the moderate climbs will lose more from the peloton? Or is the pace just so quick that not many can keep up?
A line in the sand must be drawn and you take forward your cleansing from that point. My argument is that, assuming Armstrong has taken drugs and they have evidence of it, the line in the sand should be drawn after Armstrong. Yes, of course I'm making an exception for him.
The reality is that cyclists have, since the early days of the sport, used performance enhancing substances. It wasn't regarded as wrong initially and was then accepted for a long time. As such, the logical conclusion of hunting down and discrediting all past drug cheats is that, subject only to the availability of evidence, you would wipe out many of the winners of major cycling events back to the beginning of time. Famous, feted, revered cyclists would be "exposed".
Now I dislike the idea of cheating as much as the next person, but it doesn't make sense to wipe out Armstrong, then get to Ulrich, then the next guy, then next and so on. What value is there in having done that? Does it really provide a greater disincentive for todays' cyclists than catching todays' cyclists who cheat?
A line in the sand must be drawn and you take forward your cleansing from that point. My argument is that, assuming Armstrong has taken drugs and they have evidence of it, the line in the sand should be drawn after Armstrong. Yes, of course I'm making an exception for him. The reason for this is that clean Armstrong will provide a greater benefit to the world than a successful prosecution will. Clean Armstrong is a fundraising machine doing great things for cancer research and cancer sufferers on a daily basis. Dirty Armstrong will be stripped of titles, be sued for sponsorship and prize money and have vastly reduced capacity to help the cancer world. The only winner in the latter case is lawyers.
Cutter, i'm with you 100% on this.
Seeing you seem to know quite a bit on the issue; I was speaking to someone about this on the weekend and they said Lance's charity doesn't spend a cent on cancer research. Do you know if this is correct? If that's true, it's a little disappointing
Does anyone think that (with the exception of a couple of stage winners) the riders look to be doing it tougher this year? Is the sport cleaning up and so the moderate climbs will lose more from the peloton? Or is the pace just so quick that not many can keep up?
''If Lance Armstrong went to jail and Livestrong went away, that would be a huge setback in our war against cancer, right? Not exactly, because the famous nonprofit donates almost nothing to scientific research. Bill Gifford looks at where the money goes and finds a mix of fine ideas, millions of dollars aimed at “awareness,” and a few very blurry lines.''