1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Lance is a cheat? Yes or no

Discussion in 'Cycling' started by I like to watch, Jun 14, 2012.


Lance is a cheat?

Yes 42 vote(s) 84.0%
No 8 vote(s) 16.0%
  1. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:

    Only if they've broken the law I'd have thought. Has Armstrong broken any laws that we know of?
  2. Karl Bill McLean (32)

    Likes Received:
    Or Maybe he took the position he did because what he alleges in relation to the Jack Boot Brown Shirts that are after him has some merit.

    I'm not saying I know better, but if any of you think you know what really happened, you're on more drugs than his biggest critic says he's on.
  3. ChargerWA Mark Loane (55)

    Likes Received:
    Why would an American government sponsored body spend so much time and resources, tearing down and American hero? Because they clearly feel the have some compelling evidence.
  4. Pauly Sydney Middleton (9)

    Likes Received:
    Some hero! Fuck him. Dirty cheating prick.
  5. Schadenfreude John Solomon (38)

    Likes Received:
    Because he's a Democrat and it's an election year?
    Bullrush likes this.
  6. Karl Bill McLean (32)

    Likes Received:
    Because they are jealous little power mad petty public servants with an axe to grind and the means to grind it trying to catch their White Whale.

    They are fucking everywhere in these agencies with investigative powers and little procedural oversight.
  7. Karl Bill McLean (32)

    Likes Received:
    Look, he may be a drug cheat, in a
    Sport where basically they all are, but if the USADA has conducted itself in the manner he alleges, they don't deserve the time of day. The ends don't justify the means when organizations like this abuse their powers.
  8. Bruwheresmycar Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    How can anyone buy Lance's cop out? As if he would give up his entire Ironman career at the face of a few baseless claims made by a dysfunctional organisation full of "jealous public servants".

    It's blatantly obvious why he doesn't want to challenge the ruling. And why he will give up on the years of hard work towards his goal of winning the Hawaiian Ironman. His ego and crediblilty would be ripped to shreds if he had to face them in some kind of court.
  9. Baldric Jim Clark (26)

    Likes Received:
    Lance says that he has never taken performance enhancing drugs. That might be true. Blood doping is not "taking drugs" but it is cheating.
  10. Ash Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    Oh he has taken drugs, including EPO and testosterone, and blood doping. Later EPO was microdosing

    Seriously, the amount of evidence is overwhelming. I am going to paste some links, and before anyone else argues he was clean, please read them.

    As scarfy said, the whole reason he gave up is so he can keep up the charade. If he fought, it all would have come out.

    Index of all allegations, including the Simeone affair:

    Lance sued Simeoni and had some despicable treatment of him in the peloton for "daring" to out his doping doctor Ferrari. Of course, later on Ferrari would get a life ban for doping his riders. That is what you get for breaking the omertà - a bully like Armstrong ruining your pro career.

    Just read a lot links from above, starting from his testosterone positive in 1999 that he got a backdated TUE for all the way to his controversy filled comeback, including stopping his third party auditing of his blood before it even began, to his dodgy (well, impossible blood values) in the TdF 2009, to his evading of a regular doping control for a few hours.

    Of course, normally he knew when the "surprise" dope controls would occur:

    Now there is so much smoke, around a raging fire, including now a mass of ex team mates giving evidence that he doped. To my mind you have to be seriously naive or have your head in the sand that he didn't dope.

    The thing though, is his treatment of people whom has called him out - he has tried to ruin their lives, including Greg LeMond and the Andreaus.
  11. ACT Crusader Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    So you criticise anyone that may think they know what happened and then shortly after make some sweeping assertion that you claim "they all are". Either you're on the circuit and witness it or you're just like others. There's a fair amount published that doesn't appear to be in cahoots with USADA or some jealous public servants, that suggest very dodgy and illegal practices.

    But the case is over for now, a d while the sport already has a dark cloud over it, it just got darker IMO and the shroud that has hung over Armstrong will forever be there with this action.

    It's a bit like Julia Gillard, 17 years of this AWU slush fund business and some dodgy as hell stuff in there, but to her credit she gives a presser and takes questioning for 45 minutes to face the music and clear the air so to speak (although I don't think the Australian will let up). Armstrong's day in court is slightly different but he has not cleared the air and it may well take 17 years for him to speak up with a little more than "I didn't take blah blah" by that time a few people may have died off and others agreed to keep quiet..
  12. Squidnuckle Frank Row (1)

    Likes Received:
    Two Armstrongs in the news this week, but only one was a real hero.
  13. ACT Crusader Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    Or perhaps both are very good actors..
  14. en_force_er Geoff Shaw (53)

    Likes Received:
    I wish cycling would either knuckle down enough that nobody can use illicit substances or just turn a blind eye, this middle ground they are walking right now makes no sense.

    If we are to believe a champion cyclist (like Lance) is using illegal performance enhancers how can we not believe the guy who keeps up with him every day and sometimes beats him isn't using them? We can't.
  15. Ignoto Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    Eh, while I've always known he doped people jump to all kinds of conclusions based on what they want to hear.

    I'm sure there is enough evidence to show what Lance was on, but relying on what team-mates or people in the same room is an extremely slippery road. For example, Floyd Landis has been saying that Lance is a cheater etc but at the same time protesting his "innocence" over that amazing stage a few years ago. However, in the past week or so, he finally admitted to taking the drugs (after accepting $500K in donations to fight for case) - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...s-to-defrauding-donors-over-doping-lies-.html.

    Sure, he probably doped in front of team-mates etc, but their evidence is shaky at best as people clearly have their own agendas which they'll push for.
  16. Ash Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    Right. So a mass of ex-teammates, including people like George Hincapie and Jonathon Vaughters, should be believed?

    While I agree you have to be careful with a few of the dis-credited ones (although this does not mean they are lying, either) like FLandis and Hamilton, they have just too many coming out (and some of which are highly respected people) to be discarded.

    People love winners, and guys like Armstrong get a certain mythos surrounding them. It's amazing how much some people will defend him, without ever wanting to dig deeper.

    I've read a heap of articles defending him, and not one, not one, goes much deeper than to attack USADA, and most in a disturbingly similar way. Why aren't they trying to defend against all the evidence instead?
  17. Bruwheresmycar Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    What I love is how people like Lance have nothing but bad things to say about doping agencies. Despite the fact they have been the ones suspending all those dirty cheaters who have been trying to take away Lance's glory using performance enhancing drugs for decades.

    You'd think any clean athlete would be 100% behind these guys. What sort of "clean athlete" spends vast amounts of time lobbying for funding to be cut to anti doping agencies? And spends even more time attacking their work in public? This is all one big circus, and I'm glad it's finally coming to an end. Cycling needs to move on.
  18. Ignoto Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    Honestly, I don't think any testimony evidence can be believed. There's too much error in people judgment/memory that can occur for it be relied upon.

    I don't understand why they don't just put all the evidence out there for the world to see. I'd rather know what he was using than simply leaving it in such a grey area.

    The thing that irks me about this entire thing is the double standards of everything. Fine, Armstrong was a dick to people wanting to blow the whistle on him etc (can't really blame him can you?), but I'm sure Ullrich and Basso would have been the same. What's even more astonishing with this whole thing is how you can have people who publicly admit they cheated and life goes on (how Bjarne Riis is coaching a current top international team is astonishing).

    Fine go after Armstrong, but they need to cast their net wide otherwise it's just a massive witch hunt.
  19. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    Ignoto, I have some sympathy for that argument. I have no problem accepting that Armstrong was probably on the gear, as I've previously stated. However, the amount of attention his particular case has attracted I find a little disturbing, in comparison to the fairly clearly widespread doping happening in the sport. It smells hugely of a witch hunt. There are several other blokes like Contador, Basso, Riis and Ullrich who haven't had the kind of treatment that Armstrong has.

    So in summary, go hard on all drug cheats, not just someone a lot of people don't like (Armstrong often comes across as a wanker, but no more or less than a few of these other blokes).
    Ignoto likes this.
  20. Ignoto Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    Couldn't have said it better.

    I'm curious to know, whether they are going back and retroactively applying these new EPO tests etc to old samples or whether "costs" are going to be cited not to.

Share This Page