Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 119 of 119
  1. #101

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs
    The NY Times details how Lance Armstrong avoided positive drug tests over the years. They are just repeating what USADA says in the report, but it is a good, clear read that explains how USADA and Lance's accusatory teammates now say he avoided testing positive over the years.

    I think he was cheating, but so was everyone else -- the races would have been more fair if they had just said everyone could use EPO. Actually, I think everyone was.

    -Jason "is EPO harmful to your body? Or does it just give you more red blood cells and therefore give you more endurance?" Evans
    Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    -Jason "is EPO harmful to your body? Or does it just give you more red blood cells and therefore give you more endurance?" Evans
    Yes its dangerous... Epogen, which is manufactured by Amgen, is used to treat anemia, which commonly arises with a number of diseases and conditions, such as kidney failure, cancer, etc. You can look at the safety label on their website. Basically, it thickens the blood... Therefore, serious (albeit rare) risks include: blood clots, heart attacks and stroke.

    I came across this BBC article from some time ago, positing a link between EPO use and deaths due to heart failure (e.g. Pantani)

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    The NY Times details how Lance Armstrong avoided positive drug tests over the years. They are just repeating what USADA says in the report, but it is a good, clear read that explains how USADA and Lance's accusatory teammates now say he avoided testing positive over the years.

    I think he was cheating, but so was everyone else -- the races would have been more fair if they had just said everyone could use EPO. Actually, I think everyone was.

    -Jason "is EPO harmful to your body? Or does it just give you more red blood cells and therefore give you more endurance?" Evans
    I think some of the most damning evidence, depending on what was actually said by whom in the testimony, is that many of the 11 former teammates, including Hincapie, who admitted to doping, were *also* never caught.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil View Post
    I think some of the most damning evidence, depending on what was actually said by whom in the testimony, is that many of the 11 former teammates, including Hincapie, who admitted to doping, were *also* never caught.
    Sadly, I'm starting to come around to this line of thinking after long thinking Lance is innocent.

    I'm not an Armstrong fan (nor really a big fan of biking), so please don't mistake this for homerism... but I'm starting to re-evaluate whether this is even cheating. Cheating to me means breaking the rules (check) to gain an unfair advantage (unclear).

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs
    Quote Originally Posted by gus View Post
    Cheating to me means breaking the rules (check) to gain an unfair advantage (unclear).
    Oh, I think it is exceedingly clear that everyone in cycling was doing illegal stuff. The notion that they weren't is almost laughable. In fact, many have said one of the biggest reasons to suspect Lance of cheating is that everyone else was and it would be almost inhuman for him to win the way he did if everyone else was cheating and he was not.

    I am sure there were some clean racers in the Toura decade ago, but probably not anyone among the top 20 contenders. I realize I am damning some folks who have never been caught, but that just appears to be the reality of the sport.

    Also worth noting, while Lance has said that many of those accusing him are getting reduced sentences in exchange for their testimony -- which is a compelling argument -- in the case of Hincapie, his sentence does not matter. He is retiring from cycling at the end of this year and, having been banned for 6 months as a result of his testimony against Lance, it means his career is now over. If he had refused to testify and gotten a more typical 2 year ban, it would have meant the exact same thing to him. So, Lance, why is Hincapie testifying against you? He has nothing to gain by doing so.

    -Jason "in Lance's defense, he is a world class jerk, according to everyone who has been around him, so Hincapie may be testifying against Lance because he simply does not like Lance" Evans
    Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by gus View Post
    Sadly, I'm starting to come around to this line of thinking after long thinking Lance is innocent.

    I'm not an Armstrong fan (nor really a big fan of biking), so please don't mistake this for homerism... but I'm starting to re-evaluate whether this is even cheating. Cheating to me means breaking the rules (check) to gain an unfair advantage (unclear).
    I actually feel that it is more pernicious than simply an issue of cheating... Many cyclists who have confessed and talked about using drugs stated that they were faced with the decision, dope or go home, you cannot ride in the pelaton unless you dope. Lance was both a product of this culture and also became a key proponent of it -- I find the testimony of him coming down on riders for NOT keeping up with their doping schedules to be the most damning.

    There are a lot of reasons to like or not like Armstrong... but this is bigger than him. If cycling is going to change, they need to exorcize this period of their history, and, given the testimony in this report, to let Armstrong off the hook prevents that from happening.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    The International Cycling Union has sided with the USADA and stripped Armstrong of his 7 Tour de France victories.
    Will the Tour de France echo this ruling? Will they crown someone else the victor?

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/22/sport/...html?hpt=hp_t1

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs
    Quote Originally Posted by 94duke View Post
    The International Cycling Union has sided with the USADA and stripped Armstrong of his 7 Tour de France victories.
    Will the Tour de France echo this ruling? Will they crown someone else the victor?

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/22/sport/...html?hpt=hp_t1
    Tour organizers are recommending that no one be crowned winner, it is merely "vacated." The UCI has not decided. There will be a hearing on Friday at which time they could demand Armstrong return the prize money, which would be a little under $4 million. It would be very interesting to see how Lance would respond if they tried to get 4 mil from him!

    -Jason "the President of the UCI says he doesn't think cycling will ever be completely clean" Evans
    Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    Most importantly, does this mean that when Dodgeball airs on cable Lance Armstrong's inspirational speech to Peter La Fleur will have to be edited out?

    http://www.moviefanatic.com/quotes/h...ats-me-but-im/

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs
    Quote Originally Posted by mkirsh View Post
    Most importantly, does this mean that when Dodgeball airs on cable Lance Armstrong's inspirational speech to Peter La Fleur will have to be edited out?

    http://www.moviefanatic.com/quotes/h...ats-me-but-im/
    Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Thanks for the assist. I had a hard time finding a link to the video for whatever reason, so props to your superior search skills!

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by g_olaf View Post
    I actually feel that it is more pernicious than simply an issue of cheating... Many cyclists who have confessed and talked about using drugs stated that they were faced with the decision, dope or go home, you cannot ride in the pelaton unless you dope. Lance was both a product of this culture and also became a key proponent of it -- I find the testimony of him coming down on riders for NOT keeping up with their doping schedules to be the most damning.

    There are a lot of reasons to like or not like Armstrong... but this is bigger than him. If cycling is going to change, they need to exorcize this period of their history, and, given the testimony in this report, to let Armstrong off the hook prevents that from happening.
    The viciousness with which he attacked whistle blowers, teammates, journalists, or anyone else that challenged the omertà makes the story a lot more than simply him being the best cheat among a crowd of cheaters. He did more than anyone else to ensure, institutionalize, and enforce the cheating, and he personally and professionally torpedoed anyone who tried to challenge or expose the filth. He wasn't silently participating in a necessary evil; he was the cycling equivalent of the mob boss. That he did it all while wrapping himself in a flag while being the absolute embodiment of the ugly American is even worse IMHO.

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Oh, I think it is exceedingly clear that everyone in cycling was doing illegal stuff. The notion that they weren't is almost laughable. In fact, many have said one of the biggest reasons to suspect Lance of cheating is that everyone else was and it would be almost inhuman for him to win the way he did if everyone else was cheating and he was not. ...

    -Jason "in Lance's defense, he is a world class jerk, according to everyone who has been around him, so Hincapie may be testifying against Lance because he simply does not like Lance" Evans
    Probably true but...

    If everyone was cheating and not getting caught, why did Lance have to go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid being caught?

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Probably true but...

    If everyone was cheating and not getting caught, why did Lance have to go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid being caught?
    He has a fairly large financial incentive to not be caught.

  16. #116
    Armstrong has now allegedly admitted (in an Oprah interview) that he used EPO and other performance-enhancing drugs. What a joke.

    I have no problem with the guy using performance-enhancing drugs. But I do have a problem with his repeated attacks on anyone who came out and said he used. That included teammates, reporters, anyone. Armstrong sued, bullied, berated, smeared anyone who suggested he used PEDs, questioning their credibility. And now he's going to come clean and admit they were telling the truth and he was lying? What a jerk.

    I have a lot of appreciation for the money he raised for cancer research. That's a wonderful thing. But drug dealers and mobsters donate money to charity too, and that doesn't make them good people. It's just completely disrespectful to try to destroy people who were just telling the truth (teammates) and doing their job (journalists).

    The sad part is that his story would have been impressive even with the doping. To come back from near-death with cancer and win in a sport in which everyone cheats is amazing. It doesn't matter whether he cheated to do it. But Lance apparently couldn't live with that. Instead, he had to bully anyone who had the gall to tell the truth about it, even if it meant destroying lives or careers.

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Armstrong has now allegedly admitted (in an Oprah interview) that he used EPO and other performance-enhancing drugs. What a joke.

    I have no problem with the guy using performance-enhancing drugs. But I do have a problem with his repeated attacks on anyone who came out and said he used. That included teammates, reporters, anyone. Armstrong sued, bullied, berated, smeared anyone who suggested he used PEDs, questioning their credibility. And now he's going to come clean and admit they were telling the truth and he was lying? What a jerk.

    I have a lot of appreciation for the money he raised for cancer research. That's a wonderful thing. But drug dealers and mobsters donate money to charity too, and that doesn't make them good people. It's just completely disrespectful to try to destroy people who were just telling the truth (teammates) and doing their job (journalists).

    The sad part is that his story would have been impressive even with the doping. To come back from near-death with cancer and win in a sport in which everyone cheats is amazing. It doesn't matter whether he cheated to do it. But Lance apparently couldn't live with that. Instead, he had to bully anyone who had the gall to tell the truth about it, even if it meant destroying lives or careers.
    Damn straight. You hit it on all points, my friend.

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Bulging Metropolis that is Canton, NC
    I got to listen to Mike and Mike in the Morning this morning, and while I'm usually not a fan of their blather, I thought some interesting points were raised in their discussion with Stuart Scott, who said that Armstrong's doping basically has nothing to do with Livestrong and what it strives to do. He separated the two as completely different things, one obviously immoral and unethical, and the other as a great thing that has helped so many people.
    But my thoughts on that were that, would Livestrong be around (and be so successful) if Lance had not doped and won 7 Tours? So this great thing (Livestrong) has emerged from something based on lies. I guess some credit has to be given there, but there's a little bit of my stomach that still feels uneasy about it.
    And, as other posters (and Mike Golic) pointed out, how Lance went after his accusers so hard, ruining reputations, etc. How does one reconcile that? With Livestrong? There's definitely some moral/ethical questions here.

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    I love that WADA is holding his feet to the fire, after the way he attacked them - they have every right to make him grovel to lift the suspension.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 64
    Last Post: 01-31-2011, 09:59 PM
  2. The Street Stops Here
    By rthomas in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-17-2011, 02:05 AM
  3. Fighting a speeding ticket
    By BluDevilGal in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-11-2008, 08:49 PM
  4. Lance Armstrong book
    By JStuart in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-25-2007, 06:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •