so whats so bad about Lance
Comments
-
Lance is a good rider i think0
-
shogunsteve, I posted my link at 6.18pm, you replied at 6.21pm. You can't have read my link in three minutes, the interview is quite substantial after all.
So instead of posting rapid-fire rebuttals, take the time to read it all. You'll find the answers to your own questions in there too, as to why no positive was applied and more. Let me know what you think.0 -
Kléber wrote:shogunsteve, I posted my link at 6.18pm, you replied at 6.21pm. You can't have read my link in three minutes, the interview is quite substantial after all.
So instead of posting rapid-fire rebuttals, take the time to read it all. You'll find the answers to your own questions in there too, as to why no positive was applied and more. Let me know what you think.
But does it really matter. I mean a positive was not applied and I am assuming this didnt happen every year he rode. Maybe this happened once, what about all the other years he rode??
I think you just want people to agree with you, when the reality is that he tested negative, regardless of the behind the scenes action.0 -
No, like I say, he appears to have tested positive but not in a doping control, in a research project. Read the interview, it's no big deal whether you agree with me or not but before typing more on here, at least read the story.
From here it can feel hard to have a debate with people when they refuse to engage, I've put some evidence your way, let me know what you think of it because it is quite strong evidence of EPO abuse. Don't discuss me, discuss the interview 8)0 -
No, he tested positive for both Epo and corticoids but was not sanctioned as a consequence. Not the name thing at all!shogunsteve wrote:the reality is that he tested negative, regardless of the behind the scenes action.0 -
aurelio wrote:
No, he tested positive for both Epo and corticoids but was not sanctioned as a consequence. Not the name thing at all!shogunsteve wrote:the reality is that he tested negative, regardless of the behind the scenes action.
And care to tell us why he was not sanctioned??!0 -
0
-
Kléber wrote:
I know why...I know exactly why...I just want to see the language used by the accuser0 -
There are more than enough ways to cover up what would other be a positive test - Ullrich, Basso and nor anyone else involved in Puerto ever tested positive, but it's accepted that they cheated. If anyone genuinely thinks never testing positive is proof of innocence then I think they don't understand very much about doping, either that or they're just willing to believe everything a certain Mr Armstrong says.0
-
marinerrr wrote:There are more than enough ways to cover up what would other be a positive test - Ullrich, Basso and nor anyone else involved in Puerto ever tested positive, but it's accepted that they cheated. If anyone genuinely thinks never testing positive is proof of innocence then I think they don't understand very much about doping, either that or they're just willing to believe everything a certain Mr Armstrong says.
or 99% of the riders say :roll:
Get real please!0 -
-
shogunsteve wrote:aurelio wrote:
No, he tested positive for both Epo and corticoids but was not sanctioned as a consequence. Not the name thing at all!shogunsteve wrote:the reality is that he tested negative, regardless of the behind the scenes action.
And care to tell us why he was not sanctioned??!
Never testing positive does not necessarily equate to never doping. In 1999 no test existed for detecting EPO and so as long as you were under the silly UCI heomocrit 50% limit you were fine to race- regardless of how you achieved these levels (natural fitness, training, transfusions, altitude tents, epo, etc.)
As to why he wasn't sanctioned- It's to do with technicalities- He can't be punished because he wasn't caught at the time- this testing was done in hindsight. It's to do with the amount of time that has passed and the lack of B samples etc. I mean who knows, maybe the French did spike the samples but it is certainly suspicious. Why not just go ahead and spike his samples at the 2005 tour if you wanna bust the guy so bad?
This 'never testing positive' is a favourite line of Armstrong's if you ever watch him in fielding difficult doping questions. The reality may sadly be that more money is put in to, and made out of beating and staying ahead of the tests than is of actually put in to policing doping. It's like a constant evolution of staying ahead of the tests.0 -
gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:shogunsteve wrote:aurelio wrote:
No, he tested positive for both Epo and corticoids but was not sanctioned as a consequence. Not the name thing at all!shogunsteve wrote:the reality is that he tested negative, regardless of the behind the scenes action.
And care to tell us why he was not sanctioned??!
Never testing positive does not necessarily equate to never doping. In 1999 no test existed for detecting EPO and so as long as you were under the silly UCI heomocrit 50% limit you were fine to race- regardless of how you achieved these levels (natural fitness, training, transfusions, altitude tents, epo, etc.)
As to why he wasn't sanctioned- It's to do with technicalities- He can't be punished because he wasn't caught at the time- this testing was done in hindsight. It's to do with the amount of time that has passed and the lack of B samples etc. I mean who knows, maybe the French did spike the samples but it is certainly suspicious. Why not just go ahead and spike his samples at the 2005 tour if you wanna bust the guy so bad?
This 'never testing positive' is a favourite line of Armstrong's if you ever watch him in fielding difficult doping questions. The reality may sadly be that more money is put in to, and made out of beating and staying ahead of the tests than is of actually put in to policing doping. It's like a constant evolution of staying ahead of the tests.
For SEVEN YEARS??!!!0 -
Yes. For a long time there was no test for EPO, it entered the pro peloton in 1990/1991but the test didn't appear for a decade, so by definition no rider was caught for over a decade. To this day there is no fully effective test for blood doping, so similar suspicions exist over some who have abused this method.0
-
shogunsteve wrote:gregssmirkingrevenge wrote:shogunsteve wrote:aurelio wrote:
No, he tested positive for both Epo and corticoids but was not sanctioned as a consequence. Not the name thing at all!shogunsteve wrote:the reality is that he tested negative, regardless of the behind the scenes action.
And care to tell us why he was not sanctioned??!
Never testing positive does not necessarily equate to never doping. In 1999 no test existed for detecting EPO and so as long as you were under the silly UCI heomocrit 50% limit you were fine to race- regardless of how you achieved these levels (natural fitness, training, transfusions, altitude tents, epo, etc.)
As to why he wasn't sanctioned- It's to do with technicalities- He can't be punished because he wasn't caught at the time- this testing was done in hindsight. It's to do with the amount of time that has passed and the lack of B samples etc. I mean who knows, maybe the French did spike the samples but it is certainly suspicious. Why not just go ahead and spike his samples at the 2005 tour if you wanna bust the guy so bad?
This 'never testing positive' is a favourite line of Armstrong's if you ever watch him in fielding difficult doping questions. The reality may sadly be that more money is put in to, and made out of beating and staying ahead of the tests than is of actually put in to policing doping. It's like a constant evolution of staying ahead of the tests.
For SEVEN YEARS??!!!
Yea why not for 7 years?
I still don't think there are any test being used for detecting autologous blood transfusions.0 -
shogunsteve wrote:For SEVEN YEARS??!!!
Look at Jan Ullrich. Never bust, according to team mates etc, he doped from first Tour ride til last. That's 96 to 2006.
No positives aside from that ekkie.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
redddraggon wrote:I fooking hate Lance fanboys, if he didn't have so many bloody fanboys I'd probably like Lance more.
Who are these "fanboys" I hear about? Am I one? Seriously!!!! Is it anyone who posts
anything even remotely pro Lance?? Or is it anyone who is not on your side in this issue?
Name 10 people you consider "fanboys" on this forum.
Dennis Noward0 -
dennisn wrote:redddraggon wrote:I fooking hate Lance fanboys, if he didn't have so many bloody fanboys I'd probably like Lance more.
Who are these "fanboys" I hear about? Am I one? Seriously!!!! Is it anyone who posts
anything even remotely pro Lance?? Or is it anyone who is not on your side in this issue?
Name 10 people you consider "fanboys" on this forum.
Dennis Noward
No no Dennis, you aren't a fanboy, you are the old eccentric american fellow....
0 -
redddraggon wrote:dennisn wrote:redddraggon wrote:I fooking hate Lance fanboys, if he didn't have so many bloody fanboys I'd probably like Lance more.
Who are these "fanboys" I hear about? Am I one? Seriously!!!! Is it anyone who posts
anything even remotely pro Lance?? Or is it anyone who is not on your side in this issue?
Name 10 people you consider "fanboys" on this forum.
Dennis Noward
No no Dennis, you aren't a fanboy, you are the old eccentric american fellow....
Thanks, I appreciate that. Always knew I could be eccentric in my old age if I really tried.
Although I'm somewhat disappointed that I don't have "fanboy" status.
Have to work harder.
Dennis Noward0 -
I've never liked him - he's a Twit!
'Google can bring back a hundred thousand answers. A librarian can bring you back the right one.'
Neil Gaiman0 -
Ok Ive spoken with the following and heres my thoughts
Armstrong 4 occaisions. very succesful but arrogant I wouldnt have him at my table.
Ulrich 5 occaisions. Great bloke personable humurous nothing in common but i like him
Valverde, once very briefly language issues no opinion other than pleasent enough.
David Millar. a couple of times and ridden with briefly on a few occaisions no opinion.
Marcel Wust. Very funny, engaging a proper bloke. Liked him.
So Dennis having spoken to the guy am i now allowed to say I still dislike Armstrong?0 -
markwalker wrote:Ok Ive spoken with the following and heres my thoughts
Armstrong 4 occaisions. very succesful but arrogant I wouldnt have him at my table.
Ulrich 5 occaisions. Great bloke personable humurous nothing in common but i like him
Valverde, once very briefly language issues no opinion other than pleasent enough.
David Millar. a couple of times and ridden with briefly on a few occaisions no opinion.
Marcel Wust. Very funny, engaging a proper bloke. Liked him.
So Dennis having spoken to the guy am i now allowed to say I still dislike Armstrong?
You may dislike whomever you wish but I'm betting that in talking to him you went away with, at the very least, a slightly different opinion of him. Either good or bad. Don't know how many times I've heard people say someones "not like they thought he would be".
Dennis Noward0 -
Nope, Im afraid Id formed an opinion that wasnt altered. Not that hes likely to lose sleep over it though 0
-
markwalker wrote:Nope, Im afraid Id formed an opinion that wasnt altered. Not that hes likely to lose sleep over it though
So, you had an opinion of him before you meet him and after meeting him NOTHING changed?
Dennis Noward0 -
I like him - whenever he rides I always want to him to win. Yet when big-mig was in his prime , I always wanted someone to beat him - not sure why !!!0
-
I've just finished Jeremy Whittle's Bad Blood which might explain why not many of the cycling journalists like Lance. If Jeremy Whittle's to be believed he took a Bush attitude to the print media - you are either with me or against me. Apparently there was a laughable situation at all press conferences where someone from his entourage would take pictures of anyone who asked challenging or negative questions so that they could be excluded from future interviews (if possible).
Many journalists and fans were very disappointed by his clamping down of anyone in the peleton trying to break the omerta and reveal that doping was rife within the sport. Kimmage's recent confrontation was correct in his point but crass to write an article calling Armstrong a cancer in cycling. It detracted from what was a very valid point.
This doesn't mean Armstrong's guilty of doping but his approach to it was hardly helpful (witness continued Ferrari association).0 -
coulcher wrote:
This doesn't mean Armstrong's guilty of doping but his approach to it was hardly helpful (witness continued Ferrari association).
I have a friend who got caught trying to smuggle pot out of Mexico. She spent a few
years in a Mexican slammer. Have another friend who ran an illegal gambling operation and spent about 6 years in federal prison. Both of these people were my friends before
they went to jail and they remain my friends to this day. And I didn't have anything to do with their crimes. To me a friend is a friend.
Dennis Noward0 -
Dennis,
I take your point on friendship but Ferrari was just an example. It's been a general principal of Armstrong to try to alienate and smother anyone who revealed the widespread doping use in the peleton. Now this doesn't mean he himself is guilty as there's an obvious self-interest in doing this. If the extent of the problem had been revealed during his time it would have harmed his image by association and his earnings would have shrunk considerably as sponsors wouldn't want to be associated with such a tainted sport.
Personally as a keen cyclist occasionally raising money through charity rides the Tour's farce was incredibly humiliating when it came up in conversation with non-cyclists, imagine how it would feel being a champion when most of your rivals are found guilty of doping. When it did fall apart after his retirement he must of been livid as many had the same thought: His rivals were doping and he beat them.
Maybe a positive reason for his wanting to return and prove his innocence.0 -
Sure Dennis. But if you built that friendship by being part of the dope smuggling ring or illegal gambling ring, then I'd think twice before voting for you if you stood for Mayor of Toledo. In a job where being "clean" is important, your childhood friends don't matter, it's the people you worked with on the way up that can say something.dennisn wrote:
I have a friend who got caught trying to smuggle pot out of Mexico. She spent a few years in a Mexican slammer. Have another friend who ran an illegal gambling operation and spent about 6 years in federal prison. Both of these people were my friends before they went to jail and they remain my friends to this day. And I didn't have anything to do with their crimes. To me a friend is a friend.coulcher wrote:This doesn't mean Armstrong's guilty of doping but his approach to it was hardly helpful (witness continued Ferrari association).0
