Lance's long thighs
Comments
-
P_Tucker wrote:OllyRidesFirst wrote:P_Tucker wrote:tarquin_foxglove wrote:Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?
Yes. But the important thing is to give the idiot public some vaguely plausible reason, other than a boatload of drugs, for his unprecedented dominance.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but could you please point me to the little bit of the internet that details Lance Armstrong's failed drugs test.....didn't think so!
It's amazing how he's never actually failed a drugs test, yet people hold onto the belief that he's a doper. Is it not innocent until proven guilty anymore? How many negative tests do you think he had in just those 7 years he won the tours? Must be over 1500+
Ugh. Even I can't be bothered with this one. If you want to believe he was clean, knock yourself out. Also, it's innocent until proven guilty only in a court of law - I base my personal opinion on the balance of probabilities. And if Armstrong didn't dope, I'll eat my own testicles.
We're not really asking that much from you.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:OllyRidesFirst wrote:P_Tucker wrote:tarquin_foxglove wrote:Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?
Yes. But the important thing is to give the idiot public some vaguely plausible reason, other than a boatload of drugs, for his unprecedented dominance.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but could you please point me to the little bit of the internet that details Lance Armstrong's failed drugs test.....didn't think so!
It's amazing how he's never actually failed a drugs test, yet people hold onto the belief that he's a doper. Is it not innocent until proven guilty anymore? How many negative tests do you think he had in just those 7 years he won the tours? Must be over 1500+
Ugh. Even I can't be bothered with this one. If you want to believe he was clean, knock yourself out. Also, it's innocent until proven guilty only in a court of law - I base my personal opinion on the balance of probabilities. And if Armstrong didn't dope, I'll eat my own testicles.
I believe he was clean because he hasn't failed a drugs test. What exactly will it take for you to believe? IF it does ever come out that a failed test turns up or IF he ever admits to taking performance drugs, then i will change my mind; Doesn't bother me either way. What does bother me is that there are a lot of people out there who are ready to knock him down for something that up until now is nothing but false. Oh no wait...Tyler Hamilton said it, so it must be true....oh but wait, didn't he always deny it? Yeah, that's it.....up until he was already banned and looking for a book deal, then he changed his mind! Who to believe....7 time winner of the tour, ambassador for one of the biggest cancer charities in the US or Tyler Hamilton - two time banned cyclist???
As i've stated, according to every drugs test he has ever taken (which i'll admit is closer to 500 than 1500), he was clean - enjoy your testicles - rather you than me!0 -
OllyRidesFirst wrote:P_Tucker wrote:OllyRidesFirst wrote:P_Tucker wrote:tarquin_foxglove wrote:Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?
Yes. But the important thing is to give the idiot public some vaguely plausible reason, other than a boatload of drugs, for his unprecedented dominance.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but could you please point me to the little bit of the internet that details Lance Armstrong's failed drugs test.....didn't think so!
It's amazing how he's never actually failed a drugs test, yet people hold onto the belief that he's a doper. Is it not innocent until proven guilty anymore? How many negative tests do you think he had in just those 7 years he won the tours? Must be over 1500+
Ugh. Even I can't be bothered with this one. If you want to believe he was clean, knock yourself out. Also, it's innocent until proven guilty only in a court of law - I base my personal opinion on the balance of probabilities. And if Armstrong didn't dope, I'll eat my own testicles.
I believe he was clean because he hasn't failed a drugs test. What exactly will it take for you to believe? IF it does ever come out that a failed test turns up or IF he ever admits to taking performance drugs, then i will change my mind; Doesn't bother me either way. What does bother me is that there are a lot of people out there who are ready to knock him down for something that up until now is nothing but false. Oh no wait...Tyler Hamilton said it, so it must be true....oh but wait, didn't he always deny it? Yeah, that's it.....up until he was already banned and looking for a book deal, then he changed his mind! Who to believe....7 time winner of the tour, ambassador for one of the biggest cancer charities in the US or Tyler Hamilton - two time banned cyclist???
As i've stated, according to every drugs test he has ever taken (which i'll admit is closer to 500 than 1500), he was clean - enjoy your testicles - rather you than me!
What part of "I can't be bothered with this one" did you not understand? Look, its cute that you believe, but anyone who's followed pro cycling for the last 10 years and has half a brain will have the same opinion as me. Failure to demonstrate in a court of law that he's guilty doesn't mean he's innocent.
As a point of order, he has actually failed a test, for cortisol. Got a backdated TUE to cover it though. I bet you didn't know that.0 -
OllyRidesFirst wrote:ShinyHelmut wrote:Correct me if i'm wrong, but could you please point me to the little bit of the internet that details Lance Armstrong's failed drugs test.....didn't think so!
Here we go again.....
I take it you don't have the link to the website detailing the proof then :roll:
I don't recall claiming I did.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:OllyRidesFirst wrote:P_Tucker wrote:OllyRidesFirst wrote:P_Tucker wrote:tarquin_foxglove wrote:Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?
Yes. But the important thing is to give the idiot public some vaguely plausible reason, other than a boatload of drugs, for his unprecedented dominance.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but could you please point me to the little bit of the internet that details Lance Armstrong's failed drugs test.....didn't think so!
It's amazing how he's never actually failed a drugs test, yet people hold onto the belief that he's a doper. Is it not innocent until proven guilty anymore? How many negative tests do you think he had in just those 7 years he won the tours? Must be over 1500+
Ugh. Even I can't be bothered with this one. If you want to believe he was clean, knock yourself out. Also, it's innocent until proven guilty only in a court of law - I base my personal opinion on the balance of probabilities. And if Armstrong didn't dope, I'll eat my own testicles.
I believe he was clean because he hasn't failed a drugs test. What exactly will it take for you to believe? IF it does ever come out that a failed test turns up or IF he ever admits to taking performance drugs, then i will change my mind; Doesn't bother me either way. What does bother me is that there are a lot of people out there who are ready to knock him down for something that up until now is nothing but false. Oh no wait...Tyler Hamilton said it, so it must be true....oh but wait, didn't he always deny it? Yeah, that's it.....up until he was already banned and looking for a book deal, then he changed his mind! Who to believe....7 time winner of the tour, ambassador for one of the biggest cancer charities in the US or Tyler Hamilton - two time banned cyclist???
As i've stated, according to every drugs test he has ever taken (which i'll admit is closer to 500 than 1500), he was clean - enjoy your testicles - rather you than me!
What part of "I can't be bothered with this one" did you not understand? Look, its cute that you believe, but anyone who's followed pro cycling for the last 10 years and has half a brain will have the same opinion as me. Failure to demonstrate in a court of law that he's guilty doesn't mean he's innocent.
Unfortunately that's exactly what it means!P_Tucker wrote:As a point of order, he has actually failed a test, for cortisol. Got a backdated TUE to cover it though. I bet you didn't know that.
Please tell me you don't mean the time there was "trace" amounts found that wasn't enough to be deemed positive anyway....oh dear! Is that you're proof :oops:
Try again.....or do what you said and don't bother! You have no evidence to back up your claims and you're sounding a bit bitter about it all now. Did he bypass you once when you wanted an autograph or something?0 -
To clarify.
- Some think Lance doped.
- Some think Lance didn't dope.
- Neither of the above groups will ever change their mind and argue endlessly about it on forums.
Did, didn't, did, didn't, did, didn't, did, didn't, did etc.
What about the fascinating long thighs theory?0 -
OllyRidesFirst wrote:P_Tucker wrote:OllyRidesFirst wrote:P_Tucker wrote:OllyRidesFirst wrote:P_Tucker wrote:tarquin_foxglove wrote:Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?
Yes. But the important thing is to give the idiot public some vaguely plausible reason, other than a boatload of drugs, for his unprecedented dominance.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but could you please point me to the little bit of the internet that details Lance Armstrong's failed drugs test.....didn't think so!
It's amazing how he's never actually failed a drugs test, yet people hold onto the belief that he's a doper. Is it not innocent until proven guilty anymore? How many negative tests do you think he had in just those 7 years he won the tours? Must be over 1500+
Ugh. Even I can't be bothered with this one. If you want to believe he was clean, knock yourself out. Also, it's innocent until proven guilty only in a court of law - I base my personal opinion on the balance of probabilities. And if Armstrong didn't dope, I'll eat my own testicles.
I believe he was clean because he hasn't failed a drugs test. What exactly will it take for you to believe? IF it does ever come out that a failed test turns up or IF he ever admits to taking performance drugs, then i will change my mind; Doesn't bother me either way. What does bother me is that there are a lot of people out there who are ready to knock him down for something that up until now is nothing but false. Oh no wait...Tyler Hamilton said it, so it must be true....oh but wait, didn't he always deny it? Yeah, that's it.....up until he was already banned and looking for a book deal, then he changed his mind! Who to believe....7 time winner of the tour, ambassador for one of the biggest cancer charities in the US or Tyler Hamilton - two time banned cyclist???
As i've stated, according to every drugs test he has ever taken (which i'll admit is closer to 500 than 1500), he was clean - enjoy your testicles - rather you than me!
What part of "I can't be bothered with this one" did you not understand? Look, its cute that you believe, but anyone who's followed pro cycling for the last 10 years and has half a brain will have the same opinion as me. Failure to demonstrate in a court of law that he's guilty doesn't mean he's innocent.
Unfortunately that's exactly what it means!P_Tucker wrote:As a point of order, he has actually failed a test, for cortisol. Got a backdated TUE to cover it though. I bet you didn't know that.
Please tell me you don't mean the time there was "trace" amounts found that wasn't enough to be deemed positive anyway....oh dear! Is that you're proof :oops:
Try again.....or do what you said and don't bother! You have no evidence to back up your claims and you're sounding a bit bitter about it all now. Did he bypass you once when you wanted an autograph or something?
Jesus. Why did I even respond the first time? And I'm not bitter in the slightest - Lance is one of my favourite cyclists and I would think no less of him if it were proven that he injected a pharmacy into himself before every race. Doping is just part of the job description of a professional cyclist, particularly in the EPO era of the late 90s/early 2000s. But hey, like I say, believe what you want. I can't prove my position, you can't prove yours (x negative tests mean nothing - how many tests did Zabel/Riis pass?), so lets just agree that you are a naive Lance fanboi and leave it at that.0 -
lemoncurd wrote:To clarify.
- Some think Lance doped.
- Some think Lance didn't dope.
- Neither of the above groups will ever change their mind and argue endlessly about it on forums.
Did, didn't, did, didn't, did, didn't, did, didn't, did etc.
What about the fascinating long thighs theory?
Thank you :-)0 -
P_Tucker wrote:tarquin_foxglove wrote:Isn't it more likely that he got a greater benefit than the others from doping & that was the reason for his success rather than some superfluous physical difference?
Yes. But the important thing is to give the idiot public some vaguely plausible reason, other than a boatload of drugs, for his unprecedented dominance.
Whilst probably correct, it doesn't explain how he still beat every other doped up rider of his generation for 7 tours in a row, so maybe it was the long thighs0