Doping accusations vs Lance Armstrong - I'm bored of it

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

Sharron is a niche interest, I'll grant you.

ITB's right about you.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Sharron is a niche interest, I'll grant you.

ITB's right about you.

I won't post this directly in deference to anyone's sensitivities.

But you keep on like that, TWH, and she's gonna whip yer sorry ass!

tailwindhome

gabriel959 wrote:

I do agree with Greg66 regarding the farce of stripping Tour winners and all that. It is bonkers.

The problem is, as Greg also identifies, that you can't strip some and not others.


Would love to know what Evans *really* thinks about all this. Assuming his good reputation is justified it can't be easy to have raced against these cheats for the best years of his career.

That said Hincapie is doing a great job of looking after him this week....

gabriel959

TailWindHome wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

I do agree with Greg66 regarding the farce of stripping Tour winners and all that. It is bonkers.

The problem is, as Greg also identifies, that you can't strip some and not others.


Would love to know what Evans *really* thinks about all this. Assuming his good reputation is justified it can't be easy to have raced against these cheats for the best years of his career.

That said Hincapie is doing a great job of looking after him this week....

I do agree with that too.

I am not so sure about Evans either.

edhornby

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Yeah, you're right. Who cares about cheating in sport?

Worst case scenario: not guilty verdict. Then the accusations and suspicions will never go away.

Better than that, they will be forgotten. Why? Well guess what, Lance doesn't race anymore and most of that generation are retiring or falling from the international racing stage. What they're being replaced with are guys that are clean and who will be talked about for generations to come.

Lance competes in Triathlon

Bruyneel is still the DS at RadioShack.

McQuaid is still in charge of the UCI

SimonAH

shutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutup

notsoblue

I can see why people get so wound up about this issue. I was at an event a few weeks ago where Graham Obree was giving a talk, and he pretty much said that in the 90's the prevailing culture of pro cycling excluded some very talented riders simply because they wouldn't dope. The attitude was that if you didn't, you were an amateur.

SteppenHerring

edhornby wrote:

McQuaid is still in charge of the UCI

This.

If the allegations are true then it implicates people who are still powerful at the top of the sport. The UCI has an inherent conflict of interest being both policeman and promoter.

As a promoter, the story of the heroic cancer survivor winning in '99 was something that people could talk about after the nastiness of '98. A good story. Not really in their interests for that particular bubble to be burst.

notsoblue: Was that the one at Sandown? Great talk.

gabriel959

notsoblue wrote:

I can see why people get so wound up about this issue. I was at an event a few weeks ago where Graham Obree was giving a talk, and he pretty much said that in the 90's the prevailing culture of pro cycling excluded some very talented riders simply because they wouldn't dope. The attitude was that if you didn't, you were an amateur.

Yes, there was a good article by Henry Cardenas (from Cafe de Colombia) in Cycling Inquisition the other week that spoke about how a lot of colombian cyclists had to leave professional cycling because of the rampant use of drugs during the 90s.

I do think they still dope now, it is just more controlled these days.

jonny_trousers

notsoblue wrote:

I can see why people get so wound up about this issue. I was at an event a few weeks ago where Graham Obree was giving a talk, and he pretty much said that in the 90's the prevailing culture of pro cycling excluded some very talented riders simply because they wouldn't dope. The attitude was that if you didn't, you were an amateur.

Yeah, that's the saddest aspect to it and David Millar's book really does highlight the frustration in trying to ride clean against chemically enhanced opposition.

I still just wish we could draw a line under the whole damn business. When I properly started paying an interest in road racing, a little over a year ago, I avidly set about watching DVDs of great clashes in the past, admiring the immense skills of the riders, only to then discover the depressing truth that they were all doping. I wonder how long before we discover the current breed of pros have been dabbling with illegal, performance enhancing nanotechnology.

I do wonder if any other rider would be hounded so vehemently, and if there is a touch of schadenfreude about it given how LA was a cocky yank who stepped in and blew the dominantly European opposition apart.

Hoopdriver

I suspect Lance' supreme arrogance and bullying tactics have a lot to do with the degree to which he is bein pursued. He made an awful of of enemies on his way to the top. That's not to say he shouldn't be brought to account for his alleged misdeeds, if they did indeed occur, but it will give a lot of people a lot of pleasure to see him take a hard fall and that eagerness to see it happen will fuel a lot of investigative fury.

tailwindhome

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

I do wonder if any other rider would be hounded so vehemently, and if there is a touch of schadenfreude about it given how LA was a cocky yank who stepped in and blew the dominantly European opposition apart.

'cept it's the USAda and the 4 of the key riders providing the evidence are American, including his 'brother' Hincapie.

The French seem to have lost interest and seem to be adopting the DDD policy of just pretending he never happened.

jonny_trousers

TailWindHome wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

I do wonder if any other rider would be hounded so vehemently, and if there is a touch of schadenfreude about it given how LA was a cocky yank who stepped in and blew the dominantly European opposition apart.

'cept it's the USAda and the 4 of the key riders providing the evidence are American, including his 'brother' Hincapie.

The French seem to have lost interest and seem to be adopting the DDD policy of just pretending he never happened.

I was more meaning those in places like Pro Cycling getting a kick out of his downfall.

Perhaps I'd be less sympathetic if it wasn't for the whole cancer thing given that it has affected too many people I've known.

notsoblue

SteppenHerring wrote:

notsoblue: Was that the one at Sandown? Great talk.

Was at the BikeBath festival. Robert Penn (Its all about the bike) and Ben Rockett (LEJOGLE) spoke there aswell. Was a good event!

Jay dubbleU

Bored with it NOT bored of it - today's pedantry

gabriel959

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

I do wonder if any other rider would be hounded so vehemently, and if there is a touch of schadenfreude about it given how LA was a cocky yank who stepped in and blew the dominantly European opposition apart.

'cept it's the USAda and the 4 of the key riders providing the evidence are American, including his 'brother' Hincapie.

The French seem to have lost interest and seem to be adopting the DDD policy of just pretending he never happened.

I was more meaning those in places like Pro Cycling getting a kick out of his downfall.

Perhaps I'd be less sympathetic if it wasn't for the whole cancer thing given that it has affected too many people I've known.

His cancer thing is mostly a scam too.

SteppenHerring

You know those Livestrong wristbands? They make great improvised tourniquets.

Anonymous

DonDaddyD wrote:

If you continue to post stupid opinions, people will think you are stupid.

Why is it a stupid opinion? Let it die. The guy retired. Cycling doesn't need this saga repeated over an over.

Agree. He should just admit it and we can all move on. I think your rather creative explanation of how he came to be using EPO is quite impressive BTW, you should forward it to his lawyers!

The drugs Lance took to fight cancer (wiki) would have certainly lowered his blood count and destroyed cells - amongst over things: I note that that information wasn't available on his wiki page the last time i read it.

I'will never believe that je took drugs to fight cancer and then took a long innocent road to recovery. Cancer and cancer treament - especially that affecting the blood, marrow or respitory system usually destroys your cardiovascular fitness. To recover too the point of being able to beat performance enhancing drug taking professional athletes without additional 'support' is ridiculous.

But as I said, we will never know and for the most part: It no longer matters. The 90s has a line drawn underneath it with or without Lance being found a cheat or not. No one looks back on that era with fondness and most would rather forget it. LeMond et al might feel vidicated if Lance is found guilty of doping, but in the grand scheme of things will that matter? Will it stop them being remembered as cheats? Let sleeping dogs lie.

There are a new generation of cyclists emerging and we shouldn't have this cloud hanging over them - if only through association of how dark the sport once was.

Utter crap. You sound like a wannabe oncologist who has some but not a lot of knowledge.

I have been in remission from tesictular cancer (Seminoma) for 6 years now. I bought a bike after my surgeries and bouts of chemo and now compete regularly, have a 3rd cat licence, TT and also race in the LVRC. Whilst obvoiusly not a pro athlete, if you ride and maybe compete you will know how demanding this sport can be. You can come back from cancer different, I did, completely changed my physiology having previously been very fit and active (ex-para).

The thing is I probably know deep down that LA is not innocent but I really want him to be clean. I really want to believe that he rode and stormed it just don't want the Gotcha moment for him, there will be no pleasure from that just a lot of dissapointment and realisation that it was all a fraud. he (in his time) has been the most tested athlete in the world and no significant amount of doping has been proven. Contador has a trace of clen in his system and loses the malliot juine, if it is in you the controls will find it.

I just hope he is clean.

Hoopdriver

dmclite-2.0 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

If you continue to post stupid opinions, people will think you are stupid.

Why is it a stupid opinion? Let it die. The guy retired. Cycling doesn't need this saga repeated over an over.

Agree. He should just admit it and we can all move on. I think your rather creative explanation of how he came to be using EPO is quite impressive BTW, you should forward it to his lawyers!

The drugs Lance took to fight cancer (wiki) would have certainly lowered his blood count and destroyed cells - amongst over things: I note that that information wasn't available on his wiki page the last time i read it.

I'will never believe that je took drugs to fight cancer and then took a long innocent road to recovery. Cancer and cancer treament - especially that affecting the blood, marrow or respitory system usually destroys your cardiovascular fitness. To recover too the point of being able to beat performance enhancing drug taking professional athletes without additional 'support' is ridiculous.

But as I said, we will never know and for the most part: It no longer matters. The 90s has a line drawn underneath it with or without Lance being found a cheat or not. No one looks back on that era with fondness and most would rather forget it. LeMond et al might feel vidicated if Lance is found guilty of doping, but in the grand scheme of things will that matter? Will it stop them being remembered as cheats? Let sleeping dogs lie.

There are a new generation of cyclists emerging and we shouldn't have this cloud hanging over them - if only through association of how dark the sport once was.

Utter crap. You sound like a wannabe oncologist who has some but not a lot of knowledge.

I have been in remission from tesictular cancer (Seminoma) for 6 years now. I bought a bike after my surgeries and bouts of chemo and now compete regularly, have a 3rd cat licence, TT and also race in the LVRC. Whilst obvoiusly not a pro athlete, if you ride and maybe compete you will know how demanding this sport can be. You can come back from cancer different, I did, completely changed my physiology having previously been very fit and active (ex-para).

The thing is I probably know deep down that LA is not innocent but I really want him to be clean. I really want to believe that he rode and stormed it just don't want the Gotcha moment for him, there will be no pleasure from that just a lot of dissapointment and realisation that it was all a fraud. he (in his time) has been the most tested athlete in the world and no significant amount of doping has been proven. Contador has a trace of clen in his system and loses the malliot juine, if it is in you the controls will find it.

I just hope he is clean.

Well put

jonny_trousers

dmclite-2.0 wrote:

The thing is I probably know deep down that LA is not innocent but I really want him to be clean. I really want to believe that he rode and stormed it just don't want the Gotcha moment for him, there will be no pleasure from that just a lot of dissapointment and realisation that it was all a fraud. he (in his time) has been the most tested athlete in the world and no significant amount of doping has been proven. Contador has a trace of clen in his system and loses the malliot juine, if it is in you the controls will find it.

I just hope he is clean.

Great post and it sums up my sentiments precisely.

Glad to hear you beat it!

rick_chasey

Rightly or wrongly Lance casts a long shadow over cycling. Given how he regularly profits from his 7 wins, against riders who have been caught, to the point that he makes adverts with Nike about how clean he is, it seems only fair. Furthermore, given how much attention history gives the winner, I believe that until he is done, it won't be possible to draw a line under it. I reckon if he is done, you can.

The doctors getting done is more important for getting the sport clean. They are the enablers and don't feel the wrath enough.

bigmat

dmclite-2.0 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

If you continue to post stupid opinions, people will think you are stupid.

Why is it a stupid opinion? Let it die. The guy retired. Cycling doesn't need this saga repeated over an over.

Agree. He should just admit it and we can all move on. I think your rather creative explanation of how he came to be using EPO is quite impressive BTW, you should forward it to his lawyers!

The drugs Lance took to fight cancer (wiki) would have certainly lowered his blood count and destroyed cells - amongst over things: I note that that information wasn't available on his wiki page the last time i read it.

I'will never believe that je took drugs to fight cancer and then took a long innocent road to recovery. Cancer and cancer treament - especially that affecting the blood, marrow or respitory system usually destroys your cardiovascular fitness. To recover too the point of being able to beat performance enhancing drug taking professional athletes without additional 'support' is ridiculous.

But as I said, we will never know and for the most part: It no longer matters. The 90s has a line drawn underneath it with or without Lance being found a cheat or not. No one looks back on that era with fondness and most would rather forget it. LeMond et al might feel vidicated if Lance is found guilty of doping, but in the grand scheme of things will that matter? Will it stop them being remembered as cheats? Let sleeping dogs lie.

There are a new generation of cyclists emerging and we shouldn't have this cloud hanging over them - if only through association of how dark the sport once was.

Utter crap. You sound like a wannabe oncologist who has some but not a lot of knowledge.

I have been in remission from tesictular cancer (Seminoma) for 6 years now. I bought a bike after my surgeries and bouts of chemo and now compete regularly, have a 3rd cat licence, TT and also race in the LVRC. Whilst obvoiusly not a pro athlete, if you ride and maybe compete you will know how demanding this sport can be. You can come back from cancer different, I did, completely changed my physiology having previously been very fit and active (ex-para).

The thing is I probably know deep down that LA is not innocent but I really want him to be clean. I really want to believe that he rode and stormed it just don't want the Gotcha moment for him, there will be no pleasure from that just a lot of dissapointment and realisation that it was all a fraud. he (in his time) has been the most tested athlete in the world and no significant amount of doping has been proven. Contador has a trace of clen in his system and loses the malliot juine, if it is in you the controls will find it.

I just hope he is clean.

He wasn't clean.

Anonymous

BigMat wrote:

dmclite-2.0 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

If you continue to post stupid opinions, people will think you are stupid.

Why is it a stupid opinion? Let it die. The guy retired. Cycling doesn't need this saga repeated over an over.

Agree. He should just admit it and we can all move on. I think your rather creative explanation of how he came to be using EPO is quite impressive BTW, you should forward it to his lawyers!

The drugs Lance took to fight cancer (wiki) would have certainly lowered his blood count and destroyed cells - amongst over things: I note that that information wasn't available on his wiki page the last time i read it.

I'will never believe that je took drugs to fight cancer and then took a long innocent road to recovery. Cancer and cancer treament - especially that affecting the blood, marrow or respitory system usually destroys your cardiovascular fitness. To recover too the point of being able to beat performance enhancing drug taking professional athletes without additional 'support' is ridiculous.

But as I said, we will never know and for the most part: It no longer matters. The 90s has a line drawn underneath it with or without Lance being found a cheat or not. No one looks back on that era with fondness and most would rather forget it. LeMond et al might feel vidicated if Lance is found guilty of doping, but in the grand scheme of things will that matter? Will it stop them being remembered as cheats? Let sleeping dogs lie.

There are a new generation of cyclists emerging and we shouldn't have this cloud hanging over them - if only through association of how dark the sport once was.

Utter crap. You sound like a wannabe oncologist who has some but not a lot of knowledge.

I have been in remission from tesictular cancer (Seminoma) for 6 years now. I bought a bike after my surgeries and bouts of chemo and now compete regularly, have a 3rd cat licence, TT and also race in the LVRC. Whilst obvoiusly not a pro athlete, if you ride and maybe compete you will know how demanding this sport can be. You can come back from cancer different, I did, completely changed my physiology having previously been very fit and active (ex-para).

The thing is I probably know deep down that LA is not innocent but I really want him to be clean. I really want to believe that he rode and stormed it just don't want the Gotcha moment for him, there will be no pleasure from that just a lot of dissapointment and realisation that it was all a fraud. he (in his time) has been the most tested athlete in the world and no significant amount of doping has been proven. Contador has a trace of clen in his system and loses the malliot juine, if it is in you the controls will find it.

I just hope he is clean.

He wasn't clean.

Well, there we have it, the definitive, absolute decision. Thanks for that, make sure you cc all the relevant authorities and news agencies. Gosh I'm all despondant now but at least I have closure....... :roll:

Hoopdriver

BigMat wrote:

dmclite-2.0 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

If you continue to post stupid opinions, people will think you are stupid.

Why is it a stupid opinion? Let it die. The guy retired. Cycling doesn't need this saga repeated over an over.

Agree. He should just admit it and we can all move on. I think your rather creative explanation of how he came to be using EPO is quite impressive BTW, you should forward it to his lawyers!

The drugs Lance took to fight cancer (wiki) would have certainly lowered his blood count and destroyed cells - amongst over things: I note that that information wasn't available on his wiki page the last time i read it.

I'will never believe that je took drugs to fight cancer and then took a long innocent road to recovery. Cancer and cancer treament - especially that affecting the blood, marrow or respitory system usually destroys your cardiovascular fitness. To recover too the point of being able to beat performance enhancing drug taking professional athletes without additional 'support' is ridiculous.

But as I said, we will never know and for the most part: It no longer matters. The 90s has a line drawn underneath it with or without Lance being found a cheat or not. No one looks back on that era with fondness and most would rather forget it. LeMond et al might feel vidicated if Lance is found guilty of doping, but in the grand scheme of things will that matter? Will it stop them being remembered as cheats? Let sleeping dogs lie.

There are a new generation of cyclists emerging and we shouldn't have this cloud hanging over them - if only through association of how dark the sport once was.

Utter crap. You sound like a wannabe oncologist who has some but not a lot of knowledge.

I have been in remission from tesictular cancer (Seminoma) for 6 years now. I bought a bike after my surgeries and bouts of chemo and now compete regularly, have a 3rd cat licence, TT and also race in the LVRC. Whilst obvoiusly not a pro athlete, if you ride and maybe compete you will know how demanding this sport can be. You can come back from cancer different, I did, completely changed my physiology having previously been very fit and active (ex-para).

The thing is I probably know deep down that LA is not innocent but I really want him to be clean. I really want to believe that he rode and stormed it just don't want the Gotcha moment for him, there will be no pleasure from that just a lot of dissapointment and realisation that it was all a fraud. he (in his time) has been the most tested athlete in the world and no significant amount of doping has been proven. Contador has a trace of clen in his system and loses the malliot juine, if it is in you the controls will find it.

I just hope he is clean.

He wasn't clean.

Could you clear up the Roger Clemens business for us as well? I know the jury let him off, but there are big doubts about the sportswriters voting him into the Hall of Fame thisvNovember. Perhaps a word from you...?

DonDaddyD

dmclite-2.0 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

If you continue to post stupid opinions, people will think you are stupid.

Why is it a stupid opinion? Let it die. The guy retired. Cycling doesn't need this saga repeated over an over.

Agree. He should just admit it and we can all move on. I think your rather creative explanation of how he came to be using EPO is quite impressive BTW, you should forward it to his lawyers!

The drugs Lance took to fight cancer (wiki) would have certainly lowered his blood count and destroyed cells - amongst over things: I note that that information wasn't available on his wiki page the last time i read it.

I'will never believe that je took drugs to fight cancer and then took a long innocent road to recovery. Cancer and cancer treament - especially that affecting the blood, marrow or respitory system usually destroys your cardiovascular fitness. To recover too the point of being able to beat performance enhancing drug taking professional athletes without additional 'support' is ridiculous.

But as I said, we will never know and for the most part: It no longer matters. The 90s has a line drawn underneath it with or without Lance being found a cheat or not. No one looks back on that era with fondness and most would rather forget it. LeMond et al might feel vidicated if Lance is found guilty of doping, but in the grand scheme of things will that matter? Will it stop them being remembered as cheats? Let sleeping dogs lie.

There are a new generation of cyclists emerging and we shouldn't have this cloud hanging over them - if only through association of how dark the sport once was.

Utter crap. You sound like a wannabe oncologist who has some but not a lot of knowledge.

I have been in remission from tesictular cancer (Seminoma) for 6 years now. I bought a bike after my surgeries and bouts of chemo and now compete regularly, have a 3rd cat licence, TT and also race in the LVRC. Whilst obvoiusly not a pro athlete, if you ride and maybe compete you will know how demanding this sport can be. You can come back from cancer different, I did, completely changed my physiology having previously been very fit and active (ex-para).

The thing is I probably know deep down that LA is not innocent but I really want him to be clean. I really want to believe that he rode and stormed it just don't want the Gotcha moment for him, there will be no pleasure from that just a lot of dissapointment and realisation that it was all a fraud. he (in his time) has been the most tested athlete in the world and no significant amount of doping has been proven. Contador has a trace of clen in his system and loses the malliot juine, if it is in you the controls will find it.
I just hope he is clean.

I can understand that you might believe Lance's situation relates to yours. His cancer spread to his lungs and brain. The cancer in his lungs and treatment - look up the treatment he took and the side effects - would have damaged his cardiovascular health.

I don't feel it necessary to write my own personal experiences with cancer to give weight to what I'm saying. It is not silly to think that a cell destroying illness and treatment could, would and and does affect your health.

Yes he recovered, that he was then able to be better than performance enhanced drug taking athletes at the top of their game without help is unlikely.

But as I keep saying, for me engaging with the sport today, what those past athletes did matters little. They've all be labelled cheats and I'm happy to move on.

Cycloslalomeur

Frankly the let sleeping dogs lie argument leaves me utterly baffled. Surely the whole point in addressing alleged doping offences is to provide a deterrent for the future?

keyser__soze

Along the lines of sleeping dogs, I think the quote attributed to Mark Twain is more appropriate

"It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open ones mouth and remove all doubt."

roger_merriman

Indeed dopers do need to be taken to task.

it's not just ancient history only 2 years ago Contador won the TDF and then failed a doping tests.

Road cycling is not unsurprising seen as dirty sport.

Ben6899

CiB wrote:

Being 'a long time ago' is a puerile argument.

Exactly. That's what Nazi war criminals try to hide behind.

DonDaddyD

Perhaps some should seek their own advice.

Keyser__Soze wrote:

Along the lines of sleeping dogs, I think the quote attributed to Mark Twain is more appropriate

"It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open ones mouth and remove all doubt."

Because....

Gabriel959 wrote:

Abraham Lincoln said it best...

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

For my part, as I don't stumble over what someones may have said, if the phrase itself is not infact older. I have my opinions, you may disagree with them, but don't be so imbecilic arrogant as to deem them as foolish purely because you disagree. Your opinion is no more right than mine.

We are not discussing facts. We are discussing perspective, perception and interpretation of an situation. It is a conversation of viewpoint and almost always no single person is completely right.

Anyway.... :roll:

1. It's not unthinkable to conclude that a bout of cancer and treatment would leave a person weakend/unable to compete at the highest level of sport in, arguably, the hardest competition in the World. I mean cancer and cancer treatments don't make you stronger/fitter, I'd like to see the person who argues otherwise.

2. What would good would outing Armstrong at this stage achieve. We all accept that he most probably did cheat and if this came to light now who honestly would be surprised. What impact to cycling, its history would stripping him of his wins achieve now?

For me, the lay-fan, I've pretty much written of the 90s era of pro-cyclists. I find it hard to engage with the sport or identify with any pro-cyclist from that era as my fandom often feels trivialised and less than genuine. Outing Lance won't change this.

On the other hand you have the dmclite types who have been inspired by Armstrong's feats and gone on to contribute to cycling in their own way(at varying levels), while not being marred by the drugs. Despite this, despite dmclite's 'hope' that Lance is clean What good would outing Lance, even his opening on the third paragraph reads I probably know deep down that LA is not innocent.

So again I ask what good, at this stage, does the revelation achieve when the vast majority have already accepted that he probably did.

What I see from the French is a nation who love cycling seen it beeen marred for a decade and who are now ready to wash their hands of that ugly era and get back to loving professional cycling.

"Lance took drugs/didn't take drugs" Big whoop.