Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
dennisn wrote:Bo Duke wrote:tuneskyline wrote:IC. wrote:Oh don't be so short sighted, what a load of nonsense. Easy target????
I have my opinion and you have yours. Can you tell me how cycling has benefited from the Armstrong confession?
Easy target? Oh come on, wise up!!! Latest cr@p to spout from his mouth here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-a ... nce-winner
The good news is he's inching closer and closer to having to give back his ill gotten gains.
Bye bye Lance.
I'm starting to think that maybe, just maybe, ol' LA is going to become something of an anti-hero, if you will. And through no doing of his own. Right now he's being pursued by lawyers, Government agencies, maybe a big corporation or two, possibly by the police or someone / something of that nature. Now none of these people pursuing him are anyone that have any kind of loyal following. I certainly don't give a sh*t about doping enforcement agencies,or lawyers or big corporations who are trying to cash in on all this and yet were willing participants not so long ago. He could become the Keith Richards of cycling. Loved by millions because he's an outlaw, doesn't live by convention, and flaunts it all right in the face of authority. Actually, my kind of guy.
It could happen?
dennisn, I understand what you are saying, but the bloke is a grade A prick in every single way.0 -
Joelsim wrote:There are several things that have come up that are spot on.
1) Lance is a scumbag
2) He's not the only one
3) He shouldn't be treated any differently, don't forget he was left behind by the Gewiss boys too
4) It still goes on, but to a lesser degree
5) Are the riders to blame? No, the system was/is.
6) Lance is f*cked (which is divine retribution for his appalling treatment of others)
7) The problem is not yet solved
8) There is much more to come out (most of it already suspected I'm sure)
EDIT:
Interesting how my 8 in brackets has turned into a face. Not intentional.
1.).... to you
2.) Duh
3.) OK
4.) Are you sure?
5.) C'mon, get real. It's the riders. No one was held down and tortured until he did drugs.
6.) As far as you're concerned he is. But I have my doubts that LA will end up as badly as you
hope for.
7.) To you it's a problem. To me it's an simply an issue.
8.) That's what "The I Hate LA Book Club" is hoping for. Along with all the journo's who have
yet to try and cash in on all this.0 -
Joelsim wrote:dennisn, I understand what you are saying, but the bloke is a grade A prick in every single way.
You're with a friend catching a brew. Your friend points someone out at the end of the bar and says "that guy is a grade A prick". Do you simply buy that assessment or do you reserve judgement until you can experience him first hand? I don't know LA but I do know that what sells books, magazines, etc. is him being portrayed as evil(if you will). I just don't buy into all this stuff about him p*ssing off this and that person, treating everyone badly, abuse of power, forcing people to dope, etc., etc. Think about it. How could someone like that get enough support from the other members of his team to win 7 TDF's? How long would you work for someone like that? Just how much work will you do and how long will you work for someone who threatens and demeans you all the time? Doesn't make sense to me. :?0 -
deejay wrote:
Agreedbompington wrote:Tuneskyline, I think it might benefit you to go back and read through this thread before repeating half of it at us.
Or at least it would give us peace from hearing the same old same old for the nth time.
Tunesskyline then says if you don't like my view, etc which misses the point that if you did go back then he would see his point has been covered so many times. yawn, yawn.
I have not defended Armstrong for doping. He doped. We all agree on that. Armstrong was not the nicest person.
Agreed. He was obsessed with winning the tour and rightly or wrongly he did what he thought was best and made mistakes with the way he treated people around him. My view is that all teams were doping at that time and Armstrong has been made out as though it was his fault that everyone was doping. I would say that there are plenty of other tales to be told from other teams whose behaviour was on par with Postal that we have not heard.
I do think Tygart was obsessed with getting Armstrong. It would interesting to see Tygart go after T mobile ,CSC, etc. But what would be the point?0 -
dennisn wrote:Joelsim wrote:dennisn, I understand what you are saying, but the bloke is a grade A prick in every single way.
You're with a friend catching a brew. Your friend points someone out at the end of the bar and says "that guy is a grade A prick". Do you simply buy that assessment or do you reserve judgement until you can experience him first hand? I don't know LA but I do know that what sells books, magazines, etc. is him being portrayed as evil(if you will). I just don't buy into all this stuff about him p*ssing off this and that person, treating everyone badly, abuse of power, forcing people to dope, etc., etc. Think about it. How could someone like that get enough support from the other members of his team to win 7 TDF's? How long would you work for someone like that? Just how much work will you do and how long will you work for someone who threatens and demeans you all the time? Doesn't make sense to me. :?
No, but there is enough evidence of him being a jerk to be fair isn't there? To the power of 10.
I never mentioned that he forced anyone to dope, although he probably did.
What would you do dennisn, if in 1990 you had been one of the best. Then a couple of years later you were being overtaken by sprinters on climbs? No test, fair enough, only one way to go if you don't want your career to end. 10 years later, cover ups by the UCI blah blah blah. It's not the riders' fault, it's just how it was.
On your last point, by all accounts as long as you towed Lance's line, you were Mr Popular. Cross him and he would stick a nail in your head. Don't get me wrong, some of his behaviour was because he was the one at the top and he had scant alternative, but he took it to another level.0 -
Joelsim wrote:dennisn wrote:Joelsim wrote:dennisn, I understand what you are saying, but the bloke is a grade A prick in every single way.
You're with a friend catching a brew. Your friend points someone out at the end of the bar and says "that guy is a grade A prick". Do you simply buy that assessment or do you reserve judgement until you can experience him first hand? I don't know LA but I do know that what sells books, magazines, etc. is him being portrayed as evil(if you will). I just don't buy into all this stuff about him p*ssing off this and that person, treating everyone badly, abuse of power, forcing people to dope, etc., etc. Think about it. How could someone like that get enough support from the other members of his team to win 7 TDF's? How long would you work for someone like that? Just how much work will you do and how long will you work for someone who threatens and demeans you all the time? Doesn't make sense to me. :?
No, but there is enough evidence of him being a jerk to be fair isn't there? To the power of 10.
I never mentioned that he forced anyone to dope, although he probably did.
What would you do dennisn, if in 1990 you had been one of the best. Then a couple of years later you were being overtaken by sprinters on climbs? No test, fair enough, only one way to go if you don't want your career to end. 10 years later, cover ups by the UCI blah blah blah. It's not the riders' fault, it's just how it was.
On your last point, by all accounts as long as you towed Lance's line, you were Mr Popular. Cross him and he would stick a nail in your head. Don't get me wrong, some of his behaviour was because he was the one at the top and he had scant alternative, but he took it to another level.
To you, yes, there is apparently evidence of him being a jerk.
Exactly how do you force someone to dope? People that are that weak willed don't make good pro athletes.
It's always the riders fault. Once again, who allows someone to stick a needle in their arm? Riders control their destiny. You do crack cocaine, whose fault is it?
I have found that many of my bosses tended to be hard driving people. It's their job. Many, many people tend to see "bosses" to be jerks because they don't like being told what to do or pushed to perform better. This is a very common way of thinking about people in charge. Lots of people don't do well when they are told what to do and, for them, it's always "the boss is an #sshole".0 -
-
dennisn wrote:Joelsim wrote:dennisn wrote:Joelsim wrote:dennisn, I understand what you are saying, but the bloke is a grade A prick in every single way.
You're with a friend catching a brew. Your friend points someone out at the end of the bar and says "that guy is a grade A prick". Do you simply buy that assessment or do you reserve judgement until you can experience him first hand? I don't know LA but I do know that what sells books, magazines, etc. is him being portrayed as evil(if you will). I just don't buy into all this stuff about him p*ssing off this and that person, treating everyone badly, abuse of power, forcing people to dope, etc., etc. Think about it. How could someone like that get enough support from the other members of his team to win 7 TDF's? How long would you work for someone like that? Just how much work will you do and how long will you work for someone who threatens and demeans you all the time? Doesn't make sense to me. :?
No, but there is enough evidence of him being a jerk to be fair isn't there? To the power of 10.
I never mentioned that he forced anyone to dope, although he probably did.
What would you do dennisn, if in 1990 you had been one of the best. Then a couple of years later you were being overtaken by sprinters on climbs? No test, fair enough, only one way to go if you don't want your career to end. 10 years later, cover ups by the UCI blah blah blah. It's not the riders' fault, it's just how it was.
On your last point, by all accounts as long as you towed Lance's line, you were Mr Popular. Cross him and he would stick a nail in your head. Don't get me wrong, some of his behaviour was because he was the one at the top and he had scant alternative, but he took it to another level.
To you, yes, there is apparently evidence of him being a jerk.
Exactly how do you force someone to dope? People that are that weak willed don't make good pro athletes.
It's always the riders fault. Once again, who allows someone to stick a needle in their arm? Riders control their destiny. You do crack cocaine, whose fault is it?
I have found that many of my bosses tended to be hard driving people. It's their job. Many, many people tend to see "bosses" to be jerks because they don't like being told what to do or pushed to perform better. This is a very common way of thinking about people in charge. Lots of people don't do well when they are told what to do and, for them, it's always "the boss is an #sshole".
Hmmm. Let's just agree to disagree.0 -
mfin wrote:
Hincapie makes some very good points that puts things in a bit of perspective about what was going on at that time0 -
Joelsim wrote:dennisn wrote:Joelsim wrote:dennisn wrote:Joelsim wrote:dennisn, I understand what you are saying, but the bloke is a grade A prick in every single way.
You're with a friend catching a brew. Your friend points someone out at the end of the bar and says "that guy is a grade A prick". Do you simply buy that assessment or do you reserve judgement until you can experience him first hand? I don't know LA but I do know that what sells books, magazines, etc. is him being portrayed as evil(if you will). I just don't buy into all this stuff about him p*ssing off this and that person, treating everyone badly, abuse of power, forcing people to dope, etc., etc. Think about it. How could someone like that get enough support from the other members of his team to win 7 TDF's? How long would you work for someone like that? Just how much work will you do and how long will you work for someone who threatens and demeans you all the time? Doesn't make sense to me. :?
No, but there is enough evidence of him being a jerk to be fair isn't there? To the power of 10.
I never mentioned that he forced anyone to dope, although he probably did.
What would you do dennisn, if in 1990 you had been one of the best. Then a couple of years later you were being overtaken by sprinters on climbs? No test, fair enough, only one way to go if you don't want your career to end. 10 years later, cover ups by the UCI blah blah blah. It's not the riders' fault, it's just how it was.
On your last point, by all accounts as long as you towed Lance's line, you were Mr Popular. Cross him and he would stick a nail in your head. Don't get me wrong, some of his behaviour was because he was the one at the top and he had scant alternative, but he took it to another level.
To you, yes, there is apparently evidence of him being a jerk.
Exactly how do you force someone to dope? People that are that weak willed don't make good pro athletes.
It's always the riders fault. Once again, who allows someone to stick a needle in their arm? Riders control their destiny. You do crack cocaine, whose fault is it?
I have found that many of my bosses tended to be hard driving people. It's their job. Many, many people tend to see "bosses" to be jerks because they don't like being told what to do or pushed to perform better. This is a very common way of thinking about people in charge. Lots of people don't do well when they are told what to do and, for them, it's always "the boss is an #sshole".
Hmmm. Let's just agree to disagree.
Still I ask the question of how do you force people to dope?
Also. Is it not YOUR fault if you do drugs? Or did someone force you into it?0 -
Lance ArmstrongVerified account
@lancearmstrong
Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously. - Hunter S. Thompson“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
0 -
Amazing that people are defending someone who bullied Bassons off the tour for speaking out against doping. But then they have always had the agenda to lessen LA's crimes for some reason. Now they are trying to elevate a grade A schmuck into an anti-hero? Go read some first hand accounts and then if you hold the same opinions explain them. These appeals to a lack of evidence are silly. Have you ever been to Antarctica? Probably not. Does that mean you are somehow unsure of it's existence? If so imagine all the other things you do not have direct empirical evidence for, you are going to have to give that all up too.0
-
This is like the moment in GOT on Monday.
*Possible GOT spoiler below*
Just when you thought he was dead, he stands up and crushes your skull0 -
1990 he still had his nappies on and was a triathlete and later became only one of the best single day racers.Joelsim wrote:Joelsim wrote:dennisn, I understand what you are saying, but the bloke is a grade A prick in every single way.
What would you do dennisn, if in 1990 you had been one of the best. Then a couple of years later you were being overtaken by sprinters on climbs? No test, fair enough, only one way to go if you don't want your career to end. 10 years later, cover ups by the UCI blah blah blah. It's not the riders' fault, it's just how it was.
1994 after the Liege presentations he complains to his mechanics (and in front of a crowd) that nobody recognises him. (well he was only world champion)
Nobody made him take drugs as he went to a lot of trouble to learn what is needed for his own self importance to become famous. He learnt a lot from the Cheats at Deutsche Telekom and their contacts.
I cannot think of another rider that is so disliked that he needed to employ Body Guards for the course of the race or to have guys in the USA running along side with large syringes.
Pantani has monuments on mountains but will you ever see the same for that "Quote" Grade A Prick.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
Armstrong was a winner. Like it or not he was the best of his era. He behaves just like all self obsessed focused and egotistical sportsman behave. But that is part of the reason why he won so many tours. Call him grade a prick if it makes you feel better but look at Wiggins and Froome they can't even ride together in the same team. Plenty of grade a egotistical pricks around in Pro sport. But to win you have to be driven and sometimes that means not being nice. Pantani Contador Froome Evans Merckx the great Andy Schleck
were or are driven, obsessed to win and being a nice guy is not always easy. Like I said before if Armstrong had never won 7 tours what clean rider would have? It was what cycling had become and I would much rather talk about the Dauphine coming up than harp on about something that happened years ago. Its not going to stop any rider from doping now is it. 0 -
nathancom wrote:Amazing that people are defending someone who bullied Bassons off the tour for speaking out against doping. But then they have always had the agenda to lessen LA's crimes for some reason. Now they are trying to elevate a grade A schmuck into an anti-hero? Go read some first hand accounts and then if you hold the same opinions explain them. These appeals to a lack of evidence are silly. Have you ever been to Antarctica? Probably not. Does that mean you are somehow unsure of it's existence? If so imagine all the other things you do not have direct empirical evidence for, you are going to have to give that all up too.
I've just got to say - enough with this "bully" stuff. Makes you sound 10 years old. :roll:
"...lessen LA's crimes..."? He doped and lied about it. You act as if that's a worlds first.
To you he's "a grade A schmuck". Great. Think what you will about whomever. Remember that you are the one who elevated all these guys to godlike / hero status, and then you found out they were all cheats. A bit of advice - get better heros.
Will he become an "anti hero"? Maybe along the lines of, oh say, Keith Richards? I sure hope so. If only because it will continue to p*ss off the so called cycling faithful(all the haters). That would make me feel great. Yes, I know that's a little sad on my part but still, knowing all you guys are STILL p*ssed about LA 10 years from now will sit just fine with me. Serves ya right in my mind.
0 -
Where you there in 1992 when mummy's boy (with mummy) arrived to a great fanfare by Jim Ochowicz to learn about European Cycling from his team leaders. ( Andy Hampsten, Sean Yates, Phil Anderson).tuneskyline wrote:Armstrong was a winner. Like it or not he was the best of his era.
He was a Grade A Prick before he ever won a Pro Race.
Where you there in 1994 to hear this Prick moan that nobody in the crowd (watching the mechanics) recognised him and the amusement of the mechanics as he went of to his room. (almost in tears)
No of course you weren't because you only got carried away with the prick in this century but he lost more than he won in the 1990's. (In Europe that is)
There is a clue to your Ignorance.tuneskyline wrote:Pantani Contador Froome Evans Merckx the great Andy Schleck were or are driven
The best of his era you say but he could only win one race and never a "Monument"
With a bit of Luck next Thursday they could throw him in Jail for being a Liar about his performances.
7 years would be most suitable. Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
deejay wrote:
Where you there in 1992 when mummy's boy (with mummy) arrived to a great fanfare by Jim Ochowicz to learn about European Cycling from his team leaders. ( Andy Hampsten, Sean Yates, Phil Anderson).tuneskyline wrote:Armstrong was a winner. Like it or not he was the best of his era.
He was a Grade A Prick before he ever won a Pro Race.
Where you there in 1994 to hear this Prick moan that nobody in the crowd (watching the mechanics) recognised him and the amusement of the mechanics as he went of to his room. (almost in tears)
No of course you weren't because you only got carried away with the prick in this century but he lost more than he won in the 1990's. (In Europe that is)
There is a clue to your Ignorance.tuneskyline wrote:Pantani Contador Froome Evans Merckx the great Andy Schleck were or are driven
The best of his era you say but he could only win one race and never a "Monument"
With a bit of Luck next Thursday they could throw him in Jail for being a Liar about his performances.
7 years would be most suitable.
Can you clarify, do you or don't you like Armstrong 0 -
tuneskyline wrote:deejay wrote:
Where you there in 1992 when mummy's boy (with mummy) arrived to a great fanfare by Jim Ochowicz to learn about European Cycling from his team leaders. ( Andy Hampsten, Sean Yates, Phil Anderson).tuneskyline wrote:Armstrong was a winner. Like it or not he was the best of his era.
He was a Grade A Prick before he ever won a Pro Race.
Where you there in 1994 to hear this Prick moan that nobody in the crowd (watching the mechanics) recognised him and the amusement of the mechanics as he went of to his room. (almost in tears)
No of course you weren't because you only got carried away with the prick in this century but he lost more than he won in the 1990's. (In Europe that is)
There is a clue to your Ignorance.tuneskyline wrote:Pantani Contador Froome Evans Merckx the great Andy Schleck were or are driven
The best of his era you say but he could only win one race and never a "Monument"
With a bit of Luck next Thursday they could throw him in Jail for being a Liar about his performances.
7 years would be most suitable.
Can you clarify, do you or don't you like Armstrong
I'm thinking that the guys who b*tch the most about him most likely, at one time, actually liked him. I believe that they are real "fans" of the sport and have a hard time with anything or anyone they perceive as a threat to that sport. Yet in the back of their heads a voice is telling them "Hey, all your heroes are cheats". This doesn't sit well with them so they pounce upon anyone or anything that they can blame for all of this and turn the whole thing into good rider - bad rider. This allows them to at least maintain some credibility with the people they are trying to impress by being a cyclist.0 -
I know it's been said over and over, but everyone (or most) knew he was cheating so are glad he's found out ok perhaps not wins 1 or 2 but after the leaks started occurring then the keener fans twigged.
I think it's almost like you were the one who worshipped him as a hero and looking for others who were equally duped, hence your obsession with the fact0 -
Ok I was trying to be as even handed as possible by using the term 'bullied'. He destroyed someone's career because this guy had the guts to say that professional cycling was being destroyed by dopers and that nothing had changed in the Tour of Renewal. He publicly humiliated and intimidated the guy and turned the peloton against him. How does that even remotely relate to Keith Richards. Where is the analogy there beyond taking copious amounts of drugs. I am not sure how Keith Richards went around ruining lives in order to cover up and sustain a fraudulent appearance of athletic mastery.dennisn wrote:nathancom wrote:Amazing that people are defending someone who bullied Bassons off the tour for speaking out against doping. But then they have always had the agenda to lessen LA's crimes for some reason. Now they are trying to elevate a grade A schmuck into an anti-hero? Go read some first hand accounts and then if you hold the same opinions explain them. These appeals to a lack of evidence are silly. Have you ever been to Antarctica? Probably not. Does that mean you are somehow unsure of it's existence? If so imagine all the other things you do not have direct empirical evidence for, you are going to have to give that all up too.
I've just got to say - enough with this "bully" stuff. Makes you sound 10 years old. :roll:
"...lessen LA's crimes..."? He doped and lied about it. You act as if that's a worlds first.
To you he's "a grade A schmuck". Great. Think what you will about whomever. Remember that you are the one who elevated all these guys to godlike / hero status, and then you found out they were all cheats. A bit of advice - get better heros.
Will he become an "anti hero"? Maybe along the lines of, oh say, Keith Richards? I sure hope so. If only because it will continue to p*ss off the so called cycling faithful(all the haters). That would make me feel great. Yes, I know that's a little sad on my part but still, knowing all you guys are STILL p*ssed about LA 10 years from now will sit just fine with me. Serves ya right in my mind.
Before his cancer Armstrong was nothing, not a champion just another also-ran with a decent amount of talent. He elevated himself not by hard work but by the most systematic doping programme that cycling has ever seen. Those are the facts, I read them, in a statement by USADA. I guess since you didn't see this with your own eyes then it is not true much like Napoleon, the dark side of the Moon and whatever is inside Scarlet Johanssen's knickers.0 -
I find the hypocrisy of it all quite stunning. If you don't like dopers then don't watch pro sports Cycling included.
You don't know who takes what and don't pretend to be shocked when your favorite athlete is stupid enough to get caught.
http://road.cc/content/news/120689-acto ... r%E2%80%9D0 -
Ahh ok, so you think it is fine to dope and that those who respond best to drugs/are willing to take the most risks with drugs should win the palmares and the spoils of victory. Fortunately not everyone is like that and they try and make it an exhibition and competition of human physical endurance not of the efficacy of drugs. At least you have made your perspective clear and it is understandable to be cynical in the face of the doping that has always been endemic. It is not sport though, whether it was Coppi on amphetamines or Armstrong on EPO and bags of blood.tuneskyline wrote:I find the hypocrisy of it all quite stunning. If you don't like dopers then don't watch pro sports Cycling included.
You don't know who takes what and don't pretend to be shocked when your favorite athlete is stupid enough to get caught.
http://road.cc/content/news/120689-acto ... r%E2%80%9D0 -
nathancom wrote:
Ok I was trying to be as even handed as possible by using the term 'bullied'. He destroyed someone's career because this guy had the guts to say that professional cycling was being destroyed by dopers and that nothing had changed in the Tour of Renewal. He publicly humiliated and intimidated the guy and turned the peloton against him. How does that even remotely relate to Keith Richards. Where is the analogy there beyond taking copious amounts of drugs. I am not sure how Keith Richards went around ruining lives in order to cover up and sustain a fraudulent appearance of athletic mastery.dennisn wrote:nathancom wrote:Amazing that people are defending someone who bullied Bassons off the tour for speaking out against doping. But then they have always had the agenda to lessen LA's crimes for some reason. Now they are trying to elevate a grade A schmuck into an anti-hero? Go read some first hand accounts and then if you hold the same opinions explain them. These appeals to a lack of evidence are silly. Have you ever been to Antarctica? Probably not. Does that mean you are somehow unsure of it's existence? If so imagine all the other things you do not have direct empirical evidence for, you are going to have to give that all up too.
I've just got to say - enough with this "bully" stuff. Makes you sound 10 years old. :roll:
"...lessen LA's crimes..."? He doped and lied about it. You act as if that's a worlds first.
To you he's "a grade A schmuck". Great. Think what you will about whomever. Remember that you are the one who elevated all these guys to godlike / hero status, and then you found out they were all cheats. A bit of advice - get better heros.
Will he become an "anti hero"? Maybe along the lines of, oh say, Keith Richards? I sure hope so. If only because it will continue to p*ss off the so called cycling faithful(all the haters). That would make me feel great. Yes, I know that's a little sad on my part but still, knowing all you guys are STILL p*ssed about LA 10 years from now will sit just fine with me. Serves ya right in my mind.
Before his cancer Armstrong was nothing, not a champion just another also-ran with a decent amount of talent. He elevated himself not by hard work but by the most systematic doping programme that cycling has ever seen. Those are the facts, I read them, in a statement by USADA. I guess since you didn't see this with your own eyes then it is not true much like Napoleon, the dark side of the Moon and whatever is inside Scarlet Johanssen's knickers.
I guess you forgot that Armstrong won the world championship in 93. He was always a talented athlete.
How much better or worse he responded to PED'S than Ulrich or Pantani and co is something we do not know but he was a talented athlete. If you think it's all about doping then a lot of riders need a refund. If you think having a bag of blood in your fridge is the most systematic doping programme ever then ,,,,really
Tell me, who should have won those tours?0 -
Now you taka da piss or are you that stupid.tuneskyline wrote:deejay wrote:The best of his era you say but he could only win one race and never a "Monument"
With a bit of Luck next Thursday they could throw him in Jail for being a Liar about his performances.
7 years would be most suitable.
Can you clarify, do you or don't you like Armstrong
That question comes 21 years late after listening to him keep Bragging about his greatness that he could never produce. Then the joke of the Life threatening Cancer for one ball.
If he goes to Jail it would be a Dream come true.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
What position are you arguing, that it is ok to take drugs in sport and push them onto your entire team. Ok...no need to say any more.0
-
nathancom wrote:
Ahh ok, so you think it is fine to dope and that those who respond best to drugs/are willing to take the most risks with drugs should win the palmares and the spoils of victory. Fortunately not everyone is like that and they try and make it an exhibition and competition of human physical endurance not of the efficacy of drugs. At least you have made your perspective clear and it is understandable to be cynical in the face of the doping that has always been endemic. It is not sport though, whether it was Coppi on amphetamines or Armstrong on EPO and bags of blood.tuneskyline wrote:I find the hypocrisy of it all quite stunning. If you don't like dopers then don't watch pro sports Cycling included.
You don't know who takes what and don't pretend to be shocked when your favorite athlete is stupid enough to get caught.
http://road.cc/content/news/120689-acto ... r%E2%80%9D
For all I know that football match I watched or that athletics race I watched could be full of doped athletes.
Do I care. To be honest I cannot think of a sport that does not have doped athletes. If I cared as much as you then I would not be watching any sport. Its the way of the world.0 -
deejay wrote:
Now you taka da wee-wee or are you that stupid.tuneskyline wrote:deejay wrote:The best of his era you say but he could only win one race and never a "Monument"
With a bit of Luck next Thursday they could throw him in Jail for being a Liar about his performances.
7 years would be most suitable.
Can you clarify, do you or don't you like Armstrong
That question comes 21 years late after listening to him keep Bragging about his greatness that he could never produce. Then the joke of the Life threatening Cancer for one ball.
If he goes to Jail it would be a Dream come true.
A dream come true He seems to have made quite a bit of impact on your life.
I would let it go and move on if I was you.0
