Thank you for explaining that for me, I'm with you on lance's side of this argument. why the hell do these people have such a massive hard-on for trying to fuck lance over?tendaji said:
Lance Armstrong to be stripped of medals
- Thread starter shadowstriker86
- Start date
''I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999,'' (Armstrong) said. ''The toll this has taken on my family and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today - finished with this nonsense.''
Honestly, this whole thing has nothing to do with Cycling or doping or cheating at all. The issue here is the bloated out of control US legal system that has hounded this man for more than a decade. You don't have to be guilty of anything in the US anymore, you just have get on the bad side of someone and you can and will be kept in court for the rest of your life. Better to just give it up and let the assholes be assholes.
Honestly, this whole thing has nothing to do with Cycling or doping or cheating at all. The issue here is the bloated out of control US legal system that has hounded this man for more than a decade. You don't have to be guilty of anything in the US anymore, you just have get on the bad side of someone and you can and will be kept in court for the rest of your life. Better to just give it up and let the assholes be assholes.
I don't give a crap, for me Lance will always be the amazing guy that won the Tour seven times, even if he gets stripped of his titles.
To me this seems a lot like the Mark McGuire issue. He was doping and we all knew it, but he was using something that couldn't be tested yet. The moment those test enterred the picture he retired. And while lots of other players got nailed and said "What about Mark"...well...he didn't fail any tests...
If they have his blood and new tests that will detect whatever he might have been using, let's say they, or someone in the know comes to him and lets him know about the new tests that will be used on his blood, giving up the fight and being righteously indignant (just like McGuire) lets him keep much of his public support while still being punished. I suspect this is pretty close to what happened behind the scenes before this announcement.
If they have his blood and new tests that will detect whatever he might have been using, let's say they, or someone in the know comes to him and lets him know about the new tests that will be used on his blood, giving up the fight and being righteously indignant (just like McGuire) lets him keep much of his public support while still being punished. I suspect this is pretty close to what happened behind the scenes before this announcement.
If they can prove he did it good for them, but I don't think they ought to be stripping him of everything he has unless they can prove he was doping during every single race he's won. I don't know about Armstrong's guilt or innocence but personal experience has taught me that any kind of ruling body of dubious authority will take itself way, way too seriously and become extremely overzealous about each and every single thing it does.
Tl;DR Lance Armstrong didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
*scare chord* NOBODY expects-
Tl;DR Lance Armstrong didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
*scare chord* NOBODY expects-
Literally everyone is cheating when you get up to that level of professional sports.thaluikhain said:
You know, I'm not sure if I believe him or not but I never realised that cycling was so notorious for drug use.
There's an extremely profitable industry around masking agents and new performance enhancing drugs which won't be caught by tests. It's a scientific arms race.Hero in a half shell said:
I think it might be a bit silly to say that he had an "unfair" advantage even if he was doping. I wouldn't be surprised if, as another poster suggested, doping is widespread.
But that right there is the problem, at least for me. The rules may say that he doesn't have to be proven guilty, but morality demands that we do not convict an innocent man of crimes he did not commit. And I am not talking about laws or rules or anything like that. It is wrong to call a man a cheater because you suspect it to be so. It is even worse to take something away from that person because of your suspicions. They should have to prove it to a high standard.Wolverine18 said:
Here is a question: if he were to fight the claim and he were to lose what kind of expenses is he looking at? I know in a standard lawsuit loser pays, and if that holds in this case his decision to not fight the charges may be that it simply isn't worth it financially. If they truly can "convict" him without a high standard of proof, then it would be extremely stupid for him to attempt to fight it even if he is innocent.
"Well, we couldn't nail him on any of the tests... BUT we've got all this hearsay we've acquired after two decades of hounding, so there's no way he's innocent."
...What authority do you think the UNITED STATES has in the TOUR DE FRANCE? That's all Europe, buddy.Manifoldgodhead said:
i don't really understand why blood doping is frowned upon. they found a way to better the human body and, as far as i can tell having done no research on the subject, they're pretty much like, "nope. we don't like it. it's banned."