Lance Armstrong stripped of Tour de France titles for doping

PaperMacheMario wrote:
Oh yeah sorry, I forgot you knew me personally.

I don't even need to know you personally to know you'd cave like a stack of cards the second I applied pressure and made a situation uncomfortable enough for you to decline any proposals.

It's always the ignorant who act like they have nothing to hide, and when the tables are turned on them, they're the first to start making excuses on why they shouldn't have to prove themselves. As if they're some sort of shining beacon of justice :lol:

I'm confused, do you think Armstrong is guilty or not?

8raz wrote:
emilythestrange wrote:How? I don't want to have an overblown argument, I just can't comprehend how anyone knows he definitely cheated when he didn't fail any tests. Just because there was widespread doping doesn't mean he has to be guilty of it too, does it?

I don't understand how he is supposed to go about proving his innocence when it's only word against word at this stage. How can anyone prove their innocence if the tests are so meaningless?

because up until recently, even if the blood sample was positive, the reliability of the tests was still really bad. it's now widely accepted that blood testing around the period of armstrong's dominance was well below standard and possibly corrupt. if you want to know about the integrity of the testing, think about the guys who've admitted to doping and passed most if not all of their tests. we have much better tests today and guess what? it's still really hard to catch athletes because they're constantly coming up with new ways to cheat the system.

and yes it almost certainly means he's guilty. the benefits of blood doping have been documented to the extent where you can actually see the performance increase in cyclists over the "elo period". it was essentially an arms race and while "known cheats" were gradually shaving minutes off their cycle times the exact same thing was happening with currently "unknown cheats" such as armstrong. i suppose is just a coincidence and he simply raised his game? please.

Right, I understand what you're saying. I've never claimed one way or the other is an impossibility, you've changed to being "almost certain" now, fair enough. It's the 'I know he is/is not a cheat' that I didn't get. It's unfair to think I can't believe he's innocent unless I've been brainwashed by some Armstrong PR machine, I happened to believe so because like many others, I err towards innocent until proven guilty. As has been said, being surrounded by drug cheats is circumstantial. Now he's dropped defending the claims, I don't see how we'll ever know for certain.

Gandalf wrote:No smoke without fire....... just sayin'

This is a ridiculous analogy. Christopher Jeffries was hounded relentlessly by the press during the Jo Yeates murder case, but no smoke without fire, right?

ianf wrote:
Gandalf wrote:No smoke without fire....... just sayin'

This is a ridiculous analogy. Christopher Jeffries was hounded relentlessly by the press during the Jo Yeates murder case, but no smoke without fire, right?

He was weird looking though.

ianf wrote:
Gandalf wrote:No smoke without fire....... just sayin'

This is a ridiculous analogy. Christopher Jeffries was hounded relentlessly by the press during the Jo Yeates murder case, but no smoke without fire, right?

I think if the police had charged Jeffries and Jeffries had declined to defend himself, we could probably draw a conclusion.

emilythestrange wrote:Right, I understand what you're saying. I've never claimed one way or the other is an impossibility, you've changed to being "almost certain" now, fair enough. It's the 'I know he is/is not a cheat' that I didn't get. It's unfair to think I can't believe he's innocent unless I've been brainwashed by some Armstrong PR machine, I happened to believe so because like many others, I err towards innocent until proven guilty. As has been said, being surrounded by drug cheats is circumstantial. Now he's dropped defending the claims, I don't see how we'll ever know for certain.

no i'm certain he cheated and the only reason i said "almost certain" is because he's intentionally removing himself from the possibility of it being actually proven. innocent until proven guilty doesn't really apply when the accused can choose whether or not to participate in the "trial". and being surrounded by drug cheats only really makes it even more unlikely that he's clean. are we supposed to assume that he is naturally capable of a level of performance that others only get by cheating? his fellow dopers and doctors disagree.

it's shitty but blood doping is still rife in sport. cycling is notorious for it but it's not the only one. the olympics isn't much better.

PaperMacheMario wrote:I'm confused, do you think Armstrong is guilty or not?

It doesn't matter whether or not I think he's guilty or innocent, I'm merely disagreeing with your stance that if he has nothing to hide then he should step forward. That's the same idiot mentality where some knucklehead says they don't mind giving police more powers to search their home without any evidence or reasonable suspicion to do so because they have nothing to hide, thus everyone should be subjected to the searches, and of course if you are against it then apparently you're a criminal with something to hide.

I disagree with that stance. Find him guilty with another approach but that.

Armstrong was probably cheating somehow, as who else has managed to bike it to the moon? No one. Blatantly cheated to get there.

you can see the strings ffs

USADA is preparing to reveal their evidence:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990

Well USADA need to reveal something very convincing because so far they only have the testimony of cheats which isn't exactly convinving at all. So far it is all circumstancial so I would expect to see corrupt prescriptions made out to Armstrong, failed drug tests etc.

I still don't get why reports are saying the USADA have stripped him of his 7 tour wins. They simply don't have the power to do so as they don't run the event or are the governing body.

Yeah, USADA has to be convincing as they've knocked their credibility by the way they've handled this thus far.

From the sounds of this article, the allegations about to arrive certainly sound damning:

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... l?page=all

The UCI are suing Paul Kimmage for writing that they helped coverup a positive test from Armstrong. The outlets he wrote for aren't being sued and others who made the same claim like Tyler Hamilton are not being targeted either. It's disgusting.

Lance Armstrong was at heart of 'sophisticated doping ring' – live

• Anti-doping agency to publish full case against Armstrong
• Tour winner ran 'most sophisticated doping program in sport'
• Armstrong lawyer dismisses case as 'one-sided hatchet job

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oc ... -case-live

It's like a live blog type thing (the link)...

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/ReasonedDecision.pdf
The report
All 200 pages :lol:

It's very damning

No wonder the usually bullish Armstrong crawled under a rock and refused to defend himself in response to the US doping agency's charges: the body of evidence against him is overwhelming and what was left of his reputation is now in tatters.

His lawyer attempting to spin it as one sided :lol:

Why? why would you waste years of your own life for such a tawdry end to your sporting career!! A huge shame.

Not a shame at all.

Just an exposure of a sport riddled with this, shamed by this which is fully exemplified by one of its finest competitors.

The man is a disgrace. I feel sorry for his fans and his defenders.

Lance Armstrong stripped of Tour de France titles for doping

Who is online

Affiliates