Duh, No Kidding news of the day...Lance Armstrong admits doping

46 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
The NY Times is reporting Lance Armstrong admitted doping to Oprah.
NY Times and AP Reports: Lance Armstrong Has Told Oprah that He Doped. Also, He Plans on Testifying Against Officials of International Cycling Union About Their Alleged Involvement In Doping : TVBizwire : TVWeek - Television Industry news, TV ratings
  • Profile picture of the author jimbo13
    Old news really. The Times told everyone he was a cheating scumbag 14 years ago.

    And what is it with snivelling on some TV show to try and redeem yourself?

    Stage managed nonsense.

    Dan
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7605231].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author madison_avenue
      I bet we get some tactical crying on the Oprah show, to ellicit symapthy from the audience. Armstrong is trying rehabiltate himself so he can start competing again, and the mea culpa on Oprah is part of the process.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7605394].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by madison_avenue View Post

        I bet we get some tactical crying on the Oprah show, to ellicit symapthy from the audience. Armstrong is trying rehabiltate himself so he can start competing again, and the mea culpa on Oprah is part of the process.
        Wasn't he banned for life? If a "doctor" didn't BREAK THE LAW, by leaving a door open, LA might never have never stopped!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7606111].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author madison_avenue
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          Wasn't he banned for life? If a "doctor" didn't BREAK THE LAW, by leaving a door open, LA might never have never stopped!

          Steve
          I wouldn't be completely confident that Armstrong will stay banned. It's not how he works!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7606602].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by jimbo13 View Post

      Old news really. The Times told everyone he was a cheating scumbag 14 years ago.

      And what is it with snivelling on some TV show to try and redeem yourself?

      Stage managed nonsense.

      Dan
      It's FAR too late to redeem himself. He apparently lost EVERYTHING. There is NO way he is going to get that back. SOME would say he was an "inspiration", etc.... *****BULL*****! We KNOW a lot of what the human body is capable of. MOST will not see ANY of that. NOTHING! And for them to set that as a goal is not only foolish but DANGEROUS! Lance armstrong may not have hit the ultimate point in anything. He may not have tried his hardest. But he DID try to shoot for almost the ultimate in the oxygen and hormone potential and was rather closely monitored. And that gave him a FAR better chance than better than maybe 98% of the people on the planet.

      If I am to be inspired AT LEAST let it be someone that played FAIR! GRANTED I may never get there. GRANTED, if I tried my best to achieve it it may be dangerous. But AT LEAST they are honest and I know I have a shot.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7605460].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by jimbo13 View Post

      The Times told everyone he was a cheating scumbag 14 years ago.
      They did, apparently ... and they weren't alone. And how much was it they all had to pay him in defamation damages? :confused:
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7606773].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7605911].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

      Wow, don't know if you are kidding or what. Apparently, they had a LOT of evidence of this.

      The SICK part is that some "Official" "competitive" sports are RIGGED! In body building, most probably take steroids. Some of the men seem to know NOTHING about what they are doing and STILL grow large. And the WOMEN? Some have SYMPTOMS of EXCESSIVE testosterone. It is clear they are really dosing. Around 2005 is was considered to be SUCH a problem that it was made a FELONY to have testosterone or a similar drug without official approval(DEA cert, prescription, etc...).

      At least women are trying to shoot for the ideal to look feminine, so they can really only go so far. Some seem to forget that though.

      And lance ALSO doped. In this case, it means artificially increasing the percentage of red blood cells so they will take longer to tire. AGAIN, most methods of doing this are ILLEGAL unless deemed to be needed, and even more are FORBIDDEN in "official" "competitions", but they still do it.

      As for admitting it? Even ARNOLD effectively admitted he took steroids. He CLAIMED it was basically to finish things, but still... And he had calf implants also, which also doesn't help things.

      And health magazines are phony enough without getting advice from someone that doesn't know what to do.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7606063].message }}
      • Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Wow, don't know if you are kidding or what. Apparently, they had a LOT of evidence of this.

        The SICK part is that some "Official" "competitive" sports are RIGGED! In body building, most probably take steroids. Some of the men seem to know NOTHING about what they are doing and STILL grow large. And the WOMEN? Some have SYMPTOMS of EXCESSIVE testosterone. It is clear they are really dosing. Around 2005 is was considered to be SUCH a problem that it was made a FELONY to have testosterone or a similar drug without official approval(DEA cert, prescription, etc...).

        At least women are trying to shoot for the ideal to look feminine, so they can really only go so far. Some seem to forget that though.

        And lance ALSO doped. In this case, it means artificially increasing the percentage of red blood cells so they will take longer to tire. AGAIN, most methods of doing this are ILLEGAL unless deemed to be needed, and even more are FORBIDDEN in "official" "competitions", but they still do it.

        As for admitting it? Even ARNOLD effectively admitted he took steroids. He CLAIMED it was basically to finish things, but still... And he had calf implants also, which also doesn't help things.

        And health magazines are phony enough without getting advice from someone that doesn't know what to do.

        Steve
        This was the whiney "Leave Britany Alone!" guy...and yes it was a joke - but to make a point -

        They have a lot of evidence? Where is it? I certainly would like to see it, because he had been tested 100's of times on the spur of the moment with negative results. If he was doping, he must have come up with a foolproof method they don't want people to know how he did, or everyone will be able to trick a drug test...

        If he didn't dope or use any enhancements against a slew of competitors who did (some admitting to it), and won - it would be a miracle of training and human endurance to win one of the toughest trials in all of sport - 7 times!

        If he did use enhancements against a slew of competitors who - he still kicked their asses - 7 times! :p
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7606135].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

          This was the whiney "Leave Britany Alone!" guy...and yes it was a joke - but to make a point -

          They have a lot of evidence? Where is it? I certainly would like to see it, because he had been tested 100's of times on the spur of the moment with negative results. If he was doping, he must have come up with a foolproof method they don't want people to know how he did, or everyone will be able to trick a drug test...

          If he didn't dope or use any enhancements against a slew of competitors who did (some admitting to it), and won - it would be a miracle of training and human endurance to win one of the toughest trials in all of sport - 7 times!

          If he did use enhancements against a slew of competitors who - he still kicked their asses - 7 times! :p
          For testosterone, they have stuff that last a MONTH and stuff that lasts not even a day. And some appears NORMAL, so you would get flagged ONLY if it is WAY out range. For red blood cells, AGAIN, same thing! And one of the safer and easier ways to dope ARTIFICIALLY is to use something like EPOgen. Tests used to be FAR less sensitive. What would today be sounding international alarms and practically send you to the ER for tests back then would not even have been noticed. From what I understand, Lance had BOTH! In fact, ironically, the most damning evidence I heard was when a patient saw lance through an open door on a doping visit. Had he used EPO, he could have possibly avoided the appointment entirely. He might STILL be racing!

          ALSO, they have ALL sorts of gadgets to hide such things. Did you know that they used to take even COLD urine and NOW they take the temperature and REJECT it if it is out of range? REASON? CHEATERS! STILL, they have ways around THAT!

          ALSO, there is BRIBING, and private doctors! OH, and LANCE never won! His TEAM won by cheating. Outside of peddling the bike, how much credit can you really give HIM? Someone ELSE basically changed the parts, got the gas, and fueled him up.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7606296].message }}
          • Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            OH, and LANCE never won! His TEAM won by cheating. Outside of peddling the bike, how much credit can you really give HIM? Someone ELSE basically changed the parts, got the gas, and fueled him up.

            Steve
            Outside of peddling the bike???
            Have you ever rode a bike for even over 100 miles in mountainous terrain without so much as a breather? Even a normal bike race is grueling - this is the Superbowl of bike racing. Try that, and then come back and tell me that the crew did all the work (and yes, a good support team is important)...but that 'dope' didn't just dope - he also trained hard to win, or he wouldn't have. I for one, am going to keep an open mind until I actually hear what Lance has to say...if he admits it, we'll go from there - obviously, testing changes need to be made in this and probably all sports in any event.

            Edit: Winfrey has confirmed Armstrong admitted to PED's - (but I still want to hear him say it)
            Speaking on ''CBS This Morning,'' Winfrey said Tuesday she had not planned to address Armstrong's confession before the interview aired on her OWN network but, ''by the time I left Austin and landed in Chicago, you all had already confirmed it.''
            ''So I'm sitting here now because it's already been confirmed,'' she added.

            http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/sto...-doping-011513
            Note: The session was to be broadcast on Thursday but Winfrey said it will now run in two parts over two nights because there is so much material. The second part will air Friday night.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7606360].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

              Outside of peddling the bike???
              Have you ever rode a bike for even over 100 miles in mountainous terrain without so much as a breather?
              NO, and HE hasn't EITHER! THAT'S MY POINT!!!!!!! EPO, or the extra RBC make such a feat easier.

              Even a normal bike race is grueling - this is the Superbowl of bike racing. Try that, and then come back and tell me that the crew did all the work (and yes, a good support team is important)...but that 'dope' didn't just dope - he also trained hard to win, or he wouldn't have. I for one, am going to keep an open mind until I actually hear what Lance has to say...if he admits it, we'll go from there - obviously, testing changes need to be made in this and probably all sports in any event.
              Even the TRAINING was made easier, so even THAT doesn't matter!

              Edit: Winfrey has confirmed Armstrong admitted to PED's - (but I still want to hear him say it)
              Note: The session was to be broadcast on Thursday but Winfrey said it will now run in two parts over two nights because there is so much material. The second part will air Friday night.
              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7607242].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

          This was the whiney "Leave Britany Alone!" guy...and yes it was a joke - but to make a point -

          They have a lot of evidence? Where is it? I certainly would like to see it, because he had been tested 100's of times on the spur of the moment with negative results. If he was doping, he must have come up with a foolproof method they don't want people to know how he did, or everyone will be able to trick a drug test...

          If he didn't dope or use any enhancements against a slew of competitors who did (some admitting to it), and won - it would be a miracle of training and human endurance to win one of the toughest trials in all of sport - 7 times!

          If he did use enhancements against a slew of competitors who - he still kicked their asses - 7 times! :p
          There's something like 16-17 eye witnesess, including ex team mates and trainers. If you are really looking for the evidence, it shouldn't be all that hard to find in Google.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7606678].message }}
          • Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            There's something like 16-17 eye witnesess, including ex team mates and trainers. If you are really looking for the evidence, it shouldn't be all that hard to find in Google.
            But again, most of these people either were caught doping themselves, or could have come forward sooner with allegations - where is a negative test or physical evidence to confirm or corroborate them? Only Armstrong admitting guilt could confirm it.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7606712].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

              But again, most of these people either were caught doping themselves, or could have come forward sooner with allegations - where is a negative test or physical evidence to confirm or corroborate them? Only Armstrong admitting guilt could confirm it.
              I'll take the word of 16 over 1 any day. And if you investigate the evidence, you'll see that Lance threatened many not to come foreward. This isn't a case of he said/he said.

              It's a case of he said, he said, he said, he said, he said, he said, he said, he said, he said, he said, he said, he said, he said, he said, he said, he said, /Lance said.

              And if you don't believe the 16, then there must be a conspiracy. Where's the evidence for this?

              It never ceases to amaze me how people will try to fit evidence to back up their opinions, instead of letting the evidence help form their opinions.
              Signature
              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7606835].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                It never ceases to amaze me how people will try to fit evidence to back up their opinions
                You must have not read many threads in this section of the forum, then?! :p
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7607036].message }}
  • "It never ceases to amaze me how people will try to fit evidence to back up their opinions, instead of letting the evidence help form their opinions."
    The key word here is 'evidence'.


    Will it eventually come to indicting the US Postal Service for collusion and bribery in a scandal? (Is that why they're broke? :rolleyes
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7606879].message }}
  • You know, after all is said and done - maybe we should be asking "where can I get something that can take me from a sickly cancer survivor, to winner of the Tour de France" - because I want some...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7608410].message }}
  • So...what am I supposed to do with all these 'LIVESTRONG' bracelets?
    (it's a good cause - don't kill the cause)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7608523].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author williambrown
    This one is dishearthening not just for his fans, his family but for all the people who love the sport.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7609130].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author candoit2
    I wonder how much money Oprah paid him to do the show.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7609134].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I'd say before arguing evidence or anything else - wait for the O interviews to be shown and see what he has to say. She's given a lot of promotional hints but we don't know what he admitted to doing until the interview is broadcast.

      There are organizations in several countries lining up to sue him for court cases and awards he won by claiming he was not doping. His method was to attack and he won slander suits and huge financial awards in spite of some questionable test results.

      It's hard to imagine such a huge conspiracy concerning doping could have gone on for so long without unraveling. I've wondered about payment for the interview but thought maybe Oprah was donating to his charity to get the interview. Her network has been struggling and this will be a big ratings boost.

      He gave the interview as the only chance he had to get back into the sport. I doubt it will work and I wondered if he'll try to stop the interview from airing after the comments made by the WADA today.

      Oprah interview won't reduce sanctions against Armstrong, officials say - CNN.com
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

      You should always be yourself...unless you can be a Unicorn. Then you should always be a Unicorn.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7609268].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        I'd say before arguing evidence or anything else - wait for the O interviews to be shown and see what he has to say. She's given a lot of promotional hints but we don't know what he admitted to doing until the interview is broadcast.

        There are organizations in several countries lining up to sue him for court cases and awards he won by claiming he was not doping. His method was to attack and he won slander suits and huge financial awards in spite of some questionable test results.

        It's hard to imagine such a huge conspiracy concerning doping could have gone on for so long without unraveling. I've wondered about payment for the interview but thought maybe Oprah was donating to his charity to get the interview. Her network has been struggling and this will be a big ratings boost.

        He gave the interview as the only chance he had to get back into the sport. I doubt it will work and I wondered if he'll try to stop the interview from airing after the comments made by the WADA today.

        Oprah interview won't reduce sanctions against Armstrong, officials say - CNN.com
        I'd say that you make a judgment on the info/evidence you have at the time, and as you get more info be prepared to adjust your opinion.

        While it's nice to say wait for the interview, last week we didn't know that was an option. And last week there were 16 eye witnesses that said Armstrong took PEDs. That's enough info for me to form an educated opinion.

        I have an opinion now on the subject. My opinion has changed over the past decade as new information was known. Armstrong may offer new info, but it will be hard to overcome what 16 other people have said, many under oath. But in case Armstrong does actually offer something new and very profound, I will change my opinion based on that info. But I'm willing to bet that he will only substantiate my opinion, not change it.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7610606].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          I'd say that you make a judgment on the info/evidence you have at the time, and as you get more info be prepared to adjust your opinion.

          While it's nice to say wait for the interview, last week we didn't know that was an option. And last week there were 16 eye witnesses that said Armstrong took PEDs. That's enough info for me to form an educated opinion.

          I have an opinion now on the subject. My opinion has changed over the past decade as new information was known. Armstrong may offer new info, but it will be hard to overcome what 16 other people have said, many under oath. But in case Armstrong does actually offer something new and very profound, I will change my opinion based on that info. But I'm willing to bet that he will only substantiate my opinion, not change it.
          Trial attorneys will tell you that eye witness testimony is the weakest evidence. But when you have 16... hard to say that ALL of them had an agenda, or were offered some sort of immunity and that's why they testified. You simply can't discount that many people.

          It's a shame that his actions will create issues for his charity though. Personally I think people should separate the two (I believe he already removed himself from it, right?) but they won't. Which is interesting by itself. People won't "forgive" an athlete for cheating and lying, but will reward politicians who also cheat and lie with re-election (not pointing to any politician in particular here - just making a point).
          Signature

          Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7610702].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

            Trial attorneys will tell you that eye witness testimony is the weakest evidence. But when you have 16... hard to say that ALL of them had an agenda, or were offered some sort of immunity and that's why they testified. You simply can't discount that many people.

            It's a shame that his actions will create issues for his charity though. Personally I think people should separate the two (I believe he already removed himself from it, right?) but they won't. Which is interesting by itself. People won't "forgive" an athlete for cheating and lying, but will reward politicians who also cheat and lie with re-election (not pointing to any politician in particular here - just making a point).
            However, that is when the witnesses don't know the accused. Each of these 16 people knew Armstrong, totally different circumstances than witnesses trying to ID a bank robber they have never seen before.

            As for his charitable work, he should be commended. But if the accusations are true, he isn't a very good person based on how he treated other people. It's a good lesson in life to see that good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7611522].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              However, that is when the witnesses don't know the accused. Each of these 16 people knew Armstrong, totally different circumstances than witnesses trying to ID a bank robber they have never seen before.

              As for his charitable work, he should be commended. But if the accusations are true, he isn't a very good person based on how he treated other people. It's a good lesson in life to see that good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things.
              That is a very good point. The sheer number of witnesses did for me anyway, but knowing the accused does make a difference.

              If it were only 1 or 2 - whether they knew him or not - I would question the motives of the accusers AS WELL as Armstrong. Knowing the accused doesn't mean there isn't an agenda that could make them lie about things...

              All good people do bad things from time to time (and vice versa). It's a flaw of being human That's why in this case I think the good he's done is worth separating from his exploits in his sport.
              Signature

              Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7611570].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                That is a very good point. The sheer number of witnesses did for me anyway, but knowing the accused does make a difference.

                If it were only 1 or 2 - whether they knew him or not - I would question the motives of the accusers AS WELL as Armstrong. Knowing the accused doesn't mean there isn't an agenda that could make them lie about things...

                All good people do bad things from time to time (and vice versa). It's a flaw of being human That's why in this case I think the good he's done is worth separating from his exploits in his sport.
                When France first made allegations against Armstrong, I thought it was just jealousy on their part. Same when the first couple of people made accusations. But more and more people came forward, along with some other info such as not every drug test being totally 100% "clean", and I changed my opinion.

                And, lets not forget, Armstrong is estimated to be worth about $100 million...
                Signature
                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7611623].message }}
  • Look - I have defended Lance Armstrong tooth and nail for a long time. Now I find my reason for
    defense is unfounded - I admit as others as shocked at the allegations laid upon the table - (but it ain't over til it's over) this man was a role model and an inspiration to me - and I refuse to call him an idiot, or even worse, a traitor to this country? Are you people kidding me? Ride a bike once in a while for Christ's sake...see the world in real time..his foundation did and was doing a lot of good up until now...

    Do what you will. Say what you say. This whole thing saddens me. I may not be left to defend the man, but I defend the concept, and I will defend LIVESTRONG -
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7609293].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

      Look - I have defended Lance Armstrong tooth and nail for a long time. Now I find my reason for
      defense is unfounded - I admit as others as shocked at the allegations laid upon the table - (but it ain't over til it's over) this man was a role model and an inspiration to me - and I refuse to call him an idiot, or even worse, a traitor to this country? Are you people kidding me? Ride a bike once in a while for Christ's sake...see the world in real time..his foundation did and was doing a lot of good up until now...

      Do what you will. Say what you say. This whole thing saddens me. I may not be left to defend the man, but I defend the concept, and I will defend LIVESTRONG -
      Defending the concept is nice. ***I*** defend the concept. but as for the rest? Well, I already said most. HERE, you will hear the good, but nobody may hear the bad.

      and the cancer could have been created in several ways through his "treatments". so to start a program that will help him, and publicize the work and have it help others IS heavily tainted.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7609870].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DJL
    I have watched the Tour de France many times on TV because I enjoy the grace and beauty of the sport. I never cared much who won or lost.

    The quality of the video coverage (as seen on OLN) was superior to just about any other sporting event I'm aware of.

    The repartee among the commentators was always entertaining and informative.

    The occasional accidents were unpleasant to see, and I felt the pain of the injured.

    I will continue to watch, and couldn't care less about the doping issue.

    I adhere to the libertarian viewpoint that a person's body is the only thing he truly owns, and it his business, and nobody else's, what he ingests, injects, or inhales into it.
    Signature

    None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Elective Affinities (1809)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7609419].message }}
    • Originally Posted by DJL View Post

      I have watched the Tour de France many times on TV because I enjoy the grace and beauty of the sport. I never cared much who won or lost.

      The quality of the video coverage (as seen on OLN) was superior to just about any other sporting event I'm aware of.

      The repartee among the commentators was always entertaining and informative.

      The occasional accidents were unpleasant to see, and I felt the pain of the injured.

      I will continue to watch, and couldn't care less about the doping issue.

      I adhere to the libertarian viewpoint that a person's body is the only thing he truly owns, and it his business, and nobody else's, what he ingests, injects, or inhales into it.
      Thanks - Well said -
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7609436].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by DJL View Post

      I have watched the Tour de France many times on TV because I enjoy the grace and beauty of the sport. I never cared much who won or lost.

      The quality of the video coverage (as seen on OLN) was superior to just about any other sporting event I'm aware of.

      The repartee among the commentators was always entertaining and informative.

      The occasional accidents were unpleasant to see, and I felt the pain of the injured.

      I will continue to watch, and couldn't care less about the doping issue.

      I adhere to the libertarian viewpoint that a person's body is the only thing he truly owns, and it his business, and nobody else's, what he ingests, injects, or inhales into it.
      If he merely doped, took steroids, etc.... I wouldn't care at all. Like you said, NONE of my business. But if you are THEN going to go to a competition, or try to advertise or take credit for any such improved ability, then it IS societies business. He became a fake inspiration, destroyed the sense of the sport, etc... YOU may not have cared who won but those battling to win did, and many watching wanted to see that battle.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7609876].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by DJL View Post

      I adhere to the libertarian viewpoint that a person's body is the only thing he truly owns, and it his business, and nobody else's, what he ingests, injects, or inhales into it.
      He has chosen to make it other people's business by entering sporting events which depend for their integrity on his not having done that.

      Surely this isn't a difficult concept to grasp?!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7609902].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    Gee, another an athlete in a professional sport caught doping/cheating.

    I am shocked. Outraged.

    (yawn)

    I wonder - if they strip his trophies and give them to the athletes who finished second, how many of them do you supposed cheated? None?

    The man cheated in a ERA of cheaters, including in his own sport. It's wrong to cheat, no doubt. But where is the "unfair advantage" if a good portion of the athletes in your sport are cheating too?

    And why are THEY not on Oprah?

    It's easy to target Lance. Aside from the fact that he certainly ASKED for it (I have no sympathy). But everyone wants to knock down the ones on top.

    Want proof of that you only have to visit the upstairs part of this forum and read the "Guru" threads that pop up from time to time
    Signature

    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7609968].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

      Gee, another an athlete in a professional sport caught doping/cheating.

      I am shocked. Outraged.

      (yawn)

      I wonder - if they strip his trophies and give them to the athletes who finished second, how many of them do you supposed cheated? None?

      The man cheated in a ERA of cheaters, including in his own sport. It's wrong to cheat, no doubt. But where is the "unfair advantage" if a good portion of the athletes in your sport are cheating too?

      And why are THEY not on Oprah?

      It's easy to target Lance. Aside from the fact that he certainly ASKED for it (I have no sympathy). But everyone wants to knock down the ones on top.

      Want proof of that you only have to visit the upstairs part of this forum and read the "Guru" threads that pop up from time to time
      Yeah, I mentioned this in #6. Frankly, I would want to look at the cluster of riders that competed almost as much as he did, and were in say the top 10. There is a very good chance THEY doped ALSO! Of course, at this point, it is near impossible to prove.

      Lance probably got paid a lot, and figured this was his last chance at some money, Ironically, confessing on her show means LITTLE! I mean HEY, I might even "confess" I killed nicole simpson, if I were in as dire straights as he is. I was nowhere near nicole by the way, and didn't know ANY of them. I don't know if I was EVER in brentwood. That's the point. OK, maybe I would "confess" to doping in bike races! I've never been in bike races, and was doped only ONCE! That was after my heart surgery.

      My point is simply that he had a lot of incentive to confess, and there was NO real downside.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7610086].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jimbo13
      Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

      I wonder - if they strip his trophies and give them to the athletes who finished second, how many of them do you supposed cheated? None?
      They aren't giving the titles to anyone retrospectively. I think they have declared all 7 years as no runs or whatever the cycling term would be.

      They are just blanked out.

      Other TdF winners have tested positive and admitted cheating to win.

      Like this guy.

      Bjarne Riis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      Bizarrely they blanked him out and then re-instated him as the winner with an asterix by his name.

      Seems it is quite easy to pass drug tests for synthetic EPO as it is so similar to the bodys own supply.

      Bernhard Kohl reckoned he passed 100 tests with drugs in his body.

      Dan
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7611001].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by jimbo13 View Post

        They aren't giving the titles to anyone retrospectively. I think they have declared all 7 years as no runs or whatever the cycling term would be.

        They are just blanked out.

        Other TdF winners have tested positive and admitted cheating to win.

        Like this guy.

        Bjarne Riis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Bizarrely they blanked him out and then re-instated him as the winner with an asterix by his name.

        Seems it is quite easy to pass drug tests for synthetic EPO as it is so similar to the bodys own supply.

        Bernhard Kohl reckoned he passed 100 tests with drugs in his body.

        Dan
        Still, from what I understand, a high epo is EASILY detected now. It IS a test that is RARELY done, like tetosterone, etc...., but they CAN and WILL be done for cases like this. I think when lance started, it was relatively new. The tests weren't as sensitive, etc....

        In wikipedia, it says "Bjarne Riis never tested positive as a rider, though no EPO test existed at that time. ".

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7611467].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author jimbo13
          I think modern drugs are so efficient in mimicking the bodys natural wotsits that they just state a range and if it is over that range then it is suspicious.

          eg Creatine was used by the entire British Olympic team back in 1992 I think it was, because it was not on the banned list.

          After that they banned it but it occurs naturally so they said if it is more than 10x a normal mans levels then that would raise suspicion.

          I don't think anyone turns up at professional level sport and has taken nothing in the way of supplements these days.

          By the way Steve as you are in the US perhaps you could answer this.

          American Footballers seem to be gigantic, nearly all muscle. And they run almost as fast as 100m Olympic athletes.

          Are they all on something?

          Dan
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7611572].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by jimbo13 View Post

            American Footballers seem to be gigantic, nearly all muscle. And they run almost as fast as 100m Olympic athletes.

            Are they all on something?

            Dan
            It's possible. They do have pretty good testing, similar to the Olympics and every year a few players get suspended for taking banned substances. It's hard to believe that they catch them all.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7611648].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              It's possible. They do have pretty good testing, similar to the Olympics and every year a few players get suspended for taking banned substances. It's hard to believe that they catch them all.
              The trainer I have (mentioned above) was telling me how testing is usually a step or two behind the doping. The ways of avoiding detection are elaborate in some cases.

              But in the end, many get caught anyway. You know how the testing typically catches up? When athletes come clean about how they cheat
              Signature

              Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7611667].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                The trainer I have (mentioned above) was telling me how testing is usually a step or two behind the doping. The ways of avoiding detection are elaborate in some cases.
                HECK YEAH! Take DRUG TESTING! Some companies sell CLEAN URINE! Of course, that can never work, because you may be WATCHED, or searched, so they have a feeding system to look normal! Of course THAT can't work, because the TEMPERATURE will be off, so they have HEATING PACKS! Just ONE example, but it shows how far people go on BOTH sides.

                But in the end, many get caught anyway. You know how the testing typically catches up? When athletes come clean about how they cheat
                MOST testing is EXPENSIVE! So they won't do it unless they feel there is a test, or there is a way to LIMIT it! They MAY, for example, take EVERYONE's blood, at the beginning of the race, and test only those that PLACE. One company runs an expensive test on EVERYONE, and they have to test ******A LOT******! They take a whole bunch of samples, mix them together, and test as if it were ONE person. If it is clean, ALL blood passes in that batch! If it fails, they test EACH sample in the batch.

                So sometimes it is dumb luck that a person isn't tested, and is NOT because of the ability to test.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7613081].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    I have a personal trainer who was a competitive athlete (swimming and running). She brought up something when we were discussing Armstrong. Interesting point to me...

    All these drugs these athletes take are for what purpose? Performance enhancement. Pushing your body to do what perhaps without those enhancements you would not be able to do quite as well. Right?

    Well, let's say you're a linebacker on the NY Jets (or any pro team). Around the 4th quarter you start to feel spent. Weak from a hard game. So you sit out a series and go to the locker room where the trainer or doctor gives you an I.V. (just some sugar water). You feel MUCH better and now you go back in and play like it's the first quarter again.

    Would that not be considered "performance enhancement"? Earlier you hit your body's limit and now you "enhanced" yourself and can play again.

    What about cortizone shots to the knee? Couldn't play - shoot up - now you can.

    I get that one substance is legal and the other isn't. But that aside, what is the difference here? I am interested in viewpoints on this without the talk of legalities, since we already know about that.

    Edit: Let's also leave the lying about it aside as well. It's a given that anyone who cheats (at anything) will eventually lie about it. Just the point about what we should consider "performance enhancement".
    Signature

    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7610399].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author G0nzalez
    Banned
    He was not the only one who used drugs to boost in tour de france.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7610536].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Robert_Rand
    He's made a lot of mistakes. I find his bullying of the accusers the most troubling. But I still have a lot of respect for Lance and the contributions he's made on this planet. I'm certainly not perfect. He's inspired a lot of people who were at a very dark place in their life. Whatever his motivations were don't change the good he's done.

    Most of us prefer to see things in black and white but life is usually much more complex than that. I don't excuse his behavior - but most people are simply doing the best they know how to do with the genetics they were born with and the way they were raised. To me, the whole situation is still in a completely different arena than a lot of others - like say... Ray Lewis.

    I know one thing for sure - I have a helluva a lot more respect for Lance than people who spend their time passionately blasting public figures behind anonymous usernames.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7618377].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    They should let them dope up all they want, push it to the max.




    Welcome to Thunder Dome!











    .
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7618676].message }}

Trending Topics