FDHA Forum DopeHead Anonymous
Printable View
FDHA Forum DopeHead Anonymous
Of course they are dangerous. But they are only dangerous to the people taking them. It's all about where you draw the line. I'd say some of the training regime's and other techniques and substances which are legal are just as dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
The problem is, sports like cycling will never be clean when the benefits of enhancements are so large.
We've already started to see in running that prosthetic legs may have an advantage (i.e. "The Blade Runner" Oscar Pistorius whose leg prosthesis are claimed to be superior to normal legs. With further developments in that technology, where do you draw the line in what is legal and what is not? I have absolutely no doubt that within the next decade prosthetic legs will be comprehensively superior to able-bodied people.
Would it be right for someone to have their legs removed and replaced with prosthesis in order to compete at the highest level? With what's at stake I'm sure there would be people who would do it.
Good point. Surgery to fix an athletes body is One thing but where does this become an enhancement? I can't see why someone with a sight impediment or a false arm cannot legally compete in the normal Olympics so why not the blade runner against Bolt. Would it be discrimination to deny him? I don't know?
I bet swimmers would get a benefit from cosmetic surgery to streamline them or web their feet and hands for example. Would this be allowed?
i'm not sure the thread title is entirely fair, seeing as he hasn't been found guilty of anything, nor has he accpeted any guilt - he's just given up the fight against the USADA. what that actually means i don't know, and I'm unsure whether he perhaps was or wasn't doping, given the prevalence of it in that period and his dominance I am scpetical at least. we will probably never know, although it is likely that the evidence will still need to see the light of day for the international cycling body to be convinced to take the tour titles away from Lance, something the USADA has no remit over and the "trial" wll probably be between the 2 organisations instead. I hope he is/was innocent, as its an amazing story, but I think everyone has pretty healthy doubts.
But it is definatley wrong to say he has been found guilty, as no drug trial, arbitration, hearing or whatever has actually taken place.
By accounts not only was he doping but he was pretty much the ring leader in the peloton making sure it was kept quiet.
It's fairly simple for someone like Armstrong to pass every test (except for one for corticoids from his saddle sore cream in 1999 with the subsequent cover-up, and the retest of old urine samples for EPO), when he's given at least 20 minutes warning beforehand. Plenty of time to top up plasma or micro-inject EPO, allegedly :dozey:
Everyone was doing it? Everyone was a dopehead.
Tested after every race, tested hundreds of times every year, nothing found. Get of his back already. They can take the titles ,but the fact remain he won and I know who I was watching pedal Pyrenees . Stay strong champ!!!
FIAT1, have you ever read David Millar's book. He never failed a drug test either. Fascinating book and one I recommend if you want to know more about doping in that era.
I understand what you are saying, and if everyone was doping ,he still won, point is punish the sport as a whole for those years by eliminating all the records as they never took place or stop the bs.How do we know that 2nd place did not use miracle to be 2nd? Now it looks like after all these years someone is playing big shot for his own political gain.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
really?Quote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
why? so as not to spoil the fairy tale?Quote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
but the fact remain his blood was dodgy, as was that of manyQuote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
so do IQuote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
Little to late to matter one way or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
for him yes, but it sends a pretty strong signal to the current lot, that even the untouchables aren't any more
He is found guilty. There was no arbitration because Armstrong refused that. He could have challenged the allegations by USADA, but he didn't. That is in effect an acceptance of guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
I'm not here to defend Lance or sport of cycling and would agree with all, if this was done for the good of the sport. All these years of testing and spending money to defend allegations one have to stop spending money ,as next will be defence against usage of aspirin. I don't know the truth and we never will, but to me Lance won against competition that was doing same thing, therefore he will always be the champ. USADA needs to investigate whole field and a sport ,placing allegations on one to advance someone political career don't impress me much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
It could simply be in effect simple disgust and resignation.. Nobody likes to get singled out and penalized for doing what every other person was doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
And I emphasize I am not advocating or justifying the well know and obvious widespread doping, I am suggesting only what anybody would probably feel.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
Good summary of the facts up to this point. :up:
As he said:Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
Quote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
Absolute rubbish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
I've found you guilty too, but won't show you, or anyone else entitled to, the proof unless you agree to go to court on my terms for years to come. Have fun.
USADA can not investigate athletes that are not from the US, thus they just witch hunt for the big US names.Quote:
Originally Posted by FIAT1
The nature of the evidence though was widely known no? Several witnesses who had seen Lance Armstrong take drugs or admit to it right? The only question was who those witnesses were.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I'm aware that many of Lance's competitors also took drugs and that several have already been penalised which would make the re-awarding of the TdF championships that Lance has been stripped of a ridiculous exercise, however current cyclists need to know that noone is either immune or above being disgraced if they use drugs. Lance was one of the greatest, if he had gotten away with widespread drug use merely because of his reputation then that destroys the sport's integrity and would not serve to discourage current competitors.
As with anyone else cyclists will look at the pros and cons of drug use before deciding whether to use them. Pros are obvious. The cons are increasing. The likelihood of being found out and the consequences of that are much greater than before. Lance's case merely reinforces the cons. As far as I am concerned that can only be a good thing.
and what is better for the guys who finished behind Armstrong whilst on drugs to say - "we were beaten by a drug free athlete despite all our efforts", or, "he was on the same or more stuff as us"?
You don't know what you are talking about. First of all, during his competition time Armstrong accepted the Anti-Doping rules, including the way the arbitration works. These rules are the same for every athlete in an Olympic sport by the way, not just cyclists.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Secondly, Armstrong recently sued the Anti-Doping agency claiming he was being hunted down and the process was unfair. The American court rejected his suit and said he was given due process.
While I think he's guilty as hell - I don't accept this point. He may well have thought, well if I stop fighting, what's the worst that can happen, how can it affect me personally, and he's come to the conclusion - 'hardly at all'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
If he had been found formally guilty could his old sponsors have sued him? Presumably being drug free is one of the conditions in major sponsorship deals? Since he's backed out of contesting the charges he hasn't been found formally guilty of anything and this might get him off the hook from such courtcases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Yeah, possibly he thought he'd lose any forthcoming hearings, so backing out now is the least worst outcome and at least leaves some doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
Sorry man, you do not know what you are talking. he was not found guilty of anything yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
Yes he was, don't think they give life-time ban for nothing...Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
and what is the worth of a lifetime ban for a man who has retired?
Nothing, it's entirely symbolic, however he's had a comeback before, and this would stop him returning in any senior events. But at the moment, only in the US. The UCI has yet to announce its position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
Sure sure, with no proof shown. I call that a witch hunt, you might call it justice though.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonJippo
So, now the USADA have released their evidence, which on first glance is pretty damning
BBC Sport - Lance Armstrong: Usada report reveals doping evidence
another of his teammates has admitted being part of the drug taking scene
BBC Sport - George Hincapie admits to using performance-enhancing drugs
and the actual report is here
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9Yz.../view?sle=true
I remain sceptical that we will ever get an admission from Lance, he is too entrenched to turn round and admit it (if true), but I have to say I'd made up my mind that there was more than smoke around this having read David Millar's autobiography, which gives great insight into the sport and its culture at the time Lance was at the very top. It is simply inconceivable to me that he managed to win so many races, and so many tours whilst completley drug free against so many top riders who were definitivley on drugs. Add to that the evidence of the teammates, which has to be taken as what it is, evidence provided by people who cheated, but is too accurate and consistent to be false IMO, unless there is a massive conspiracy created to discredit Lance, which would be expensive, pointless and ultimately far more far fetched than the doping allegations.
I await with interest what the UCI come up with in response, whether they accpet the charges brought by the USADA and strip Armstong of his TDF's or whether they choose to attempt to discredit the evidence
Having read the 1st 75 pages of the document (another 125+to go) I fail to see how Lance could possibly assert his innocence in the face of the evidence. It is far to elaborate to be a fabrication, with 2 many people recalling the same incidents in detail
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
From what I did read in the news today, I still didn't see any hard proof of it.
Now we are lead to believe that he had built up some kind of a criminal organization and he was forcing grown up people to do doping for his own benefit.
Call me a skeptic, but I only believe what the anti-doping tests say not what someone tells 10 years later under pressure from the USADA.
This looks more an more like a witch hunt to me.
The evidence shown today has testimonies from 26 people testifying against Armstrong. If they're making this stuff up - and with so much detail, there should be loads of people out there ready to contradict and discredit what they've said.
Where are these loads of people? The only one's I know of, are Lance and his lawyer.
So now we accuse sportsmen of doping based on testimonials instead of lab tests. What next? Middle age witch hunt coming back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Firstgear
You need to read the actual report produced by the USADA, not just the news spin based on a couple of headline making statements. The evidence is incredibly damming, the statements are detailed and consistent and very believable. Included is a failed test for testosterone which went away, and a retest of old samples taken before the EPO test was developed, which show the presence of EPO. The association with Michele Ferrari, the denials of continued association disproved by email communication and massive sums of money changing hands. The denials of any knowledge of his teammates doping when he was the kingpin of the team and the de-facto team principal, it all stinks. The sport was rotten to the core at that time and to believe that Armstrong was able to rise above it all, not observe the drug culture first hand and win against these guys for 7 years is scarcely believable. That's not to say it wasn't still an incredible achievement, as the playing field was pretty level, most if not all of the top competitors were in it just as deep.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Read the evidence, the testimonies and the lab evidence, the riders, team staff and relatives all telling the same consistent story. To construct and maintain such a fabrication over 7 years and 20+ people would be impossible for the USADA. I strongly recommend you read David Millar's autobiography as well, just to give an understanding of the culture that existed at the time.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
For those who are saying "There's no evidence", there is masses of evidence, from eye witness testimony. Seriously; that sort of thing would be good enough for a murder conviction, nevermind cheating at sport.
I'm still not all the way through it, (140 pages so far) and it gets worse and worse. Including some pretty damming scientific evidence based on old blood and urine tests on top of all of the testimonies
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Chances are it'll go to court anyway as former sponsors start asking for money back. There's even talk of trial for perjury.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
I didn't think the level of evidence would be this strong. No wonder he refused to give them the chance to have this all come out in a trial.