Lance Armstrong - well ... damn - Page 3

ISiddiqui · 10-10-2012, 01:01 PM

Well at least he was successful...

molson · 10-10-2012, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well at least he was successful...

Ya, I would kind of be interested in reading about "cycling's least successful doping program".

stevew · 10-10-2012, 01:27 PM

You can't call it successful if they got caught. Just sayin.

sterlingice · 10-10-2012, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I would kind of be interested in reading about "cycling's least successful doping program".

"Billy was a confirmed doper, but he just wasn't very good. In high school, they had no cycling team at Piney Woods high but he falsified his records and (THE) Ohio State University offered him a cycling scholarship. He was no good as his 5' 8" 190 lb frame was somewhat portly but they couldn't kick him off the team or admit that they didn't check before giving him a scholarship. So the team reached an agreement with him that they would quietly keep giving him a scholarship under the table so long as he didn't appear at any NCAA competitions.

He agreed but this disappointed him and he started training like he had never trained before, cycling hours a day and foregoing class because, as an athlete, he rightly believed he would be passed anyway. He actually got halfway decent but not nearly enough to compete at an NCAA, much less professional level. But his delusions lived on. He tried to make the Tour de France and finished 2 hours below the qualifying times both in 1998 and 1999. In 2000, he started doing steroids as well and only missed the cut by 1:45.

However, he forgot that if you take steroids and don't exercise, you just gain weight so he bottomed out in 2001 at 320 points of bacne fury. He gave up cycling when he bent his favorite bike in 2002 and developed sugar cravings which led to Type II diabetes. He works part time selling women's shoes in the mall ala Al Bundy and has filed for disability. Correction: Now he has bottomed out."

SI

Matthean · 10-10-2012, 01:35 PM

Another cyclist admitted to doping in the article as well.

RainMaker · 10-10-2012, 01:42 PM

At what point is the competition no longer really a competition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY Times

Since 1998, more than a third of the top finishers of the Tour de France have admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs at some point in their careers or have been officially linked to doping. The grid below shows the original top-10 placements in each of the past 15 years. Riders pictured have either tested positive, admitted to doping or been sanctioned by an official cycling or antidoping agency. Cyclists whose sanctions were later overturned are not included.

AlexB · 10-10-2012, 02:51 PM

Still don't get the Frank Schleck positive test. Of all of the guys pictured, he is the one that genuinely surprised me.

Castlerock · 10-10-2012, 03:00 PM

It would genuinely surprise me if there was even a single cell in that grid for a rider who did not use performance-enhancing drugs. The photos above are only the ones we know about. The rest use... we just don't know it.

DaddyTorgo · 10-10-2012, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Castlerock

It would genuinely surprise me if there was even a single cell in that grid for a rider who did not use performance-enhancing drugs. The photos above are only the ones we know about. The rest use... we just don't know it.

Exactly. If you want to actually watch and enjoy cycling you just have to accept this and make peace with it.

AlexB · 10-10-2012, 05:24 PM

Undoubtedly that used to largely be the case, as we are seeing unfold before our eyes. However i truly believe that it's the exception rather than the rule now: look at the end of stage race mountan finishes - they are breathing out of their backsides now after they cross the line now, as if the have given evrything, whereas it used be a case of seemingly being able to ride all day after the finish line.

There are far fewer devastating attacks than there used to be (if you discount a select group of Spaniards) and the grinders like Wiggins, Evans, Basso, Heysedal, etc who can ride a constant tempo are competitive again.

I don't doubt that the riders take whateve. The can legally, but the days of widespread blood doping and EPO have given way to isolated incidents.

The biggest evidence for me that drug abuse is mainly now the old guard just continuing their long-standing culture is the fact that Riccardo Ricco felt he had to do his transfusions himself, in isolation rather than with the team doctors or soigneurs. He had to have emergency surgency for kidney failure due to his self administered transfusion, and no team would put the investment the do into their riders now and allow them to basically play Russian roulette in private and put all that cash and PR (which is why the sponsor the teams) at risk

I think the 90s were the peak of the dark ages, with the end of the 80s and early 2000s bookending a perid that cycling should nev forget, no matter how convenient it would be to do so.

Matthean · 10-10-2012, 05:31 PM

So, 12 of the 14 winners, 6 from 2nd place, and 8 of those in 3rd place were dopers. That's a clean sport.

Dutch · 10-10-2012, 05:39 PM

According to that chart 100% of all the riders I ever heard of were accused or admitted doping. I think that's part of the sport now!

AlexB · 10-10-2012, 05:41 PM

I agree it was not, but over the last 4-5 years it is becoming so.

The only doping cases on that entire board committed after 2007 are Contador and Schleck. The former I can quite easily believe doped/dopes, the later I was surprised

Sports change: are all baseball players taking steroids now? Are all football teams still running wishbone offences?

Clearly there was a huge problem, and it was more a case of who didn't take drugs (Moncoutie, maybe a couple of others) in the 90s. Now its isolated cases.

M GO BLUE!!! · 10-10-2012, 05:43 PM

I wonder how many of the professional billiards players use performance enhancing drugs...

Critch · 10-10-2012, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

I wonder how many of the professional billiards players use performance enhancing drugs...

Probably most of them. In snooker a few years ago it turned out most of the players were on prescription beta blockers to regulate their heart beat and keep them calm and steady during games. I'd guess billiards is much the same.

M GO BLUE!!! · 10-10-2012, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critch

Probably most of them. In snooker a few years ago it turned out most of the players were on prescription beta blockers to regulate their heart beat and keep them calm and steady during games. I'd guess billiards is much the same.

It's a sad world we live in.

Autumn · 10-11-2012, 07:48 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/sp...pagewanted=all

This is the sort of information that's going to ruin Lance's legacy, I think. Not just the fact that he doped.

Quote:

At a race in Spain that same year, Armstrong told a teammate that he had taken testosterone, a banned substance he called “oil.” The teammate warned Armstrong that drug-testing officials were at the team hotel, prompting Armstrong to drop out of the race to avoid being caught.

In 2002, Armstrong summoned a teammate to his apartment in Girona, Spain. He told his teammate that if he wanted to continue riding for the team he would have to follow the doping program outlined by Armstrong’s doctor, a known proponent of doping.

The rider said that the conversation confirmed that “Lance called the shots on the team,” and that “what Lance said went.”

Dropping out of races, bullying teammates into doping, it's just a whole lot of bad in there.

Marc Vaughan · 10-11-2012, 07:56 AM

Out of interest what is peoples 'stance' on doping? - why is it so hated generally ....

I've never quite understood why 'performance enhancing drugs' are seen as bad, yes they allow people to out perform others ... but then so do exercise, a good training and a sensible diet - those aren't prevented.

Many things which people do today in 'legal' training would have been considered unusual in the past and some items such as 'gatorade' etc. which are formulated specifically to tailor to (and improve) the bodies function are surely performance enhancing drugs to some extent?

(what I'm asking is why is the line drawn where it is and does everyone agree with its positioning? - after all the fact that so many athletes do it shows that its basically the prohibition era all over again, making it 'illegal' isn't stopping it at all ...)

Autumn · 10-11-2012, 08:18 AM

I think it's clear there's a fuzzy line between what is "doping" and what is "training", and the line gets fuzzier with every new technology.

But I think in essence what a lot of people want from sports is to boil it down to the truth, not pile more crap on top of it. We hold sport events because we want to decide who in fact is the best. We want to get rid of the extraneous - did that guy win more races because his courses were eaiser, or he had different competition? Let's have them both race together. Did that guy win because he had better shoes? Let's have them use the same equipment. Did that guy win because he's a professional and has all the money and time in teh world? Let's let only amateurs compete.

In other words we're trying to get down to the bare bones truth, as close to reality as we can. It's like how people wonder how a team from the '50s would compete against a team from the '90s. If you're okay with doping you're basically saying, "Of course the '90s team would win, they've got better training and equipment and healthcare." But I htink most sports fans wonder, "Yeah, but deep down, which were the better athletes. All things equal, who wins?"

Doping blurs the truth, makes things unequal, basically nullifies the reason of having the race. I don't care who's best at blood transfusions and has the best doctors and all that shit. I wonder who can ride their bike hardest and fastest in the world.

DaddyTorgo · 10-11-2012, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Autumn

I think it's clear there's a fuzzy line between what is "doping" and what is "training", and the line gets fuzzier with every new technology.

But I think in essence what a lot of people want from sports is to boil it down to the truth, not pile more crap on top of it. We hold sport events because we want to decide who in fact is the best. We want to get rid of the extraneous - did that guy win more races because his courses were eaiser, or he had different competition? Let's have them both race together. Did that guy win because he had better shoes? Let's have them use the same equipment. Did that guy win because he's a professional and has all the money and time in teh world? Let's let only amateurs compete.

In other words we're trying to get down to the bare bones truth, as close to reality as we can. It's like how people wonder how a team from the '50s would compete against a team from the '90s. If you're okay with doping you're basically saying, "Of course the '90s team would win, they've got better training and equipment and healthcare." But I htink most sports fans wonder, "Yeah, but deep down, which were the better athletes. All things equal, who wins?"

Doping blurs the truth, makes things unequal, basically nullifies the reason of having the race. I don't care who's best at blood transfusions and has the best doctors and all that shit. I wonder who can ride their bike hardest and fastest in the world.

What if all the doping programs were equally as good? Then it's not conferring an unfair advantage, it's just warping the aboslute result (in this case in terms of time)?

Fidatelo · 10-11-2012, 08:45 AM

I sort of wonder if we don't need to make it part of sports, bring it out from the underground, if for no other reason than safety. If people are doing all this stuff anyways, and we're always going to be a step or two behind in catching them, we may as well embrace it and work with the athletes to make sure things are as safe as possible.

Logan · 10-11-2012, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I sort of wonder if we don't need to make it part of sports, bring it out from the underground, if for no other reason than safety. If people are doing all this stuff anyways, and we're always going to be a step or two behind in catching them, we may as well embrace it and work with the athletes to make sure things are as safe as possible.

This is pretty much my stance as well. I agree that there is a tough distinction to make between what is really "good" vs "bad". My biggest issue comes with the bullshit excuses. If everything was above board and legal, whatever.

AlexB · 10-11-2012, 11:53 AM

In my simplistic world, things that are classed as doping are things that will kill you. Steroids can cause heart problems, EPO thickens the blood and while the UCI tacitly allowed almost unrestricted use of EPO in the early days, when riders started dying because their hearts could not push around their overly thickened blood, they took a stance

Bizarelly that stance was that as they could not detect EPO, only the effects of its use, the blood passports allowed 50% hematacrit levels (in essence oxygenation levels) while most people had low-mid 40% levels. So cycling doping went from unrestricted to aiming for just below 50% test results. This basically meant that the UCI actually allowed riders to dope 'a little bit' within their rules, and was a large part of why the culture of doping in cycling prospered.

But to Marc's question: exercise, good diet, vitamins, etc are allowed because they are good for you. My understanding is that most banned drugs can kill/seriously affect your health, and it's why I don't believe the 'just let the athletes do what they want' argument holds up.

Logan · 10-11-2012, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexB

In my simplistic world, things that are classed as doping are things that will kill you. Steroids can cause heart problems, EPO thickens the blood and while the UCI tacitly allowed almost unrestricted use of EPO in the early days, when riders started dying because their hearts could not push around their overly thickened blood, they took a stance

Bizarelly that stance was that as they could not detect EPO, only the effects of its use, the blood passports allowed 50% hematacrit levels (in essence oxygenation levels) while most people had low-mid 40% levels. So cycling doping went from unrestricted to aiming for just below 50% test results. This basically meant that the UCI actually allowed riders to dope 'a little bit' within their rules, and was a large part of why the culture of doping in cycling prospered.

But to Marc's question: exercise, good diet, vitamins, etc are allowed because they are good for you. My understanding is that most banned drugs can kill/seriously affect your health, and it's why I don't believe the 'just let the athletes do what they want' argument holds up.

Where does "have a bunch of monstrous men, who have gone through the aforementioned training to make them stronger and faster than ever before, run full speed at each other and collide" fall under that criteria?

bhlloy · 10-11-2012, 12:18 PM

I've said it before but I don't think you can ignore the effect that allowing doping has on kids. To use MLB as an example, if everyone in MLB is doping, then everyone in the minors has to dope to get there. So now do high school and college kids have to dope to get drafted? Where is the line drawn that its ok at this level but at this level it's just unsafe and stupid?

I generally couldn't care less what these pros are putting into their body and if they kill themselves doing it, but I do worry about the message we send that sports are above medical advice (and the law in some cases) and the trickle down effect

Easy Mac · 10-11-2012, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logan

Where does "have a bunch of monstrous men, who have gone through the aforementioned training to make them stronger and faster than ever before, run full speed at each other and collide" fall under that criteria?

as part of the game itself.

Blackadar · 10-11-2012, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Autumn

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/sp...pagewanted=all

This is the sort of information that's going to ruin Lance's legacy, I think. Not just the fact that he doped.

Dropping out of races, bullying teammates into doping, it's just a whole lot of bad in there.

Yeah, a bunch of people saying "it was all his fault" in order to get lesser penalties or trying to better their own reputation. It's amazing how that works.

And remember, I think Lance probably did dope. Everyone else did.

Autumn · 10-11-2012, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

What if all the doping programs were equally as good? Then it's not conferring an unfair advantage, it's just warping the aboslute result (in this case in terms of time)?

Well, for a bunch of reasons, but mostly because trying to keep doping programs "equally good" is as hard as trying not to have doping programs. Athletes are always going to be hunting for an advantage. To my mind their role is to bring that competitive spirit, the sport's role is to push back against it and bring things down to the basics. They'd put rockets on their bikes if you let them.

Autumn · 10-11-2012, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I sort of wonder if we don't need to make it part of sports, bring it out from the underground, if for no other reason than safety. If people are doing all this stuff anyways, and we're always going to be a step or two behind in catching them, we may as well embrace it and work with the athletes to make sure things are as safe as possible.

Now it's our responsibility to keep them safe from the banned substances they're secretly using disregarding its impact on their health? I understand what you mean, but I don't see why we need to be their nannies.

How about two different sports. Juiced racing and regular racing. If everyone wants to watch juiced racing, question answered. If somebody doesn't want to kill themselves to be a competitor, they don't need to be forced.

MIJB#19 · 10-11-2012, 03:26 PM

What's USADA's issue with not informing the UCI, like they promised too? Either USADA has something to hide or the UCI does... If the latter, that worries me a lot more than finding out one particualr team had a doping project, because it would imply the sport's governing commitee was involved in keeping things from becoming public.

And what I always keep wondering: why would doping producers jump into cycling? There's so litle money to make there. Is it just a pet project for the real money sports?

MIJB#19 · 10-11-2012, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker

At what point is the competition no longer really a competition.

Is it correct to list riders that rode those results after their suspension(s)? Not disputing the overall trend of the graph, it's there, but not all of those results have been proven or confessed doping results.

molson · 10-11-2012, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Autumn

How about two different sports. Juiced racing and regular racing. If everyone wants to watch juiced racing, question answered. If somebody doesn't want to kill themselves to be a competitor, they don't need to be forced.

That would be ideal, and I think they do actually do this for weightlifting, but I think people would just juice on the regular racing circuit. A guy like Armstrong isn't going to publicly choose the juiced racing circuit, but he's still gonna juice.

Once drug use races a "critical mass" in a sport like cycling where its almost literally everyone, ya, I can see living with that and not caring, but I don't think society has given up on the idea that you can be a pro athlete without damaging your health and breaking the law in that manner. Baseball at least seems cleaner, and it's a much better game that it was in the steroids era.

stevew · 10-11-2012, 04:21 PM

I love how they vilify Armstrong and it sounds like he's a world class asshole. But there's no fuckin way that many people would care about the sport in America if an American wasn't winning.

Autumn · 10-11-2012, 05:00 PM

Americans love assholes. Isn't that pretty much our thing?

molson · 10-11-2012, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Autumn

Americans love assholes. Isn't that pretty much our thing?

Ya, and they also like people who cheat or act like assholes and then apologize. Armstrong only wants to be portrayed as Perfect Jesus Cancer Killer.

AlexB · 10-11-2012, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

What's USADA's issue with not informing the UCI, like they promised too? Either USADA has something to hide or the UCI does... If the latter, that worries me a lot more than finding out one particualr team had a doping project, because it would imply the sport's governing commitee was involved in keeping things from becoming public.

And what I always keep wondering: why would doping producers jump into cycling? There's so litle money to make there. Is it just a pet project for the real money sports?

There are already rumours Ferrari worked with Barca. They responded with 'Ferrari has never been on our payroll' which is either lost in translation or along the the lines of 'I've never failed a drugs test'. Its not a comlete denial:surely Barca could have said "we have never used Ferrari in any capacty"?

Tyler Hamilton said that the doping prorams were Nothing compared to 'football' but who knows if means soccer/football.

AlexB · 10-11-2012, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

That would be ideal, and I think they do actually do this for weightlifting, but I think people would just juice on the regular racing circuit. A guy like Armstrong isn't going to publicly choose the juiced racing circuit, but he's still gonna juice.

Once drug use races a "critical mass" in a sport like cycling where its almost literally everyone, ya, I can see living with that and not caring, but I don't think society has given up on the idea that you can be a pro athlete without damaging your health and breaking the law in that manner. Baseball at least seems cleaner, and it's a much better game that it was in the steroids era.

Not good in any way. Juiced sport = people die. No way that gets sanctioned, or should be.

Peregrine · 10-12-2012, 01:09 AM

If doping was just a matter of "everyone did it" or a bunch of people on their own deciding to do it, that's one thing, but the stuff in this report talks about teams colluding together to do this - not just to dope, but for example to make sure if someone had to get caught it wouldn't be Lance (or equivalent best rider) but instead they would have someone else on the team take the hit while Lance/equivalent was injected with saline to bring his numbers down.

That's the part I can't handle and for me, where it goes from individual stuff to really a whole corrupt team.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/sp...DFB79ECA05E0F5

MIJB#19 · 10-12-2012, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peregrine

If doping was just a matter of "everyone did it" or a bunch of people on their own deciding to do it, that's one thing, but the stuff in this report talks about teams colluding together to do this - not just to dope, but for example to make sure if someone had to get caught it wouldn't be Lance (or equivalent best rider) but instead they would have someone else on the team take the hit while Lance/equivalent was injected with saline to bring his numbers down.

That's the part I can't handle and for me, where it goes from individual stuff to really a whole corrupt team.

Report Describes How Lance Armstrong Beat Cycling’s Drug Tests - NYTimes.com

The way cycling works, with riders never been alone during the races, it actually doesn't make much sense for individuals to act on their own, to the point that I think it's impossible to consistently enhance yourself with stuff without any teammates ever finding out. It makes more sense for teams to have their medical staff do stuff for the entire team, balancing between 'safety for health' and 'hard to catch'.

TroyF · 10-12-2012, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I've said it before but I don't think you can ignore the effect that allowing doping has on kids. To use MLB as an example, if everyone in MLB is doping, then everyone in the minors has to dope to get there. So now do high school and college kids have to dope to get drafted? Where is the line drawn that its ok at this level but at this level it's just unsafe and stupid?

I generally couldn't care less what these pros are putting into their body and if they kill themselves doing it, but I do worry about the message we send that sports are above medical advice (and the law in some cases) and the trickle down effect

This is really my fear, in a nutshell.

If something is proven to be safe, it works and it helps you as an athlete, great. Obviously, I don't have a problem with a 17 year old drinking Gatorade.

But I don't think the testing has been done to see the impact of HGH on a 15 year old. (long term) I don't mind the drug testing.

kcchief19 · 10-12-2012, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

What's USADA's issue with not informing the UCI, like they promised too? Either USADA has something to hide or the UCI does... If the latter, that worries me a lot more than finding out one particualr team had a doping project, because it would imply the sport's governing commitee was involved in keeping things from becoming public.

And what I always keep wondering: why would doping producers jump into cycling? There's so litle money to make there. Is it just a pet project for the real money sports?

In essence they did inform UCI, they just provided the evidence to UCI at the same time they provided it to everyone else.

The USADA report doesn't exactly come out and say it, but between the lines both USADA and WADA are saying UCI can't be trusted -- that they looked the other way and failed to investigate numerous suspect samples from Armstrong and his team. It has also been alleged that anything provided to UCI has in turn been immediately provided to Armstrong and his lawyers so they can prepare.

Based on the past, there is no reason to trust UCI. I don't know enough about their organization if they have truly cleaned house and can now be trusted, but clearly USADA and WADA don't trust them. And based on how Armstrong cheated for so long and go away with it, I understand that mistrust.

kcchief19 · 10-12-2012, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroyF

This is really my fear, in a nutshell.

If something is proven to be safe, it works and it helps you as an athlete, great. Obviously, I don't have a problem with a 17 year old drinking Gatorade.

But I don't think the testing has been done to see the impact of HGH on a 15 year old. (long term) I don't mind the drug testing.

When I was growing up in the '80s, there were baseball coaches who believed that kids throwing a curveball was not good on their arms and could cause long-term damage. I had a coach who believed that, and so did my mom. But our school team coach did not. If I didn't throw a curve, I wouldn't make the team.

To me there are two separate issues. One is cheating. But on the other side is the ripple effect of performance enhancement on young people. There is absolutely pressure on high school and college kids to take performance enhancements in order to get scholarships and get drafted. I also imagine that 99.9% don't get tested, so at the college and high school level there is no way to get caught. If it happens at the pros, it's only a matter of time before it happens at the earlier levels.

AlexB · 10-13-2012, 11:05 AM

Interesting article on the theory of free drug use creating a level playing field.

Doping, cycling and the 'level playing field' fallacy | Matt Seaton | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

AlexB · 10-13-2012, 11:13 AM

And another article which raises a couple of interesting questions...

UK paper may sue Armstrong over libel case | Sports - Home

So Lance will not contest the USADA findings, which means we will not hear a defence. But presumably he would either be forced to defend himself if he was sued by The Times, or otherwise he would have to repay what would likely be hundreds of thousands of pounds.

More Importantly, if the libel decision against The Times was reversed in a court of law, would that pretty much mean de facto he would also be found to have committed perjury, and face jail time?

stevew · 10-17-2012, 12:14 PM

Lance Armstrong out at Livestrong and was dropped by Nike.

Maybe Nike could convert all those yellow bracelets into cock rings or something. Oden-strong.

Fidatelo · 10-17-2012, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew

Lance Armstrong out at Livestrong and was dropped by Nike.

Maybe Nike could convert all those yellow bracelets into cock rings or something. Oden-strong.

If your dick is as big as your wrist you are fucking awesome.

spleen1015 · 10-17-2012, 12:25 PM

I am fucking awesome.

bronconick · 10-17-2012, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexB

And another article which raises a couple of interesting questions...

UK paper may sue Armstrong over libel case | Sports - Home

So Lance will not contest the USADA findings, which means we will not hear a defence. But presumably he would either be forced to defend himself if he was sued by The Times, or otherwise he would have to repay what would likely be hundreds of thousands of pounds.

More Importantly, if the libel decision against The Times was reversed in a court of law, would that pretty much mean de facto he would also be found to have committed perjury, and face jail time?

If he doesn't have British assets and British law isn't as stringent as American law on libel/slander, it's a moot point.

SPEECH Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

kcchief19 · 10-17-2012, 01:22 PM

Lewis Black: You win a 2,000 mile bike race seven years in a row, and going to court once a month is too much work?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

AlexB · 10-17-2012, 03:01 PM

There was a line on TV that maybe Lance didn't mean to invent the charity wristband, it was just a tourniquet that slipped below his sleeve

10-10-2012, 01:01 PM	#101
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Well at least he was successful... __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

10-10-2012, 01:35 PM	#105
Matthean Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Aug 2008	Another cyclist admitted to doping in the article as well. __________________ Board games: Bringing people back to the original social network, the table.

10-10-2012, 02:51 PM	#107
AlexB Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Newbury, England	Still don't get the Frank Schleck positive test. Of all of the guys pictured, he is the one that genuinely surprised me. __________________ 'A song is a beautiful lie', Idlewild, Self Healer. When you're smiling, the whole world smiles with you. Sports!

10-10-2012, 05:24 PM	#110
AlexB Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Newbury, England	Undoubtedly that used to largely be the case, as we are seeing unfold before our eyes. However i truly believe that it's the exception rather than the rule now: look at the end of stage race mountan finishes - they are breathing out of their backsides now after they cross the line now, as if the have given evrything, whereas it used be a case of seemingly being able to ride all day after the finish line. There are far fewer devastating attacks than there used to be (if you discount a select group of Spaniards) and the grinders like Wiggins, Evans, Basso, Heysedal, etc who can ride a constant tempo are competitive again. I don't doubt that the riders take whateve. The can legally, but the days of widespread blood doping and EPO have given way to isolated incidents. The biggest evidence for me that drug abuse is mainly now the old guard just continuing their long-standing culture is the fact that Riccardo Ricco felt he had to do his transfusions himself, in isolation rather than with the team doctors or soigneurs. He had to have emergency surgency for kidney failure due to his self administered transfusion, and no team would put the investment the do into their riders now and allow them to basically play Russian roulette in private and put all that cash and PR (which is why the sponsor the teams) at risk I think the 90s were the peak of the dark ages, with the end of the 80s and early 2000s bookending a perid that cycling should nev forget, no matter how convenient it would be to do so. __________________ 'A song is a beautiful lie', Idlewild, Self Healer. When you're smiling, the whole world smiles with you. Sports! Last edited by AlexB : 10-10-2012 at 05:24 PM.

10-10-2012, 05:31 PM	#111
Matthean Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Aug 2008	So, 12 of the 14 winners, 6 from 2nd place, and 8 of those in 3rd place were dopers. That's a clean sport. __________________ Board games: Bringing people back to the original social network, the table.

10-10-2012, 01:27 PM	#103
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	You can't call it successful if they got caught. Just sayin.

10-10-2012, 03:00 PM	#108
Castlerock High School Varsity Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Boston, Ma	It would genuinely surprise me if there was even a single cell in that grid for a rider who did not use performance-enhancing drugs. The photos above are only the ones we know about. The rest use... we just don't know it.

10-10-2012, 05:39 PM	#112
Dutch "Dutch" Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tampa, FL	According to that chart 100% of all the riders I ever heard of were accused or admitted doping. I think that's part of the sport now!

10-10-2012, 05:41 PM	#113
AlexB Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Newbury, England	I agree it was not, but over the last 4-5 years it is becoming so. The only doping cases on that entire board committed after 2007 are Contador and Schleck. The former I can quite easily believe doped/dopes, the later I was surprised Sports change: are all baseball players taking steroids now? Are all football teams still running wishbone offences? Clearly there was a huge problem, and it was more a case of who didn't take drugs (Moncoutie, maybe a couple of others) in the 90s. Now its isolated cases. __________________ 'A song is a beautiful lie', Idlewild, Self Healer. When you're smiling, the whole world smiles with you. Sports!

10-10-2012, 05:43 PM	#114
M GO BLUE!!! Pro Starter Join Date: Sep 2005	I wonder how many of the professional billiards players use performance enhancing drugs...

10-11-2012, 07:56 AM	#118
Marc Vaughan SI Games Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Melbourne, FL	Out of interest what is peoples 'stance' on doping? - why is it so hated generally .... I've never quite understood why 'performance enhancing drugs' are seen as bad, yes they allow people to out perform others ... but then so do exercise, a good training and a sensible diet - those aren't prevented. Many things which people do today in 'legal' training would have been considered unusual in the past and some items such as 'gatorade' etc. which are formulated specifically to tailor to (and improve) the bodies function are surely performance enhancing drugs to some extent? (what I'm asking is why is the line drawn where it is and does everyone agree with its positioning? - after all the fact that so many athletes do it shows that its basically the prohibition era all over again, making it 'illegal' isn't stopping it at all ...)

10-11-2012, 08:18 AM	#119
Autumn Head Coach Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Bath, ME	I think it's clear there's a fuzzy line between what is "doping" and what is "training", and the line gets fuzzier with every new technology. But I think in essence what a lot of people want from sports is to boil it down to the truth, not pile more crap on top of it. We hold sport events because we want to decide who in fact is the best. We want to get rid of the extraneous - did that guy win more races because his courses were eaiser, or he had different competition? Let's have them both race together. Did that guy win because he had better shoes? Let's have them use the same equipment. Did that guy win because he's a professional and has all the money and time in teh world? Let's let only amateurs compete. In other words we're trying to get down to the bare bones truth, as close to reality as we can. It's like how people wonder how a team from the '50s would compete against a team from the '90s. If you're okay with doping you're basically saying, "Of course the '90s team would win, they've got better training and equipment and healthcare." But I htink most sports fans wonder, "Yeah, but deep down, which were the better athletes. All things equal, who wins?" Doping blurs the truth, makes things unequal, basically nullifies the reason of having the race. I don't care who's best at blood transfusions and has the best doctors and all that shit. I wonder who can ride their bike hardest and fastest in the world.

10-11-2012, 08:45 AM	#121
Fidatelo Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Winnipeg, MB	I sort of wonder if we don't need to make it part of sports, bring it out from the underground, if for no other reason than safety. If people are doing all this stuff anyways, and we're always going to be a step or two behind in catching them, we may as well embrace it and work with the athletes to make sure things are as safe as possible. __________________ "Breakfast? Breakfast schmekfast, look at the score for God's sake. It's only the second period and I'm winning 12-2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, the Whale, they only beat Vancouver maybe once or twice in a lifetime."

10-11-2012, 11:53 AM	#123
AlexB Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Newbury, England	In my simplistic world, things that are classed as doping are things that will kill you. Steroids can cause heart problems, EPO thickens the blood and while the UCI tacitly allowed almost unrestricted use of EPO in the early days, when riders started dying because their hearts could not push around their overly thickened blood, they took a stance Bizarelly that stance was that as they could not detect EPO, only the effects of its use, the blood passports allowed 50% hematacrit levels (in essence oxygenation levels) while most people had low-mid 40% levels. So cycling doping went from unrestricted to aiming for just below 50% test results. This basically meant that the UCI actually allowed riders to dope 'a little bit' within their rules, and was a large part of why the culture of doping in cycling prospered. But to Marc's question: exercise, good diet, vitamins, etc are allowed because they are good for you. My understanding is that most banned drugs can kill/seriously affect your health, and it's why I don't believe the 'just let the athletes do what they want' argument holds up. __________________ 'A song is a beautiful lie', Idlewild, Self Healer. When you're smiling, the whole world smiles with you. Sports!

10-11-2012, 12:18 PM	#125
bhlloy Coordinator Join Date: Nov 2003	I've said it before but I don't think you can ignore the effect that allowing doping has on kids. To use MLB as an example, if everyone in MLB is doping, then everyone in the minors has to dope to get there. So now do high school and college kids have to dope to get drafted? Where is the line drawn that its ok at this level but at this level it's just unsafe and stupid? I generally couldn't care less what these pros are putting into their body and if they kill themselves doing it, but I do worry about the message we send that sports are above medical advice (and the law in some cases) and the trickle down effect

10-11-2012, 03:26 PM	#130
MIJB#19 Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Maassluis, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands	What's USADA's issue with not informing the UCI, like they promised too? Either USADA has something to hide or the UCI does... If the latter, that worries me a lot more than finding out one particualr team had a doping project, because it would imply the sport's governing commitee was involved in keeping things from becoming public. And what I always keep wondering: why would doping producers jump into cycling? There's so litle money to make there. Is it just a pet project for the real money sports? __________________ * 2005 Golden Scribe winner for best FOF Dynasty about IHOF's Maassluis Merchantmen * Former GM of GEFL's Houston Oilers and WOOF's Curacao Cocktail

10-11-2012, 04:21 PM	#133
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	I love how they vilify Armstrong and it sounds like he's a world class asshole. But there's no fuckin way that many people would care about the sport in America if an American wasn't winning.

10-11-2012, 05:00 PM	#134
Autumn Head Coach Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Bath, ME	Americans love assholes. Isn't that pretty much our thing?

10-12-2012, 01:09 AM	#138
Peregrine Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Cary, NC	If doping was just a matter of "everyone did it" or a bunch of people on their own deciding to do it, that's one thing, but the stuff in this report talks about teams colluding together to do this - not just to dope, but for example to make sure if someone had to get caught it wouldn't be Lance (or equivalent best rider) but instead they would have someone else on the team take the hit while Lance/equivalent was injected with saline to bring his numbers down. That's the part I can't handle and for me, where it goes from individual stuff to really a whole corrupt team. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/sp...DFB79ECA05E0F5 Last edited by Peregrine : 10-12-2012 at 01:10 AM.

10-13-2012, 11:05 AM	#143
AlexB Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Newbury, England	Interesting article on the theory of free drug use creating a level playing field. Doping, cycling and the 'level playing field' fallacy \| Matt Seaton \| Comment is free \| guardian.co.uk __________________ 'A song is a beautiful lie', Idlewild, Self Healer. When you're smiling, the whole world smiles with you. Sports!

10-13-2012, 11:13 AM	#144
AlexB Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Newbury, England	And another article which raises a couple of interesting questions... UK paper may sue Armstrong over libel case \| Sports - Home So Lance will not contest the USADA findings, which means we will not hear a defence. But presumably he would either be forced to defend himself if he was sued by The Times, or otherwise he would have to repay what would likely be hundreds of thousands of pounds. More Importantly, if the libel decision against The Times was reversed in a court of law, would that pretty much mean de facto he would also be found to have committed perjury, and face jail time? __________________ 'A song is a beautiful lie', Idlewild, Self Healer. When you're smiling, the whole world smiles with you. Sports! Last edited by AlexB : 10-13-2012 at 11:13 AM.

10-17-2012, 12:14 PM	#145
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	Lance Armstrong out at Livestrong and was dropped by Nike. Maybe Nike could convert all those yellow bracelets into cock rings or something. Oden-strong.

10-17-2012, 12:25 PM	#147
spleen1015 Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2003	I am fucking awesome. __________________ Why choose failure when success is an option?

10-17-2012, 01:22 PM	#149
kcchief19 Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Kansas City, MO	Lewis Black: You win a 2,000 mile bike race seven years in a row, and going to court once a month is too much work? The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

10-17-2012, 03:01 PM	#150
AlexB Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Newbury, England	There was a line on TV that maybe Lance didn't mean to invent the charity wristband, it was just a tourniquet that slipped below his sleeve __________________ 'A song is a beautiful lie', Idlewild, Self Healer. When you're smiling, the whole world smiles with you. Sports!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)