[Distortion_UK]

So I'm bringing back the lance armstrong debate and asking everyone's stance on the matter.

Ive read the 1000 page report om USADA and while it's is a very compelling argument against him with 11 testemonys from cyclists who have admitted to doping, some of these cyclists have retired and could have got away with it but decided to speak out and tarnish their own reputations. There's many questionable incidents with large sums of money given to Ferrari for "advice".

At no point is there any positive blood tests. No conclusive urine samples, no actuall evidence.

It's 11 statements and strange irregularities. Even if he is guilty, is this enough to prosecute someone? I thought you needed actaul evidence rather than someone's word.

This post has been edited by Distortion_UK: 18 October 2012 - 10:39 AM

[Eskimo]

to be totally honest. I dont care.

I believe he did take drugs to enhance his athletic ability Beyond that which the medication for the cancer cells could have done.
that being said. the outcome makes absolutely 0 difference in my life.

[OEFVeteran]

he still won 7 Tours... that wont change, even if they strip him of the "wins" he still won those races... do i think doping is right? no, i dont, but its a part of the sport. everyone at one level or another, dopes in cycling... there is jsut now other way to increase performance and be able to last endurance wise for the a race that covers a coupe thousand miles... back inthe day it was blood packing, where the team doctor would take a pint or 2 of blood out, put it on ice to preserve it, then the night before the race, he would put that bloodback into the racer... this would increase the racers RBC and allow them to carry more O2 to the cells, and recover faster... testing for this was to do a simple RBC count, if it was higher then allowed, the perosn was DQ'd for doping... now adays we have drugs that can increase RBC with out the need for blood packing... yet, these drugs, if over used, turn the blood to sludge and can cause a rider to drop dead on the spot, and yes, that has happened before... we also have drugs that increase the iron content and hemaglobin in the blood without upping the RBC, and these drugs dont show up on most doping tests...

as for lance, yeah, i think his cancer treatments could hae had long term performance enhancing side affects, such as the constant Epo injections he was on to raise his RBC... could he have been doping and gotten away with it? sure he could have... does the anti doping agency have any cold hard proof? no, they dont... and based on that evidence, or lack there of, Lance will most likely skate by....

[Distortion_UK]

But do they have the right to strip his titles without the concreate evidence...

[OEFVeteran]

as far as my knowledge goes, no, they dont... the USADA wasnt involved in the testing, the agency the French Gov't and Race Promoters contracted with did... its a French race, not a US race... the USADA can just enforce a ban on Lance for competing in the US as a suspected/known doper... now, the rules of this sport have changed since i last competed, so the USADA may very well have that authority now, but i still dont believe that they do... and they need more then just one positive or inconclusive doping test to convict him... if they do convict him with out the hard evidence, it will be a sin against the system... innocent until proven guilty right? (in a perfect world)

[Distortion_UK]

This has definitely not been the case people are calling guilty without proof. Only statements of former team mates, but you have to wonder why they would all testify if there was nothing going on?.
Especially the guys that were never suspected of doping.

This post has been edited by Distortion_UK: 18 October 2012 - 06:53 PM

[aj619]

Maybe there just bitter about Armstrong always winning (probably not)
But it is quite odd they would be so ready and willing to testify if there testimonies are so inconsistent I smell something fishy

This post has been edited by aj619: 18 October 2012 - 06:29 PM

[Distortion_UK]

Cyclists that were previously thought to be clean ruined their own reputation to testify against lance. Something must be up for that to happen.

[OEFVeteran]

financial gain of some sort is most likely behind this...

[bassfisher]

I think he's innocent, in my opinion It's just a witch hunt of sorts.

[aj619]

OEFVeteran, on 19 October 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

financial gain of some sort is most likely behind this...

Actually this is what I was thinking cause your not going to ruin your reputation just to bring down Armstrong seems well for lack of a better word (at least one I can think of) stupid

This post has been edited by aj619: 21 October 2012 - 12:13 AM

[ManBearPig3611]

Sure, their is alot of evidence to suggest that he was doping, however I think it is completely wrong to strip him of his titles with no actual proof. That being said, even if he doesn't get to keep his titles he has still done an amazing amount for cancer survivors everywhere.

[`kook]

Quote

their is alot of evidence to suggest that he was doping, however I think it is completely wrong to strip him of his titles with no actual proof

Evidence is what proves something...

[Distortion_UK]

There's nothing substantial like a positive test.

[DarkSide]

They actually stripped away his titles today

[canscom]

IF he did dope then fine he doped and what ever happen's happen's IF he is clean then its a witch hunt for financial gain Lance is done with the Tour and they(USDA) and the Tour officials are still rubbing salt in the wound

[Distortion_UK]

UCI have stripped his 7 titles.....who will gt the wins?

[REDCOBRA]

are they aware that he was relevant 6 years ago? they are chasing after a train that has left the station...

[TK-421]

And now some company who gave him cash bonuses for winning is thinking about suing him to get that money back.