[Closed] Lance - how much longer before the bubble bursts?

I hope you have your flame proof cape on. You are about to be flamed within and inch of your life

you're obviously new - we had this thread last week...

Or... how long before people move on to another story?

Can't we vet new posts on STW?

you'd be on the forum dole then hora 😉

aye we had it last week and the week before and the week before that etc etc you get my drift

guilty or not his high public profile will make him a target for attacks

Oh well, never mind.

I used to come on STW a lot, been away for a few years, re-joined last week.....

(Can't we vet new posts on STW?)oooo get you 😯

[i]I used to come on STW a lot, been away for a few years, re-joined last week.....[/i]

Some things, ie, hora, are still very much the same.

Are we trying worship Lance Armstrong? Bloody maggot. Bloody celebrity.

😈

Next headline

"Lance may be banned because someone said he thinks he might have been involved with a dodgy team mate who he heard might have taken something"

Hora - you will just have to face it. He is a long term drug cheat.

I'm guessing Hora has posters of Lance in his bedroom...

[img] [/img]

I bet hora bought one of those wristbands from Lance's [s]charity foundation[/s] business

TJ, you really need to practise the trolling. You're really shit at it.

Some people still feeling a bit jealous this week? It can eat you right up y'know.

I sell them to street beggars. They need the money and kindness for 'food' you know 🙄

He could well be a cheat but I don't care either way he's done more for cycling and cancer globally than anyone or anything before him

Big Kimmage/Walsh article next issue Sunday Times

(strangely not afraid of being sued any more)

Firestarter - really? More than say Eddie Merckx? More than the various nameless medical researchers or the people who raise money for cancer research?

Armstrong loves his own myth - he should he created it. Pity most of it is based on falsehoods

Yes he has done some good. But don't overstate it

Sorry, TJ, has he been tried and found guilty without us knowing?

I'm surprised at your branding him a cheat - never really had you down as a member of the lynch mob. 🙁

(from someone who has long suspected but isn't going to jump on the envy bandwagon just yet)

There are thousands of individuals doing good and making a lot less noise about it. My cycling buddy's wife raises funds and has just returned from another trip to Kenya in her own holiday time where she distributes the money personally to fund the education of Kenyan girls. She doesn't just sit in an hotel in Nairobi, she travels all over the country finding the girls and handing over the lolly. It's arduous and dangerous but nobody praises her or makes a big song and dance about it.

Lance who?

And let us not forget Jesus.
He was but a humble carpenter and did far more than Lance.

Darcy - I am personally convinced. Nowt to do with envy, nowt to do with a lynch mob.

There's been corruption in commercial sports for decades, get over it!

Personally, i'm a bit bemused how we are so preoccupied with commercial sport. Football seems to have the greatest following and boy, don't the people at the top of that game bring the game into disrepute?

Anyone who takes competitive commercial sport seriously really needs their head examined because it's ONLY a game!

Sport should be for fun, for recreation - period!

Armstrong loves his own myth - he should he created it. Pity most of it is based on falsehoods

Is this fact based on first hand experience or just your opinion? I'm not too sure from this.

I have said before that surely he must be innocent until proven guilty, anything else is just guesswork and speculation.

[b]TandemJeremy[/b]

I am personally convinced....

....that anyone who has ever taken an illegal chemical substance should be shunned and anything they say treated with derision and disbelief.

Once a druggy always a druggy eh Jeremy 🙄

The Witch Finder General always found witches. They must have been guilty, eh.

I will presume he's innocent until he is proven otherwise. The weight of the evidence of tests so far is in his favour.

The weight of innuendo and statements from known cheats and liars may point otherwise, but let's give him a fair trial and not knot the rope unless he's proven guilty.

Oh look - hilldodger is back to attack me.

I thought you had left - or is this just your TJ bashing alter ego?

And let us not forget Jesus.
He was but a humble carpenter and did far more than Lance.

And lets not forget the [i]baby[/i] Jesus, He wasnt even a carpenter yet, but still bore the weight of all our sins.

I just wish Lances wristbands had had a hologram on them, they might have [i]cured[/i] cancer.

yes i believe so tj, yes others do lots and have done lots but he has inspired thousands to ride and raised millions, not mention the thousands of people he has inspired to raise money too

I'm always surprised at your stance on this TJ. Innocent til proven guilty and all that.

Fact is, in any court in the world, Armstrong is innocent. That may change in the future, maybe one day he will be found guilty of doping or sporting fraud or something but at the moment, he's innocent.

The empirical evidence and data from hundreds, maybe thousands, of drug tests is far greater than the anecdotal evidence of former colleagues, associates etc (most of whom seem to have an axe to grind).

Normally, you'd be the one standing up for all this rather than joining the lynch mob.

I used to be a real lala fan - from about 92 when he was the new kid on the block, and was so upset when he got so ill and was pleased when he recovered and came back to ride again.
Then I read his book when it came out - in hardback no less!
I've not been a fan since.
His attitude to other people is abhorrent to me, his personal cult of lala fills me with distate and the innuendo about his amazing cycling abilities have been going round since the late 90s.
I'm not jumping on a bandwagon, I've been on it since it just started rolling.

Its nothing to do with a lynch mob. Its a hatred of liars and cheat. There is plenty of good evidence if you want to see it. Trouble is too many folk don't.

I think the real reason is the big lie technique he uses. "the most tested athlete in history" - which is bollocks and if you look at his denials they are very carefully worded - real spin doctor stuff.

OK, but has anything been proven?

He could well be a cheat but I don't care either way he's done more for cycling and cancer globally than anyone or anything before him

Don't know about "anyone or anything" - in fact I strongly doubt that - but he's certainly done a lot more than me (including a charity ride in AUS last week), even if sometimes he can come across as a bit arrogant. Mind you, given what he's achieved I suppose it's not entirely surprising.

He may not be the "most tested athlete in history", either, but he's been tested, repeatedly, both on and off season, and despite all the tests [b]nothing[/b] has been proved.

1999 samples?

Its nothing to do with a lynch mob. Its a hatred of liars and cheat.

TJ, which part of this don't you get? He has NOT been found guilty of ANYTHING! Therefore at the moment he is NOT lying and has NOT been cheating! That may change but unlike you, I'm not going to pass judgement. IF he is found guilty then I will join the detractors. Until then I am entirely neutral on the subject.

Its nothing to do with a lynch mob. Its a hatred of liars and cheat.

Top sportsmen take drugs. It was part of the cold war and was funded and organised by the state. By the time the state stopped getting involved it was part of every sport and ever sportsman at all levels.

Lance is not a cheat, he is just part of the system, same as all the others. They all deserve respect for doing what is necessary to win.

1999 samples?

Sperm samples? Do you still have the tissues you dug out of his hotel bin dude?

Therefore at the moment he is NOT lying and has NOT been cheating

Legal rulings don't define reality! If he is lying then he is lying, whether or not this is proved doesn't change that.

you know what I mean, dude

[i]Legal rulings don't define reality! If he is lying then he is lying, whether or not this is proved doesn't change that. [/i]

That's my point though.

TJ doesn't KNOW that LA is lying any more than I KNOW he's not lying. Unfortunately, TJ is therefore shouting his opinion all over the interweb and refusing to listen to anyone else. No change there then.

Point is, it's unproved either way therefore it might be an idea to wait for the federal investigation to conclude, yes? Although clearly I'm forgetting that TJ's opinion on a biking forum is probably more valid than a federal investigation with access to more information than us... 🙄

I think LA is guilty. Sometimes when he turns towards the sunlight he grins to himself. Guilty as sin.

Hes obviously thinking about pilling up or is already off his tits on dance biscuits and gurning.

Crazylegs - just go look at the evidence - there is plenty of it. I have, I have heard what LA has to say and I have made up my mind on the evidence I have seen.

I don't believe there is a TDF winner ever who was not doped.

TJ. My original degree and subsequent employment was in science, chemistry actually.

I value empirical evidence over anecdotal evidence any day. Lance may be guilty, he may be innocent, at the moment I don't know. I've seen the evidence both ways and so far the only evidence against him is circumstantial and anecdotal.
The evidence in his favour is scientific and empirical. It is considerably more valid than anecdotal. Any scientist would say the same and any court would agree.

By all means have your opinion but bear in mind the fact that so far, he's innocent.

It's not Lance I have the problem with, this discussion has gone off-topic a bit. He may be guilty, he may be innocent; what I do have a problem with his your constant attitude of "I think I'm right therefore I am"

I don't believe there is a TDF winner ever who was not doped.

You can believe what you like but this is clearly not true. There were no restricted substances in the early days, hence it was impossible to dope.

Given that it's common knowledge it hasn't been proven he's doped (yet) then it should be fairly obvious that any one saying he's a cheat/liar/doper is stating their own opinion (whether based on their review of available evidence or just because they don't like someone who's successful is irrelevant). I used to be a big LA fan to, it's easy to get suckered in to liking someone who attacks on big mountains and destroys people in TTs. But I've long since believed he's doped and therefore anything that he does, whilst it might still be entertaining, all rings hollow for me.

Even if he's never proven guilty to me that still doesn't mean he rode clean - using autologous blood transfusions is undetectable and I'm sure there have also been times (and possibly still are) where advanced drugs are ahead of the testing technology and so someone with sufficient funds can stay ahead of the game (as long as they can also come up with excuses why archived samples can't be used in case retrospective tests are done...).

I have heard what [s]LA[/s] TJ has to say and I have made up my mind on the evidence I have seen

Top sportsmen take drugs. It was part of the cold war and was funded and organised by the state. By the time the state stopped getting involved [b]it was part of every sport and ever sportsman at all levels.[/b]

Not true. True for a significant proportion IMO bit not true across the board.

TJ, have you heard of character assassination/defamation?

If you were stood infront of LA right now, you'd bloody buckle and mumble wouldnt you? 😆

I don't believe there is a TDF winner ever who was not doped.

Even Greg LeMond ?!

If you were stood infront of LA right now, you'd bloody buckle and mumble wouldnt you?

No, he probably wouldn't actually. I think TJ is often full of it but I'd never doubt that he'd say the same things in person as on here.

+1 5th Elephant

I dont really care if he took drugs or not, its something every rider probably needs to do to be competitive in a brutal season of long and competitive races. If they didnt, the punters would probably critising them for not trying hard enough and for making bike racing boring.

Not true. True for a significant proportion IMO bit not true across the board.

I don't believe there has been any evidence of LeMond doping. He had to be cajoled to take over the counter anti-inflammatories. He was far ahead of the pack in terms of applying science to his training and equipment.

do you really think bike racing on grand tours became interesting in the epo era?

Before the epo era, there was another set of drugs and before them, another.

The pro riders are no different to a majority of athletes they are ALL on something it’s the only way they can be competitive on that basis they all must liars and cheats 8O. Yes morally it may be wrong but this has been ongoing for decades and the sad fact is that it’s a catch 22 to be successful you need a helping hand,

don't believe there has been any evidence of LeMond doping.

You know that for sure?

The whole raison d'etre of a cheat is covering and lying effectively.

Decades before Lemond there has been evidence of wide-spread chemical ingestion. So why and how do you think the little bushy-tailed annoying yank grew up with this and somehow avoided it?

YERRR RIGHT!

Crazy legs - the evidence is anecdotal and circumstantial for sure - but that was enough to convict Marion Jones. She never failed a drug test. Tehre is some decent hard evidence as well and sworn testimony. Not enough to convict in a court for sure

As for "The evidence in his favour is scientific and empirical. It is considerably more valid than anecdotal. Any scientist would say the same and any court would agree. "

The evidence in his favour is he passed drug tests. Thats not the same as proving he never doped. You should know this. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and its very hard to prove a negative. All its proof of is that he passe4d trhe drug tests. So did Marion Jones.

There are plenty of folk know know to have doped who never failed a test.

5thElefant - Member

If a significant portion did, then the clean ones will have come last. So if that's the minority you're referring to, then, yeah sure.

Significant proportion of sports - some have bigger problems than others.

When I went to the bike show at earls court I was dissapointed there wasnt a EPO stand. I need help to get up those hills!

You know that for sure?

I haven't come across any in 20 years within the industry, unlike in LA's case. Not even the smidgen of a rumour.

The evidence in his favour is scientific and empirical.

The empirical evidence proves that he has not failed a valid drugs test. It's not empirical evidence of lack of doping, you need to have an estimate of the effiacy of the testing. Given the number of proven dopers who have never failed a test the effiacy is certainly less than 100 percent.

I haven't come across any in 20 years within the industry, unlike in LA's case. Not even the smidgen of a rumour.

There hasn't been as much aclaim or interest in any other American cyclist.

I do feel that Lemond feels 'forgotten' and shouts me! me! whilst trying to squeeze through the crowd of fame once more.

weedwizard -

http://www.steroidonlineshop.com/d1-erythropoietin.html

iDave - Member

I don't believe there has been any evidence of LeMond doping

http://www.flahute.com/2010/07/19/lemond-v-armstrong-more-punches-traded/

it is impossible to be neutral on this

My perspective:

LA has had the best doctors, best teams and closest teamates working for him. If anyone could get away with doping it was him. He DOMINATED a GT for 7 years, in an era when most of the competition have been found to have been doping at the same time.

Has he ever doped? Course he has

Will there ever be any actual proof through a failed sample? Probably not

He's won more TDF races than anyone else ever in the entire history of historydom.

You can't polish a turd no matter how much Mister Sheen you squirt upon it.

Significant proportion of sports - some have bigger problems than others.

Quite possibly. But I happen to know that at least one sport in which we regularly win Olympic medals is clean enough that un-doped athletes can win. I just object to the assumption that all sports have rife doping and that it's impossible for a top performer to win clean.

Quite possibly. But I happen to know that at least one sport in which we regularly win Olympic medals is clean enough that un-doped athletes can win. I just object to the assumption that all sports have rife doping and that it's impossible for a top performer to win clean.

Rowing actually which while it has a large technical element is still massively dependent on power/endurance.

[i]What sport have you got in mind?[/i]

I'm guessing he's referring to track cycling which is MUCH much cleaner than road cycling. The GB squad are clean, I'll stake an awful lot of money on that.

If you'd said synchronised swimming... but rowing?

crazy-legs - Member

What sport have you got in mind?

I'm guessing he's referring to track cycling which is MUCH much cleaner than road cycling. The GB squad are clean, I'll stake an awful lot of money on that.

Tend to agree with you on that

it is impossible to be neutral on this

I am. Big Meh. What an exciting sport it must be where you have to be a chemist to follow it.