Armstrong charged and banned

[kevin_cambs_uk]

Well I still like the man, regardless, and his picture stays on my wall.
He has helped me get back on the bike and for that reason alone I will be grateful, otherwise I would still be a 18 stone fat git approaching death at the speed of a train.

 

[smutchin]

Time will tell.

No, it's mostly emotive bullshit now and it will continue to be mostly emotive bullshit.

Just take for example the bizarre claim that drugs cannot turn an also-ran into a champion.

Ever heard of Ben Johnson?

d.

 

[lukesdad]

Well I still like the man, regardless, and his picture stays on my wall.
He has helped me get back on the bike and for that reason alone I will be grateful, otherwise I would still be a 18 stone fat git approaching death at the speed of a train.

This seems to be the main reason so many like him so much, a personal inspiration.

 

[Red Light]

No, it's mostly emotive bulls*** now and it will continue to be mostly emotive bulls***.

Just take for example the bizarre claim that drugs cannot turn an also-ran into a champion.

Ever heard of Ben Johnson?

d.

But on the evidence that the peleton (or at least all the leadership contenders) were all doping around that time if you didn't dope you didn't stand much of a chance and if you did you were on a level playing field at the top. And on that level playing field he managed something that no-one else else managed on drugs and that was to win seven times in succession.

And what do we know of Ben Johnson's competitors? Well we know that five of the Olympic 100m finalists tested positive or were implicated in drug taking at some point in their careers. So again it was probably another case of winning on a level doped playing field.

What Armstrong does demonstrate though, if you believe he and his team were long term dopers, is the incompetence of WADA and the drugs testing labs in detecting doping. How can they not detect doping in over 500 screens of an allegedly committed doper to say nothing of all the tests on his team mates?

 

[Ian H]

No, it's mostly emotive bulls*** now and it will continue to be mostly emotive bulls***.

Just take for example the bizarre claim that drugs cannot turn an also-ran into a champion.

Ever heard of Ben Johnson?

d.

I have read elsewhere (a past baseball scandal, nothing to do with cycling) that drugs don't work miracles, but mostly help you to train harder - you still have to do the work. This may be slightly different for multi-day endurance sports such as the Tour.
I agree with his assessment of pro-cycling, but not of Armstrong. My gripe about about Armstrong is not so much the doping - he merely did it more cleverly than the others - but his attitude to the whole world of pro-cycling. He was never really part of it, just turned up for the Tour, won it, and went home (slight exaggaration I know).
As for those years being the most exciting, I actually just got a bit bored with the Tour during that period.

 

[Boris Bajic]

But on the evidence that the peleton (or at least all the leadership contenders) were all doping around that time if you didn't dope you didn't stand much of a chance and if you did you were on a level playing field at the top. And on that level playing field he managed something that no-one else else managed on drugs and that was to win seven times in succession.

And what do we know of Ben Johnson's competitors? Well we know that five of the Olympic 100m finalists tested positive or were implicated in drug taking at some point in their careers. So again it was probably another case of winning on a level doped playing field.

What Armstrong does demonstrate though, if you believe he and his team were long term dopers, is the incompetence of WADA and the drugs testing labs in detecting doping. How can they not detect doping in over 500 screens of an allegedly committed dopers to say nothing of all the tests on his team mates?

Agreeing with Red Light is beginning to piss me off.

Fignon was particularly frank about the matter-of-fact attitude to doping (albeit using different substances) when he joined the pro ranks as a youngster.

The euphemism of the day was 'une bonne preparation', which meant many things and ultimately only one thing.

Johnson was not an 'also ran'. he was very fast and was made faster still by drugs. Much like Lewis, Christie and others.

The fog of hindsight blurs the realities with Armstrong. He did win it seven times (and yes, the testers don't come out of this well) but he did have a most remarkable team of doped and fast riders around him. I know he was not the first, but they really were a remarkable bunch in some of his glory years.

 

[festival]

What a load of bollocks.

I agree with you, sport has no future with attitudes like that load of bollocks.

 

[Red Light]

The fog of hindsight blurs the realities with Armstrong. He did win it seven times (and yes, the testers don't come out of this well) but he did have a most remarkable team of doped and fast riders around him. I know he was not the first, but they really were a remarkable bunch in some of his glory years.

Which is an interesting question around Sky's current dominance and Team GBs dominance at the Olympics. Large amounts of money have been spent on everything from clothing, helmets, bike design, aerodynamic positioning etc and bringing in the best support riders money can buy that many of the smaller teams cannot dream of affording. And that is with the UCI rules restricting what equipment you can use. Is that any different from doping in the sense that they are buying an advantage that is nothing to do with their innate capability. At several times in this year's Tour Brad came through because of the number of support riders Sky had available to sacrifice for him on the climbs.

 

[marinyork]

Which is an interesting question around Sky's current dominance and Team GBs dominance at the Olympics.

You must think up better examples. The team GB if you're talking cycling at the olympics there was no team GB dominance in 2004. There was a dominant team at those games, they were called Australia. And in 2000 you could argue depending on which disciplines that there was joint dominance from Germany and France with Australia on the rise.

As a side note to this the 2004 men's time trial got rewritten a couple of weeks ago and the 2000 men's time trial will likely do so too.

 

[Alun]

Which is an interesting question around Sky's current dominance and Team GBs dominance at the Olympics. Large amounts of money have been spent on everything from clothing, helmets, bike design, aerodynamic positioning etc and bringing in the best support riders money can buy that many of the smaller teams cannot dream of affording. And that is with the UCI rules restricting what equipment you can use. Is that any different from doping in the sense that they are buying an advantage that is nothing to do with their innate capability. At several times in this year's Tour Brad came through because of the number of support riders Sky had available to sacrifice for him on the climbs.

Sky is a very well organised, money no object team. The difference between that and doping, is that doping is against the rules!

 

[Red Light]

You must think up better examples. The team GB if you're talking cycling at the olympics there was no team GB dominance in 2004. There was a dominant team at those games, they were called Australia. And in 2000 you could argue depending on which disciplines that there was joint dominance from Germany and France with Australia on the rise.

As a side note to this the 2004 men's time trial got rewritten a couple of weeks ago and the 2000 men's time trial will likely do so too.

And what got them from 2004 to their dominance in 2008 and 2012? Hours in wind tunnels and the lab, a big share of £125m per annum funding, a velodrome to train in......... Few countries can afford that.

 

[Red Light]

Sky is a very well organised, money no object team. The difference between that and doping, is that doping is against the rules!

Legally absolutely. But morally?

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 2007250, member: 45"]Are people on here excusing drug use in sport??[/quote]
By default.

There is a small hardcore where anything that is not "Armstrong is the spawn of the Devil" is automatically promoting drugs.

The "elephant in the room" is large, grey and has four large feet. It is the questions that need to be asked about the actions and conduct of the drugs testing agencies, labs. organisations and some of the individuals concerned.

This is an opportunity to clean up both sides of the issue, shame that any criticism of the agencies is shouted down

 

[PpPete]

And what got them from 2004 to their dominance in 2008 and 2012? Hours in wind tunnels and the lab, a big share of £125m per annum funding, a velodrome to train in......... Few countries can afford that.

Money doesn't guarantee medals though...
Swimming and Athletics received very similar share of the funding to that going to Cycling.

be interesting to know what Jamaica's Athletics budget is.

 

[yello]

Surely they had their chance and chose not to contest the charges in Court but to settle. In line with USADA v Armstrong their guilt is therefore unarguable.

Do you honesty believe any of that? Can you not see the glaringly obvious flaw in what you say? I'd like to think you're capable of objective thought but you seem to be trying very hard to convince me otherwise.

Are there any situations that you will not twist to protect whatever preconceived notions you have?