time to move on. good luck figuring out who or whom was "clean" or less doped than the others. seems to permeate all competitive/well-compensated sports and has for
quite some time now. have operated under the assumption that everyone is doing something questionable or worse and have rarely been disappointed. do i like convicted
or supposed dopers? yep. do i like holier than thou and supposed clean riders? yep. just like the sport. i have zero problems with a lifetime ban for first time offenders
or at least something stricter (4-10 years) but the powers that be better have a damn airtight testing program than they do now.
fortunately, i think the hysteria to get retroactive will die with the armstrong/ullrich/pantani/zulle/virenque era. can you imagine another sport coming
across old samples and applying modern applications to samples from platini, gretzky, ripken, sampras or elway?
Because they take doping controls seriously. The one instance I am thinking of was for a player who had Asthma (I think). Because of that he was allowed to take a drug that normally was banned because it can server as a masking agent. He had been doing that for at least a couple of years.
Then one year he neglected to check a box in his annual paperwork. He got a 2 month suspension for using the drug he had legally used for years. He appealed. The suspension stood, only good thing was that the write up of that made it clear that this was purely a paperwork error on his part, not cheating and he got no additional consequences (e.g. no strike against him going forward).
Rather different from Cycling and post dated doctors notes.
I would not put it past a athlete, that has achieved the highest possible achievement(s) in his sports (and used illegal drugs that are PEDs to do it that risks jail time and hurts one's body) to put that before everything else.
What's with the font?
I'm just going to go with the position that any standout on the elite level of any sport is cheating and be done with it. Those folks are so close in ability, and other then the occasional freakish human, there is nothing else to account for the differences except PEDs
He was offered a deal letting him keep 5 TdFs and his bronze medal from Sydney, if he admitted doping. He told them to stuff it, and within 6 months went on national TV and admitted it all. His thinking process there also eludes me.
If you restore the titles to Armstrong, the cheaters will come back as the ultimate threat is gone; being banned is temporary, losing your title is forever.
WOW, what a statement you just inserted, that banning someone can only be temporary. How is that not just a long suspension?
I agree that titles (records and Etc.) are a huge important reason for athletes to do what they do; but I think being prevented from ever participating in their sport of their life (so far; for 99% of them) is bigger punishment. I just do not think any sports organization would ban someone and then years later treat it like/change it to a suspension.
I think they should do both, they have him suspended, now strip all the awards that he gained from being dirty.
Now go back and re-read that 10 times before responding. And if you don't want to respond, I'm fine with that.
*- I would agree only if it is under one-time to have failed one-race. Not caught one-time to have failed more three-races/tests. But then the way cyclist are tested so much and process is done I do not see how that could happen.
**- Plus, there are huge debates and findings out there about the accuracy of the tests.