Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Road Cycling (https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/)
-   -   So Lance was doping after all (https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/326172-so-lance-doping-after-all.html)

cyclezealot 07-30-07 08:12 AM

go for a ride. give it a rest.

rapidcarbon 07-30-07 02:44 PM


Originally Posted by MichaelRasmusen (Post 4962290)
Or never tested positive = never doped. I think we forget that some people are simply talented and gifted athletes. I think Michael Jordan comes to mind as probably one of the most gifted athletes in his prime. Lance Armstrong was to Cycling as Michael Jordan was to Basketball. Of course there are always people that tend to be jealous and want to take away from these people. Don't hate the man just because he has seven TDF wins. If you hate him you must be French :D

He could have said "I never doped" instead "never tested positive". Just like "you don't break any law until you get caught".

reef58 07-30-07 02:58 PM

Lance did say I never used and performancing enhancing drugs.

His 1999 positive EPO tests tell a different story.

Richard


Originally Posted by rapidcarbon (Post 4965406)
He could have said "I never doped" instead "never tested positive". Just like "you don't break any law until you get caught".


MONGO! 07-30-07 03:19 PM

He was on his bike, 6 hours a day, busting his ass.

What are YOU on???

Cassadamius 07-30-07 03:20 PM

First of all, MichaelRasumusen, Lance Armstrong is not the Michael Jordan of cycling. Lance Armstrong is the Michael Jordan of the Tour de France. Second of all, this crap is nothing new - do you honestly think you're going to uncover some revelation about LA after all this? So many people have hunted for dirt on this guy for 7+ years and you think you finally found it? Either way, people NEED to believe in Lance. There are those that believe he doped (the logical ones) and there are those that believe he didn't. If at this point you believe Lance didn't dope, nothing is going to convince you - you are pretty much a blind follower and none of this new information is going to phase you.

And to the guy that linked wikipedia.......wikipedia? Come on, dude. I could go write a wikipedia entry right now stating that my dog could beat up your dog. Dictionary, man. Dictionary.

schnee 07-30-07 03:22 PM

So there have never been great athletes that stood out above the rest, without some 'help'?

I guess we can safely write off Michael Jordan, Bruce Jenner, Pete Sampras, etc...

DrPete 07-30-07 05:17 PM


Originally Posted by MichaelRasmusen (Post 4962290)
Or never tested positive = never doped. I think we forget that some people are simply talented and gifted athletes. I think Michael Jordan comes to mind as probably one of the most gifted athletes in his prime. Lance Armstrong was to Cycling as Michael Jordan was to Basketball. Of course there are always people that tend to be jealous and want to take away from these people. Don't hate the man just because he has seven TDF wins. If you hate him you must be French :D

There's a big difference between hating someone and accepting the atmosphere/climate/culture of which he was a part.

What sucks about all the doping scandals is that if someone ever DOES accomplish great things clean, nobody is going to believe it.

DrPete 07-30-07 05:21 PM


Originally Posted by reef58 (Post 4965534)
Lance did say I never used and performancing enhancing drugs.

His 1999 positive EPO tests tell a different story.

Richard

Dear God. Believe that he doped, but don't use the repeatedly debunked "evidence" to support your claim.

Believe what you want, but the evidence is circumstantial/guilt by association at its very best.

reef58 07-30-07 05:34 PM

I did not know that, really. I have read about it from several sources, but never found any thing that debunked it. Would it be because the sample were so old? Or maybe they were contaminated due to the fact they were being used for practice?

Richard


Originally Posted by DrPete (Post 4966574)
Dear God. Believe that he doped, but don't use the repeatedly debunked "evidence" to support your claim.

Believe what you want, but the evidence is circumstantial/guilt by association at its very best.


DrPete 07-30-07 05:41 PM


Originally Posted by reef58 (Post 4966687)
I did not know that, really. I have read about it from several sources, but never found any thing that debunked it. Would it be because the sample were so old? Or maybe they were contaminated due to the fact they were being used for practice?

Richard

IIRC the issues were no chain of custody, new tests run on old specimens, mislabeling, etc.

reef58 07-30-07 05:46 PM

Good deal

Richard


Originally Posted by DrPete (Post 4966725)
IIRC the issues were no chain of custody, new tests run on old specimens, mislabeling, etc.


DMF 07-30-07 05:48 PM

http://home.mindspring.com/~dforcier/cow-fire.jpg

pegleg 07-30-07 05:54 PM


Originally Posted by Cassadamius (Post 4965720)
There are those that believe he doped (the logical ones)

Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:33 PM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.