Originally Posted by gsteinb

You're talking on one hand about something being encouraged and deemed 'acceptable' by a sports governing body that is illegal. To bolster your argument you bring up the usage of an illegal recreational herb which isn't deemed acceptable by any sports governing body.

Originally Posted by Spring Water

You're missing the point. If Lance Armstrong goes to jail, it'll be because he's a doping cheat. His prison time will be because of financial fraud.

Originally Posted by gsteinb

How is that bad? Why do you care why he's snitching? Sammy the Bull didn't turn on Gotti until the feds had him over a barrel. You're acting as if Landis is somehow going against what people typically do...CYA.

Originally Posted by brianbeech

I assume if you held money in higher regard than integrity, it wouldn't be hard decision. Is there no shame anymore? Does no one think of consequences? Is there not one person in this world that you want to hold a high opinion of you? If my wife and child, dad and mom found out that all my success was due to cheating, that would be unbearable. I suppose if all you care about is money and have no relationships the decision could be easy.


Shame (2000 BC - 1970 AD)
Always there to make you feel like crap...

Originally Posted by Rocket-Sauce

Often, those who are SO anti-doping have this idea that the drugs won the race, hit the home runs, lifted the weights etc. Incorrect. I could take every drug in the world and not be able to hang with Lance, or Contador etc on a big climb, run a sub 10 second 100m, bench 500lbs, or even see a 95mph fastball (let alone hit it out of the park 70 times in one year).

Both USADA and WADA said that drugs are wrong because it is cheating. Drugs, according to this logic, give its user an "unfair" advantage over the competition. Their (WADA, USADA) mission is to "level the playing field".

This is not possible.

Let's assume Lance did take drugs. That is not why he won 7 tours. Not by a long shot.

Originally Posted by gsteinb

It isn't just reserved for our wives.

Originally Posted by trustnoone

+10

It really changed my perspective of riders 'riding well'. I liked Parkin's comment at one point about not being a 'doping virgin'. The tone certainly left the impression on me that doping virgins were about as common in the peloton as as literal virgins.

I can't think of any other pro sport where the line between the athlete and the bank roll is so short. The guy in the car behind the rider is negotiating the sponsors and the riders. If there are no results the sponsor walks and everyone is out of a job maybe tomorrow. Personally I can't imagine that if a major sponsor of say The Colorado Avalanche were to walk that the team would fold at the end of the season.

A bit of apples and oranges but the point is that pro cyclists deal with a a few more stressors than other pro athletes. When a cyclists earning potential for the rest of his career is tied to any given season or even a half season with no guarantees and the DS is in the same boat with the whole team then the need for results is going to always outweigh the risks.

In any other sport would Robbie Hunter still be in the minors and would both he and McEwen be scrambling for a job next year at the 11th hour?

So, aside from a vendetta against former teammates who are still successful and maybe a book titled "Positively Lying Back Stabbing Cheat - How I swindled millions in my quest for undeserved entitlement" I don't see what Floyd is hoping to, or will accomplish. Even without USPS in the early aughts cycling will still be the circus it is, maybe more so.

Originally Posted by gsteinb

Well he clearly had bad advice, or at the very least advice that served the interests of others and not himself. He ended up broke and alone and changed his mind on what he was going to do. We're still allowed to change our minds. It isn't just reserved for our wives.

Originally Posted by roadwarrior

Trust me I get it. But, like David Millar I don't give him a pass because he had his chance early on. He lied and took money from people to help try to defend that lie.

I feel sorry for him. I don't think he's real smart and I think he got awful advice, but he still had to make the call. But you are correct in that, at that level you are not just winning for yourself. A lot of other people make a living at helping riders win. When they do and they get caught, there's more than one person getting snagged, Liberty Seguros. Festina. For starters.

Originally Posted by patentcad

Had Lance not doped, he may not have won any Tours. But he may well have finished on the podium, or in the top 5, beaten by a guy who was doping. I don't believe that the pda's really elevate you to some other level if you're already at the top, not at the level Lance and his competitors are at. I think they simply keep you in the (dope riddled) game.

I also firmly believe that Lance didn't dope during his comeback. It just wouldn't be worth the risk. Fartoo much to lose. And he still got 3rd last year. Obviously Lance is one of the most talented bicycle racers of the last 100 years. That's not particularly arguable.

Hey, I think this whole investigation is pointless, as is the debate over did he or didn't he dope in a doper era. But that's me.

Either way the Jets still suck.

Originally Posted by Rocket-Sauce

Often, those who are SO anti-doping have this idea that the drugs won the race, hit the home runs, lifted the weights etc. Incorrect. I could take every drug in the world and not be able to hang with Lance, or Contador etc on a big climb, run a sub 10 second 100m, bench 500lbs, or even see a 95mph fastball (let alone hit it out of the park 70 times in one year).

Both USADA and WADA said that drugs are wrong because it is cheating. Drugs, according to this logic, give its user an "unfair" advantage over the competition. Their (WADA, USADA) mission is to "level the playing field".

This is not possible.

Let's assume Lance did take drugs. That is not why he won 7 tours. Not by a long shot.

Originally Posted by gsteinb

Not if you're taking something that isn't on a banned list. I have no idea. I only know that I don't know.

Originally Posted by patentcad

If you're taking something that isn't on a banned list you're not doping.

Originally Posted by Tulex

I think he's saying that most stuff isn't banned the moment it's used, but later when it is discovered.

Originally Posted by patentcad

If you're taking something that isn't on a banned list you're not breaking the rules.

Originally Posted by Daytrip

fixed

Originally Posted by patentcad

If you're taking something that isn't on a banned list you're not doping.

Originally Posted by Tulex

I get that. But does that make you less of a scum if you do stuff before it's banned, knowing fully that it will be when it comes out? And yes, I'm sure these guys all know that stuff will get banned once it's known.

Are you saying that following the rules is all that matters, that violating the intent is ok?

Originally Posted by patentcad

If you're taking something that isn't on a banned list you're not doping

Originally Posted by Tulex

I don't think people are that stupid. They will either see the intent, or not give a crap. But they will get it.