Dr. Sacrebleu Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Justin Gatlin gets him off the front page for today Been on vacation for the week, kind of expected this to be a heatedly debated subject knowing that there are a few TdF fans here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Whats there to debate? The guy has 2 balls that are producing ALOT of testosterone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 (edited) I don't know which is true. Either the French have it out for American racers who keep winning their race and are publicizing the hell out of something which is relatively innocuous... or the US racers are dopers. I'd believe either one... I just have no evidence either way. If it turns out that this lab produced a high-profile false positive on an American winner after they were involved in the Armstrong implications that were later determined to be false, then I expect them to lose their accredidation with the Tour de France. Edited July 31, 2006 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Like France has any credibility left in the world whatsoever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 I don't know which is true. Either the French have it out for American racers who keep winning their race and are publicizing the hell out of something which is relatively innocuous... or the US racers are dopers. I'd believe either one... I just have no evidence either way. CJ Hunter Kevin Toth John McEwen Kelli White Justin Gatlin Calvin Harrison Jerome Young. And that's just a 2 minute search on the internet of positive tests by US track and field athletes (none of whom to my knowledge were tested by french labs). If you ad the US atheletes SUSPECTED in a major way of using steroids, the list is almost endless. Armstrong's breaking of the tour record was like what will happen when Bonds breaks the HR record, it's not that they have it in for Americans, it's that the most cherished record in the sport fell to an athlete that they suspect of cheating (and there is more circumstantial evidence regarding Armstrong than their is for Bonds). For the record, I think they are all on drugs (americans and others alike) just that I suspect that in the US there is more incentive, money, and science than anywhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 ...Tim Montgommery Tyler Hamilton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 But they had a cycling expert on CNN that said high doese of testosterone would actually not benfit a cyclist in race at all. So it makes no sense for someone to dope testosterone in the middle of a race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 (edited) CJ Hunter Kevin Toth John McEwen Kelli White Justin Gatlin Calvin Harrison Jerome Young. And that's just a 2 minute search on the internet of positive tests by US track and field athletes (none of whom to my knowledge were tested by french labs). If you ad the US atheletes SUSPECTED in a major way of using steroids, the list is almost endless. Armstrong's breaking of the tour record was like what will happen when Bonds breaks the HR record, it's not that they have it in for Americans, it's that the most cherished record in the sport fell to an athlete that they suspect of cheating (and there is more circumstantial evidence regarding Armstrong than their is for Bonds). For the record, I think they are all on drugs (americans and others alike) just that I suspect that in the US there is more incentive, money, and science than anywhere else. Are you suggesting that only Americans have been implicated in doping scandals? Are you suggesting that this is an American problem and not a sports or cycling problem? Watch it Frenchy. I'm waiting for the results to make my judgements. You should probably do the same. If there is so much circumstantial evidence on Armstrong, why isn't there any actual evidence? People get caught all the time. You just gave a list of like 15 people who got caught. Surely after so many years of people trying to nail him, he would have been caught. People also find lots of circumstantial evidence if they are looking really hard for it. That's why it's not enough to convict someone. But they had a cycling expert on CNN that said high doese of testosterone would actually not benfit a cyclist in race at all. So it makes no sense for someone to dope testosterone in the middle of a race. That's certainly what I read. Testosterone is something you take to build muscle over the course of weeks. Why would he test negative for it up until the last day when suddenly he tests positive? It would have no positive effect in one day's time. What was he starting early to bulk up for the next race? Edited July 31, 2006 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 Are you suggesting that only Americans have been implicated in doping scandals? absolutely not. just look at who got suspended at the start of the tour. Are you suggesting that this is an American problem and not a sports or cycling problem? nope. I have been consistent for years at the huddle stating that I don't beleive anyone is clean in track and field events. Everyone is trying to get that edge. The big difference is that in the US there is 1) more of a tradition of track and field than in any other country meaning that their are more and better athletes vying for the top spots. And only winners testing positive are news. America has created a lot of winners in the field 2) everyone is looking for that edge, but one would think that the since the US has more access to science and money than any other country, the incentive is greater here. That is after all how the free market works Watch it Frenchy. I'm waiting for the results to make my judgements. You should probably do the same. I am also waiting for the results to make my judgement. I think he is a cheating scum bag unless test b says differently. . The odds are overwhelming that sample B will match sample A. Obviously there is a chance that the positive A sample resulted from lab error, or mishandling. But those odds are small. It's not Ok to act on the assumption until the verdict is rendered, but it sure is ok to think it. If there is so much circumstantial evidence on Armstrong, why isn't there any actual evidence? People get caught all the time. You just gave a list of like 15 people who got caught. Surely after so many years of people trying to nail him, he would have been caught. remember most of those caught get caught for really stupid mistakes, but have had hundreds of clean tests in their career. Kelli White passed dozens of tests before being busted. People also find lots of circumstantial evidence if they are looking really hard for it. That's why it's not enough to convict someone. [/b] doesn't this happen all the time? That's certainly what I read. Testosterone is something you take to build muscle over the course of weeks. Why would he test negative for it up until the last day when suddenly he tests positive? It would have no positive effect in one day's time. What was he starting early to bulk up for the next race? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 (edited) Armstrong's breaking of the tour record was like what will happen when Bonds breaks the HR record, it's not that they have it in for Americans, it's that the most cherished record in the sport fell to an athlete that they suspect of cheating (and there is more circumstantial evidence regarding Armstrong than their is for Bonds). For the record, I think they are all on drugs (americans and others alike) just that I suspect that in the US there is more incentive, money, and science than anywhere else. this is a bunch of bullchit. yeah, american cyclists cheat more, riiiight. because....there's more money for americans competing in european cycling than for europeans competing in european cycling? let's see, ullrich, basso, pantani, virenque, the entire festina team. versus, what, a bunch of completely unsubstantiated playa-hatin against lance armstrong and an unconfirmed sample from landis? and finally, your statement that there is more circumstantial evidence against lance than against bonds is one of the stupidest things i've ever read on the huddle. that is moneymakers stupid, doc. wow. Edited July 31, 2006 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 this is a bunch of bullchit. yeah, american cyclists cheat more, riiiight. because....there's more money for americans competing in european cycling than for europeans competing in european cycling? let's see, ullrich, basso, pantani, virenque, the entire festina team. versus, what, a bunch of completely unsubstantiated playa-hatin against lance armstrong and an unconfirmed sample from landis? and finally, your statement that there is more circumstantial evidence against lance than against bonds is one of the stupidest things i've ever read on the huddle. that is moneymakers stupid, doc. wow. I'll rarely do this, but I have to say I agree with this. Armstrong was tested time and again, and has never produced a positive test. Bonds was never tested for steroids until 2002, which was when MLB finally betgan testing for those substances. Sure you have a point about tech staying ahead of the tests, but this analogy falls flat on its face once basic facts are applied. I, for one, am of the belief that whatever place Armstrong had to put his mental state to fight his cancer carried over into his physical abilities as an athlete. All that stuff about sports being 90% mental is more than just a cliche, and Armstrong IMO would not have been as successful if he hadn't contracted cancer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Well Sac, you have every right to convict Landis based on evidence that hasn't been enough to take away his victory yet. But, it's painfully obvious that you're biased against American athletes. It's sad to me to see someone who is generally smart make snap decisions with faulty logic and half the facts, but a ton of smoke. I couldn't give a rats ass about cycling, and I agree that drug use among athletes is rampant. But, at this point, I hope you are dead wrong and I'd love to shove it in your face because of your pathetic anti-american bias and your absolutely certainty about something that is unproven. Good luck with all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I thought the good news was he is finally getting his drivers license and can actually stop riding his bicycle around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted August 1, 2006 Author Share Posted August 1, 2006 Ok. Time to unjumble my thoughts. From everyone's reaction to my posts I have obviously expressed myself poorly, and more to the point, combined a few different thoughts that I have. I don't particularily care if you guys think that I am antiAmerican here (I think many of you seem to be blindedly pro american-cyclist, while just avoiding any debate about track and field, but more on that later), but I do care when a debate gets muddled, and so here are my views expressed hopefully a little more clearly: 1) I beleive that a majority of sample As are confirmed by sample Bs in dope testing. Mishandling and mislabeling does happen, but I am guessing that this happens perhaps in 5% of tests at most. It's like hospital mess-ups, they happen, and we all have friends and families that this has happened to in their lifetime. But it is a very very very rare occurence. That is why I am assuming that Landis is dirty until proven otherwise. To those of you who say "what about innocent until proven guilty?" indeed Landis should not be punished until it has been conclusively proven guilty of doping. That is why he is still the reigning tour champion. And that is why I disagree with his being fired from the team. It however does not mean that we may not formulate our thoughts about these events. I AM NOT waiting for Saddam's trial to be over to decide that he is guilty of crimes against humanity. I AM waiting for him to be conclusively found guilty of that crime before punishing him. By the way today's news is that Landis' sample A tested for foreign hormones (definitely ruling out the natural imbalance defense) which is exactly what Gatlin tested for. I noticed that no one stood up to defend Gatlin, or even address that issue. Which leads me to.... 2) I beleive all the top run-very-fast throw-very-far track and field participants are on drugs. The two most recent fastest men alive have tested positive, and many major players, man or woman, from the 100 to the 400 meter has been under suspicion or tested positive (my favourite "hey he never tested positive" defense is those two white greek runners who never won a thing and then come out and blow away that competition who dodge their out of competition tests, and then both go to the hospital after an 'accident' when they are to be tested). I think most people here agree with that. Now I beleive that cycling is just as dirty as those track and field events. Most of you obviously disagree (or in Az's case, you think the sport is dirty, but that the winner who tests positive is clean). Why this is I am not sure. I have not seen anyone defend any of the dopers that have been caught on the track, but I see tooth and nail defense of Landis. The only thing I could see is that cycling is not a run-fast or throw-far event. It is more like an endurance event like a marathon is which far fewer people test positive. Except for Mary Decker. Who did test positive. 3) I have an overall theory, which I losely brought up, and this is what got me in trouble. It's a more theoretical thing than anything else, so probably should have been in a completely seperate thread. The basic premise was that the United States SHOULD have more doped athletes than other countries. not because Americans are more dishonest but because of the unfettered capitalism that we have here. This is the market finding the solution to a problem. Why you supply siders see this as anti-american surprises me. The french guy wants the wonder drug just as much as the american, but american business can respond to that need much more efficiently than the more controlled, less supple french business. The bulgarian weigh lifting team wants drugs just as much as the american shotputters, but they do not have the sophisticated science we have here (hence the whold team tests positive because they are outdone by the test, whereas the shotputters are only busted if tested at the wrong time). And lastly the chinese wants to cheat just as bad, but it is their government that is creating the drugs, and we all know what happens when government is the solution. On the demand side (and that is why there is a supply after all) pressures are probably great everywhere in the world for the athletes that want to 'make it off the street' from detroit to rio to kiev. I think, just from having lived in france and the states that there is much less of a culture of sports there than there is here, thus much less reward. The incentive to 'make it' in many sports in the US is hugh, the incentive to 'make it' in france after the very top tier in 3 sport is tiny. Obviously things are not absolute. There are labs that have near the american sophistication around the world (such as the spaniard doctor involved in the tour), and of course there is tons of incentives to motivate cheaters world round. Like any market 'dopin' is an ever evolving one, and by no means absolute. I am sure the french folks are trying to develop the new undetectable steroid just as much as the american folks. It's just that my money is on american ingenuity to find the solution So as you see this is more of a big picture thought, not something I should have laid down willynilly. 4) Lance Armstrong should also have been a different argument altogether. Mostly because my thoughts towards him stem mostly from emotion than from cold hard fact. Went from being very admirative of him, and finding his book to be absolutely incredible (best sports autobiography ever) to finding him to be a real class a jerk. Since I don't think the tour has been clean since Greg Lemond, his 7 tour victory is a blemish to the sport in my opinion the exact same way that Bonds is should he break Hank Aaron's record. I am sure that had he been french, I would have felt this less strongly, but most of you have the converse lack of objectivity: you all think that bonds is on steroids, you mostly concede that track and fielders are on steroids, but will defend Armstrong to the gills. And yes Az, the circumstantial evidence against Armstrong is just as strong if not stronger than Bonds'. Is it enough to convict him, or rescind any of his victories? Absolutely not. Does it mean that I can feel that he is part of what killed cycling for me? Absolutely. Pantani's victory in the TdF will just be a blip, a later proven doper who tested clean for that event (and according to most of you he was clean just because there was an imbalance in red blood ratio, not actual drugs) Armstrong shattered a record helped to a degree by drugs IMO. Anywho, those are my thoughts. Carry on. Should they conclude the tests by saturday I will be curious to read the responses. Should he be cleared, tant mieux. Just feeling pretty sceptical about that one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Ok. Time to unjumble my thoughts. From everyone's reaction to my posts I have obviously expressed myself poorly, and more to the point, combined a few different thoughts that I have. I don't particularily care if you guys think that I am antiAmerican here (I think many of you seem to be blindedly pro american-cyclist, while just avoiding any debate about track and field, but more on that later), but I do care when a debate gets muddled, and so here are my views expressed hopefully a little more clearly: 1) I beleive that a majority of sample As are confirmed by sample Bs in dope testing. Mishandling and mislabeling does happen, but I am guessing that this happens perhaps in 5% of tests at most. It's like hospital mess-ups, they happen, and we all have friends and families that this has happened to in their lifetime. But it is a very very very rare occurence. That is why I am assuming that Landis is dirty until proven otherwise. To those of you who say "what about innocent until proven guilty?" indeed Landis should not be punished until it has been conclusively proven guilty of doping. That is why he is still the reigning tour champion. And that is why I disagree with his being fired from the team. It however does not mean that we may not formulate our thoughts about these events. I AM NOT waiting for Saddam's trial to be over to decide that he is guilty of crimes against humanity. I AM waiting for him to be conclusively found guilty of that crime before punishing him. By the way today's news is that Landis' sample A tested for foreign hormones (definitely ruling out the natural imbalance defense) which is exactly what Gatlin tested for. I noticed that no one stood up to defend Gatlin, or even address that issue. Which leads me to.... 2) I beleive all the top run-very-fast throw-very-far track and field participants are on drugs. The two most recent fastest men alive have tested positive, and many major players, man or woman, from the 100 to the 400 meter has been under suspicion or tested positive (my favourite "hey he never tested positive" defense is those two white greek runners who never won a thing and then come out and blow away that competition who dodge their out of competition tests, and then both go to the hospital after an 'accident' when they are to be tested). I think most people here agree with that. Now I beleive that cycling is just as dirty as those track and field events. Most of you obviously disagree (or in Az's case, you think the sport is dirty, but that the winner who tests positive is clean). Why this is I am not sure. I have not seen anyone defend any of the dopers that have been caught on the track, but I see tooth and nail defense of Landis. The only thing I could see is that cycling is not a run-fast or throw-far event. It is more like an endurance event like a marathon is which far fewer people test positive. Except for Mary Decker. Who did test positive. 3) I have an overall theory, which I losely brought up, and this is what got me in trouble. It's a more theoretical thing than anything else, so probably should have been in a completely seperate thread. The basic premise was that the United States SHOULD have more doped athletes than other countries. not because Americans are more dishonest but because of the unfettered capitalism that we have here. This is the market finding the solution to a problem. Why you supply siders see this as anti-american surprises me. The french guy wants the wonder drug just as much as the american, but american business can respond to that need much more efficiently than the more controlled, less supple french business. The bulgarian weigh lifting team wants drugs just as much as the american shotputters, but they do not have the sophisticated science we have here (hence the whold team tests positive because they are outdone by the test, whereas the shotputters are only busted if tested at the wrong time). And lastly the chinese wants to cheat just as bad, but it is their government that is creating the drugs, and we all know what happens when government is the solution. On the demand side (and that is why there is a supply after all) pressures are probably great everywhere in the world for the athletes that want to 'make it off the street' from detroit to rio to kiev. I think, just from having lived in france and the states that there is much less of a culture of sports there than there is here, thus much less reward. The incentive to 'make it' in many sports in the US is hugh, the incentive to 'make it' in france after the very top tier in 3 sport is tiny. Obviously things are not absolute. There are labs that have near the american sophistication around the world (such as the spaniard doctor involved in the tour), and of course there is tons of incentives to motivate cheaters world round. Like any market 'dopin' is an ever evolving one, and by no means absolute. I am sure the french folks are trying to develop the new undetectable steroid just as much as the american folks. It's just that my money is on american ingenuity to find the solution So as you see this is more of a big picture thought, not something I should have laid down willynilly. 4) Lance Armstrong should also have been a different argument altogether. Mostly because my thoughts towards him stem mostly from emotion than from cold hard fact. Went from being very admirative of him, and finding his book to be absolutely incredible (best sports autobiography ever) to finding him to be a real class a jerk. Since I don't think the tour has been clean since Greg Lemond, his 7 tour victory is a blemish to the sport in my opinion the exact same way that Bonds is should he break Hank Aaron's record. I am sure that had he been french, I would have felt this less strongly, but most of you have the converse lack of objectivity: you all think that bonds is on steroids, you mostly concede that track and fielders are on steroids, but will defend Armstrong to the gills. And yes Az, the circumstantial evidence against Armstrong is just as strong if not stronger than Bonds'. Is it enough to convict him, or rescind any of his victories? Absolutely not. Does it mean that I can feel that he is part of what killed cycling for me? Absolutely. Pantani's victory in the TdF will just be a blip, a later proven doper who tested clean for that event (and according to most of you he was clean just because there was an imbalance in red blood ratio, not actual drugs) Armstrong shattered a record helped to a degree by drugs IMO. Anywho, those are my thoughts. Carry on. Should they conclude the tests by saturday I will be curious to read the responses. Should he be cleared, tant mieux. Just feeling pretty sceptical about that one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 (edited) or in Az's case, you think the sport is dirty, but that the winner who tests positive is clean uhh, where did you come up with this? for the record, i think a lot of cyclists cheat. i think a lot of them don't cheat. i think it's possible/probable landis cheated, though before condemning him i'd like to have a better idea why his 6 other tests this tour de france tested negative, and his only positive is for a substance that doesn't provide any short term performance benefit. that is perplexing to me. i'm waiting for this to shake out a bit more before i form an opinion either way. contrary to your assertion, i have NOT been defending landis "tooth and nail", that is yet another weak strawman on your part. 3) I have an overall theory, which I losely brought up, and this is what got me in trouble. It's a more theoretical thing than anything else, so probably should have been in a completely seperate thread. The basic premise was that the United States SHOULD have more doped athletes than other countries. not because Americans are more dishonest but because of the unfettered capitalism that we have here. This is the market finding the solution to a problem. Why you supply siders see this as anti-american surprises me. The french guy wants the wonder drug just as much as the american, but american business can respond to that need much more efficiently than the more controlled, less supple french business. The bulgarian weigh lifting team wants drugs just as much as the american shotputters, but they do not have the sophisticated science we have here (hence the whold team tests positive because they are outdone by the test, whereas the shotputters are only busted if tested at the wrong time). And lastly the chinese wants to cheat just as bad, but it is their government that is creating the drugs, and we all know what happens when government is the solution. this part is just so stupid. lance armstrong is a cheater....because of capitalism!! wow. is that part of your "circumstantial evidence" case against lance? here's a newsflash for you, frenchie. 90+% of the money in pro cycling is EUROPEAN. 90+% of the competitors are european. 90+% of the cheaters are european. cycling is predominantly a european sport, the fact that it is full of cheaters has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with american capitalism. geebus, why don't you just come full circle here and blame george bush's foreign policy. and you know, since you mention it, all the money in track and field is in europe as well. hmm, if there's a trend here, i think it cuts in the opposite direction as what you're trying to imply. i'm not dumb enough to say there IS a link there though. the number of cheaters in any given sport are going to be determined not by what country the money and the competitors hail from, but by the balance of costs and benefits to be derived from cheating. in sports like basketball and soccer (to take a predominantly american professional sport and a predominantly european one), there's not a lot of benefit to be derived, so there's not a lot of cheating. in sports like cycling and track and field, there's a LOT of benefit to be derived performance-wise, so the onus is on the governing bodies to try and make the costs outweigh that. the costs and benefits aren't going to be different for athletes from different countries, unless they're governed by different testing regimes. 4) Lance Armstrong should also have been a different argument altogether. Mostly because my thoughts towards him stem mostly from emotion than from cold hard fact. Went from being very admirative of him, and finding his book to be absolutely incredible (best sports autobiography ever) to finding him to be a real class a jerk. Since I don't think the tour has been clean since Greg Lemond, his 7 tour victory is a blemish to the sport in my opinion the exact same way that Bonds is should he break Hank Aaron's record. I am sure that had he been french, I would have felt this less strongly, but most of you have the converse lack of objectivity: you all think that bonds is on steroids, you mostly concede that track and fielders are on steroids, but will defend Armstrong to the gills. And yes Az, the circumstantial evidence against Armstrong is just as strong if not stronger than Bonds'. Is it enough to convict him, or rescind any of his victories? Absolutely not. Does it mean that I can feel that he is part of what killed cycling for me? Absolutely. Pantani's victory in the TdF will just be a blip, a later proven doper who tested clean for that event (and according to most of you he was clean just because there was an imbalance in red blood ratio, not actual drugs) Armstrong shattered a record helped to a degree by drugs IMO. you simply cannot compare lance and bonds. lance competes in a sport where he was tested regularly and rigorously for 7+ years and never ONCE tested positive for ANYTHING. bonds was never tested for anything, and performance enhancing drugs weren't even explicitly against baseball's rules for the period in question. you're essentially comparing the MOST drug-regulated sport in the world to the LEAST, and saying that the guy who stood up to every test and every half-baked accusation is MORE guilty than the guy who has OPENLY ADMITTED to using "the cream" and "the clear" and never had to pass a single drug test, and who is pretty f'n close to a federal criminal indictment for lying to cover up his more systematic use of steroids and such. i could go on about what a ridiculous comparison this is, but it ought to already be pretty apparent to anyone who doesn't have your insane prejudice just how dumb it is. Edited August 1, 2006 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Bad News for the former mennonite- BUSTED - sample B came back with synthetic testosterone- realy too bad, I thought it was the beers & whiskey that got him back in the race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Bad News for the former mennonite- BUSTED - sample B came back with synthetic testosterone- realy too bad, I thought it was the beers & whiskey that got him back in the race. That's not true: sample B hasn't been finalized. From what I read, it's sample A that showed the synthetics because they did additional test on it WHILE still going through sample B. But yeah. it's looking worse. http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2535787 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted August 1, 2006 Author Share Posted August 1, 2006 . this part is just so stupid. lance armstrong is a cheater....because of capitalism!! wow. is that part of your "circumstantial evidence" case against lance? here's a newsflash for you, frenchie. 90+% of the money in pro cycling is EUROPEAN. 90+% of the competitors are european. 90+% of the cheaters are european. cycling is predominantly a european sport, the fact that it is full of cheaters has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with american capitalism. geebus, why don't you just come full circle here and blame george bush's foreign policy. I spent a good amount of time earlier to seperate what I had jumbled originally in terms of what are facts and what are beleifs. It's more than a bit of a pisser to see that you have jumbled them back up willynilly to try and score facile points. I respect your intelectual rigor in general, but this is lame, as you are purposefully combining two elements that I very specifically said were different in the realm of debate. As opposed to you, when I take the time to lay out an argument at thehuddle, I do it at my own expense, not on someone else's dime. And right now I don't have the time to explain to you how what you have just done is so totally intellectually dishonest. I assume that you are smart enough to know that. Suffice it to say that your claim that I said that american capitalism is responsible for armstrong's cheating is just annoying. I am pretty sure that anyone who has read this thread will concur that I never said any such thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I spent a good amount of time earlier to seperate what I had jumbled originally in terms of what are facts and what are beleifs. It's more than a bit of a pisser to see that you have jumbled them back up willynilly to try and score facile points. I respect your intelectual rigor in general, but this is lame, as you are purposefully combining two elements that I very specifically said were different in the realm of debate. As opposed to you, when I take the time to lay out an argument at thehuddle, I do it at my own expense, not on someone else's dime. And right now I don't have the time to explain to you how what you have just done is so totally intellectually dishonest. I assume that you are smart enough to know that. Suffice it to say that your claim that I said that american capitalism is responsible for armstrong's cheating is just annoying. I am pretty sure that anyone who has read this thread will concur that I never said any such thing Well, I'm not buying the 'circumstantial evidence' arguement either, especially when Armstrong can continue to correctly point out that he's never failed a drug test. I said before your Bonds/Armstrong analogy doesn't work and I don't have to wrap myself in semantics to put forth a clearer case than you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 (edited) I spent a good amount of time earlier to seperate what I had jumbled originally in terms of what are facts and what are beleifs. It's more than a bit of a pisser to see that you have jumbled them back up willynilly to try and score facile points. I respect your intelectual rigor in general, but this is lame, as you are purposefully combining two elements that I very specifically said were different in the realm of debate. As opposed to you, when I take the time to lay out an argument at thehuddle, I do it at my own expense, not on someone else's dime. And right now I don't have the time to explain to you how what you have just done is so totally intellectually dishonest. I assume that you are smart enough to know that. Suffice it to say that your claim that I said that american capitalism is responsible for armstrong's cheating is just annoying. I am pretty sure that anyone who has read this thread will concur that I never said any such thing oh i'm so sorry to kick sand in your bagina by translating The basic premise was that the United States SHOULD have more doped athletes than other countries. not because Americans are more dishonest but because of the unfettered capitalism that we have here. This is the market finding the solution to a problem. into implying that, well, you were operating under a stupid premise that the US has more doped athletes because of unfettered capitalism. where did i go wrong here again? i read back over your diatribe just to make sure i wasn't missing something, and, nope, you're just as full of chit as i thought you were. i mean, maybe this idea that america is so sophisticated and there's so much "supply-side" impetus to cheat would make sense if you were comparing the US to, say, africa. but you're not. you're comparing it to europe. the EU states combined have 200 million more people and a higher gross GDP than the USA. sports like soccer, cycling, and track and field are HUGE money over there (never mind that 2 of those 3 are the dopiest pro sports out there). from what i've heard, most of the top dope doctors in the world are european. and hey, if all your sordid rumors about lance armstrong are true, he went to european doctors to cheat, not american doctors. europe definitely has the technology to compete with america when it comes to cheating in sports, probably even more since their big-money sports are the dirtiest ones around. i'm sorry, your argument just falls completely flat from total lack of factual support no matter how many ways you try and massage it. and i suggest that, rather that about me "mischaracterizing" it, or going back trying to rephrase it yet again, you just abandon that illogical tripe altogether. Edited August 1, 2006 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted August 1, 2006 Author Share Posted August 1, 2006 Well, I'm not buying the 'circumstantial evidence' arguement either, especially when Armstrong can continue to correctly point out that he's never failed a drug test. I said before your Bonds/Armstrong analogy doesn't work and I don't have to wrap myself in semantics to put forth a clearer case than you. I would be curious to count how many drug tests the aformetnioned busted athletes I listed passed before coming up positive. Were they always clean and just slipped up for one event? If you and Az disagree with the Armstrong/Bonds argument that is valid, and that was not the point of this whole post. BTW, do you beleive that Bonds is on steroids? yes or no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 BTW, do you beleive that Bonds is on steroids? yes or no. i see where you are going and that is incredibly weak. bonds has ADMITTED to taking "the cream" and "the clear", though he said he didn't really know what they were. he was NEVER tested, not ONCE, during the period in question. and now he's facing a federal criminal indictment for lying about what he took and what he knew about it. now how many drug tests did lance pass? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I would be curious to count how many drug tests the aformetnioned busted athletes I listed passed before coming up positive. Were they always clean and just slipped up for one event? If you and Az disagree with the Armstrong/Bonds argument that is valid, and that was not the point of this whole post. BTW, do you beleive that Bonds is on steroids? yes or no. Of course he was - he even admitted to taking them and perjured himself as to his source. Next you'll ask about HIS tests, but again he wasn't tested at the earliest until 2002(after his HR record), if ever because they are administered randomly. Armstrong was administered how many tests in his 10+years of competing? Do you believe the sun rises in the east? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.