Azazello1313 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 first floyd landis came out, but he was fairly easy to dismiss. his credibility was squat. now tyler hamilton. and the real bombshell that may be just around the corner, george hincapie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 first floyd landis came out, but he was fairly easy to dismiss. his credibility was squat. now tyler hamilton. and the real bombshell that may be just around the corner, george hincapie. Where can I get a yellow wristband that says "performance enhancing drugs" on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Where can I get a yellow wristband that says "performance enhancing drugs" on it? How about "Live on drugs" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 How about "Live on drugs" Drugstrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Yep the Hincapie thing is the really damning one. Sure, dude has never failed a test, but it's really getting harder and harder to believe considering the following: 1) Guys keep coming out of the woodwork 2) He completely dominated a sport where essentially everyone was cheating. And I mean, everyone. The last guy to dominate the way he did was a Spaniard (who's name escapes me) but won a bunch in a row in the early 90s. He was found out to be cheating. And we're supposed to believe that Armstrong, who, while always a great athlete took a major, major step in 99 from dude with flashes of potential to dominating the sport in an unprecedented manner, against a field of competitors where, essentially, each and every one of the elite members have ultimately been found guilty of doping? Sorry, but that's sort of hard to believe. I mean, essentially everyone who was hitting a ton of HRs around 2000 was eventually found out to be guilty. (Well, except Bonds, but come on). Do you think, if there was another guy who was hitting 80 while Bonds and McGuire were hitting 70+, that we could have any faith at all that he was clean? When basically everyone who was hitting 45+ during that stretch was later found to be on the juice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) does anyone truly care? Cheating has been around since the beginning. Honestly, if what they're doing had no ill-effects health wise, then I wouldn't at all. I mean, I used to race competitively and it's not like I was ever near good enough that doing something like that would have been enough for me to join those ranks (and by "those ranks", I mean, just being on one of those teams). And I wasn't half bad. So, it's not like doing EPO takes some schmo and turns him into a mountain goat. Taking EPO allows someone who is already an amazing cyclist and trains like a mother and allows him to do what should be borderline impossible. The issue is, I would prefer that, assuming what they're doing is bad for them, that a guy wouldn't have to make the choice of ascending to the top of his sport or avoiding taking drugs that could end up costing him dearly down the road, health wise. Edited May 23, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Livedrugged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 true, but it does help a guy like Floyd get ahead. is lance still racing? Of course, but it's all relative because the dudes that Floyd beat that day were ultimately found guilty at some point of failing a test. So, he obviously had to be an amazing cyclist already. And, again, if everyone does it and it doesn't come back to eff you up later, I say, "why not"? It's fun as hell to watch these guys do this amazing stuff. And, what, after all, is the difference between illegal drug use and taking IBP for inflamation? It's a drug, it certainly "enhances your performance" if it means you can get back on the bike and ride well because you're not swollen and in pain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Hasn't it been found that certain performance enhancing drugs may cause cancer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 wow, to make such an accusation takes huge balls. yer punny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 23, 2011 Author Share Posted May 23, 2011 And, again, if everyone does it and it doesn't come back to eff you up later, I say, "why not"? It's fun as hell to watch these guys do this amazing stuff. reminds me of this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 reminds me of this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 reminds me of this... Classic. I'm with det - essentially, Armstrong has NEVER failed a test, that is not in dispute. The problem comes when all his main rivals (Ullrich, Basso, Pantani, etc) got nailed. Also, TONS of his former teammates have also been nailed. It's all circumstantial, but it's pretty convincing - Armstrong doped. You probably could dispute if it actually qualifies as "cheating" since if he was doping, it was a level playing field what with pretty much every other elite rider doped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 wow, to make such an accusation takes huge balls. ----> <--- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Classic. I'm with det - essentially, Armstrong has NEVER failed a test, that is not in dispute. Actually that is in dispute. On 60 minutes last night, Tyler Hamilton, who testified to a federal grand jury, claimed that Armstrong failed a test in 2001 during a race prior to the Tour de France, and a governing cycling body, in his words "made it go away". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) I thought George Hincape changed his name to Big George Hincape. Perhaps I just listen to Ligget, Sherwin, and Roll to much. My belief, and it is unsupported belief only, is that Armstrong doped just like the rest of them. U.S. Postal and Bruyneel were out ahead of the curve a little so Postal riders were somewhat less likely to get caught. Armstrong, being smart, was more circumspect about his doping, and likely cycled off a little further out from events than others, preventing him from getting caught, or at least reducing the odds since they are subject to testing at any time but are more likely to be tested during events. In short I believe he was a doper, but not as much of a doper as the majority of his competition. In other words he was realtively clean and at a bit of a relative disadvantage to some of the more extreme users, which means just about everybody. Yep, I'm arguing that the realtively minimal amount of cheating and doping he did makes him admirable in comparison to the field. A pathetic standard I know and now I must go shower. Edited May 24, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 In short I blieve he was a doper, but not as much of a doper as the majority of his competition. In other words he was realtively clean and at a bit of a relative disadvantage to some of the more extreme users that much I doubt very seriously. if you're lance (the biggest thing in the sport by a country mile), and you're gonna dope, you're going to hire the very best. meaning, maximum performance impact with minimum risk of being caught. part of the report is that he had a positive test once, but he essentially was able to pay off the UCI to make it go away. it seems to me the whole sport is rotten to the core. always has been, and still is today. part of me looks at lance now like I look at bonds. clearly a cheater and a liar and an egomaniac. but the fact that bonds cheated when all of his competition cheated too, he's still the best hitter I've ever seen. the doping can accentuate that, but it's still at least 90% pure, raw talent. same with lance. it was mostly drive, determination, and talent that separated him from his rivals. and his team compared to theirs. but his team and their teams weren't just other riders, mechanics, and coaches -- they were also shady doctors, trainers, and methods of cheating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 that much I doubt very seriously. if you're lance (the biggest thing in the sport by a country mile), and you're gonna dope, you're going to hire the very best. meaning, maximum performance impact with minimum risk of being caught. part of the report is that he had a positive test once, but he essentially was able to pay off the UCI to make it go away. it seems to me the whole sport is rotten to the core. always has been, and still is today. part of me looks at lance now like I look at bonds. clearly a cheater and a liar and an egomaniac. but the fact that bonds cheated when all of his competition cheated too, he's still the best hitter I've ever seen. the doping can accentuate that, but it's still at least 90% pure, raw talent. same with lance. it was mostly drive, determination, and talent that separated him from his rivals. and his team compared to theirs. but his team and their teams weren't just other riders, mechanics, and coaches -- they were also shady doctors, trainers, and methods of cheating. agree. the sad thing is, if noone cheated, there's a decent chance lance still might've won several tours. but we'll never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Actually that is in dispute. On 60 minutes last night, Tyler Hamilton, who testified to a federal grand jury, claimed that Armstrong failed a test in 2001 during a race prior to the Tour de France, and a governing cycling body, in his words "made it go away". Oh, well if Tyler "Vanishing Twin" Hamilton says something, it MUST be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Oh, well if Tyler "Vanishing Twin" Hamilton says something, it MUST be true. whether or not it's true or not, only a handful of people know. but i'd still consider it in dispute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I recently worked with an actor that knows Lance very well and when I asked about Lance using the juice, he smiled and simply replied "He's never been caught". How anybody in this world thinks he has been 100% clean during his career is just insane and should take off the rose colored glasses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I recently worked with an actor that knows Lance very well and when I asked about Lance using the juice, he smiled and simply replied "He's never been caught". How anybody in this world thinks he has been 100% clean during his career is just insane and should take off the rose colored glasses. Exactly. The guy is loaded, it's a corrupt sport to begin with, and he was their savior in terms of getting TVs in the States tuned in to watch the sport. A little grease here, a little grease there, and voila! No failed drug tests. Oh, and Armstrong is a prick. 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.