Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 91
  1. Collapse Details
    #71
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    5
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by groveChuck View Post
    The higher (and faster) they climb, the further they fall...
    Damn, I hate BALCO- all the other labs too.
    Some recent information on BALCO:


    "What Do Usain Bolt And Juan Manuel Marquez Have In Common? They Train With The Same Admitted Steroids Dealer"

    "Angel Hernandez is the person formerly known as Angel "Memo" Heredia. Heredia, with a BALCO connection of his own, has been training both Marquez and Bolt under an assumed name."

    http://deadspin.com/5857439/what-do-...teroids-dealer


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #72
    Senior Member Batutta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Planet 10
    Posts
    7,423
    Default
    I think why this story doesn't resonate with the general public, and why there isn't a huge uporoar over it, is that it's so far after the fact. It would be one thing if he won the tour de france, then tested positive for drugs after the race and was stripped of his medals shortly thereafter. But for it to happen a decade after the fact seems fishy to people, and doesn't speak well of the effectiveness of the organization in charge of keeping watch over it. I mean isn't the whole point of an organization like the USADA to PREVENT people from competing using performance enhancing drugs during competitions. Catching someone ten years later doesn't do any good for a sport. That's why people have the sense that it's a witch hunt, rightly or wrongly.
    Last edited by Batutta; 08-26-2012 at 07:53 AM.
    "Money doesn't make films...You just do it and take the initiative." - Werner Herzog


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #73
    Senior Member snowleopard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    862
    Default
    It's all a shame, really.

    Here's a link to the index of doping allegations and history with Armstrong. Also suggest anyone read the Michael Ashenden interview. He is a renowned and respected scientist who looked into EPO retests and in his words Armstrong undoubtably doped with EPO, very likely more than others. The facts are out there, if people choose to open their eyes.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #74
    Moderator David Jimerson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    27,902
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by snowleopard View Post
    As to innocent before proven guilty, I believe this proves he is guilty
    No, it doesn't. Not legally, not logically.
    LEARN FILMMAKING - DIGITAL STREAMING AND DOWNLOADS OF GREAT TRAINING PROGRAMS!



    WRITING FOR TELEVISION ARTICLE | "ASSUMPTION BLUES" FILM NOIR RADIO PLAY | "BLUE SCARLET" RADIO PLAY



    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #75
    Senior Member snowleopard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    862
    Default
    This is not a legal case. It is about sporting fraud. If you insist on legalaties, Armstrong lost his appeal to a federal judge trying to stop arbitration. He lost.

    As go logic. Let me ask you a few questions.

    Exactly how closely have you followed this? Or the sport of pro cycling? What are you using as your source of information? What references are you looking at?

    What exactly would it take to convince you that he doped? I gave numerous references to credible sources, most of which would have come up in the USADA arbitration Armstrong chose not to contest. As to raw science, USADA was ready to present said hard evidence that Armstrong doped, showing blood manipulation in his profile, and several failed tests. Since Armstrong was innocent in your eyes, would it not have been easy for him to point out that this was not factual? Do you know how USADA arbitration hearings are presented? Have you followed many in the past? Which ones can you point out that show were not fair or just? What reasoning do you have that such an arbitration hearing for Armstrong would not be just?

    It has been stated by many others, not just me, that there are very credible witnesses ready to testify that he doped. USADA says over a dozen. Do you not consider this to be credible? Why specifically not? Because anyone can say anything? Then what would possess all of these people to universally lie? What makes you certain they would be lying, but Armstrong alone would be telling the truth?

    Finally, you asked why I "badly want this to be true". Because it is true, and numerous other cyclists were cheated out of their winnings by dopers. I do not tolerate cheating and find it immoral. Having studied cycling for over a decade now, I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Armstrong cheated by doping. More than most other cyclists, and definitely in a way that made it impossible for anyone clean to win. And he lied about it every step of the way. It's really quite that simple.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #76
    Still "Senior Member" Gord.T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Belleville ON
    Posts
    3,964
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by snowleopard View Post
    ...
    As go logic. Let me ask you a few questions.

    Exactly how closely have you followed this? Or the sport of pro cycling? What are you using as your source of information? What references are you looking at?

    What exactly would it take to convince you that he doped? I gave numerous references to credible sources, most of which would have come up in the USADA arbitration Armstrong chose not to contest. As to raw science, USADA was ready to present said hard evidence that Armstrong doped, showing blood manipulation in his profile, and several failed tests. Since Armstrong was innocent in your eyes, would it not have been easy for him to point out that this was not factual? Do you know how USADA arbitration hearings are presented? Have you followed many in the past? Which ones can you point out that show were not fair or just? What reasoning do you have that such an arbitration hearing for Armstrong would not be just?

    It has been stated by many others, not just me, that there are very credible witnesses ready to testify that he doped. USADA says over a dozen. Do you not consider this to be credible? Why specifically not? Because anyone can say anything? Then what would possess all of these people to universally lie? What makes you certain they would be lying, but Armstrong alone would be telling the truth?

    Finally, you asked why I "badly want this to be true". Because it is true, and numerous other cyclists were cheated out of their winnings by dopers. I do not tolerate cheating and find it immoral. Having studied cycling for over a decade now, I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Armstrong cheated by doping. More than most other cyclists, and definitely in a way that made it impossible for anyone clean to win. And he lied about it every step of the way. It's really quite that simple.
    I understand the frustration and that's why we have judges. I personally do not have the time nor the education to see each case through. He's had many fair trials. If anyone knows something they don't, present it to the courts. Let the people we hire to judge do their job. This is endless. To be honest.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #77
    Moderator David Jimerson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wilmington, NC
    Posts
    27,902
    Default
    This is not a legal case. It is about sporting fraud. If you insist on legalaties, Armstrong lost his appeal to a federal judge trying to stop arbitration. He lost.
    That doesn't make the allegation true. Not legally, not in any other way.

    And no, giving up the fight doesn't make him guilty in any respect. I never said he was "innocent," only that this doesn't prove him to be guilty.

    Look, I have no interest in his having done it OR not done it. I don't have any agenda whatsoever. I just don't get why it's so important to you (or anyone) to believe that he doped. If he did, he did, but I do not understand why someone would NEED for him to have done so, or why it's so personally important to tear him down.

    That is true of many people regarding many figures, not just Armstrong, and not just in sport (like, say, the achievement of the other Armstrong who sadly passed on yesterday). There are those who need to destroy anyone who achieves what others don't. It's a mindset I simply do not understand.
    LEARN FILMMAKING - DIGITAL STREAMING AND DOWNLOADS OF GREAT TRAINING PROGRAMS!



    WRITING FOR TELEVISION ARTICLE | "ASSUMPTION BLUES" FILM NOIR RADIO PLAY | "BLUE SCARLET" RADIO PLAY



    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #78
    Senior Member Fluoro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    221
    Default
    I am very interested in lie spotting and found this very interesting:

    Liespotting Lance Armstrong: Take the Liespotting Challenge!

    and

    Liespotting Lance Armstrong Part 2: Expert Analysis



    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #79
    Senior Member Fluoro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    221
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by David Jimerson View Post
    That doesn't make the allegation true. Not legally, not in any other way.

    And no, giving up the fight doesn't make him guilty in any respect. I never said he was "innocent," only that this doesn't prove him to be guilty.

    Look, I have no interest in his having done it OR not done it. I don't have any agenda whatsoever. I just don't get why it's so important to you (or anyone) to believe that he doped. If he did, he did, but I do not understand why someone would NEED for him to have done so, or why it's so personally important to tear him down.
    Do you not care about trying to make the world as just as one can? Maybe if your brother was the top ranked clean rider in one of those TdFs that Lance won, you would have a stronger opinion on whether it's important or not?


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #80
    Senior Member Ian-T's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Back home in FLA
    Posts
    3,428
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Danj85 View Post
    Some recent information on BALCO:


    "What Do Usain Bolt And Juan Manuel Marquez Have In Common? They Train With The Same Admitted Steroids Dealer"

    "Angel Hernandez is the person formerly known as Angel "Memo" Heredia. Heredia, with a BALCO connection of his own, has been training both Marquez and Bolt under an assumed name."

    http://deadspin.com/5857439/what-do-...teroids-dealer
    The thing about people who use steriods is you can easily see it in their face (especially while they are competing). Not only do their bodies get that chisled look but so does their face....making it look hard (especially the women sprinters...remember Marion Jones?). Lance Armstrong always had that same kind of face....it's hard to miss. But Usain Bolt never came accross that way to me. He's got so much more advantage than most people on the track because he's taller than everyone else (standing at 6'5") and is genetically gifted. He broke all kinds of records even in high school. As far as strides....I read that the average person needs at least 46 strides to win that sprint....where Usain only needs 41. It's like a boxer having a reach advantage over another. That's why he makes it looks so much easier than everyone else.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •