Lance Armstrong... greatest doper there was or ever will be

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454/the-chewbacca-defense

http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/nike-anheuser-busch-trek-and-others-quit-corporate-support-for-lance-armstrong

I'm not signing that - the longer they keep with him, the more right-thinking people won't buy their products.

How much of this nonsense is Armstrong's legal team milking him for as much cash as they can?

Seriously, the arguments they are putting forward are so flimsy that my nearly three year old could point out the flaws in their logic.

If it's lie detectors he wants now, they could all just go on Jeremy Kyle (USA.)

Trolololol

1 Attachment

"In 1989 Yates tested positive in a doping test in the first stage of Torhout-Werchter."

http://www.dopeology.org/incidents/Yates,-S-positive/

In the case of Yates, Sky seemed to have ignored their Zero Tolerance rules anyway. This isn't 'suspected involvement' this is 'test failed'.

100% agree. I have said the degrees of seperation between doper and clean in the pro-peloton is tiny but hiring Yates, Barry and Rogers is a huge gaff from Sky. We can of course add Leinders to that list, and Possoni. I really, really don't think Sky are doping in the manner of USPS but a huge question mark remains over Rogers: he was a Ferrari client in 2005 and yet in 2012 he claiming he's in the best form of his life? Marginal gains v EPO? Hmmm

That said when the shit hits the fan the shit lands everywhere. Astana, Orica, Liquigas, Katusha, Rabobank and RSNT all are tainted, as much if not worse than Sky. I loled when I read Bruyneel successor is someone that has the rare accolade of being banned for life (by a lenient, look-the-other-way UCI) for failing tests a total of eight times. White's successor is someone implicated in the Festine affair. It's the equivalent of lifting up a rock and watch them all scurry for cover.

You have to wonder how the sport needs to move forward. A purge? In which case you decimate the ranks of the peloton and others in the team, or amnesty for those come forward, bring everything out into the open and make sure the sports moves forward clean. We know the peloton is slower so doping is less prevalent, we have characters like Vaughters (someone I do value) saying the peloton is much cleaner, we can hope that the exposure of Lance's cheating should discourage anyone seeking that way to achieve success

You have to wonder how the sport needs to move forward. A purge? In which case you decimate the ranks of the peloton and others in the team, or amnesty for those come forward, bring everything out into the open and make sure the sports moves forward clean. We know the peloton is slower so doping is less prevalent, we have characters like Vaughters (someone I do value) saying the peloton is much cleaner, we can hope that the exposure of Lance's cheating should discourage anyone seeking that way to achieve success

Regarding the peloton being slower... Testing is better meaning levels are stricter. For example you can't get a massive hit off EPO and expect to get away with.

A cynic would say this means riders are doping less, and not that less riders are doping.

The psychology of seeing someone (Lance) doping like a motherfucker with total impunity, taking the prizes, the glory, the sponsorship, and then trotting around the globe touting his holier than though its not about the bike bullshit is what would spur a generation of cyclists into themselves juicing to the max and trying to keep pace.

Observing said asshole getting his (belated) just deserts is likely to encourage the peloton to consider the fact that in the long-term justice will catch up even if it's not instantaneously. If Contador has been doping and a test is invented in 3 years, he'll be sitting in the same seat Pharmstrong is in now and cast out too, and I hope that this is taken on board by the DS and medics in the teams too.

Regarding the peloton being slower... Testing is better meaning levels are stricter. For example you can't get a massive hit off EPO and expect to get away with.

A cynic would say this means riders are doping less, and not that less riders are doping.

That is the cynics take on it: the peloton is slower because the ones that are doping are doping smart, just enough to get them competitive and recovering quickly but not enough to set alarm bells ringing. The hole in that is the speeds they are going are physiologically probable, so achievable through conditioning, nutrition and training. I read something very important at that Sports Scientist blog: performance is not proof. Their analysis and that of other sports scientists (posting on the clinic) is that Sky's TdF performance doesn't set alarm bells ringing.

So your choice remains were they doping to a minimum, or were they well conditioned and executed their tactics perfectly? Of that TdF unit Rogers as a Ferrari client puts a big question mark. Froome also has gone from being average to GT contender. Wiggins for me has the pedigree and JV said he is certain Wiggins was racing clean at Garmin in 2009 and believes he is putting out the same numbers these days.

Cav is clean though

Cav is clean though

Based on what?

Checked his undies earlier.

Based on what?

He didn't get a look in with his brother.

Don't know if it's just me, but it seems to me that Lance Armstrong's doping regime is rather more interesting than watching him ever was.

Nothing specific to his riding style of course, it's all tedious if you ask me (nobody was, I know)....

Based on what?

I've looked at his tea leaves

A cynic would say this means riders are doping less, and not that less riders are doping.

There's a major flaw with this though - it should be "fewer riders are doping".

There's a major flaw with this though - it should be "fewer riders are doping".

No, you can have less or more depending on whether their blood is in the fridge or in their body at the moment.

Ha!

a huge question mark remains over Rogers: he was a Ferrari client in 2005 and yet in 2012 he claiming he's in the best form of his life? Marginal gains v EPO? Hmmm

I suppose you could be in better form clean than when you doped, as you would not need to be in the best form if you're on EPO.

How much of this nonsense is Armstrong's legal team milking him for as much cash as they can?

Seriously, the arguments they are putting forward are so flimsy that my nearly three year old could point out the flaws in their logic.

It's part of the big picture, milk machines, and of course milkmaids, are part of the system; sometime the quality doesn't matter, plebs got interested in something that is not the usual routine, the more is crap the more they discuss.

Your not supposed to smoke the cortisone marcom.

ffs see the USADA report for tips.

I dunno nothing about drugs. I just heard about.

I suppose you could be in better form clean than when you doped, as you would not need to be in the best form if you're on EPO.

Didn't Dave Z say that the irony of him doping is that he won none of his victories during that period but he did win before and after it? Of course, he may be talking shit to avoid paying back any prize money but still...

Different team role, different competitors, different race program. It's not that surprising that DZ had different results.

It turns out that people don't care whether Armstrong cheated:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-may-take-a-lie-detector-test-says-lawyer

That clears that one up, then.

I was just looking around for a gilet, saw a nike one reduced and scrolled straight past it, thinking they support Lance. When are they going to ditch him?

Phil Liggett is on Aussie TV doc right now finally accepting Lance's guilt and "looking like he's been crying for a week" :D