Lance Armstrong gives up on fighting USADA charges

This just in.

Views: 2835

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Zoetrope on August 24, 2012 at 7:13pm
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 25, 2012 at 1:03am

I wonder how long it will be before Anonymous "finds" a crapload of Child Porntm on Travis Tygart's laptop and alerts to the whole world what a scumbag pedobear he is.

A little turnaround would be fair play on this tinpot dictator. 

Permalink Reply by Omar Lopez on August 25, 2012 at 7:24am
Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on August 25, 2012 at 8:56am

Thanks for the link Zoe. It was both interesting and informative.

Zoetrope said:

Permalink Reply by Zoetrope on August 25, 2012 at 9:56am

You're quite welcome, sir.  

Permalink Reply by Mike Schwab on August 26, 2012 at 2:06am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHJErrp4eOw
So much more strength and endurance he displayed on this climb than the few people who were close to him.

Permalink Reply by Loan L. on August 26, 2012 at 2:50pm
If what LA used was not in the black list at the time he raced, he won it fairly. If a swimmer drinks ginger (or fish sauce, or snake wine) to keep him/her warm in the water, can that also be considered as unfair advantage too?
Performance enhancing hormones don't make a racing cyclist a winner. Tour de France is the most challenging sports competition of all, it takes sheer determination to win, and this trait can't be synthetized.
My friend's blog has many good points about LA: http://journal.michaelahlers.org/2012/08/i-still-admire-lance-armst...
Permalink Reply by S on August 26, 2012 at 3:56pm

That reddit post is a bit misinformed and pretty biased.  The USADA has jursidiction over the European citizens because they were working for an US based team.  Also the UCI isn't necessarily impartial and honest.  This is an organization that received over 100+k from Armstrong to purchase blood doping testing equipment and which was directly benefiting from Armstrong's success.  After all, the UCI or it's predecessors looked the other way when things like the Festina affair were going down or just provided slaps on the wrist when riders were popped for doping.  That's the entirely reason for WADA and the various national ADAs.  The sports federations were allowing doping to occur in violation of the rules with very little punishment to dopers because it benefitted the federations directly.  The UCI is free to tell WADA and the various national authorities to fuck off but that'd mean that the cycling events would not be in the Olympics and the UCI wants the money that comes from that.

Zoetrope said:

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 26, 2012 at 3:59pm

I say screw the WADA and the dog & pony show they call "The Olympics."

But my opinion doesn't matter. 

Permalink Reply by S on August 26, 2012 at 3:59pm

The stuff LA is supposed to be using was very much against the rules.  Between EPO, anabolic steroids, and blood reinfusion most if not all of that was banned. HGH may not have been explicitly banned though.

Doping definitely helps atheletes.  There have been studies that have shown improvements in the range of 5-10%.  That's enough of an edge to turn someone that's average but competitive into someone that is in the top 5 or better.  



Loan L. said:

If what LA used was not in the black list at the time he raced, he won it fairly. If a swimmer drinks ginger (or fish sauce, or snake wine) to keep him/her warm in the water, can that also be considered as unfair advantage too?
Performance enhancing hormones don't make a racing cyclist a winner. Tour de France is the most challenging sports competition of all, it takes sheer determination to win, and this trait can't be synthetized.
My friend's blog has many good points about LA: http://journal.michaelahlers.org/2012/08/i-still-admire-lance-armst...
Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on August 26, 2012 at 4:11pm

Curiouser and curiouser. It now appears that some of the punishment meted out by the USADA was related to LA's refusal to cooperate with the investigation, and it has reached back beyond its own statute of limitations. Makes you wonder if they actually had evidence of LA's use of banned substances in each of the years for which they're stripping titles.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 26, 2012 at 4:16pm

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service