Lance Armstrong doping ?

polaris_x wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

again, signifying lance as this big kahuna, masks the larger problem, which is not doping by one individual, but the mentality that permeates sports in general: if you lose, you are a loser, anything less than being the 1st one to win a race is a complete failure.

The reason cycling hasnt investigated ALL its riders, and why MLB hasnt even years later hasnt done much of anything to root out steroid use, is because it was tacitly endorsed and supported by the higher ups in each sport. And that isnt being investigated, nor will it be. Because it involves commisioners, and CEO;s and heads of corporations, it involves the leadership of each individual sports, and plus, as I said, the idea of winning is the only acceptable option permeates american society, it doesnt just stop when an athlete changes into street clothes.

For me, Im less interested in the legality of it. Because I dont think anyone should be allowed to stop people from putting stuff into their bodies, if they want to. Im more interested in the moral and ethical implications of it all.

and again - your failure to read the evidence misleads you ...

lance was/is a big kahuna ... he is not simply one athlete amongst many who cheated and has been caught ... i do wish you would read at least a summary of the case against him - i think it would change your perspective significantly ...

you are right tho in saying that it was complicit in the sport and if you follow what i've been saying all along - there needs to be accountability on all fronts ... but your persistent position that lance is just another athlete that doped is naive and wrong ...

as for the moral and ethical implications of regulating sports as it pertains to drugs and anything else is to protect the innocent ... to protect the riders that choose to race clean ... to protect the integrity of the sport ...

Do you realize there will be people who continue to support him? I dont think they are blind, ignorant, or stupid. I just think people have differing opinions. Im against the death penalty. But im fully aware there are many who support it. Its silly to think, "if only people read that book I read that made the death penalty seem like the barbaric thing it is, that then people will come around to my way of thinking".

I know you dont mean it this way, but I feel and sense a bit of condescention and arrogance in your posts. Theres no middle ground for you. If I dont want to lynch Lance, then somehow I support cheaters, which of course, if you actually read my posts, are a complete disreguarding of my words and feelings.

I think its possible to abhor and want to punish cheaters, but I also think people are complicated. MLK cheated on his wife. Does that mean we refuse to acknowledge his importance?

Im always puzzled by those who cant see the grey in life. Some of my heroes are John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Malcolm X, and they were complicated figures. Made mistakes. But, thats the thing about my heroes. They are the ones who I view as important to me. You can have your own list of heroes.

Lets be realistic-do you really think the only reason MANY people still support Kobe, or ARod or Clemons, is because they didnt read the evidence? Think its a little more involved than that.

Things are always more complex than people think they are. And to fail to acknowledge that is childish and does a disservice to this board frankly, which is about discussion, not of "Im right, your wrong, and until you read this you dont get to debate me". Thats pointless

i also think many people will continue to support lance, because of cancer and how personal it is. It indeed is, as he has pointed out, something that has effected every person in America, and the world. We all know someone or have it, or have a story about it. Its personal, and stuff like that isnt easily rooted out just because someone cheated. Or is flawed. Or lied. or.....

imalive wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

... i do wish you would read at least a summary of the case against him

is there such a document? :?

Seriously?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/!invesitgations%20and%20enterprise%20docs/armstrong-reasoned-decision.pdf

Stripped of all his titles!

This guy is a dick. Dickstrong, Dopestrong, Diestrong!

Jason P wrote:

I wonder what Peter La Fleur's thoughts are on this?

haha ... i think la fleur got some other advice from lance at the bar ... and probably some free drugs ... only way to explain how they won in the finals ..

Cycling's governing body agrees to strip Lance Armstrong of his 7 Tour de France titles

Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/sports/Cycli ... z2A2LLVMU4

Riverrunner wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Cycling's governing body agrees to strip Lance Armstrong of his 7 Tour de France titles

Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/sports/Cycli ... z2A2LLVMU4

Now UCI needs to be cleaned of its corrupt officials, who were complicit up until now. But after USADA report there was no way to continue the "cover up" so Lance went under the bus. But there is more to this story than Lance. Cycling's governing body, whose head is Pat McQuaid and his predecessor, Hein Verburggen, need to go. UCI needs all new officials, directors, or whatever they are called.

I agree there more to this storey...what I don't particularly like is the fact that all the people that Lance under the bus made lots of $$$ off Lance and many will continue to make lots of $$$. You want to clean up sports ban all cheaters for life.

i wonder what you all think of why lance didnt win any Tours past 2005. Did he not dope after then? Was doping just more widespread by that time?

polaris, I have read about 70 pages of the report.

One of the things thats stuck out so far, was in 2001 I think they talk about Lance and 2 other cyclists, riding and training without doping, and that they looked and felt awful, and could barely ride even small hills. And that once they doped they were able to become "their normal" amazing athlete selves.

and lastly, why do people who cheat tell so many people, and openly so? What struck me about the report, and even without reading the report, all these people were using, and knew everyone was doping, and did these things so openly. I can see doping with a doctor, and privately, but its so odd, most of these guys, even taking lance out of the equation, their wives, girlfriends, friends, etc... all had to have known. Why would you be so brazen and open about it? It wasnt just the inner circle who knew about it, EVERYONE knew, and that makes it all the more amazing all this went down.

I spoke about this last week, but it almost feels like in cycling, everyone had this view that what they were doing, in some almost parallel universe, that what they were doing was okay and justified and that it all was good.

musicismylife78 wrote:

i wonder what you all think of why lance didnt win any Tours past 2005. Did he not dope after then? Was doping just more widespread by that time?

polaris, I have read about 70 pages of the report.

One of the things thats stuck out so far, was in 2001 I think they talk about Lance and 2 other cyclists, riding and training without doping, and that they looked and felt awful, and could barely ride even small hills. And that once they doped they were able to become "their normal" amazing athlete selves.

and lastly, why do people who cheat tell so many people, and openly so? What struck me about the report, and even without reading the report, all these people were using, and knew everyone was doping, and did these things so openly. I can see doping with a doctor, and privately, but its so odd, most of these guys, even taking lance out of the equation, their wives, girlfriends, friends, etc... all had to have known. Why would you be so brazen and open about it? It wasnt just the inner circle who knew about it, EVERYONE knew, and that makes it all the more amazing all this went down.

I spoke about this last week, but it almost feels like in cycling, everyone had this view that what they were doing, in some almost parallel universe, that what they were doing was okay and justified and that it all was good.

lance didn't win because he was 38 years old during his comeback ... you can soup up a pinto and it still won't win the indy 500 ...

like i've been saying - doping in cycling was endemic ... everyone was complicit - not just the riders and teams, but the governing body (UCI), the corporate sponsors and the media ...

i'm glad you are finally reading the report ...