Lance Armstrong seams to be under fire don’t care if the guy was popping steroids into his mouth as he rode the bike across the finishing line.. He never failed a drug test once unless you believe the 2001 bs ... Unlike those that make allegations have or others that are not a good as him no grudge there then.. Steroids alone no matter how good would’nt make you win the tour 7 times they’d test everything when you win if they didn’t then there would be one reason they think there all at it and if that were the case then he is still the best…
-
Welcome to AcornDomains.co.uk, a friendly community for UK domain investors, developers and anyone interested in domain names.
Whether you're looking to buy or sell domains, learn more about the UK domain market, get feedback on your names, or simply chat with other domainers, you're in the right place. AcornDomains has been bringing together people from across the UK domain industry for many years, from complete beginners to experienced investors.
Have a look around, join the discussions and, if you haven't already, create a free account and introduce yourself.
Lance Armstrong under fire...
- Thread starter namealot
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Posts
- 502
- Reaction score
- 10
not a fan of the witch hunt against him personally, i just cannot get my head round the fact that he has never failed a drug test, prob the most tested cyclist in history yet the USADA ban him based on 'testimonies' and 'strip' him of the 7 TDF victories, which is outside of their control in anycase.
Pure sour grapes from others hopeful of not being banned themselves in exchange for inside info.
Hope the UCI tell the USADA to feck orf
He passed the drug tests conducted at the time and cannot see how medical advances and testing techniques can be applied retrospectively to historical samples.
typical US authority trying to claim everything as there own!
Pure sour grapes from others hopeful of not being banned themselves in exchange for inside info.
Hope the UCI tell the USADA to feck orf
He passed the drug tests conducted at the time and cannot see how medical advances and testing techniques can be applied retrospectively to historical samples.
typical US authority trying to claim everything as there own!
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Posts
- 502
- Reaction score
- 10
All based on witness testimonies i'm afraid, no evidence which has been shared with Armstrong at any stage
How can u accuse a person of something and not back it up unless they legally challenge it???
So why didnt he fail any drug tests then?
How can u accuse a person of something and not back it up unless they legally challenge it???
So why didnt he fail any drug tests then?
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Posts
- 502
- Reaction score
- 10
ah well there it is then, the words of a few forum posters who obv know better than Drug Testing organisations 
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Posts
- 3,091
- Reaction score
- 245
Probably, but maybe because it comes across as a sport where at various times cheating was widespread. I'd stick the 100m sprint in the same category. If you're right that he never tested positive for drugs though, it does seem very harsh.
I raced through the doping era... albeit not at that level! Fortunately the whole ethos in cycling is very different now. Dopers are a rarity... even compared to other sports. Cycling is in the vanguard of anti-doping sport. You can see it in the racing. No one is head & shoulders above anyone in all events.
What frustrated me about this is the attitude of WADA. The statement of Fahey was simply outrageous - WADA's Fahey! "Armstrong's refusal to fight on means the allegations have 'substance'. WADA have had a tunnel vision battle against cycling which has at certain times been malicious, while at times ignoring other sports which have hidden 'issues'.
The operation puerto scandal is symptomatic -there were many sportspeople implicated in this. Cycist, footballers, tennis pros, athletes. Yet it was only the cyclist that got banned some with essentially heresay evedence.
I - and many others - don't belive USADA have the juristiction to remove titles. They can ban within the US and WADA associated events but only the UCI (&ASO) have the right to strip titles. Period.
I'm not an Armstrong fanboy in any way. The whole 1995-2005ish era is a total write off. Grand tours & classics races especially.
The whole thing is a mess - and it's far from over - the USADA now has to give Armstrong & the UCI all of the evidence. I don't believe for one moment much of it will be admissible in a european court and I'd be surprised if CAS don't nullify some or all of it.
The way the USADA and WADA have gone about this is pretty reprehensible. Bought witness statements in return for protection from prosecution is against every sporting ethics I know of.
It's a chapter that is closed. reopening it is doing no-one any good at all.
What frustrated me about this is the attitude of WADA. The statement of Fahey was simply outrageous - WADA's Fahey! "Armstrong's refusal to fight on means the allegations have 'substance'. WADA have had a tunnel vision battle against cycling which has at certain times been malicious, while at times ignoring other sports which have hidden 'issues'.
The operation puerto scandal is symptomatic -there were many sportspeople implicated in this. Cycist, footballers, tennis pros, athletes. Yet it was only the cyclist that got banned some with essentially heresay evedence.
I - and many others - don't belive USADA have the juristiction to remove titles. They can ban within the US and WADA associated events but only the UCI (&ASO) have the right to strip titles. Period.
I'm not an Armstrong fanboy in any way. The whole 1995-2005ish era is a total write off. Grand tours & classics races especially.
The whole thing is a mess - and it's far from over - the USADA now has to give Armstrong & the UCI all of the evidence. I don't believe for one moment much of it will be admissible in a european court and I'd be surprised if CAS don't nullify some or all of it.
The way the USADA and WADA have gone about this is pretty reprehensible. Bought witness statements in return for protection from prosecution is against every sporting ethics I know of.
It's a chapter that is closed. reopening it is doing no-one any good at all.
It's an interview with the CEO of USADA.
Maybe, but they can't give specifics. I'll wait for the UCI & CAS. I don't not support the USADA. I do, as well as the anti-doping side of UK sport. I just feel that here they've gone beyond their remit. Much of the evidence in the interview has been doing the rounds for years, probably growing in he telling, and some of it is utterly inadmissible e.g. the 2001 tour de suisse so called positive which wasn't an official test.
Last edited:
- Status