Secret of Famous Lance Armstrong

[zhenguier]

As we all know that Lance Armstrong is an American and he is a famous biker, in his life, he win many prizes, to win a prize not only depend on himself but also depend on his bike, but do you want to know what kind of bike does he ride:

link removed

[Blueboy5000]

He rides a Trek. Fail spambot!

[SylvreKat]

Once again, at least the spammers are getting closer. This one's vaguely bike-related.

But where are the pictures of young muscle-men posing in their biking shorts alongside their Treks? The guys here got treated to vaguely-pretty women in various garb, turnabout is only fair. I demand equal time for us lady-Dawgs.

>'Kat

[danno711]

At this point, why would anyone want Lance Armstrong endorsing their product?

[scootnwinn]

No doubt it was the drugs not the bike

[spandi]

I always wondered if all the cancers he had, in multiple places was not the after effects of all those chemicals?

[danno711]

Good question. I bet he wonders too

[danno711]

Why use Lance Armstrong to endorse your products?


"Investigators familiar with Armstrong's case, however, said today that Armstrong didn't completely come clean. They say he blatantly lied about when he stopped doping, saying the last time he used the drugs and transfusions was the 2005 race.

"That's the only thing in this whole report that upset me," Armstrong said during the interview.

"The accusation and alleged proof that they said I doped [in 2009] is not true. The last time I crossed the line, that line was 2005."

"You did not do a blood transfusion in 2009?" Winfrey asked.

"No, 2009 and 2010 absolutely not," Armstrong said.

Investigators familiar with the case disagree. They said today that Armstrong's blood values at the 2009 race showed clear blood manipulation consistent with two transfusions. Armstrong's red blood cell count suddenly went up at these points, even though the number of baby red blood cells did not.

Investigators said this was proof that he received a transfusion of mature red blood cells.

If Armstrong lied about the 2009 race, it could be to protect himself criminally, investigators said"

abcnews.go.com/US/lance-armstrong-lied-oprah-cover-crimes-investigators/story?id=18245484

[spandi]

You couldn't clean this record if Billy Mays showed up with a freight train load of his famous product.

[danno711]

Jan 19, 2013 10:11:42 GMT -5 spandi said:

You couldn't clean this record if Billy Mays showed up with a freight train load of his famous product.

Nice ;D

[spandi]

Glad you liked it.

[Deleted]

Is this proof that spammers aren't necessarily the shiniest spoon in the drawer?

[danno711]

Not to mention their grammar....

Jan 19, 2013 2:38:52 GMT -5 zhenguier said:

As we all know that Lance Armstrong is an American and he is a famous biker, in his life, he win many prizes, to win a prize not only depend on himself but also depend on his bike, but do you want to know what kind of bike does he ride:

[qwertydude]

Not only did Lance Armstrong depend on his bike he depended on his pharmacist.

[scootnwinn]

I think we covered that As a cyclist the I am deeply saddened that the.only recent Americans to win have been such losers

[qwertydude]

Don't discount just Americans. The first person to bring these charge against Lance, the second place Italian guy, is dodging doping accusations himself.

The problem is just that in all sports it's just a matter of semantics what is and isn't considered "performance enhancing". Basically it doesn't make sense that one year a supplement is perfectly alright but then in another it's completely banned and anyone using it is retroactively punished.

That's just silly. If you pass every current test according to every current procedure you should keep your records. Do they strip Formula 1 racers of their records because they change a rule because they find out one team used a new and novel technology that gives them an advantage? No they ban the technology, rewrite the rules and go on. The same should be applied to athletes. They couldn't find anything on Armstrong at the time. Now they have a new test and bring up frozen blood samples, they're allowed to keep blood samples in this case for 7 years for testing, they put that through the new tests and then accuse the athlete of being a bad person for using something that previously didn't get them disqualified. That's one of the reasons all this negative publicity really has no merit. Not only that but all the people that were pushing Lance to be better and better performing are now the ones who are turning their back on him as soon as it's convenient as if Lance was the only evil one making the doctors give him the drugs.

I can almost guarantee you highest pressure to use the drugs wasn't coming from Lance but from the corporations and managers sponsoring him as they were the ones who were going to profit most. Now that some bad publicity comes out these same sponsors start clutching their pearls and gasping "My oh my! Lance! How could you!" It makes sense that the greatest condemnation would be coming from those who stood to financially benefit most from his wins.

[SylvreKat]

qwerty, I believe what he was using WAS illegal back then, they just didn't have the tests to detect it. Now they do, and now it shows he was indeed using prohibited substances. So he was "a bad person for using something that" should've gotten him disqualified.

Plus, he lied about it. Under oath. That's called "perjury" and rather frowned on.

Plusplus he sued honest people who testified to his doping. And ruined several of their lives doing so. That's called "immoral" and definitely should be frowned on.

Personally, I'd like to see ALL performance enhancers banned. Period. Go back to honest effort supporting honest basic skill and talent. If you don't have the talent to hit a couple hundred homers, too bad. If you can't win your bike race without doping, too bad. Maybe practise harder yet. Maybe be satisfied with third or tenth or whatever, knowing you gave your best. I know, I know--rosey glasses and will never happen in the world of high-dollar sponsorships.

>'Kat, who enjoys her nef's hard work and sheer determination to make himself a better baseball player than what God gave him in pure plain talent

[scootnwinn]

Yes blood packing has always been against the rules. I'm not so sure you have been keeping up with this. I have kept up with competive cycling for longer than I can remember and when Floyd Landis was stripped of his title for doping after Lance's run and accused Lance I believed him. He was right the testing authorities kept the samples so they could retest for already illegal drugs not retroactively punishing atheletes. I believe lance is being punished justly, they stripped Landis and Contador of their titles why not him? I seriously doubt the US Postal Service encouraged him and by all accounts he was the ring leader he was the lead and should have stopped it at any rate. He's a scumbag and a liar. He deserves a lifetime ban as he has been unrepentent and hateful until now.

Now that being said cheating does seem to be the norm for these guys. In the 70's Eddie Merkx is quoted saying some thing like you expect us to ride a bike 20mph through some of the steepest mountains over 100 miles a day naturally? Its not easy no doubt but it certainly can and should be done. EPO and steroids are harmful drugs and you shouldn't have to destroy yourself to be competitive. Its not the same as race cars as modification to the engine means hurting people not metal.

[inuyasha]

Jan 19, 2013 8:11:08 GMT -5 SylvreKat said:

Once again, at least the spammers are getting closer. This one's vaguely bike-related.

But where are the pictures of young muscle-men posing in their biking shorts alongside their Treks? The guys here got treated to vaguely-pretty women in various garb, turnabout is only fair. I demand equal time for us lady-Dawgs.

>'Kat

Hi Kat
;D

Take care and ride safely dearest friend
Yours Hank

[qwertydude]

Well I believe that's a different issue. If you can't reliably test for a substance than in all practice it shouldn't be grounds for stripping medals, Contador and Landis included. If you improve testing methodologies then yes anyone caught from then on, disqualified.

What about all the other people from years past? Second, third places. Should every old victory blood sample now be exhumed and tested. It's sorta standard practice in any competition to see just how far you can push it before without breaking the letter of the law. Seems kinda unfair that just because your record is 7 years old you get away with doping.

I mean what really constitutes an unfair advantage too? Why is it Lance and the US and all the other teams get training in high altitude areas, sleeping in hypobaric chambers? Isn't that technically an unfair advantage just as strong as EPO and blood doping is? And yet not considered cheating. It's such a grey area and not applied consistently enough to be called sportsmanlike.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France

I mean with this bad a history with doping technically all records before the 1960's should be expunged.

Fernando Escartín is the sole rider not to be implicated in a doping scandal.[42] With "20 of the 21 podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit (a blood test to discover EPO use) threshold", Escartin's third-place finish in the 1999 Tour de France stands as the lone of the 21 podium finishes that was untainted, during the years (1999-2005) in which Lance Armstrong finished the Tour de France in first place.

20 out of the last 21 podiums in the tour were involved in doping. If it was that prevalent and you still can't find through investigative means other than blood tests it says just as much about the administrators and corporations as it does the athletes. They're obviously turning a blind eye somewhere and now want to make it look like they're heroes for taking out the top fall guy while leaving a bunch more all alone.

[snugglebunny]

wow
and all this from a spam post
lmsao

Attachments:

[scootnwinn]

If you cook it right spam is good right?

[SylvreKat]

Right, scootn'. This has turned into an interesting discussion, all from spam.

Hank, there's still way too many bikini women in there and not nearly enough spandex bike-shorts men. But better. Thanks!

qwerty, I don't know enough about hypobaric chambers to comment on them. But if everyone else is doing drugs or blooding or otherwise cheating, and you got away with it seven years ago, that should make it okay? Even if they test samples from seven years ago and it's positive for illegal substances? So if I kill someone seven years ago and get away with it 'cause they couldn't test for genetics markers or whatever, and now they can and I'm proven to be the killer, then I should still go unpunished? (no, I'm not saying doping is on the same level as murder, just making an illegal is illegal point) I'm sorry, but they knowingly committed a crime. I'm betting they probably signed a contract agreeing to testing etc. Unless that contract states a statute of limitations, then yes, tests today of their seven-year-old samples should be allowed and should convict them and put them up for punishment.

Once again, I'll turn to my nephew's example. He has zero genes for baseball. He would probably be a good average player. EXCEPT--he practices his brains out to get better. He doesn't dope, he doesn't take steroids, he does nothing to enhance his performance except practise. Honest effort, rewarded by honest improvement of his skills. My sis'-in-law says he's proof that if you want something badly enough, you can make it happen if you just try hard enough. Which does not include illegal substances.

I do want to hit on something you wrote earlier. If a substance was legal at the time of use, and later was declared illegal, then tough beans. Those folks did nothing wrong so deserve no punishment. Ever. And if one team-member secretly does something illegal and the other three don't and also know nothing about it, the other three shouldn't be punished for a crime they weren't involved in and not have their medals taken away (women's Olympic relay team).

>'Kat, stepping back off the soapbox to make room for the next Dawg

[qwertydude]

The problem is one of fairness. According to the standards they're holding Lance to, 20 of the last 21 Tour de France medalists should also be stripped of their medals and have lifetime bans imposed on them but only a relative few are getting such harsh punishments. Basically the entire Tour de France history needs to be erased because they all were doping based from widespread confessions of former Tour cyclists.

So I'm not agreeing that what Lance did was right. I'm saying his particular singling out is wrong. If they want to institute fairness across the board. Anyone caught with the drugs including retroactive testing of their blood should be equally harshly punished with all records removed and lifetime bans. But that's not happening. Not at all. The rest get relative slaps on the wrist like baseball players have gotten away with.

To me it reeks of the same unfair treatment Marion Jones got. She got railroaded into a trial and convicted with a felony. That means she loses her right to vote, nearly all future employment opportunities remember she's got 3 kids, and just in general is ostracized for life. I'm not agreeing what she did was right. But the obsession with excessive punitive measures and very little holistic rehabilitation and prevention almost guarantees very little effectiveness in treating the actual problem.

Think of it this way, lets take another illegal drug like heroine for example. If all you do is institute extreme harsh punishment on the users, take away their right to vote, opportunities to work, ability to provide for dependents, do you really do them and society in general a favor? No more likely you drive what was once an addict into desperation and likely crime. What about their children? With an absent parent who's providing very little you then drive them to desperation.

Everybody wants to say you had a choice and it's entirely your fault you evil evil person you. But does that do anything to help the actual situation? The pressures to perform? Does it help people who made a mistake to punish them so harshly when the organization itself is just as corrupt? You can't tell me you believe that the entire sports management was unaware of what was going on. What about the doctors? Do they get banned for life as well from practicing sports medicine or get their licenses revoked?

No.

[scootnwinn]

The rest of them admit it are repentent and don't sue their accusers.

Lance gets special treatment because he has been especially nasty. Also the tour awards with jerseys not medals so as much as you have learned recently admit you are unaware of some portions of this complicated issue.

[qwertydude]

Medals is just a synonym for prize. To debate the semantics is a distraction, even the news organizations call his wins gold medals. The major news organizations still call the prizes medals.

The point is the philosophy of the ferocity of attacks and turning a blind eye to the organization and sport itself in favor of just focusing and punishing the athletes.

And yes Lance did act unprofessionally. He should be forced to repay the lawsuit and appropriate damages. And that is happening anyways.

But keep in mind if it were a real trial trying every accused person the minimum punishments would still have to be met and if you hold Lance to one standard claiming dopers get their records removed you have to do the same to the other dopers. So you could argue, let the others start a fresh slate from then on for being sorry, but keep Lance out forever for his history of deception and unrepentance. That would be fair. But to give the other riders a pass and let them keep their records because they're sorry? That wouldn't.

[SylvreKat]

Hate to say, but double standards exist.

Look at the whole Lindsay Lohan mess. She was supposed to appear in court, how many times now?, for parole violations and failure to appear in the past as well as whatever the original crime was (and does anyone actually still remember what that was?). So last Thurs she once again was a no-show, didn't even pretend to try, was in NY recovering from a drunk-out party. Does the court issue a warrant or revoke parole or anything even hinting of punishment? No. They schedule yet another court appearance date for her to totally ignore and flaunt.

Yet if you or I or any other "commoner" did this, we'd be so arrested so fast we'd still be wondering what happened.

So sorry, but it's gonna' happen. Lance I do believe deserves all he's getting and more, if only for screwing innocents' lives and not caring that he did. The others, yes I believe they should also lose their wins. Except perhaps the ones who came forward voluntarily before any investigation turned towards them.

And yes, the doctors providing the doping/drugs/whatever should have their licenses revoked.

But again, sadly, probably won't happen.

>'Kat

[scootnwinn]

They did revoke the Doctor's license...

[danno711]