Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
The rumor mill says it's because he was trying to get seriously into triathlons, potentially Ironman. If he would have stayed retired, USADA would have left him alone because the Fed investigation didn't turn up enough to charge him, and the TdF wins were long enough ago.
Originally Posted by Breyton-BMW
I don't know why they keep bringing this up. If he passed the tests then, leave him alone.
But the fact that he was going to get big into tris, and there are all these people accusing him (Landis, Hamilton, allegedly Hincapie, Andreu, etc, his link to Ferrari) meant the USADA had to take their shot at him. They couldn't just stand by and let someone so high-profile, with so much suspicion swirling around him, compete in pro-level tris without addressing the issue, either by going after him or publicly dismissing the accusations.
None of that means that USADA is right, or that Lance never doped. But that's "supposedly" why they filed their charges against him.
Re: passing the tests, I agree. If you have a stack of empirical, objective testing data that says he's clean, and you have "eyewitness" testimony that says he's not, you'd better be able to explain why the test data says he's clean.
Did he dodge the tests? Did he bribe the lab? Did he use some exotic stuff that doesn't show up on the tests? All possibilities. But before you throw out all your objective test data and find someone "guilty" IMHO you'd better be able to explain why.
I'm on the fence about just letting athletes dope if they want. On the one hand, I agree with you that if a doper wants to take these risks and make these sacrifices, that's his/her choice.
Originally Posted by DylloS
I don't really look at it as cheating. Most people can do it if they really want, most people do do it-source- a child hood friend who is a pro athlete.
Just allow everyone to do it and there's no issue. I don't want to hear the argument about "it's not fair to previous generations players"
Did those players wear gloves when catching footballs, did they have the modern day gym facilities, did they have the technology of new equipment? No, they didn't. chalk up the steroid use to improvements in the tech of the sports.
The biggest thing to take away from this is that there are things in each and every sport that contribute to "better athletes" now than in previous years, more than steroids do and the entire reason for the steroid debate is because people are shattering records, not because some minor league player can't get them too.
BTW, most people don't know sh1t about steroids and think you automatically get better at a sport while on them.
On the other hand, do we really want to create an entire sports world where it's simply impossible to compete without doping? Or without being able to afford the newest, coolest drugs? How many people will have access to good, accurate information about dosages, cycles, recoveries, risks, etc?
Another question is at what age should an athlete be allowed to start doping? Should doping be allowed in college football, but not high school? Will kids start getting needles and patches for their 18th birthday?
I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think we need to look a long ways down that road before we decide to go that direction.
Agree on false idols.
Originally Posted by JonJon
Lance admitted to cheating, his teammates admitting to cheating and his closest friends admitted to it.
Just because someone is good at acting, sports or singing.. we think they are perfect or something
Where did Lance admit to cheating?
Who cares? Just because he doesn't like attending charity events, does that mean he's a doper, or disingenuous, or even a bad guy?
I don't know the guy, never met him. But if you just isolate Livestrong and look at the visibility and awareness it's brought to helping cancer patients, the fact that Lance doesn't like attending certain events is completely irrelevant.
What should he have done? Forced himself to like attending the events? Never started Livestrong because he hates attending events?
Even if it's true that he said that, and even if it means exactly what it sounds like it means, IDGAF. I've been in that exact same situation, it's my job or my obligation to attend a function, but I hate it. I put on a happy face and do what I have to do, but I might admit to someone I trust that I'd rather be anywhere else.
- Our need for a trigger warning might be your trigger.
- Offend our inclusive values, we'll exclude you.
- We will not tolerate challenges to our ideal of tolerance.
- We seek diversity of appearance, but uniformity of thought.
- We always want to start a dialogue, unless we find your opinion unacceptable, then we'll silence you.
Last edited by Xcelratr; 09-01-2012 at 04:33 PM.