Lance Armstrong A Cheat or Legend

[BadMoon]

Yes, I do. If these chicken**** organizations cannot provide proof, then they need to rethink their testing methods instead of demonizing public figures to cover up their ineptness. Nobody went after McGwire or Canseco (who openly admitted it in his book). Yet, they run down Bonds for it. Why not Sosa? Because Bonds is more popular. It's all bull****.

I don't understand this logic. Lets say a woman is being raped. The guy doesn't ejaculate in her because 10 people come to her aid. He runs. The cops catch him and all 10 people point him out and say he did it. However there is no semen to test. Using your logic here he should be let go?

 

[BadMoon]

That goes back to the point I addressed last post. I still don't think he did. There's no proof.

Who would know better? You or his teammates?

 

[karamazov80]

The problem is that getting that level of proof is really freakin' hard when you aren't dealing with someone who is really inept. As was pointed out before, the "bad guys" who are hired to keep cheaters from being caught are likely being paid a hell of a lot more than the "good guys" who are trying to catch cheats. So who has the advantage? Nam, do you believe that 99% of NFL and pro rassler athletes don't juice? Because the evidence may not be there, but I would bet the house that it is happening.

Nam is making assumptions that Lance's former teammates/friends are all jealous liars, others believe those guys because it seems unlikely that so many would start saying the same thing, and about a guy who seemed inhumanly good for many years (which is extremely unlikely when you consider how hard it is to succeed at pro sports like cycling). Whatever belief you hold, it is informed by circumstantial evidence. I don't buy into the "innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt" POV here. It works in a court of law, but that does not always equate to what happens in reality.

 

[thenammagazine]

I don't understand this logic. Lets say a woman is being raped. The guy doesn't ejaculate in her because 10 people come to her aid. He runs. The cops catch him and all 10 people point him out and say he did it. However there is no semen to test. Using your logic here he should be let go?

Talk about flawed logic, that's a horrible comparison. There would be ******l trauma, transfer, etc. There'd still be evidence linking the suspect to the crime. Just because there's no semen, doesn't mean she wasn't raped.

There're a bunch of idiots claiming 911 was an inside job by Bush and the NWO/oil tycoons. You believe them?

Who would know better? You or his teammates?

Where's the proof?

The problem is that getting that level of proof is really freakin' hard when you aren't dealing with someone who is really inept. As was pointed out before, the "bad guys" who are hired to keep cheaters from being caught are likely being paid a hell of a lot more than the "good guys" who are trying to catch cheats. So who has the advantage? Nam, do you believe that 99% of NFL and pro rassler athletes don't juice? Because the evidence may not be there, but I would bet the house that it is happening.

Nam is making assumptions that Lance's former teammates/friends are all jealous liars, others believe those guys because it seems unlikely that so many would start saying the same thing, and about a guy who seemed inhumanly good for many years (which is extremely unlikely when you consider how hard it is to succeed at pro sports like cycling). Whatever belief you hold, it is informed by circumstantial evidence. I don't buy into the "innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt" POV here. It works in a court of law, but that does not always equate to what happens in reality.

And you're just bandwagoning. Again, where's the proof? There would be proof.

 

[Shatterer of Dreams]

I would say its more of a conspiracy to believe he didn't cheat at this point.

. His most trusted teamate came forward. Endgame.....

 

[BadMoon]

Talk about flawed logic, that's a horrible comparison. There would be ******l trauma, transfer, etc. There'd still be evidence linking the suspect to the crime. Just because there's no semen, doesn't mean she wasn't raped.

There're a bunch of idiots claiming 911 was an inside job by Bush and the NWO/oil tycoons. You believe them?



Where's the proof?



And you're just bandwagoning. Again, where's the proof? There would be proof.

It may be an extreme scenario. However you are proving my point. They couldn't use a test for semen. So what do they do? They try to find more evidence of proof. In Mr. Armstrong's case some of his closest teammates are coming forward. What more proof do you need? Listen we aren't talking one or two jealous people who lost to him. We are talking over 10 witnesses.

 

[BadMoon]

. His most trusted teamate came forward. Endgame.....

 

[karamazov80]

And you're just bandwagoning. Again, where's the proof? There would be proof.

Well that's been my opinion on these sorts of issues for as far back as I can remember. But if being reasonable equates to bandwagoning, then "guilty as charged." You want to deny that John Cena juices since he was never caught?

 

[Shatterer of Dreams]

The flaw I see in the no proof theory is that half the dope used was some new version not being tested for at the time, hence they don't get caught - baseball and hgh come to mind. I believe EPO was not tested for at the time, but they found it now when his old blood work was retested.

 

[thenammagazine]

Well that's been my opinion on these sorts of issues for as far back as I can remember. But if being reasonable equates to bandwagoning, then "guilty as charged." You want to deny that John Cena juices since he was never caught?

No, but if you want to accuse him of it, get a dirty test or shut the yap. If there are exploited loopholes in the testing system, these *******s would be better served figuring out how to close them instead of railing against public figures with nothing more than hearsay. Let's assume Lance cheated by exploiting the system. How is chasing after him to defame him publicly and have his achievements stripped fixing the problem?

As to Cena, I'm not gonna say either way because I neither know nor care. But I will ask, how many of the ****ing idiots here have accused Ski of juicing? He doesn't.

 

[user 1190]

As said before. There was no test for this and pretty much every top guy had to be cheating to complete or they didn't complete. I belive he was the best and was on a level playing field. He would have never got caught had he not started doing pro events in other sports covered by USADA. He did this to himself in some ways. If they want to take his titles they need to wipe that entire time period from the record books.

 

[Star Puffs]

The notion that passing his drug tests proves his innocence is spurious reasoning. Anyone cheating in cycling at the time knew they would be tested, so circumventing the tests had to be the prime consideration in any drugs used.

Also saying the ICU or Tour support Armstrong is weak at best. They have a vested interest of image and money in his being untainted. The USADA has no reason to target Armstrong other than genuine conviction in sportsmanship and/or the rules.

 

[thenammagazine]

Feel free to take that ignorance-covering sesquipedalian BS elsewhere.

 

[Star Puffs]

...these *******s would be better served figuring out how to close them instead of railing against public figures...

And that is what this is about, the misplaced loyalty that often comes with hero worship.

...with nothing more than hearsay.

"You keep using that word..."

I swear some people consider anything but a personal, public confession "hearsay".

 

[thenammagazine]

I swear some people consider anything but a personal, public confession "hearsay".

Be learned:

"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

Per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(a), a statement made by a defendant is admissible as evidence only if it is inculpatory; exculpatory statements made to an investigator are hearsay and therefore may not be admitted as evidence in court, unless the defendant testifies.

When an out-of-court statement offered as evidence contains another out-of-court statement it is called double hearsay, and both layers of hearsay must be found separately admissible.

By the very definition of the word, those statements are hearsay. If you spent as much time researching the topic as you do looking up fancy words to make you seem smarter, you'd already know this.

As I've stated, all this public misdirection does nothing to actually fix the problem, if there really is one.

 

[Star Puffs]

Feel free to take that ignorance-covering sesquipedalian BS elsewhere.

Of course, what was I thinking, the "guvuhmn't" is out to get your hero.

So who is responsible? Socialists, atheists, feminists, teh gayz, da Jooz, Obama's grandmother in Kenya, the ghost of Roger Maris...please lead us from A to B with your infinite wisdom.

 

[thenammagazine]

Of course, what was I thinking, the "guvuhmn't" is out to get your hero.

So who is responsible? Socialists, atheists, feminists, teh gayz, da Jooz, Obama's grandmother in Kenya, the ghost of Roger Maris...please lead us from A to B with your infinite wisdom.

Slight of hand has fooled you into being the naive, following a magic trick and focusing on the misdirection. Everybody's more concerned about watching Armstrong fall, than they are about them actually fixing the problem, let alone holding others accountable? Surely if Lance was juicing as everybody claims, those who managed to keep up must've been doing so also, correct? Which would mean he's not the only one who found a loophole.

 

[Star Puffs]

Slight of hand has fooled you into being the naive, following a magic trick and focusing on the misdirection. Everybody's more concerned about watching Armstrong fall, than they are about them actually fixing the problem, let alone holding others accountable? Surely if Lance was juicing as everybody claims, those who managed to keep up must've been doing so also, correct? Which would mean he's not the only one who found a loophole.

1. It is not "hearsay" if a person like George Hincapie swears to actions in which they were personally involved, which appears to be the case.

2. You are the one try to misdirect us by shouting about "fixing the problem". Even if a worthy issue, that has nothing to do with whether or not Armstrong doped. Same with the abuses of others. The victor is naturally going to draw more attention than everyone who lost.

 

[thenammagazine]

1. It is not "hearsay" if a person like George Hincapie swears to actions in which they were personally involved, which appears to be the case.

It's hearsay until proven. It hasn't been proven.

2. You are the one try to misdirect us by shouting about "fixing the problem". Even if a worthy issue, that has nothing to do with whether or not Armstrong doped. Same with the abuses of others. The victor is naturally going to draw more attention than everyone who lost.

You sound like an apologist. The problem is that these cyclists (pretty much all of them) are supposedly doping, yet not getting caught despite being tested multiple times. Chasing after the "winner" with accusations and hearsay is NOT going to fix the problem. Only a complete idiot would think it would.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

Star Puffs vs. Nam round 27