Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Andy83 · Post by **Andy83** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:37 pm

Anti Doping Agency sucks donkey dick! If I was he, I'd take all the medals and trophies, dump them on their executive big important desk and say here. stick them up your million times cock penetrated assholes already.

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:40 pm

go back to sleep

Andy83 · Post by **Andy83** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:48 pm

protobuilder wrote:go back to sleep

I will when you put yourself to sleep permanently.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:00 pm

When the evidence is all over the place they shouldn't leave him alone. Or maybe the world is out to get a cancer survivor who all of a sudden comes from chemo to win a shitload of bike races in the most grueling race in the world.

I assume that most sprinter and top cyclists are on the gear, he is one of them.

Sent from my iPhone because I can

Shapecharge · Post by **Shapecharge** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:12 pm

Personally I've rolled the whole Lance thing around in my head quite a bit and I just can't come up with much of an opinion that could stand up to an argument. A large part of me wants to give him a pass. I realize the notion that his foundation has done so much good in the world and it would most likely suffer if he has to chuck it all is lame and totally unrelated to the particular matter at hand. But man I sure dug his tenacity and his huge middle finger to the establishment that appeared to turn it's back on him when he was battling the big C. But then that other part me feels for some dude, fuck there has to be at least one, right?, who didn't take one fucking thing. All he did was ride the bike and he's got shit for it.

And, have we not come to the general conclusion that if Lance wasn't such a self-absorbed, controlling, enormous prick, he wouldn't be in this situation?

Andy83 · Post by **Andy83** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:15 pm

Maybe the chemo is "performance enhancing". Maybe broccoli and carrots. They should do more scientifical research right there. Do you honestly give a shit?

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:18 pm

Andy78 wrote:Maybe the chemo is "performance enhancing". Maybe broccoli and carrots. They should do more scientifical research right there. Do you honestly give a shit?

Not really. But taking drugs in a sport with a stringent anti-drug policy and who have banned multiple cyclists for disregarding that policy means someone cares.

--- Sent from my iPhone because I can

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:19 pm

Earlier Monday, before the motion was dismissed, USADA chief executive Travis Tygart described Armstrong’s lawsuit as "without merit." USADA, stating it had testimony from 10 anonymous cyclists and new, but unrevealed analysis of blood tests from 2009-10, filed formal charges against Armstrong on June 28.

Armstrong’s complaint stated that: USADA lacks jurisdiction to investigate and penalize Armstrong. It said that any investigation must come from the International Cycling Union, based upon language in the annual licenses each rider signs. The UCI’s main office is in Switzerland, and the motion says that the cycling union has indicated no plans to pursue a case against Armstrong, who retired from the sport in February 2011.

The blood screens from 2009-10 that were collected and analyzed by the UCI showed no irregularities and that the results were posted on its website and those maintained by Armstrong and his team. The blood then was discarded and is no longer available to be tested.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/othe ... ion=recent

I claim no true knowledges on the actual procedures and rules-- but this stinks like a bureaucrat trying to make his career at Armstrong's expense.

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:44 pm

so much fuss over bicycling

Andy83 · Post by **Andy83** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:17 pm

What would you like to talk about proto. Obviously there' something you're hiding. Cock sucking? What?

Yes I Have Balls · Post by **Yes I Have Balls** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:44 pm

You can always count on an old person to tell the World Anti-Doping Agency to get off Lance Armstrong's lawn.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:49 pm

Turdacious wrote:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/othe ... ion=recent

I claim no true knowledges on the actual procedures and rules-- but this stinks like a bureaucrat trying to make his career at Armstrong's expense.

I think there is a lot more to it than that. Too many witnesses and testimony to just ignore.

If the UCI missed something and the USADA caught something it's still punishable.

--- Sent from my iPhone because I can

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:06 pm

Jay wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/othe ... ion=recent

I claim no true knowledges on the actual procedures and rules-- but this stinks like a bureaucrat trying to make his career at Armstrong's expense.
I think there is a lot more to it than that. Too many witnesses and testimony to just ignore.

If the UCI missed something and the USADA caught something it's still punishable.

--- Sent from my iPhone because I can

These three things are true:

Lance doped. No one truly committed to winning in Cycling doesn't dope.

This guy is making his career in a corrupted and shite process.

Dick Pound is a piece of shit named Dick Pound

Thatcher II · Post by **Thatcher II** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:21 pm

Is it cheating if every other competitor is doing it, the teams, sponsors and managers encourage it an everyone on the inside of the sport knows it? I don't think that's "pure" cheating. It's being ultra-competitive, stepping up and taking risks with your body and reputation. Being skilled, prudent and effective in doping is as much a skill as descending an Alpine pass. Pretending that it's black and white and "drug takers are all cheats" misses these realities.

The fact he is American is significant and means he struggles to get a fair hearing. Many "witnesses" are really plea-bargainers. Pinch of salt territory.

And Jay, Armstrong was the youngest world champ ever and youngest winner of a stage in the Tour for a long time and a top pro triathlete at 15 all before cancer so think again about "coming from nowhere". He was always marked for great things.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
These three things are true:

Lance doped. No one truly committed to winning in Cycling doesn't dope.

This guy is making his career in a corrupted and shite process.

Dick Pound is a piece of shit named Dick Pound

I don't know. He caught a lot of shit for verbally blasting Marion jones and it turned out he was dead ass right.

He's a big mouth and he goes after you but he isn't far from the truth.

--- Sent from my iPhone because I can

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:24 pm

Gorbachev wrote:Is it cheating if every other competitor is doing it, the teams, sponsors and managers encourage it an everyone on the inside of the sport knows it? I don't think that's "pure" cheating. It's being ultra-competitive, stepping up and taking risks with your body and reputation. Being skilled, prudent and effective in doping is as much a skill as descending an Alpine pass. Pretending that it's black and white and "drug takers are all cheats" misses these realities.

The fact he is American is significant and means he struggles to get a fair hearing. Many "witnesses" are really plea-bargainers. Pinch of salt territory.

And Jay, Armstrong was the youngest world champ ever and youngest winner of a stage in the Tour for a long time and a top pro triathlete at 15 all before cancer so think again about "coming from nowhere". He was always marked for great things.

Maybe so, but after cancer and chemo? After having his body ravaged by it? It takes more than "being marked for great things" to come back from that to the sport's apex again.

--- Sent from my iPhone because I can

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:27 pm

Gorbachev wrote: And Jay, Armstrong was the youngest world champ ever and youngest winner of a stage in the Tour for a long time and a top pro triathlete at 15 all before cancer so think again about "coming from nowhere". He was always marked for great things.

Total agreement.

Lance is a marvelous athletic machine and a total genetic freak but his real advantage over his rivals is not chemistry or gentics its his ruthless strategic gift for knowing what is neccesary in any given moment.

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:29 pm

Jay wrote:
Gorbachev wrote:Is it cheating if every other competitor is doing it, the teams, sponsors and managers encourage it an everyone on the inside of the sport knows it? I don't think that's "pure" cheating. It's being ultra-competitive, stepping up and taking risks with your body and reputation. Being skilled, prudent and effective in doping is as much a skill as descending an Alpine pass. Pretending that it's black and white and "drug takers are all cheats" misses these realities.

The fact he is American is significant and means he struggles to get a fair hearing. Many "witnesses" are really plea-bargainers. Pinch of salt territory.

And Jay, Armstrong was the youngest world champ ever and youngest winner of a stage in the Tour for a long time and a top pro triathlete at 15 all before cancer so think again about "coming from nowhere". He was always marked for great things.
Maybe so, but after cancer and chemo? After having his body ravaged by it? It takes more than "being marked for great things" to come back from that to the sport's apex again.

--- Sent from my iPhone because I can

he hadn;t reached anywhere close to it's apex before cancer and he had no tangible unfair advantage over his rivals...I fail to see where it matters whatsoever that he doped.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:37 pm

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
he hadn;t reached anywhere close to it's apex before cancer and he had no tangible unfair advantage over his rivals...I fail to see where it matters whatsoever that he doped.

Guess it doesn't matter that 3 of the advisors on his tour de France teams got lifetime bans today.

I'm not anti- doping at all. I take stuff. I'm anti-doping when the rules say no doping.

This isn't a moral issue or some high horse either. It's just the way it is. Other people cheating the rules doesn't mean anything. They all run the risk of the same punishment if caught.

And I didn't say coming from nowhere. I said coming from chemo.

--- Sent from my iPhone because I can

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:41 pm

Jay wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:
he hadn;t reached anywhere close to it's apex before cancer and he had no tangible unfair advantage over his rivals...I fail to see where it matters whatsoever that he doped.
Guess it doesn't matter that 3 of the advisors on his tour de France teams got lifetime bans today.

I'm not anti- doping at all. I take stuff. I'm anti-doping when the rules say no doping.

--- Sent from my iPhone because I can

The Rules also say no doping in the NFL, in the Olympics and in MLB. It's like a 55MPH speed limit. Yes it's the law...but for the Dick Pounds to get shrill at one driver out of the thousands is beyond reprehensible.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:49 pm

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
The Rules also say no doping in the NFL, in the Olympics and in MLB. It's like a 55MPH speed limit. Yes it's the law...but for the Dick Pounds to get shrill at one driver out of the thousands is beyond reprehensible.

So if lance is found guilty what would you think of Pound then?

Fact is he's high profile as hell and has not only denied it but loudly denied it. If evidence is there implicating him why shouldn't he get "shrill" about it?

--- Sent from my iPhone because I can

buckethead · Post by **buckethead** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:50 pm

Armstrong was the GOAT in his class, but I find it pathetic he never moved up a size and took on the big riders.

WildGorillaMan · Post by **WildGorillaMan** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:55 pm

Blaidd Drwg wrote:but for the Dick Pounds to get shrill at one driver out of the thousands is beyond reprehensible.

What you're forgetting here is the Dick Pounds are always shrill, all the time. Just because he and his ilk are lasered in on one target right now doesn't mean that they've relented in their hate for all athletes, anywhere and everywhere who might possibly have doped.

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:57 pm

Jay wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:
The Rules also say no doping in the NFL, in the Olympics and in MLB. It's like a 55MPH speed limit. Yes it's the law...but for the Dick Pounds to get shrill at one driver out of the thousands is beyond reprehensible.
So if lance is found guilty what would you think of Pound then?

Fact is he's high profile as hell and has not only denied it but loudly denied it. If evidence is there implicating him why shouldn't he get "shrill" about it?

--- Sent from my iPhone because I can

Lance by any reasonable standard will be convicted in what amounts to a kanagroo court.

Dick Pound may be factually accurate but he is one of the worst things to happen to sport in general in a great many years. He is truly evil.

The Shrillness is the greater lie. Until we can have a reasonable open informed discussiuon about the role of drugs in sport, we will get what we deserve, which is liars and shitbirds like Pound.

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:03 pm

Dick Pound?

Seriously?

No wonder he's pissed.

IGX

Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?

Re: Will they ever leave Lance Armstrong alone?