Mens Tennis Forums banner

Lance Armstrong finally banned for doping

26K views 360 replies 69 participants last post by  Ben D. 
#1 ·
Lance is basically considered a doper until proven innocent just by participation.

Why not Bolt?

He is dominating in a similar way.

I know a lot of ppl suspect Bolt but they are quicker to defend him than Lance.
 
#314 ·
The only thing I hope that will come out of this total trainwreck-debacle, is that NEVER EVER anyone will accept the claim "I have never been caught doping" as being an excuse for being 'clean' ever again.

Lebron James. Marion Jones. Carl Lewis. The list is bloody ENDLESS. TONS of others who'd "never been caught doping" either. Yeah, sure....
 
#318 ·
I still don't quite get why these guys aren't dropping dead if they doped this much.

These guys are in their 40's now.

Is it the case that if you retire and you don't die, if your not doing it any more you will eventually recover from the damage?

I'm not saying they didn't dope..but they must have had long periods where they didn't boost. You would think they would be keeling over en masse.

It'd be like riding drunk all the time, a ticking heart attack time bomb.

I mean wrestlers are dieing from roiding and they dont use dangerous blood transfusions as often id guess.
 
#319 ·
Increased mortality rates does not mean everyone will die. Some do, like Florence Griffith-Joyner and a couple of East Germans which name I cannot recall, but most survive. It will be very interesting so see the longevity of the bulk of former East German athletes. Nothing happening now could be worse than back then. Doctors are bound to have gotten better at decreasing health risks since the 70s and 80s.

Wrestlers - I presume you are talking about the Hulk Hogan kind and not the Alexander Karelin kind - have no doping tests whatsoever, they are actors, not sportsmen. While cyclists have to make sure they are below certain levels at the time of competitions, wrestlers can have concentrations 1000 times above and not get punished for it. So I am not surprised this profession is the most dangerous.
 
#321 ·
Re: Doping in Tennis Thread (No accusations without proof)

I don't think that it's fair to suggest that France is that much more advanced in doping hunts.

Germany for example, has no problem at all with taking down their own heroes and hunting them down (Ullrich & co)
Belgium has done similar things (Vandenbroucke, Museeuw, Planckaert, Meirhaeghe,...)
You can come up with quite a few other countries but I can't be bothered to do the research right now.

Furthermore, in the Vuelta, many doping cases were caught, incl. Spanish cyclists. Heras, a big Spanish cycling hero, springs to mind.

Doping is an international problem. It's quite pointless to me to start patting your own country on the back for being advanced and pointing fingers at other countries without even bothering to properly finding out what is exactly being done and how effective it all is.

Noah's accusations were sweeping statements vs one nation (which comes across as xenophobic). It was dumb rather than informative.
 
#322 · (Edited)
Re: Doping in Tennis Thread (No accusations without proof)

I don't think that it's fair to suggest that France is that much more advanced in doping hunts.

Germany for example, has no problem at all with taking down their own heroes and hunting them down (Ullrich & co)
Belgium has done similar things (Vandenbroucke, Museeuw, Planckaert, Meirhaeghe,...)
You can come up with quite a few other countries but I can't be bothered to do the research right now.

Furthermore, in the Vuelta, many doping cases were caught, incl. Spanish cyclists. Heras, a big Spanish cycling hero, springs to mind.

Doping is an international problem. It's quite pointless to me to start patting your own country on the back for being advanced and pointing fingers at other countries without even bothering to properly finding out what is exactly being done and how effective it all is.

Noah's accusations were sweeping statements vs one nation (which comes across as xenophobic). It was dumb rather than informative.
That's not the point : the point is that several Spanish cyclists have repeatedly come defending Armstrong in recent days saying that "nothing is proved as he has not failed tests, if you can be condemned without failing a test it's a strange way to change "rules"", which is an argument which would look ridiculous in France and, I guess, in many other countries (I didn't read any argument like that in reactions from other countries, except of course from the people who love Armstrong in the USA, but their reaction is based on love blindness, not on this strange argument).

The same sentence "it's impossible to escape tests if you're a doper" had also been naturally used by Nadal a few months ago.

I don't say that against Nadal, but I say that it's an evidence of the fact of the environment he lives in, that the omerta in Spain and in the Spanish media on that topic is really special. Something we had already heard of before, and not only from Noah (but the fact is that there was an unbelievable fuss made about Noah's words : specialists of doping can talk very seriously, nobody will hear about it but Noah says a few vague words in a small magazine and :timebomb: : that's the ridiculous media world which we live in :rolleyes: )

As for other countries comparing to France, I don't know. We had been accused of being so awful on that before :lol: and anyway the presence of Tour de France in France would be the main reason of that, not some kind of French "greatness", but just an opportunity, which led "l'Equipe" and "le Monde" to be "specialists" on that topic, if other countries also have specialists without the opportunity congrats to them :worship:

PS : not surprised to see a Belgian immediately react about what they inevitably perceive as "French arrogance" :lol:
 
#323 ·
Re: Doping in Tennis Thread (No accusations without proof)

The French are notorious finger pointing hypocrites and always have been when it comes to doping. For them to say 'they were right' about Pharmstrong is just hilarious, given pretty much the whole world suspected him.
 
#324 ·
Re: Doping in Tennis Thread (No accusations without proof)

For them to say 'they were right' about Pharmstrong is just hilarious, given pretty much the whole world suspected him.
it's perfectly true, the whole reasonable world did suspect him, but still the French were the only ones who were attacked for saying that, it was so convenient :lol:

And now you can also attack the French on that : there's alsways a good reason to insult these French bastards :lol:

anyway, that's not the main topic, even if I know that many people would be glad to troll that topic : if there's a nationality topic mentioned here as far as doping is concerned, it's only Spain and not the fucking accusing hypocrite arrogant French bastards.
 
#330 ·
Re: Doping in Tennis Thread (No accusations without proof)

And yes, the media and environment in Spain are different from the media and environment in other countries, that's how things are. And here the problem there is omerta.
That's again a very sweeping statement you're making, not only about the "in Spain" bit but also the "in other countries" bit.

"omerta" is not just a Spanish problem.

http://www.sudouest.fr/2012/10/24/l-omerta-toujours-la-858847-8.php
 
#331 · (Edited)
Re: Doping in Tennis Thread (No accusations without proof)

"omerta" is not just a Spanish problem.
yes and I think it was clear that my previous post first talked about this "omerta" topic in general before making a specific point about Spain (or is there a "sweeping" tendency to only remember what's said about Spain when somebody first talks about doping in general ? )

Once again what struck me about the Spanish cyclists' words was the one same argument they all used "if someone has not been tested positive, he's not a doper", same argument Nada has used a few months ago : it sounded as a Bible principle to them, a limit which cannot be passed, and is that a sweeping coincidence they all said that same ? :confused:

Saying like Jalabert that Armstrong was a great champion means nothing about the doping topic, and in this thread we speak about doping (was Jalabert doped ? imo yes, but that's another topic).

PS : yes, I like sweeping a lot, and I know I'm so special for that, and you never do it of course :angel:
 
#334 ·
Re: Doping in Tennis Thread (No accusations without proof)

The same could be said about Americans. Some of the reactions to the Armstrong case are absolutely ridiculous. I remember this lady who wrote an article beginning with something like: "I don't know if Armstrong was a doper or not, but what I do know, is that he is a good man and no one will ever make me change my mind."
This is exactly the kind of mentality that is at the heart of the problem. People idolize champions way more than is reasonable. With Armstrong, there is the whole cancer story that makes the phenomenon even worse. For some reason that I cannot comprehend, people seem to think that surviving cancer makes you a good person (I'm sorry, but I don't think cancer is selective, sadly, it kills or spares "good" and "bad" people in a rather random fashion...)
Americans were in denial about the Armstrong case and are still in denial. Denying the doping accusations at the time was already denial, but when, TODAY, people are still saying things like "he may or may not have been a doper"... Well, as we say, "no one is more blind than the one who refuses to see." :shrug:
I never like Armstrong, regardless of the doping case. I always felt that he's a man of big ego and like to strong arm people around him to do things his way. And when this whole thing came out, I was glad that he was caught. But having said that, I can totally understand why others' dedication to him though. I mean his organization means a lot to a lot of ppl who's suffering from cancers, and their families too. A lot of celebrities have their own charity foundations, but none is as effective as Livestrong. I don't believe that his fight against his own cancer made him anything special, but his impact on ppl with cancer is undeniable. I hate the notion that Armstrong's fighting cancer is heroic, it's kind of imply that those who lost the battles were not worthy cos they didn't fight enough. But I guess when you are dying of cancer, you just need something to make you believe, a story like Armstrong who against all odd survived is really powerful. So even though he's now shamed, I still respect what he had done for the others in his foundation. I believe a lot of ppl found hopes because of him. So, so what if he's not a good man or whatever, he still did good for the society in a way. No doubt there are ppl there blindly idolize some sport heroes, but in Armstrong case, I thought they have a reason, a pretty good one. Does that make him less evil in the doping situation, no. Does that make him an un-redeemable human being what he'd done in doping, no, he's still a flawed human being but he's not all bad. I think his wanting to help the cancer suffering population is a genuine act out of the fact that he's been there and done that. I understand you guys outside US won't understand that because you have no way of experiencing the effect of his foundation, but I can tell you that it's really very beneficial to the society here and even me who's never approved of Armstrong the cyclist have to give him credit for having the foundation. And one can only hope that his downfall won't affect those who's desperately need the belief to survive.

Sorry, these has nothing to do with doping.
 
#339 ·
Re: Doping in Tennis Thread (No accusations without proof)

I never like Armstrong, regardless of the doping case. I always felt that he's a man of big ego and like to strong arm people around him to do things his way. And when this whole thing came out, I was glad that he was caught. But having said that, I can totally understand why others' dedication to him though. I mean his organization means a lot to a lot of ppl who's suffering from cancers, and their families too. A lot of celebrities have their own charity foundations, but none is as effective as Livestrong. I don't believe that his fight against his own cancer made him anything special, but his impact on ppl with cancer is undeniable. I hate the notion that Armstrong's fighting cancer is heroic, it's kind of imply that those who lost the battles were not worthy cos they didn't fight enough. But I guess when you are dying of cancer, you just need something to make you believe, a story like Armstrong who against all odd survived is really powerful. So even though he's now shamed, I still respect what he had done for the others in his foundation. I believe a lot of ppl found hopes because of him. So, so what if he's not a good man or whatever, he still did good for the society in a way. No doubt there are ppl there blindly idolize some sport heroes, but in Armstrong case, I thought they have a reason, a pretty good one. Does that make him less evil in the doping situation, no. Does that make him an un-redeemable human being what he'd done in doping, no, he's still a flawed human being but he's not all bad. I think his wanting to help the cancer suffering population is a genuine act out of the fact that he's been there and done that. I understand you guys outside US won't understand that because you have no way of experiencing the effect of his foundation, but I can tell you that it's really very beneficial to the society here and even me who's never approved of Armstrong the cyclist have to give him credit for having the foundation. And one can only hope that his downfall won't affect those who's desperately need the belief to survive.

Sorry, these has nothing to do with doping.
Great sensible post about Armstrong, the topic here :)
 
#335 ·
Didn't the autopsy for Flo Jo show she died of epilepsy and nothing related to PEDs taking?
 
#337 ·
It supposedly did. For all I know it might even be true. That would further diminish the death toll from doping, which as I mentioned appears lower that one would imagine. I understand many East German former athletes struggle with health issues but they are at least mostly still alive.
 
#336 · (Edited)
Re: Doping in Tennis Thread (No accusations without proof)

I think you misunderstood my position, maybe because I did not make it clear enough.
My own belief (which cannot be based on evidence, of course) is that almost EVERYONE, in EVERY sport, is using doping, that it has been like this for decades, and that people need to wake up and realize it.

I'm in no way downplaying the accusations against Moral, I'm pretty convinced this guy was involved in doping, and all the people connected with him as well. When I put him on a list together with Ferrari, Conconi or Fuentes, that's what I'm saying. All these guys were part of a huge system of dopping, and probably almost every other doctor working with high level sportsmen in sports where there's big money (I'm not so sure about the other sports).
I'm also pretty sure that anyone working with such a doctor who claim they're working with him for "other reasons" is lying (BTW that's what Armstrong used to say whenever he was questioned about Ferrari... how anyone could believe that it beyond me)

My problem with what is happening, everytime there is a case, is that they consistently fail to expose the entire system, and only focus on the few people who are directly or indirectly involved.
Sure, the Armstrong scandal has exposed a lot of people, and I believe that in a way, it's a good thing. But as usual, the mechanism is the following: everyone engages in doping, and everyone inside the system knows it (and often actively encourage it). But the rule is: when someone gets caught, everyone else saves their ass by pretending that they knew nothing, or even actively bashing that person (so as to cover up their own responsibility).
When I say people are covering up their asses, I don't mean other riders who were with Armstrong and have admitted to being dopers. I mean every sport official, team official, doctor, or journalist who was part of the system and acted as an active or passive accomplice (and now claims to feel horribly disappointed and betrayed and whatnot).

Look at the ICU with Armstrong. The real progress to be made is on this point. It seems absolutely obvious that Armstrong had a lot of accomplices among sports officials, that's how he could use dope in total impunity (now they're saying that he was actually tested positive maybe up to 6 times, but there was a cover up). But the ICU know they're in danger, and what they did was, they condemned Armstrong and stripped him of his titles, to convince people that they were not his "protectors."
Now, if it goes no further, then the entire Armtrong case will have led to nothing very valuable. They need to push it further and expose everyone, or else, it's no use.

I wish I could find time to read Hamilton's book, but I probably won't have time, and to be honest, I'm pretty sure I know exactly what it says. There have been dozens of books like this one, the first one was Erwann Menthéour's Secret Défonce back in 1999. But it did not really change anything.

I know my opinion can sound shocking, but now, for me, the "default" assumption about anyone involved in high level sports is that they are involved in doping or covering up about doping. I believe people who are really "pure", innocent and genuinely fighting against doping are the real exception, if they exist at all.
And I don't even care anymore about doping itself (can you even say it's "cheating" when everyone's using it?), but I am truly sick of the hypocrisy surrounding it.
That's why the idea of a general amnesty (or even legalization of doping) to make everyone come forward and tell the truth seems interesting to me. People are not going to do it on their own initiative, because they have everything to lose and very little to gain.

Now sure, all this can seem to be idle musings of my mind based on nothing but thin air. But back in the Golden Age of Lance Armstrong, I had guessed everything that was going on and people were dismissing those theories with this same argument ("you have no evidence", "you are condemning people without proof", "you are just jealous of his success", "you believe in conspiracy theories", and so on and so forth). Now with the USADA investigation, it turns out that everything I had suspected was true.
I hold a very similar position to yours. I believe that all major sports either needs to take doping regulation really serious now, allocating a budget similar to what they have for the marketing dept, something like 10% of total profits, hire doctors, scientists and cutting edge pharma testing specialist and most importantly have independent bodies in authority. I don't like to say it, but maybe international Government agencies are the only ones who could pack enough power to do this properly if there is enough public interest for it. How did this whole Armstrong case came about? A US anti doping agency, totally independent from the cycling world brought to light. Is is almost impossible to hope for sports who are in it for profit, to regulate themselves really efficiently.

To the athletes, the point is, it can't be a choice, is inhumane to expect athletes who make a living out of sports, to have to choose from the good of their hearts not to dope while having a wide open door to do it. It is easy to judge from the PC in an internet forum, people here will never be in that situation of either get on with the doping culture in your sport or go do something else and forget about your dreams. Is like having no police and expecting nobody to break the law, that is not how human nature works, self-interest is just too powerful. There needs to be a strong and efficient deterrent.


Actually, the more time I spend reading and understanding the Peds culture, the more I think it should be allowed and regulated to some extent. It is becoming silly in the way in which we can be prescribed and be allowed to have more access to drugs than professional athletes can't, doesn't seem realistic. Look at this way, in your gym there are probably a dozen of guys supplementing themselves in several ways, for example, testosterone, which is the male hormone, and its synthetic form is called Steroids. And nowdays you can find it in several ways, Gels, cream, oral, etc. So it is available in many forms and legally prescribed to a lot of people because of several reasons. Then you have Human Growth Hormone, more and more people specially older than 40, have doctors prescribe them HGH as a good supplement to keep physical muscle and bone aging in check.

You have TRT, which is becoming very popular in the US I read. Test replacement therapy, which a lot of 45+ years old guys who have their testosterone lowered due to aging and can go to their endocrinologist and have their Test. boost to what is considered a healthy moderate level. Testosterone, HGH are all things that can be prescribed to the average person depending on what country you live and have studies that shown that used in an moderate supervise form, can have good physical benefits and the science. Of course, it also show side effects but nothing really major from what I read if used moderately and every drug has side effects. So the science on this keep evolving and getting better. I will probably myself will look for this things when I am older, why not? I have an active lifestyle playing sports on a regular basis, why shouldn't I use what is available to maintain my physical abilities at the best level possible.

So if for the average Joe will be more and more able to find this either by his Doctor or at his local gym and these drugs keep evolving and seeing more benefits if used correctly. It silly it is to expect that Professional athletes who live off their body, to not have access to any them. That is why I am starting to lean towards it needs to be regulated and kept to a certain level realistically,, rather than all let's keep all the Peds totally away from athletes.
 
#340 · (Edited)
It still goes on and on, I'm afraid.

I read that Rolf Aldag will be technical manager in the Omega Pharma Quick-Step team. Aldag was part of Telecom (Riis, Ullrich) + Aldag admitted to having used doping (EPO)

I seriously don't get Lefevere. The Quick-Step team fires Leipheimer for admitting to having used doping and a couple of days later, they hire Aldag. So, one guy gets fired because he admitted to doping and another gets hired despite admitting to doping. What am I missing here?

For Echoes, in case he reads this: another article on Patrick Lefevere:
Patrick Lefevere en het grote vraagteken
 
#343 ·
#349 ·
He definitely tested positive for EPO, 6 times. Only retroactive testing was not sanctioned back then. But now it is. That's the way Bernhardt Kohl was caught.

Justice may say what it wants, the scientific proof was already there 7 years ago and it's undisputable.
 
#348 ·
 
  • Like
Reactions: coluta
#351 ·
why to take away his awards which were won so many years ago? Why couldn't they prove him guilty sooner. Heartbreaking for him to lose ALL his 7 medals after so many years :sad:
 
#354 ·
I think we can now begin to put to bed what has been a troubling era for cycling.

I'm not deluded, doping will never go away, but such a story as this just proves that the testers, no matter if it takes 1 year, 5 years or 10 years, will do their utmost to catch the dopers, and they will get them very often.
 
#357 ·
Dologopolov.

I hear he's starting to take testosterone.
 
#359 ·
french journalists ridiculed themselves as touting Armstrong as an example of a great and brave champion, Gérard Holtz, Patrick Chêne and co look pretty shitty now.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top