Quote (ffunkymonky @ Oct 17 2012 03:23pm)

did he really dope?

i thought he was legit

Quote (fender @ Oct 22 2012 09:01pm)

even the armstrong-friendly UCI finally decided to strip him of all his tour de france titles:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9625584/Lance-Armstrong-stripped-of-seven-Tour-de-France-titles-but-UCI-president-Pat-McQuaid-wont-resign.html

Quote (zarkadon @ 22 Oct 2012 23:15)

yeah, it's over for him, I heard they'll decide next week wether to give the Tours to the 2nd placed or leave them without a winner (which is what the guys who organize the Tour want)

Quote (fender @ Oct 23 2012 12:35am)

i really hope they don't. i don't think any of the top guys of that time were clean. same for the current winners but well... that's a different story.

anyway, this should be and stay a time without winners, a dark chapter in the history of the sport... i just hope they will learn from it and make controls even stricter / punishment even harsher but to be honest, i don't expect it...

Quote (y_roc140 @ Oct 23 2012 01:07am)

Does he have to repay his unrightfully earned winnings? should have to imo, to charity..

Quote (y_roc140 @ Oct 22 2012 06:07pm)

Does he have to repay his unrightfully earned winnings? should have to imo, to charity..

Quote (y_roc140 @ 22 Oct 2012 16:07)

Does he have to repay his unrightfully earned winnings? should have to imo, to charity..

Quote (fender @ Oct 19 2012 06:55am)

1) nike described it as "insurmountable evidence that he participated in doping and misled nike for more than a decade" - that's more than just "not taking risks", that's a clear statement.
if he was innocent, he would sue nike, anheuser-busch, trek, giro and all the other companies that distanced themselves - and also all the newspapers who call him a cheat (like he did in 2004 when the sunday times (uk) made doping allegations in an article). but we all know why he doesn't do that...

2) because this is a current case, d'uh?!
because most of the other known dopers either came clean and/or have been stripped of their titles.

but again, if there is a case you're specifically interested in just go ahead, make a thread - i'll gladly read what you have to say.
or do you blame the newspapers, too? because their main topic in cycling is also armstrong. all over the world! and they pretty much all say the same: he's guilty. but you're smarter, right?

3) wait what? is that a serious question? so if someone tests negative twice and positive once, he's innocent by majority decision?!

4) the myth that he never tested positive has been busted. the fact that he hasn't been banned back then is due to his good relations with the uci (he made six figure "donations" to them, which they accepted) and the way doping works: testing methods are almost always one step behind the latest products. but preserving the samples allowed the scientists to retest them with new methods and prove he was cheating!


and armstrong is not only guilty of doping itself, he also of traded and distributed illegal ped's. he also bullied those out of his teams, who weren't willing to side with him and his methods.
some of his fans still claim "everybody was doping and he was still the best", blatantly ignoring the fact that no other team / cyclist did it that "professionally" and paid so much money to guys like michele ferrari ("dottore epo").
many teams claim this kind of professional doping basically forced them to take the same dirty path in order to be able to compete at all. sure, this is a very cheap excuse but you can't deny the truth in it.