Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
mr_dja
I don't know Max... Many of the posters on the board don't use English as a primary language. Maybe if you translated it into a few other languages it wouldn't be so hard for people to understand.

It is a shame though that in the court of public appeal one is guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around.

I just had a thought... I think it was you who mentioned if this was a European athlete the feelings might be different. What about a European television star? Wasn't there a big thread recently about a TV star who allegedly molested young girls but, since he had done such good charity work and couldn't defend himself people said to leave it alone? In the LA case we have a US athlete who allegedly cheated yet even though he's done great charity work, since he's decided to quit fighting, he needs to be destroyed. I know it's not exactly the same but it does seem kind of curious the seemingly double standard.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I dont know about that case, I dont follow the gossip very much.

Note to self- Self, stop opening this thread, no good can come of it..

Your note to self made me laugh! Thanks. I needed that. Unfortunately you're probably right. That being said, in my opinion, when you start avoiding parts of this board, the board loses... You're one of the most sane people I read on this site.

Hope you have a good evening! (If you opened this thread again that is!)

Peace,
Mr DJA

Thank you for the compliment Mr DJA... and right back at you good sir

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
mr_dja
Wasn't there a big thread recently about a TV star who allegedly molested young girls but, since he had done such good charity work and couldn't defend himself people said to leave it alone?

No, it was because he is dead, so one can't get him convicted anyway.
Meanwhile, I find it strange with this Europe vs America thing. Didn't know there was a battle.... I think most people are objective and doesn't defend somebody because they're from the same continent as themselves. Coming from the same continent.....why should that matter? If it was from the same household; I'd understand; but same continent ? Beats me....

I agree Eric. I don't get it either. At points it got pretty ugly during the Olympics. It wasn't necesarilly continent v. continent, at that point was mainly anti-USA. My using Europe in the post above was due to the fact that I couldn't remember where the TV host was from. I think it was England but I can't be sure.

I can understand some patriotism some of the time. Your point about being objective and not defending someone just because they're from the some continent is probably pretty accurate. If we get down to the country level though there seems to be a bit more loyalty. Not always on the defending side but I think I see it pretty regularly on the attacking side. Seems pretty easy for some people (not all) to attack places they're not from. Heck, when you're an American (USA), it can sometimes feel like you've got a target on your back not only from those outside but also some inside depending on what part of the country you live in. Sad. "Beats me" is the perfect phrase on so many levels, I think.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
HE TOOK THE TESTS!!! HE PASSED THE TESTS!!!! HOW IS THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND!

Marion Jones passed the tests also in Olympics, and look what happened...

The thing is that the best and richest cheaters tend to go one step ahead of the test techology. This has been the case as far long as doping has been known. Still today is naive to think that all the cheaters would be caught by testing them. Usually when some big name get caught that is due to some human mistake (by her/him), an unexpected use of some new testing method, or that a currunt, more developed testing technology is used in re-analyzing old tests.

- Doxa

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
mr_dja
Wasn't there a big thread recently about a TV star who allegedly molested young girls but, since he had done such good charity work and couldn't defend himself people said to leave it alone?

No, it was because he is dead, so one can't get him convicted anyway.
Meanwhile, I find it strange with this Europe vs America thing. Didn't know there was a battle.... I think most people are objective and doesn't defend somebody because they're from the same continent as themselves. Coming from the same continent.....why should that matter? If it was from the same household; I'd understand; but same continent ? Beats me....

There aren't any. The LA case is a symptom of that also in America doping (and cheating) is started to take rather seriously, and making big news, and which at least for European eyes is rather interesting to follow from a distance (even though it is rather bizarre case as altogether having such an American flavor). Any talk of "Anti-Americanism" is totally irrelevant and misses the point.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-18 01:07 by Doxa.

Agree with you, Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-18 01:15 by Erik_Snow.

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
mr_dja
Wasn't there a big thread recently about a TV star who allegedly molested young girls but, since he had done such good charity work and couldn't defend himself people said to leave it alone?

No, it was because he is dead, so one can't get him convicted anyway.
Meanwhile, I find it strange with this Europe vs America thing. Didn't know there was a battle.... I think most people are objective and doesn't defend somebody because they're from the same continent as themselves. Coming from the same continent.....why should that matter? If it was from the same household; I'd understand; but same continent ? Beats me....

I agree Eric. I don't get it either. At points it got pretty ugly during the Olympics. It wasn't necesarilly continent v. continent, at that point was mainly anti-USA. My using Europe in the post above was due to the fact that I couldn't remember where the TV host was from. I think it was England but I can't be sure.

I can understand some patriotism some of the time. Your point about being objective and not defending someone just because they're from the some continent is probably pretty accurate. If we get down to the country level though there seems to be a bit more loyalty. Not always on the defending side but I think I see it pretty regularly on the attacking side. Seems pretty easy for some people (not all) to attack places they're not from. Heck, when you're an American (USA), it can sometimes feel like you've got a target on your back not only from those outside but also some inside depending on what part of the country you live in. Sad. "Beats me" is the perfect phrase on so many levels, I think.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Maybe UK and US look at eachother as contenders, when it comes to sport, for all I know...?
We have it the same way here in Norway, allthough we target our rage upon Sweden and Denmark. But it's all in good fun of course....and only connected to sports; not to "real life". But that "fun" is luckily getting more and more washed out as the years go by. You won't hear professional TV reporters talking about it....like you could in the 80s, for instance. But being "anti American" seem pointless to me....and to most, I'd imagine.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-18 02:07 by Erik_Snow.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
HE TOOK THE TESTS!!! HE PASSED THE TESTS!!!! HOW IS THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND!

no he failed in 1999 !
even Robin Parisotto, Australian, who invented the EPO detection method admitted on sport.ard.de. that the French lab test from Chatenay Malabry is valid and it shows that LA took EPO in 1999.
I suppose you're gonna come and tell us that like Landis, Hamilton and many others, Robin Parisotto is also a liar !

"HE TOOK THE TESTS!!! HE PASSED THE TESTS!!!!"

That's entirely untrue : around 2005 when the French anti-doping agency tested L.A.'s urine samples from 1999 that they had kept frozen (bless them) they discovered exogen EPO.

Why did L.A. take EPO in 1999? Because at that time no lab on this planet could tell if the EPO you found in a sample was endogen (produced by the body = natural) or exogen (the result of an injection = doping). L.A. knew that.

As soon as a reliable test was put on the market he stopped taking EPO and moved to testosterone growth hormone etc etc.

That guy was the best on the planet... regarding doping, that's for sure!

And doping is not just about taking perf-enhancing stuff. This is only half the equation. The othe half is taking masking products, the ones that'll enable you to come clean when you're tested.

Imo the USADA stabbed him in the back because, economically speaking, cycling is no big deal in the US, unlike basketball (American) football or baseball.

Cleaning the stables of the US (or Euro) pro sport biz would be killing the goose with the golden eggs so they only take on a minor figure like L.A.

Doping is rife among pro sport but these walking/running/cycling chem labs also generate a lot of money for a lot of ppl. Plus they're heroes for the working classes. You wouldn't want to kill Joe the Plumber's teenage dream of amazing AND clean peformances???

Sad but true...

Quote
dcba
And doping is not just about taking perf-enhancing stuff. This is only half the equation. The othe half is taking masking products, the ones that'll enable you to come clean when you're tested.

Imo the USADA stabbed him in the back because, economically speaking, cycling is no big deal in the US, unlike basketball (American) football or baseball.

Cleaning the stables of the US (or Euro) pro sport biz would be killing the goose with the golden eggs so they only take on a minor figure like L.A.

Doping is rife among pro sport but these walking/running/cycling chem labs also generate a lot of money for a lot of ppl. Plus they're heroes for the working classes. You wouldn't want to kill Joe the Plumber's teenage dream of amazing AND clean peformances???

Sad but true...

Unfortunately as far as I know you are correct here. It is rather easy to 'sacrifice' rather low-profile (relatively speking) athletes from marginal sports such as Marion Jones and Lance Amstrong, and I think the people defending LA here are halfly-right that there is almost like a witch hunt going on (that's why I call it 'bizarre'). But the big fish is the big pro leagues (football, baseball, basket ball, ice hockey), where the doping control is still a make up thing, not really integrated to the structure of the system.

So if there is some 'double standards' going on, that's the place to find that.

Anyway, I have lived my whole life in a country where doping scandals are almost daily routine. Being such a sport crazy country as Finland is, some of them have left almost a national trauma (these are not marginal sports, but ones almost constituting a cultural identity). What LA is going through now is chicken shit compared to that discussion we have had here (okay, money is bigger, bit that's not the only thing that signifies), and actually having at the moment when there is a new document circulating in cinemas revailing the doping programme Finnish cross-field skiers had in the past (started already during the 70's). And of course, most of the people still deny everything... (because there is so much to lose, being national heroes and icons, members of parliament, etc.)

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-18 14:17 by Doxa.

Several baseball-stars has tested positive in recent years. I really think USADA at one point decided they had to roll up their sleeves and start doing their jobs.

For years, US doping tests were a joke, now they're just as good, or maybe better than most other countries.

It's all about the will to invest in know-how and equipment to catch the cheaters. Seemingly, they have done that.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Several baseball-stars has tested positive in recent years. I really think USADA at one point decided they had to roll up their sleeves and start doing their jobs.

For years, US doping tests were a joke, now they're just as good, or maybe better than most other countries.

It's all about the will to invest in know-how and equipment to catch the cheaters. Seemingly, they have done that.

True, it has gotten dramatically better during the last years, but still is in its children's shoes, a lot could be done much, much better if there only would be a will (as you pointed). This is not an opinion but a fact based on on comparing two pro leagues in same sports: NHL v.s SM-Liiga (Finnish ice hockey league). And since ice hockey is still rather low-profile sport in America, one can only imagine how much is there to imagewise lose if some holy American sports - football and baseball - would be put under a merciless scrutiny (and the punishments as real ones that actually hurt)...

- Doxa

Quote
dcba
And doping is not just about taking perf-enhancing stuff. This is only half the equation. The othe half is taking masking products, the ones that'll enable you to come clean when you're tested.

yes and as you probably know, after a stage during the tour de France, when he was asked to show himself to the doping control he always needed about 20 minutes before going. Time enough to take masking products.

People say I speed a lot, and they always see me drive like a idiot.

But it is not true, I have never had a ticket! And I am too less of a man just to admit it.

"yes and as you probably know, after a stage during the tour de France, when he was asked to show himself to the doping control he always needed about 20 minutes before going. Time enough to take masking products"

You're right but I forgot who woud warn him? A guy from the UCI or from the Tour organization...? Both didn't want the L.A. circus to $$$$$$top, alas.

Hey man, like, you know, who gives a shit man?

Hey, this story is getting interesting...even Nike is being accused in the cover up:

[sports.ca.msn.com]


Why Nike really dumped Lance

Nike didn't dump Lance because it thinks he cheated. It's because you do.

Nike continued to back Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger, even Joe Paterno. So let's not applaud too much for a company taking a moral stand Wednesday by dumping Lance Armstrong.

It happened only a few minutes after Armstrong resigned as chairman of his Livestrong charity.

This could be the biggest fall from grace ever for an athlete, certainly the longest fall from the highest heights. But let's put the credit where it goes: I'm not going to believe for one minute that Nike did this because it believes Armstrong is a cheater.

No, Nike dumped Armstrong because you think he's a cheater. Nike made a business decision, and also a Nike-image decision.

But you were the one who did it, sports fans. You stood up for sports, for your beliefs, for standards. You kicked Lance Armstrong to the curb. And know this: It's over for him now. He is done endorsing products, at least until he asks someone to forgive him.

Nike didn't make a moral decision, unless you are counting business morals. The numbers just don't add up anymore. Armstrong will not give Nike a return on its investment. So suddenly, the shoe company that thought it was OK to back Paterno after he had done less than the bare minimum to stop a child rapist, has decided that it was morally outraged by a lying doping cheat.

"Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him,'' Nike said in a statement. "Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs in any manner.''

For the record, Nike never cut Alex Rodriguez's contract.

Armstrong played us all along, of course. Almost everyone knows that now. And when the allegations grew and grew, he continued to blame his accusers, point fingers at them. They were cheats. They were in it for money. They were in it for glory, or for spite, or for whatever.

I'd like to know what Armstrong was in this for. But the more he pointed fingers, the more Armstrong masterfully divided people. His defenders went stronger and stronger to his defense.

When the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency came out last week with all the evidence, all the allegations from his former teammates, well, it was just too overwhelming. The USADA described it as the most sophisticated doping scheme in recent sports history.

Armstrong said he wasn't going to fight back anymore.

You lost faith in him. Nike gave up.

The evidence made Armstrong look like more than just a doping cheat. He allegedly bullied his teammates to support him, threatened them, insisted they cheat, too.

So which one is Armstrong? The doping cheat or the guy who beat cancer and came back to support cancer victims and offer them hope?

Look, humans are complex. Armstrong can be both. He did great things, he did terrible things. We look too easily for labels. Good people do bad things sometimes. Bad people do good.

Armstrong still denies cheating. He wants you to believe that everyone around him was cheating, but not him. All of his teammates were cheating without his knowledge?

Nah, the number of believers don't add up for him anymore. His deny, deny, deny approach worked for a long time, but not anymore. It turns out that Armstrong is the biggest sports cheat in history, based on how he had billed himself. He's worse than the 1919 White Sox and Shoeless Joe Jackson, who portrayed themselves as ballplayers, not saints.

The moral? No moral. Sometimes you get caught. Roger Clemens denied, denied, denied, and the Astros were still thinking of letting him pitch a few weeks ago.

Armstrong becomes the new symbol for a generation of athletes. Baseball cheats, football, whatever. Armstrong is their leader now.

It's funny: When his seven Tour de France titles are finally, officially stripped, race officials say they won't name replacement winners. Everyone who finished in second or third during his Tour wins has either been busted for doping, too, or heavily accused.

It's the perfect end for the entire era of cycling, leaving seven years of the sport's biggest event blank.

But I want to get back to something else. Nike originally announced that it was standing by Armstrong. This week, the New York Daily News started questioning if Nike was involved in the Armstrong cover-up all along.

The newspaper noted that one of Armstrong's critics, Kathy LeMond, wife of cyclist Greg LeMond, testified under oath during a 2006 deposition that Nike paid cycling officials $500,000 to cover up a positive drug test. Nike denies the claim.

But Nike is doing now what businesses do. Protecting its brand.

Protecting it from Lance Armstrong. You thought it loved Lance Armstrong all those years? Sure. Business love.

If only Armstrong had had a little more sense from the start. At some point, he needed to just admit it. He needed to say that he was wrong and he was sorry. The media would have pointed out that everyone else in the sport was cheating, too.

And then some of the bullying and threats never would have come out. Armstrong could have still re-built his image, and his name.

His arrogance did him in as much as his cheating. Now, his name lies face-first in the gutter.

Quote
If only Armstrong had had a little more sense from the start. At some point, he needed to just admit it. He needed to say that he was wrong and he was sorry. The media would have pointed out that everyone else in the sport was cheating, too.

This is part of the problem. Not everyone was cheating.
During those years, it was impossible to be a tour contender
with out doping, but still many chose not to dope.
You can not justify your actions by saying everyone was doing it.

Hopefuly, all this craziness will contribute to a cleaner sport.
I have no problem with slower times and slower climbs.

One final thought on Lance: Learn to play chess, the only scenario where a bishop can take the queen from behind and not get arrested.

Quote
VT22
One final thought on Lance: Learn to play chess, the only scenario where a bishop can take the queen from behind and not get arrested.

He should have learned to keep low profile - then he wouldn't have had all the problems he has now. He was too arrogant to his surroundings - and that gave him lots of enemies who wanted to pull him down.

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
VT22
One final thought on Lance: Learn to play chess, the only scenario where a bishop can take the queen from behind and not get arrested.

He should have learned to keep low profile - then he wouldn't have had all the problems he has now. He was too arrogant to his surroundings - and that gave him lots of enemies who wanted to pull him down.

Checkmate, so to speak...

Case is closed.
Lance Amrstrong is now officially a cheater.

Lance Armstrong has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned for life after the International Cycling Union (UCI) said on Monday it had ratified the United States Anti-Doping Agency's (USADA) sanctions.

[www.abc.net.au]

Oh boy, such good news for so many of you.
I wonder now many people here will take a day off of work to celebrate?

oh come on Maxou don't be a bad player !
LA lost the battle so he deserves to be punished and that's all !

Still the UCI manages to embarrass itself. The titles will not be given to the second placed drivers. I think they fear that this will be an endless story since it's very likely that those drivers have doped too (you don't need to answer, Max, i know, not guilty, as long as...) .

If they gave the titles to the second or third placed riders they would have to pay them which is not necessarily a good news
by the way, I think it would be normal that LA gives the money back he earned for his 7 stolen titles !
he is a rich man, it should be no problem to him.

Well one would think that the second placed riders should get the money from Armstrong.
But that would be interessting to watch, since in this case the third placed riders must get the money from the second placed riders and so on till the drivers who finished last.
And thats also just a part of it, there is the additional money you get for winning sprint and so on.

The main problem for the sport isn't that one rider was doped it's the fact that almost every top cyclist are doped. Take a classic event like Tour de France: How many Frenchmen would approve of a halt of the tour due to the many doping cases? My guess: No one - it's a big industry that many people are dependent on.

Quote
jpasc95
oh come on Maxou don't be a bad player !
LA lost the battle so he deserves to be punished and that's all !

Wait a second, what happened to you accusing me being "QUITE CLEVER"?

Quote
jpasc95
It's quite clever from you Maxou cos you probably know that the ICU will never delete his 7 victories in Tour de France.

I wasnt being clever... I wasnt doing/saying anything except standing behind a man who rode in the race, and won 7 in a row, and said he was innocent.

But apparently he rode along side a bunch of other drug users and he was a drug user... and it is all a drug using, waste of time, cluster fk. Otherwise this has nothing to do with me.... except that I was so stupid stupid to give one shit about that stupid Tour de France. I am guilty of caring about that stupid race and standing behind a human who said he was innocent... but if they say he is guilty...then so be it. Oh well. FK IT ALL.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
I wont get fooled again... FK the tour de france, and cycling, forever.

All this case proves is that the sport of cycling is rigged... cycling has always been rigged.... and cycling will always be rigged. ALL OF THOSE RACERS WERE ON DRUGS... AND WE CARED ABOUT THEM??? HOW DUMB WERE WE? Cycling is just like boxing, it is a waste of time... it is simply a money making, rigged up, bullshit fest. I stopped watching boxing of any kind, long long ago, and now I stop watching cycling of any kind.

If anyone dreams that this is the end of cheating in the cycling sport, then you are fooling yourself.

All this case proves is how much time they wasted of anyone who ever watched, or cared about, any tour de france. This case convicts the Tour de France too... I was fooled.... and that wont happen again. Fuk the tour.

I wont ever watch the tour de france, or any bike race, again... why would I?