walshb wrote: » Why are you despairing? Where are the positive tests to show he used PEDs?
Glass Prison 1214 wrote: » if you had read this thread then you would have found it posted a few days ago
Rofo wrote: » LOL - from The Onion back in 2010:http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance-armstrong-wants-to-tell-nation-something-but,17973/
mcgratheoin wrote: » Ok, so first question is are you saying that a positive lab test is the only criteria by which anybody should ever be found guilty of doping? Second question is, do you accept any of the testimony given to the USADA as factual? (kinda moot if your answer is yes to the first question)
walshb wrote: » Can you source that please so I can read up.
Undercover Elephant wrote: » To be fair, that particular one is not very good. "Fully consistent with doping" is not the same as "inexplicable except by doping".
GlennaMaddy wrote: » some positives from this debacle b) smaller numbers taking out A4 and A3 licences, and a return to 'normal' bunch sizes Any more?
GlennaMaddy wrote: » some positives from this debacle a) discounted Nike Cycling gear to appear in store soon b) smaller numbers taking out A4 and A3 licences, and a return to 'normal' bunch sizes c) My personal pro cycling idols are still clean. Any more?
NeedMoreGears wrote: » J... Half way down the page was what appeared to be an advert for "EPO Cyclist Supplments". Must click on it at home later
ThisRegard wrote: » Wow, I don't think Nike would ditch him this quick, I thought they'd at least wait until after the UCI made some sort of statement. the thing is, they've probably made as much money as they can out of him at this stage. There's not a lot to be made from a retired cyclist or if they make much from tri gear.
wpd wrote: » I think Lance may be about to come clean Thinking about it, its his only play from where he is now
Vladimir Kurtains wrote: » walshb carded for trolling. Please don't post on this thread again.
leftism wrote: » This is a knee-jerk reaction to the recent accusations that Nike themselves paid large sums of money to Verbruggen at the exact same time that Lance was alleged to have tested positive in 2001. No smoke without fire...
walshb wrote: » Is that your answer?
corny wrote: » Didn't they all do that? Were Ullrich, Hamilton, Mr. 60% not trying to maximise the cheating for their own benefit????
corny wrote: » The only difference between them, on the drugs issue, was that Ferrari didn't **** up and give Armstrong someone elses blood like Fuentes.
corny wrote: » In the early nineties what Ferrari did with Gewiss proves he was the man. 1,2,3 in Fleche Wallone, winnner of the Giro, second in the tour, winner of Lombardia. They set the TTT record average speed at the tour only to be broken by... you guessed it Lance and Discovery 10 years later. What he said about EPO being like orange juice nailed his colours to the mast. He was going to bend the rules to their fullest on his journey with or without Armstrong which was my point before you accused me of being duplicitous.
corny wrote: » Its de rigeur to think of Armstrong at the head of affairs leading (Stalinesque) the peloton down the slippery slope but the reality is he was just playing the game with scores of people who thought the same way about drugs in cycling. That was my original point btw, disagree if you must.
Mergal wrote: » When this broke last week they interviewed a guy from Team sky not sure who it was, could have been Froome, and he defended Armstrong, claiming anybody who came back from cancer to win 7 TDFs is incredible. Also when Wiggins was being interviewed by the BBC prior to racing in the Olympics he mentioned Armstrong when asked about his future,he said something along the lines of 'well i'm not gonna try do what Lance did and go for 7.' You would have to think that someone like Wiggins would have been well aware of Armstrong's shenanigans, so why make reference to him. Probably nothing, but I found it slightly curious.
walshb wrote: » Armstrong says he didn't dope. And, yes, he would say that, but where are the test results to say he doped? I am aware of the 1999 test.
wpd wrote: » I think Lance may be about to come clean
petethedrummer wrote: » In '99 it is pretty well accepted that most of the other riders stopped or more likely curtailed their doping.
Beasty wrote: » Hang on, hang on - I know this one ... ... Colonel Mustard in the Library with the Kitchen knife??
Lusk Doyle wrote: » How come the poll adds up to 101%???