Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 138
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,791
    Landis could be in hotwater for attempting to blackmail the race director of the Tour of California and Lance.
    Goals for the season: -Try and pick up a sponsor.--Phill

    But whatever scares you most... --Rip'nStick

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,900
    Quote Originally Posted by ilikecandy View Post
    I'm no baseball fan but i think you are way, way off. It wasnt against the rules. I've never heard anything about him denying using
    MLB first banned steroids in 1991, and the ban has been in continual force since then. Canseco played from 1985 to 2001. The steroid ban was in place for 10 years of Canseco's playing years. Canseco first admitting using steriods in his book Juiced, which was published in 2005.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlpenChronicHabitual View Post
    At this point how are we supposed to know?
    If you are talking about Lance Armstrong's alleged use of PED's, there are numerous sources of evidence apart from Landis. They are discussed in the "specific allegations" section of LA's wiki entry. The handling of LA's body fluid specimens is rife with dubious activity. To some extent, one must rely on instinct to tell if someone is lying, which is part of what I do it for a living. LA manifests many traits consistent with mendacity. When LA is contronted allegations of drug use, he becomes shifty-eyed, speaks nervously, talks in vague general terms, twitches and reverts to a flat-affect delivery as if he is reciting a memorized speech.

    If you are talking about Landis's claims that PED were used widely in professional bicycle racing, there is overwhelming evidence that the sport of professional bicycle racing, at least in Europe, has been dirty with PED's for the past two or three decades.

    If you are talking about Landis: (a) see above comments re Canseco. The two cases are indistinguishable in my mind. (b) Landis's mea culpa, however disturbing and offensive, rings true. I heard a guy on NPR a few years ago who had written a book about frauds and pathological liars. The author was a recovering PL. He posited that, because a fraud/PL gets locked into a series of layered lies (i.e., a lie to cover a lie to cover a lie, etc., etc.), (s)he can recover from a fraudulent life only by delivering a full blown cathartic mea culpa. Anything short of that, he posed, would be as ineffective as an alcoholic or heroin addict merely cutting back. That all makes sense to me. And it makes further sense that Landis's mea culpa was, indeed, the cathartic mea culpa of a recovering fraud. If you want to pose another theory, have at it.

    Icons die hard. I understand the difficulty of accepting the possibility that LA is a fraud and a cheat.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sector 7G
    Posts
    5,693
    Two good posts big steve.
    This is the worst pain EVER!

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Steve View Post
    he becomes shifty-eyed, speaks nervously, talks in vague general terms, twitches and reverts to a flat-affect delivery as if he is reciting a memorized speech.
    ^^^ Yep.

    I thought you had to not be American to see this?
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  5. #80
    Hugh Conway Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by AlpenChronicHabitual View Post
    At this point how are we supposed to know?
    I mean, suppose he says he's telling the truth now, besides motive which may or may not support his statement, his credibility is shot.
    He took an oath to tell the truth, and didn't.
    From my perspective, he's digging a hole and it's getting deeper.
    versus Lance who, if doped, built an entire selfbased industry on lies?

    It's beating up the kid who told you the tooth fairy isn't real

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a parallel universe
    Posts
    4,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Steve View Post
    If you are talking about Landis: (a) see above comments re Canseco. The two cases are indistinguishable in my mind. (b) Landis's mea culpa, however disturbing and offensive, rings true. I heard a guy on NPR a few years ago who had written a book about frauds and pathological liars. The author was a recovering PL. He posited that, because a fraud/PL gets locked into a series of layered lies (i.e., a lie to cover a lie to cover a lie, etc., etc.), (s)he can recover from a fraudulent life only by delivering a full blown cathartic mea culpa. Anything short of that, he posed, would be as ineffective as an alcoholic or heroin addict merely cutting back. That all makes sense to me. And it makes further sense that Landis's mea culpa was, indeed, the cathartic mea culpa of a recovering fraud. If you want to pose another theory, have at it.

    Icons die hard. I understand the difficulty of accepting the possibility that LA is a fraud and a cheat.
    I wasn't very clear...
    Sorry for that.

    So, no I wasn't referring to LA.
    I believe that he doped, there is no question in my mind.
    The evidence is clearly there (and or conspicuously not).

    Big Steve...
    Your quote above is interesting, and seeing it in that light I can see your point. I guess my point is, if he lied about something, did so for an extended period of time (under oath), then came clean, then instantly turned around to then start leveling accusations against others (which might be true), he doesn't make a very credible witness and his testimony is tainted in my view.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ...big fog
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by AlpenChronicHabitual View Post
    I wasn't very clear...

    Big Steve...
    Your quote above is interesting, and seeing it in that light I can see your point. I guess my point is, if he lied about something, did so for an extended period of time (under oath), then came clean, then instantly turned around to then start leveling accusations against others (which might be true), he doesn't make a very credible witness and his testimony is tainted in my view.
    just goes to show, like I always said,: it ain't easy being pathological!
    one step forward, no step backward

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    EC
    Posts
    2,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Steve View Post
    If you are talking about Lance Armstrong's alleged use of PED's, there are numerous sources of evidence apart from Landis. They are discussed in the "specific allegations" section of LA's wiki entry.
    This is interesting:

    the AFLD gave Armstrong the opportunity to have samples taken during the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France retested.[76] Armstrong immediately refused, saying, "the samples have not been maintained properly." Head of AFLD Pierre Bordry stated: "Scientifically there is no problem to analyse these samples - everything is correct" and "If the analysis is clean it would have been very good for him. But he doesn't want to do it and that's his problem."[77]

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    CO/AK
    Posts
    2,125
    I'd guess most elite athletes that perform at such high levels are on something or other. Like 75% or more. They still haven't found a reliable way to test for HGH, and the testing organizations are so far behind the curve on whats available to these athletes that it's highly unlikely anyone gets caught. Football, baseball, basketball, even golf...if its a sport where the athletes get paid enough to take the risk, I'd guess they're doping.

    Anyone that thinks they're not is naive.

    We've won it. It's going to get better now. You can sort of tell these things.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,900
    Lance's s sphincter may be puckering when he reads today's news.

    Feds may probe into use of US Postal team funds to purchase PED's

    UCI to probe subject matter of Landis allegations.

    UCI is a kangaroo court, so maybe not a worry for Lance. But the feds are pretty fucking good at investigating fraud charges.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    EC
    Posts
    2,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Steve View Post
    Lance's s sphincter may be puckering when he reads today's news.

    Feds may probe into use of US Postal team funds to purchase PED's

    UCI to probe subject matter of Landis allegations.

    UCI is a kangaroo court, so maybe not a worry for Lance. But the feds are pretty fucking good at investigating fraud charges.
    Uh-oh

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Jongistan
    Posts
    5,322
    Pro-cycling is a dirty, dirty sport. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone other than maybe members of the general public who only know of Lance and choose to bury their head in the sand. Hopefully the fed gov. getting involved will help bring some more attention to this issue and clean the "sport" up a bit.

    That being said, let's assumed that Lance and every other pro cyclist juices. Does that take away anything from what he achieved? He still dominated over a field of equally juiced contenders. Not saying it's right by any means, just that it is still an accomplishment.

    Landis may be doing this for selfish reasons, but I'm glad more attention is being brought to this issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tunco perfectly summarizing TGR View Post
    It is like Days of Our Lives', but with retards.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,624
    yeah, that seems really sketchy
    ‎Preserving farness, nearness presences nearness in nearing that farness

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,900
    Quote Originally Posted by dumpy View Post
    None of this should come as a surprise to anyone other than maybe members of the general public who only know of Lance and choose to bury their head in the sand.
    Many, including some contributors to this thread, cling to the icon of LA as a clean athlete and pristine hero. It never made sense to me because he has many manifestations of a liar. See my previous comments on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by dumpy View Post
    That being said, let's assumed that Lance and every other pro cyclist juices. Does that take away anything from what he achieved?
    Yes, because he has parlayed his T de F wins into cultural icon status, propped up by his pompous denials of using PED's. He'll be exposed as a phony baloney, and that will greatly disappoint those who believed in him. LA is not Charles "I am not a role model" Barkley. LA is a guy who has passed himself off as a clean cut boy scout good guy, and made great effort to transcend pro cycling to become a much larger cultural force, and has profited greatly from it.

    And the fag drinks Michelob Ultra.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Milpitas, CA
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by dumpy View Post
    That being said, let's assumed that Lance and every other pro cyclist juices. Does that take away anything from what he achieved? He still dominated over a field of equally juiced contenders.
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Steve View Post
    Yes, because he has parlayed his T de F wins into cultural icon status, propped up by his pompous denials of using PED's. He'll be exposed as a phony baloney, and that will greatly disappoint those who believed in him. LA is not Charles "I am not a role model" Barkley. LA is a guy who has passed himself off as a clean cut boy scout good guy, and made great effort to transcend pro cycling to become a much larger cultural force, and has profited greatly from it.
    I don't think PED use, in the context of doing it to maintain a level playing field with his competitors who are all (apparently) doing it, detracts from that. He may be a phony for other reasons, but I can't crucify him or Landis or anyone else who was pretty much forced into using PEDs, even if they'd rather not have. It's easy to say they had a choice, but what kind of choice is it when not using severely hampers or eliminates your ability to compete at the highest level in a sport that you love and at which you're one of the best, PED use removed?

    I'm basically with dumpy, with the caveat that I don't know whether all were equally juiced: maybe some made more effective use of PEDs than others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tippster View Post
    Sometimes I think you guys are some of the smartest people on the web, other times I wonder if you were shaken as babies.

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Padded Room
    Posts
    5,311
    Quote Originally Posted by woodstocksez View Post
    I don't think PED use, in the context of doing it to maintain a level playing field with his competitors who are all (apparently) doing it, detracts from that. He may be a phony for other reasons, but I can't crucify him or Landis or anyone else who was pretty much forced into using PEDs, even if they'd rather not have. It's easy to say they had a choice, but what kind of choice is it when not using severely hampers or eliminates your ability to compete at the highest level in a sport that you love and at which you're one of the best, PED use removed?

    I'm basically with dumpy, with the caveat that I don't know whether all were equally juiced: maybe some made more effective use of PEDs than others.
    Remember when the story line was something like cancer changed his body and that was a contributing factor to him having a climbers physique? I mean, he was never known as a climber before that. I'm not sure when this EPO craze started, but the tour has been a very different race since Indurain won 5 in a row. I still wonder about that.
    .....Visit my website. .....

    "a yin without a yang"

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    EC
    Posts
    2,343
    The thing that always bothered me about him is the fact he could basically win the Tour at will, like he wasn't trying. I wouldn't think that was bad if it were purely talent, but it was like he just kick it into another gear that nobody in the world had- it didn't seem legit.

    This seems rather significant

    http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cyclin...ory?id=5222488

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    9,400
    Strategy still played a part, but I want to see a clean tour and i wonder how that would look.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,251
    Quote Originally Posted by woodstocksez View Post
    I don't think PED use, in the context of doing it to maintain a level playing field with his competitors who are all (apparently) doing it, detracts from that. He may be a phony for other reasons, but I can't crucify him or Landis or anyone else who was pretty much forced into using PEDs, even if they'd rather not have. It's easy to say they had a choice, but what kind of choice is it when not using severely hampers or eliminates your ability to compete at the highest level in a sport that you love and at which you're one of the best, PED use removed?

    I'm basically with dumpy, with the caveat that I don't know whether all were equally juiced: maybe some made more effective use of PEDs than others.


    Even if I agreed with you, Floyd was reported to spend $80K/year on PED's at the peak. Think every pro tour cyclist has that kind of coin? Bike racing in yurp is fairly blue collar. There's nothing right about a system where access to money increases your probability of success in an athletic event.

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,624
    Quote Originally Posted by DasBlunt View Post
    Strategy still played a part, but I want to see a clean tour and i wonder how that would look.
    i think 2008 was one of the cleaner races. considering lance came back and said 2008 was the weakest tour ever, i think there was a reason...
    ‎Preserving farness, nearness presences nearness in nearing that farness

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    424
    The people who comment in here who haven't read any serious books about pro cycling (not Lance's books) ,EPO , transfusion blood doping , hematocrit levels , transfusion blood dilution , etc have no idea .

    All top pro riders are dirty .

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Milpitas, CA
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by huckbucket View Post
    Even if I agreed with you, Floyd was reported to spend $80K/year on PED's at the peak. Think every pro tour cyclist has that kind of coin? Bike racing in yurp is fairly blue collar. There's nothing right about a system where access to money increases your probability of success in an athletic event.
    Didn't make it to the second paragraph?

    Quote Originally Posted by woodstocksez View Post
    I'm basically with dumpy, with the caveat that I don't know whether all were equally juiced: maybe some made more effective use of PEDs than others.
    And isn't it true for all sports that access to money generally increases your probability of success?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tippster View Post
    Sometimes I think you guys are some of the smartest people on the web, other times I wonder if you were shaken as babies.

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Agrestic
    Posts
    4,820
    Quote Originally Posted by woodstocksez View Post
    And isn't it true for all sports that access to money generally increases your probability of success?
    Yep, all those pro basketball players who were raised by single mothers in the ghetto were rolling in the dough before their first contracts.

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    9,400
    Quote Originally Posted by nick > jesus View Post
    i think 2008 was one of the cleaner races. considering lance came back and said 2008 was the weakest tour ever, i think there was a reason...
    while you might be right, hearing the latest, about EPO being used to mask other doping procedures, i doubt we have ever seen a clean tour de france.

    i used to ride a bunch of road bikes in the 80s in the Napa and Sonoma valleys. Greg LeMond passed us on a climb while he was training. I raced a bit too. Cycling racing is the hardest sport in the world. recovery is hell, training is hell, trying to be a normal person while not racing or training is hell, besides, you can really never not train. I can see why they do it, but do not agree with it.

    I would love to see who really can win the Tour without the recovery aids, and also/then see Lances record broken.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •