I hope that anyone that is getting a deal also gets any of their titles stipped for the same period that LA is getting his stripped for. I want the person that they cheated to get their win.

"You're so awesome, and smart. Plus you know everything about this topic and Kristin Armstrong. I bow down to your dominance, you are all that is mighty in this world.

By the way, just because someone is married doesn't mean that they can't have a boyfriend or a girlfriend or both. Don't be mad you're not hers."




You're adorable.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Zzzzz..... wake me up when this is over and they have awarded those 7 tours to nobody because everyone was guilty.


So you agree Lance is guilty of PED use and can now be classified as a Lance hater.

Well articulated, which I sometimes have difficulty doing.

Your later comment regarding simply wanting to see the excitement d the race, whether he doped or not, is where I would stand.

At this stage, regardless of sport, we see people doping at every level. Heck, I knew kids who did steroids to play on the 4th line of a Junior B hockey team...

Maybe it is the libertarian in me, but I'm not too keen on the, in my opinion, over-regulation of sport, drugs, PED's, etc.

Let us simply let it be in the open, do what you want and let's see who wins.

With regards to there not being enough money in triathlon to motivate people to do PED's, if people will do it to play junior B hockey or take beta blockers for biathlon, then there is enough money in triathlon for it to be rampant. Anytime you have a winner and a loser, you have incentive for cheating.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

x2

How many of us complain of injuries that take us away from the sport we love?

Look at the front page in the last week and there is at least 1 person who says they're sad that running is over due to issues.

How man of us have posted regarding Achilles issues (I couldnt function for the past 1-1/2 to 2 years because of it)...

If there was less stigma re PED's and therefore more research into increasing the value of some of the existing ones, while focusing on minimizing the downside risks, wouldn't most of us be better off?

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

As scary as it may sound, yes.

While JRenfro is being lambasted, I pretty much 100% agree with him.

His 3 arguments are well articulated and I would support them, with only the addition that regardless of Lance always testing clean, I believe he doped.

Bottom line, don't care and believe the restrictions against doping in sport should be removed.

Do what you want, and let's race!

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

Many of you forget that most of these individuals rode for U.S. Postal Service. If these guys were doping they were in breach of contract to that government agency. You cannot criminally prosecute someone for breach of contract which I believe is the reason why the U.S Attorney's Office investigation ended. Plus, the burden of proof in a civial action is easier to prove-preponderance of evidence (i.e. who is more truthful and believable) vs. beyond a reasonable doubt. Lance and the rest of the crew are simply being held accountable for breaking the law; no different than what has happened to Contador, Landis, Hamilton and the rest. That seems fair and impartial to me.

red herring

find an instance that graft or cartilege replacement is banned because it could be used as a PED? shit, even platelet replacement therapy is not banned by WADA

a drug that can be used as PED isn't made unavailable just because it could be abused. Dieuetics can be used as masking agents, yet they are widely available. Ditto for Procrit and Aranesp.

edit: further proof why your argument is just full of it. Procrit (made by Amgen but sold by J&J) and Epogen were the first generation epo. Aranesp was the second gen that came out in the early 2000's. EPO became widely used in the early 90's. So if what you are saying is true, then neither Aranesp nor CERA (third gen from 2007 ish) would have ever been approved for use, because, you know, while doping athletes constitute a very small percentage of users, we gotta keep them from the general public b/c of its implications in doping. What a load of BS

Bro, no way these guys know what a red herring is. I appreciate the logic though... Big fan.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

I really don't see the point in wasting millions of dollars to accomplish very little. Nothing in the sport will change via this action except fewer people will watch, leading to even more money loss. Might as well flush money down the toilet.

what happened to baseball attendance after the Congressional Hearings back in 2005?

oh, and while we are at it, guess how Milan San Remo ended during the years EPO was raging? For some 15+ years, only two ended with the break suceeding.

Guess how it ended up to 94? Only one mass sprint back in the 70's.

Or how it was recently? Two breaks in the last four years, and the size of the peloton reaching Via Romana was in the mid 20's as opposed to the mid 50's like in the middle 2000's.

What's more boring? massive sprint at the end or actually seeing some drama at the end?

And to agree further, ironic that Amgen is a sponser........

thanks. i try, but arguing with trolls...

not to mention they didn't test for EPO at the ToC in 2006. the company contracted to provide doping controls somehow forgot...

I suppose it's better than starting another lance thread. But at the same time I think live strong does good work. Hate him for allegedly doping but taking pot shots a the charity just seems unnecessary.

I apologize that you think I'm trolling.

Also, I appreciate you both believe I don't have the ability to understand what a red herring is given my educational background that you aren't even aware of.

Bottom line is that some people believe that everything we do in life should be dictated by rules that others set up for us because we can't make our own decisions. I've always viewed these rules as a means of dealing with everyone based on the lowest common denominator.

In my opinion, I don't believe we should be bound by all of these rules but instead be free to determine our own paths. By putting these rules in place, which add little value, we actually benefit cheaters because they are willing to break the rules. If the rules weren't there and we all had access to the same treatments, medicines, etc. then there would e no issue of who was on what.

As per my previous post, it would come down to simply "Do what you want and Let's Race!"...

Feel free to challenge my intelligence, reading comprehension, etc. without knowing me, but that doesn't have an impact on how I feel on this topic.

As well, I love the fact that you're both referring to our ability to understand a red herring argument, while referring to each other as 'bro...

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

please allow me to annotate this


blah blah blah, save it for discussion on objectivism in the lavender room.

wait, where does it say you can't use EPO if you are on dialysis or just received chemo? Where does it say that you can't use methamphetamines if you have ADD/ADHD? Who says you can't use steroids if you have hypogonadism? The rules are made by the FDA so that pharma (and i'm a chemist by trade, so i really do wish pharma well) don't go selling product that's harmful or not clinically proven. If you think FDA is trying to short-change you, maybe you ought to read about how Glaxo just paid $3B in penalties for its shenanigans. Yeah, big government, they real bad, much badder than the greedy execs who push for unproven off-label usage of drugs.

Pardon my ignorance, but i don't happen to know any other sanctioned use of erythropoietin. Unless of course you are saying you'd be for the exercising enhancement, in which case, that's the very definition of cheating by using PED.


Oh, and you still haven't retracted your original claim of how drug treatments are made unavaialble because of association with doping. I just thought of another counter example: vyvanse, which was recently release by Shire and is nothing more than a really long release form of methamphetamine. Gawd, how did that get past the scrutiny?

You completely miss the point, but this isn't the first reply where you've done so.

I'm not arguing that we don't have access to these medicines if we need them for certain reasons, as you've listed.

The argument, instead, is that there should be no rules / regulations with regards to the use of these medicines / treatments in sport.

In that situation, more people would be likely to utilize them without the fear of being branded a "cheater". As others have said, it simply creates a level playing field where we all know what the advantages / disadvantages of treatments are and make informed decisions based on the information available.

Instead, you'd rather have the rules and regulations in place, which simply allow someone who isn't afraid to break rules and is financially capable of beating the tests (i.e. Lance Armstrong) flourish.

My argument simply says, you can use whatever substances you want, I can use whatever substances I want, and let's go race. That way we can all stop whining about who was on which program and blah blah blah.

We're all well aware that the vast majority of what is taken was at some point, or currently still can, be used by people with a valid medical reason to need the drugs.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

Sadly I read this entire thread, and this whole "everyone should be free to dope" attitude is sufficiently stupid that I'm going to waste more of my time by replying.

Even if you don't believe in the concept of sportsmanship, or in sport as a celebration of what the human body is capable of (unaided by synthetic PEDs), there's a fatal flaw here...
Removing doping control does not give everyone the same access to treatment, medication, etc. It gives the advantage to those who can afford to dope and to have their usage carefully supervised. Established athletes would have more resources to devote to staying at the top and young talent would find it harder to shine. Removing doping control would place young people who wanted to get into competitive sport at any level in danger.

Worse still, the quote above says that by having rules we benefit those who are willing to break them. Really? Can we apply that same logic to legalize insider trading now? Or possibly fraud, bank robbery... any crime that breaks a law for the personal gain of the law-breaker?

Sport is about fair competition. It's about working hard and giving it your best shot. It's about losing gracefully and trying to win next time by training harder, showing more grit during the competition and playing smarter. Games need rules, if we didn't have them I might be riding a motorbike at my next triathlon. People who break the rules in a game they chose to play are cheats and should labelled as such. Those who wish to play within the rules should not be forced to decide between quitting and putting their bodies at risk from PED use because drug use is approved for those who just can't deal with a level playing field.

---

----------------------------------
http://ironvision.blogspot.com ; @drSteve1663

only because i was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't advocating for a free-for-all use of PED and was misguided in thinking that actual meds were hampered b/c ties to drugs.

Well then, how ironic, you lambast the "cheater" in your first post only to advocate for full on PED usage. You seem to have failed to see that your utopia of a plan will never lead to a "level" playing field. For starters, there will always be people who refuse to take PED's, whether due to moral or health considerations, and those who do will be taking PED are cheating. You probably also fail to realize that PED are medications, which have different effects on different people. In other words, it ain't gonna be a level field anyway, so why pretend PED will deliver a "level" playing field?

furthermore, you are forgetting that you are posting on a site for amateur racers. What do you suggest? People who can afford it should just get doped to the gills? Most of us participate knowing that we will never turn a profit, and we do it b/c we love the sport, not because of fame, glory, or money. If the people i'm competing against are instead doped to the gills, then i'd rather not compete at all than to do something harmful to myself.

Methinks you want male athletes to have shrunken balls and female athletes to look like this



i really wish that this were LetsRun so that WeJo would ban your ass for suggesting something so sinister and backing it up with something so illogical.

You raise some very valid points in reaction to my sufficiently stupid points, thanks for wasting your time on that.

Kidding aside, I do agree with much of what you say regarding the "purpose of sport" but I have significant issue with the concept of professional sports and "clean" athletes.

As most of the people throughout this thread have been saying, most of the Peloton was doping for 10+ years and likely still are doing so. Given that, how is proving that Lance doped and he is a "cheater" of any value?

You argue that if we opened the playing field to allow anyone to take any drugs they wanted that the young athletes would not be able to compete...that to me seems rediculous. Below we will walk through an example.

Lance Armstrong is a young racer and is fairly good with a lot of promise but as people throughout this thread say, wasn't necessarily showing that he had the promise to be what he became before comeback 1.

Perhaps, LA simply wasn't willing to take PED's at that stage of his career / age. Fast forward to comeback 1 after the cancer and possibly he is willing to play the game the rest of the peloton is playing because he's now had a new outlook on life.

Now we have an athlete who was young and had great talent but wasn't taking drugs being given the opportunity to see how he would perform if on the SAME level as his competitors and he excelled.

In this scenario, if you were correct, he never even would have had the opportunity as nobody would have given him a chance because he couldn't compete with the doped up cyclists. What you're missing is that someone would, and in this case likely did, say they would be willing to give him the opportunity and provide him with the RESOURCES to compete on the same level as his competition because they felt he would, all else equal, which it now was, WIN.

If you gave me the following two choices:

(1) Adequate PED policing so nobody had the ability to cheat the system or be "ahead" of the sport's policing; or,
(2) No performance enhancing drug rules.

I would choose #1 EVERY TIME; however, you can't do that. Instead you have a flawed system that only catches a percentage of the population that is violating the rules, while allowing others to flourish by being "ahead" of the rules perpetually.

In doing this, you're the one that is actually arguing for a system that rewards some at the expense of others.

I'm simply suggesting that until you have the ability to ensure that we are all on the level playing field, you step out of the wy and allow us to level it ourselves...

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

Well said and especially like the quote

---

http://www.abbeybiketools.com

If I were to actually be of the opinion that people who could afford drugs take them, then I would have taken drugs.

Personally, I would make the choice not to do so, but I am not competing as a professional who may be unable to compete with people that are taking them.

As I say in my post above, if you give me the choice between adequately policed PED testing that eliminates the ability of people to be "ahead" of the tests versus full PED availability, I choose the former.

Unfortunately, you and none of the drug policing bodies can do that. Given that problem, there are a vast majority of athletes across multiple sports that are "beating" the system and thereby disadvantaging other athletes who are abiding by the "rules".

As an alternative, if you removed the "banned substances" lists, anyone would be free to use PED's and it would not only be the current "cheaters" taking them.

What you fail to miss is that I haven't advocates in any of my posts above, I believe, that someone "cheat" by taking PED's. Instead I've thrown out the far swinging pendulum away from we need to police every single PED to let's police NONE. Under this scenario, taking PED's would not be "cheating", as there would be no banned substances.

Again, just so it's clear I'm not a drug pushing, PED using, crazy triathlete, I am simply using hyperbole to illustrate that the current system is broken and unless something drastically different is done, it will NEVER be a level playing field, despite what you or the other people who have taken my posts verbatim wish to believe.

While you ma claim that I am crazy because I post an admittedly crazy idea (ie no banned substances), I think you're crazier for believing that the current system allows clean athletes in MAJOR sports to flourish and prevents cheaters from prospering.

Off to bed now and loom forward to your reply in the morning during the train into work.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

pseudo-intellectuals advocating no banned substances are mostly just very uninformed. Most have no idea of the damage these substances can do.
I have complex medical conditions and am currently on Hydrocortisone, Testosterone (testogel) and HCG.
I am under the care of a Endocrinologist and have monthly blood tests, bone denisty scans, sperm tests, day curve tests etc, etc, etc,.
As a starter - HC - thins the bones, weakens tendons (blackbox warnings against taking HC and certain antibiotics)
Exogenous Testo - shuts down your own sperm production leading, eventually to infertility (hence small balls)

Imagine an 18 year old young buck having access to all the drugs without any of the care/guidance - a reciepe for disaster.

Thanks for that Tom. Like most people, I thought otherwise. So, they use the money for "awareness"? Why has that approach been taken?

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank