USADA to strip Lance Armstrong of 7 Tour titles

[QuickZ06]

Whatever. I take the liberty to correct people's grammar more liberally on the internet, but apparently that makes me more anti-liberty, according to you. I just hate how if you don't like someone's attitude on this forum, you just say I'm not "liberty-minded" because I have a bad attitude at times. It makes no sense and is stupid. It also has nothing to do with this liberty movement as a whole, so you can quit that little spiel.

Do you really have to get all grammar nazi? You knew what I meant and just had to throw the WOW JUST WOW in there yet you said nothing about the rest of the 40 post I posted in this thread. Yes with that attitude you will drive people away and probably already have.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Do you really have to get all grammar nazi? You knew what I meant and just had to throw the WOW JUST WOW in there yet you said nothing about the rest of the 40 post I posted in this thread. Yes with that attitude you will drive people away and probably already have.

EXTENDED NOTE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (see post #120): All persons are hereby required to respond to QuickZ06's posts only in ways that he would respond himself. All other behaviors are anti-liberty and will be dealth with with appropriate sanctions on the offender.

I don't really care about your grammar. Your response to my constructive criticism is what I don't like. Although perhaps I will be less condescending. I refuse to be labeled anti-liberty just because you don't like my attitude, though.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Lance tested positive twice for banned substances. He claimed it was still in his system due to the anti-cancer drugs he had been taking. Most people in cycling do not buy that.

Actualy his only "failed" test was in 1999 when he tested positive for cortisone cream which was used to treat saddle sores.
http://cyclistsinternational.com/?p=2913

Armstrong has always claimed that he was one of the “most tested,” athletes in the sport, and in any sport worldwide, with over 500 tests over the time that he competed during the time in question, from 1998 to 2007.

And the Yellow Jersey winner never failed one of those tests, with the exception of a finding of cortisone cream use in 1999 for treating saddle sores, charges which Armstrong was cleared of.

Which leads us to the question: what was the USADA pursuing in their complaint against him? Problem is, not even Armstrong knew, which went against the agency’s own rules.

Ten people were lined up to testify against Armstrong in the proceedings, among them allegedly was BMC Team racer George Hincapie who at least at some point in his career was a good friend of Armstrong’s.

Presumably, the USADA prosecutors had real evidence against Hincapie, thereby drawing him into the process. The complaint from USADA said that their witnesses would present testimony that Armstrong took EPO and other performance enhancing drugs, but also foisted those drugs on them.

Hincapie declared at the beginning of this year’s Tour that this would be his last Tour de France, and that he was retiring from professional racing–a preparation perhaps for the information that would come out in the proceedings.

Now, Armstrong has robbed the USADA of their trial which would have displayed the drug allegations against the 10 witnesses, and would have included their verbal testimony against the champion, but would not have provided an ounce of physical evidence against him.

In fact, none of the investigators realize that the way Armstrong won the Tour seven times was not by being the strongest and fastest rider, but by playing the Tour like a chess game–he was the smartest.

Why don’t they know that? To put it simply, they’re Americans who think every game is played with brute force and don’t understand that cunning, planning, and being fit have made the Europeans far superior cyclists.

It is not always the fastest or strongest who wins in cycling but making the right moves at the right time which puts you into a position to win.

 

[QuickZ06]

EXTENDED NOTE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (see post #120): All persons are hereby required to respond to QuickZ06's posts only in ways that he would respond himself. All other behaviors are anti-liberty and will be dealth with with appropriate sanctions on the offender.

I don't really care about your grammar. Your response to my constructive criticism is what I don't like. Although perhaps I will be less condescending. I refuse to be labeled anti-liberty just because you don't like my attitude, though.

HAHA, apparently you do. And I told you I have no problem with being correct but it was the tone and manner in which you said it, like you are some superior gammar god. And I never labeled you as ANIT anything especially liberty, again with people putting words in my mouth.

 

[RickyJ]

It is not always the fastest or strongest who wins in cycling but making the right moves at the right time which puts you into a position to win.

It doesn't have much to do with strength at all, it is an endurance competition, not a sprinting competition. It has to do with skill and endurance. You must know when to break away and go for it, and when to lay low and let others take the lead. It isn't exactly rocket science, all professional riders know this. What separates the top riders in endurance cycling is very little. One small advantage could mean the difference between winning or finishing in last place. They are all great athletes, but many have a win at all costs attitude. You can believe what you want about Lance, but his refusal to even the fight the charges anymore should tell you something.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Actualy his only "failed" test was in 1999 when he tested positive for cortisone cream which was used to treat saddle sores.
http://cyclistsinternational.com/?p=2913




It is not always the fastest or strongest who wins in cycling but making the right moves at the right time which puts you into a position to win.

The US Government investigated Armstrong- as they did Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds for two years before the USADA announced their investigation- and the case was quietly dropped on Super Bowl weekend so nobody would notice. And he was investigated several times before that- again, all were dropped. In his recent attempt via lawsuit to stop the USADA case, the judge there (who was ruling simply on jurisdiction) criticized the USADA case saying if that was presented in his court with the evidence the reportedly had, he would have thrown them out of his coutroom. He was tested and investigated repeatedly while he was still racing too. He would have been incredibly stupid to be doping when he knew everything he did was being watched.

 

[tttppp]

It doesn't have much to do with strength at all, it is an endurance competition, not a sprinting competition. It has to do with skill and endurance. You must know when to break away and go for it, and when to lay low and let others take the lead. It isn't exactly rocket science, all professional riders knows this. What separates the top riders in endurance cycling is very little. One small advantage could mean the difference between winning or finishing in last place. They are all great athletes, but many have a win at all costs attitude. You can believe what you want about Lance, but his refusal to even the fight the charges anymore should tell you something.

If he was innocent, he'd be able to get an attorney to take his case for free. There are plenty of really good lawyers willing to work just for the publicity.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

HAHA, apparently you do. And I told you I have no problem with being correct but it was the tone and manner in which you said it, like you are some superior gammer god. And I never labeled you as ANIT anything especially liberty, again with people putting words in my mouth.

I still fail to see how your packaged response which you offered to me is more "liberty-minded" as per your exact quote. It just has nothing to do with it, but you did try that angle, so don't act like you didn't. It was quite foolish.

I am superior to most people in terms of grammar (not gammer). I do not apologize for making that statement.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It doesn't have much to do with strength at all, it is an endurance competition, not a sprinting competition. It has to do with skill and endurance. You must know when to break away and go for it, and when to lay low and let others take the lead. It isn't exactly rocket science, all professional riders knows this. What separates the top riders in endurance cycling is very little. One small advantage could mean the difference between winning or finishing in last place. They are all great athletes, but many have a win at all costs attitude. You can believe what you want about Lance, but his refusal to even the fight the charges anymore should tell you something.

Sometimes it has quite a bit to do with sprinting. Breakaway groups usually fail. The peloton usually catches up to them and whoever can sprint the fastest to the line after idling along for the ride in the pack gets the stage win. That why Mark Cavendish was often successful.

EDIT: That's not always the case in the mountain stages, but the early stages do usually favor sprinters.

 

[Zippyjuan]

It doesn't have much to do with strength at all, it is an endurance competition, not a sprinting competition. It has to do with skill and endurance. You must know when to break away and go for it, and when to lay low and let others take the lead. It isn't exactly rocket science, all professional riders knows this. What separates the top riders in endurance cycling is very little. One small advantage could mean the difference between winning or finishing in last place. They are all great athletes, but many have a win at all costs attitude. You can believe what you want about Lance, but his refusal to even the fight the charges anymore should tell you something.

It is actually more of a team sport as well- which casual observers may not realize. You cannot win without a good team. If a challenger takes off, you or somebody on your team must try to chase them down or keep an eye on them- not letting them get too far ahead. When you get to the difficult climbs (where the race is often decided) it is not the lead rider but the support riders doing all of the work- the team leader sitting behind them conserving his energy for the finale (drafting behind another rider can save about 30% of the effort the guy in front is putting out). One guy "pulls" for as long and as hard as he can and then he drops aside and the next teammate takes his turn until they are burned out and the leader is on his own. If you don't have as many teammates who can keep up, then you have to do a lot more work and expend more energy which makes you more vulnerable.

Another note about tactics is that they are not racing as hard as they can the entire stage. Except for some riders trying to get off on their own or in small groups for a stage victory, the top riders are hanging out in the pack taking it easy (and keeping an eye on each other). They won't push it hard until nearer the end of the stage (some of which can be over 200 miles and last for hours and hours).

The only really important times during the Tour (generally) are on long climbing stages (where the weak and the weak teams get exposed) and in time trials which are races against the clock (these can be either individual or team) where riders go against the clock and ride alone (unless it is a team time trial) and cannot use any tactics or help from teammates. Small gains in time on these stages are what will separate the winner from the rest of the competitors.

And if you try to make your move too soon you risk running out of energy before you reach the finish line and getting caught by the others chasing after you.

 

[QuickZ06]

I still fail to see how your packaged response which you offered to me is more "liberty-minded" as per your exact quote. It just has nothing to do with it, but you did try that angle, so don't act like you didn't. It was quite foolish.

I am superior to most people in terms of grammar (not gammer). I do not apologize for making that statement.

I already stated I meant friendly or can you only read what you want? And who exactly have you not smart mouthed off to on this forum just to get a rise?

And that last part is a real gem. You just keep on keepin on.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I already stated I meant friendly or can you only read what you want? And who exactly have you not smart mouthed off to on this forum just to get a rise?

And that last part is a real gem. You just keep on keepin on.

I think this grammar war has about run its course. It is going nowhere very fast.

 

[QuickZ06]

I think this grammar war has about run its course. It is going nowhere very fast.

 

[Bruno]

And...now he admits it.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I think this grammar war has about run its course. It is going nowhere very fast.

Source?

*snicker*

 

[pochy1776]

i don;t want to live on a planet where accusations could kill people

 

[LibertyEagle]

I am extremely disappointed in him.

 

[Bruno]

i don;t want to live on a planet where accusations could kill people

But he is admitting it.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

But he is admitting it.

Is it incentivised somehow? (Real question... I have no idea...)

 

[Bruno]

Is it incentivised somehow? (Real question... I have no idea...)

No idea what he would get out of it aside from a clear conscience. Far more to lose, I would think. But I doubt he would all of a sudden lie that he was in fact doping.