RoonMian said:
Why is everybody claiming he was never caught cheating? 1999 he and 16 others had a eleveted level of corticosteroids found in a brand new kind of test the athletes didn't know about in advance.
So why wasn't he banned from cycling then, in 1999? I don't understand this. If it (apparently) wasn't a big enough deal then, why is it now?
Darkgoosey666 said:
Hello everyone, this is his official statement on the matter
http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armstongs-statement-of-august-23-2012
Definitely worth a read.
That was indeed interesting. Especially because of what he said about how USADA has no jurisdiction, and that a federal court, UCI, and USA Cycling basically all think that USADA has made great mistakes, doesn't play by their own rules and just generally sucks. Does anyone know just how founded these allegations by Armstrong are? Because it seems to me that if the USADA has no jurisdiction, and the bodies who do think USADA's procedures are improper, than what is the big deal?
My opinion is that this is all incredibly said. Whether he took doping or not. If he did do it, than I can understand why the USADA would want to bring him to justice, but they didn't have to be so goddamn gleeful about it. The man is a hero to millions of people, and the USADA should realize that if they are right, that is incredibly said news. But now it seems like they're basically dancing in the street, singing about how they're going to strip away titles that they have no say over. This alone makes them extremely suspicious in my mind, and the fact that they drafted the stupid and immoral rule that they don't even have to prove their accusations if a cyclist chooses not to fight only makes that worse (I don't care if the cyclists agreed to it, it is still a monstrous rule).
Also, I understand that they keep blood samples from doping tests on file. If that's true, why can't they just test Armstrong's old samples with today's technology for the specific drugs that they "know" he used? That would prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is guilty. And I know that because of their dumbass rules, the USADA doesn't have to do that, but I just really wish they would. Between Armstrong not fighting and USADA not proving anything, it seems we will never really learn the truth, and that just makes me said.
It also makes me wonder about whether maybe the cycling world is a little too strict about doping. I mean, yes, maybe 90% of the cyclists are big fat cheaters. But I've also heard an interview with a long-retired cyclist (who I don't think was ever caught) who said that it really isn't much worse than in other sports. The governing bodies just seem a bit overzealous. It almost seems that if you took a sip of coffee in 1998 it will disqualify your from this year's Tour.
JoeCool385 said:
Did you just glance over the part of your quote where it says it increases the chances of heart attack, stroke, and pulmonary embolism? Maybe it doesn't increase the risk greatly, but still. Furthermore, it seems to me that tapping and re-inserting your own blood could go wrong if you don't know what you're doing. Perhaps it would be safe (enough) if you have professional help, but many starting athletes won't have that. If all the professional athletes are using this doping, than it almost becomes necessary for ambitious non-professionals to do the same, but for them it would be very unsafe.
In fact, this applies in general. Some kinds of doping may not be unsafe or unfair for well-paid professional athletes, because they can all afford them and required the safety measures. But if you allow it, some amateurs may also want to use it. Some will not have the money for the doping itself (which is unfair), and some won't have the money for the required professional help (which is unsafe).
