Lance Armstrong to be stripped of medals
- Thread starter shadowstriker86
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Where have you been new boy, that doesn't exist in real life anymore. Once you are accused, the stigma of being guilty doesn't go away, no matter how well you prove your innocence.Halyah said:
Lance Armstrong is a great american athlete. period.
He was robbed by very little men that cannot understand or accept his level of athleticism.
He is a champion in my eye, and he was robbed.
He's obviously guilty, but stripping his titles from a time when pretty much everyone was at it is wrong - how far down the field are they going to have to go to find an honest cyclist ffs?
If you aren't caught within five years then you got away with it is how it should be.
If you aren't caught within five years then you got away with it is how it should be.
Yeah thats one thing that did strike me as odd. As you say Armstrong must've been a real dick or the other thought I had was that now that Hincapie has retired hey may have wanted to set the record straight after all those years of seeing Armstrong playing the hero and getting rich off the back of cheating. Road cycling has largely cleaned itself up over the last few years, and seeing the tour won fairly by clean riders and knowing that Armstrong cheated his way to 7 victories could have also been part of it.dyre said:
Ehh, I don't know. The sides of the issue make it hard to come to a definitive decision.
Pro's: It completely understandable that Armstrong would finally say "fuck it" after being accused of taking drugs for 10 plus years straight, and proving himself innocent again and again. The USADA is, in effect, hunting him specifically, he is retired, and having already proven himself innocent in the past. Yet, they are coming after him anyway, with some rather suspect evidence, in that it is largely verbal accusations from people who may or may not have motives to see him "fall".
Con's: Armstrong could be quitting to avoid being proven guilty. Quitting is not in his character, and usually innocent people don't back down from accusations. He was competing against known drug users and still won more times than any of them, that does look suspicious. The evidence, if true, and verfied, could be damning.
Either way, he beat cancer, and won titles after that. Even if he was using drugs, he is still one of the top athletes in the world. ( bearing in mind that drugs do not turn you into superman, they merely extend your own personal limitations, and in cycling while that would be a huge advantage, it would not be enough to give you a clear cut win, as evidenced by the drug users that still placed second to Armstrong)
Pro's: It completely understandable that Armstrong would finally say "fuck it" after being accused of taking drugs for 10 plus years straight, and proving himself innocent again and again. The USADA is, in effect, hunting him specifically, he is retired, and having already proven himself innocent in the past. Yet, they are coming after him anyway, with some rather suspect evidence, in that it is largely verbal accusations from people who may or may not have motives to see him "fall".
Con's: Armstrong could be quitting to avoid being proven guilty. Quitting is not in his character, and usually innocent people don't back down from accusations. He was competing against known drug users and still won more times than any of them, that does look suspicious. The evidence, if true, and verfied, could be damning.
Either way, he beat cancer, and won titles after that. Even if he was using drugs, he is still one of the top athletes in the world. ( bearing in mind that drugs do not turn you into superman, they merely extend your own personal limitations, and in cycling while that would be a huge advantage, it would not be enough to give you a clear cut win, as evidenced by the drug users that still placed second to Armstrong)
I come to this debate, pretty much neutral. I've always admired Lance Armstrong from afar - as in, respect and understand his achievements without making him a personal hero.
But I think you would have to be naive in the extreme to think that these accusations are baseless or that he truly is "too weary" to contest the charges.
For one thing, you do not have 10 people, particularly fomer friends and teammates level accusations that you committed the same crime and that they personally witnessed that crime unless there is some foundation to those allegations. Furthermore, a "clean" test is not proof that no performance enhancing drugs have been taken - just that none have been detected. "Proving" the absence of something is near impossible - just take the whole God debate.
Think about it. If you threatened someone with violence in plain view of 10 people, and those 10 people testified to police that you had done so, what should the jury be concerned with? That 10 people heard you threaten that person, or the fact that nobody caught it on tape?
Then there is this idea of "innocent until proven guilty" floating around. If you fail to contest charges, this is a tacit admission of guilt. Again, if you committed any other crime and refused to contest the charge, you would be found guilty.
But I think you would have to be naive in the extreme to think that these accusations are baseless or that he truly is "too weary" to contest the charges.
For one thing, you do not have 10 people, particularly fomer friends and teammates level accusations that you committed the same crime and that they personally witnessed that crime unless there is some foundation to those allegations. Furthermore, a "clean" test is not proof that no performance enhancing drugs have been taken - just that none have been detected. "Proving" the absence of something is near impossible - just take the whole God debate.
Think about it. If you threatened someone with violence in plain view of 10 people, and those 10 people testified to police that you had done so, what should the jury be concerned with? That 10 people heard you threaten that person, or the fact that nobody caught it on tape?
Then there is this idea of "innocent until proven guilty" floating around. If you fail to contest charges, this is a tacit admission of guilt. Again, if you committed any other crime and refused to contest the charge, you would be found guilty.