Doping row continues

[nikalas]

As more and more evidence comes to light and more of Armstrong's former team-mates fall, it does indeed cast a considerable shadow over his career. However, as has already been pointed out, he is probably the most tested athlete on the planet and would have taken far more tests than his team mates. If they've tested positive, why hasn't he? The untestable and unprecedented factor that can never be measured is the physiological and psychological effect that surviving cancer had on him. He was an extremely talented cyclist before the cancer and the profound effect that the illness had on his physical parameters, ability to deal with pain and his drive could account for his performance. It's a sequence of events and conditions that have never happened to, will probably never happen again and can't be artificially replicated. Were his team mates doping just to keep up with him? It's possible.

I'm not an Armstrong fan but do think he could be an exceptional case or even a freak.

[nikalas]

I've got to say it, you don't half talk some rubbish Nikalas.

Has to be considered... Indurain was born a freak, maybe Armstrong's cancer made him one.

[shaunaneto]

I've got to say it, you don't half talk some rubbish Nikalas.

I don't think it's necessary to define someone's opinion as rubbish, disagreeing with them and debating the point is fine. Defining there opinion as trash is not!

[Gambatte]

Just my logic, for what is worthed@

1) some want to cheat
2) because some want to cheat, the body must have tests
3) If a guy fails a test, action must be taken.
4) If he guy does NOT fail a test, we must believe he's clean.

Funny thing is:
some NEVER fail a test, but the public still point them as guilty (Armstrong)
some DO fail a test (or "forget" it: Ohrugu, Ferdinand), but the public still view them as clean.

Right or wrong I trust the tests: fail (or "forget") is guilty, pass is clean.
I know it's not perfect but is the best we can do.

[nikalas]

Next you'll be telling us that dead men can come out of their graves to win the tour.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hami...-on-60-minutes

I've watched the interview and it's really not as convincing as I expected. I'll admit, the original report does carry a lot of weight though. That said, innocent until proven guilty has to apply in this and all cases. Once guilt has been established, not just insinuated, as I've stated before I'm all for life bans and all race results of the guilty athlete being stricken from the record. I don't like to hang a man unless I'm 100% sure though.

[nikalas]

I don't think it's necessary to define someone's opinion as rubbish, disagreeing with them and debating the point is fine. Defining there opinion as trash is not!

Don't worry, it means he knows he's on shaky ground once he starts getting personal and it's better than bizarre analogies about goats and sloths.

[nikalas]

If someone comes on with a valid point then it's worth debating. When some start claiming a man on his death bed can 12-18 months later win the hardest cycling event in the world because he was on his death bed, then I have to tell it as it is.

That is, they are talking RUBBISH!!

Diagnosis in October 1996, last chemo in December 1996. All of 1997 training. Racing and training as a pro with the Tour in mind in Jan 1998. First Tour win in July 1999... slightly different timescale to the one you're suggesting and, as I said before, a case that has never and will never be repeated. The physiological and psychological changes in him could have been massive. I'm not saying he isn't guilty of doping and wouldn't be massively surprised if he was found so but I'd prefer to investigate all options and have solid evidence before passing judgement.

[shaunaneto]

Recently read 'Its not about the bike' by the man himself. He certainly doesn't claim it to be rubbish, I think I'll wait for the US legal systems verdict before coming to any conclusion.

[daz h]

I've watched the interview and it's really not as convincing as I expected. I'll admit, the original report does carry a lot of weight though. That said, innocent until proven guilty has to apply in this and all cases. Once guilt has been established, not just insinuated, as I've stated before I'm all for life bans and all race results of the guilty athlete being stricken from the record. I don't like to hang a man unless I'm 100% sure though.

I agree. Hamilton didnt convince me one bit.
He looked like a startled cat

[daz h]

If someone comes on with a valid point then it's worth debating. When some start claiming a man on his death bed can 12-18 months later win the hardest cycling event in the world because he was on his death bed, then I have to tell it as it is.

That is, they are talking RUBBISH!!

It took me 7 years to get third at the passing clouds race, anythings possible christopher. Lol