Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
It's one thing when caught cheaters Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton claim Lance used. It is another when the highly respected George Hincapie, never caught and Armstrong's closes riding buddy says "Lance and I used together."
I think the jig is up.
And it doesn't surprise me in the least.
These PED's WORK! Ordinarily the gap between top competitors at a world class level is measured in a fraction of 1%. Pretty clearly these drugs improve performance (where it can be measured) by 5%+. Now we know, because they were either caught or admitted cheating, that every significant competitive force during Armstrong's reign was using.
So, in order to believe Lance was clean you had to believe he was better clean than everyone else was dirty. That implies he would have been 5%+ better than everyone else clean vs. clean. Let's try to put that in perspective.
Sprinting Revolution Usain Bolt holds the 100 meter record at 9.58 seconds. That is 1.6% below the best time by another runner.
Micahel Phelps best event is the probably the 200 butterfly. His world record time is 1.1% below the next best time swum by another.
The likelihood Lance is 5% better? Every year for seven years?
Anyone care to take that bet?
This also ought to make anyone who believes passing WADA random tests equals being clean rethink that stance.
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Captain America
Lance Armstrong is one of, if not the, most tested athletes in the world.
Does it look like he's dirty when you lay out all the facts, as you have, and take all the first hand testimony from his team mates in to account? Yes!
Has he ever tested positive? No!
If you assume the most tested man out there is dirty based on his skill/ability and hearsay, and not test results, then you must assume every top athlete is using. There is zero hard evidence that Armstrong used PEDs, period. Until he tests dirty, he's not guilty.
Wasn't there some controversy regarding a dirty test in the past?
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Captain America
Lance Armstrong is one of, if not the, most tested athletes in the world.
Does it look like he's dirty when you lay out all the facts, as you have, and take all the first hand testimony from his team mates in to account? Yes!
Has he ever tested positive? No!
If you assume the most tested man out there is dirty based on his skill/ability and hearsay, and not test results, then you must assume every top athlete is using. There is zero hard evidence that Armstrong used PEDs, period. Until he tests dirty, he's not guilty.
I think you're starting point is dead wrong. Marion Jones NEVER tested dirty, Shane Mosely NEVER tested dirty. The testers are so far behind it isn't funny.
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CFH
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Captain America
Lance Armstrong is one of, if not the, most tested athletes in the world.
Does it look like he's dirty when you lay out all the facts, as you have, and take all the first hand testimony from his team mates in to account? Yes!
Has he ever tested positive? No!
If you assume the most tested man out there is dirty based on his skill/ability and hearsay, and not test results, then you must assume every top athlete is using. There is zero hard evidence that Armstrong used PEDs, period. Until he tests dirty, he's not guilty.
Wasn't there some controversy regarding a dirty test in the past?
Yes, he tested positive for a hormone and for EPO from samples taken in 1999. But because the samples were handled in a questionable way Armstrong wasn't sanctioned.
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
so Manny is a cheat right? Thought I'd add that since someone will get to it sooner or later ;)
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
It's one thing when caught cheaters Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton claim Lance used. It is another when the highly respected George Hincapie, never caught and Armstrong's closes riding buddy says "Lance and I used together."
I think the jig is up.
And it doesn't surprise me in the least.
These PED's WORK! Ordinarily the gap between top competitors at a world class level is measured in a fraction of 1%. Pretty clearly these drugs improve performance (where it can be measured) by 5%+. Now we know, because they were either caught or admitted cheating, that every significant competitive force during Armstrong's reign was using.
So, in order to believe Lance was clean you had to believe he was better clean than everyone else was dirty. That implies he would have been 5%+ better than everyone else clean vs. clean. Let's try to put that in perspective.
Sprinting Revolution Usain Bolt holds the 100 meter record at 9.58 seconds. That is 1.6% below the best time by another runner.
Micahel Phelps best event is the probably the 200 butterfly. His world record time is 1.1% below the next best time swum by another.
The likelihood Lance is 5% better? Every year for seven years?
Anyone care to take that bet?
This also ought to make anyone who believes passing WADA random tests equals being clean rethink that stance.
I just want to understand something, you are ok with thinking Armstrong used, but not Pac. What about your whole innocent until proven guilty spiel?
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Captain America
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Captain America
Lance Armstrong is one of, if not the, most tested athletes in the world.
Does it look like he's dirty when you lay out all the facts, as you have, and take all the first hand testimony from his team mates in to account? Yes!
Has he ever tested positive? No!
If you assume the most tested man out there is dirty based on his skill/ability and hearsay, and not test results, then you must assume every top athlete is using. There is zero hard evidence that Armstrong used PEDs, period. Until he tests dirty, he's not guilty.
I think you're starting point is dead wrong. Marion Jones NEVER tested dirty, Shane Mosely NEVER tested dirty. The testers are so far behind it isn't funny.
So never testing dirty is a sign he might be cheating? If you follow that logic further, anyone on top of their sport whose never tested dirty, just hasn't been caught yet. I get what you're saying about testing being inadequate, but it's all we have to go by at the moment. It's up to his accusers have to prove Armstrong's guilt, and they haven't. Armstrong's passed every test put to him, what more do you want?
No, never testing dirty has no meaning. And it is NOT all we have. I think there is already one hell of a circumstantial case. Add multiple eye-witnesses, at least one of whom is going to be pretty hard to impeach? Sounds like a pretty strong case to me.
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No Contest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
It's one thing when caught cheaters Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton claim Lance used. It is another when the highly respected George Hincapie, never caught and Armstrong's closes riding buddy says "Lance and I used together."
I think the jig is up.
And it doesn't surprise me in the least.
These PED's WORK! Ordinarily the gap between top competitors at a world class level is measured in a fraction of 1%. Pretty clearly these drugs improve performance (where it can be measured) by 5%+. Now we know, because they were either caught or admitted cheating, that every significant competitive force during Armstrong's reign was using.
So, in order to believe Lance was clean you had to believe he was better clean than everyone else was dirty. That implies he would have been 5%+ better than everyone else clean vs. clean. Let's try to put that in perspective.
Sprinting Revolution Usain Bolt holds the 100 meter record at 9.58 seconds. That is 1.6% below the best time by another runner.
Micahel Phelps best event is the probably the 200 butterfly. His world record time is 1.1% below the next best time swum by another.
The likelihood Lance is 5% better? Every year for seven years?
Anyone care to take that bet?
This also ought to make anyone who believes passing WADA random tests equals being clean rethink that stance.
I just want to understand something, you are ok with thinking Armstrong used, but not Pac. What about your whole innocent until proven guilty spiel?
I have NEVER said Manny is clean. He may well be using. The issue with Manny is PROCESS. Singling him out with not a shred of evidence (and I mean NOTHING) is very different from examining a guy who has beaten PROVEN USERS over and over and over again.
The most incriminating circumstantial evidence against Armstrong is that he beat cheaters. Doing that while clean? Pretty unlikely. Now had Cotto and Barerra and Sasakul and Oscar tested positive? THEN the situations would be similar.
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Captain America
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Captain America
Lance Armstrong is one of, if not the, most tested athletes in the world.
Does it look like he's dirty when you lay out all the facts, as you have, and take all the first hand testimony from his team mates in to account? Yes!
Has he ever tested positive? No!
If you assume the most tested man out there is dirty based on his skill/ability and hearsay, and not test results, then you must assume every top athlete is using. There is zero hard evidence that Armstrong used PEDs, period. Until he tests dirty, he's not guilty.
I think you're starting point is dead wrong. Marion Jones NEVER tested dirty, Shane Mosely NEVER tested dirty. The testers are so far behind it isn't funny.
So never testing dirty is a sign he might be cheating? If you follow that logic further, anyone on top of their sport whose never tested dirty, just hasn't been caught yet. I get what you're saying about testing being inadequate, but it's all we have to go by at the moment. It's up to his accusers have to prove Armstrong's guilt, and they haven't. Armstrong's passed every test put to him, what more do you want?
No, never testing dirty has no meaning. And it is NOT all we have. I think there is already one hell of a circumstantial case. Add multiple eye-witnesses, at least one of whom is going to be pretty hard to impeach? Sounds like a pretty strong case to me.
Wow you just kinda proved you have Pacs nuts in your mouth.
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No Contest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
It's one thing when caught cheaters Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton claim Lance used. It is another when the highly respected George Hincapie, never caught and Armstrong's closes riding buddy says "Lance and I used together."
I think the jig is up.
And it doesn't surprise me in the least.
These PED's WORK! Ordinarily the gap between top competitors at a world class level is measured in a fraction of 1%. Pretty clearly these drugs improve performance (where it can be measured) by 5%+. Now we know, because they were either caught or admitted cheating, that every significant competitive force during Armstrong's reign was using.
So, in order to believe Lance was clean you had to believe he was better clean than everyone else was dirty. That implies he would have been 5%+ better than everyone else clean vs. clean. Let's try to put that in perspective.
Sprinting Revolution Usain Bolt holds the 100 meter record at 9.58 seconds. That is 1.6% below the best time by another runner.
Micahel Phelps best event is the probably the 200 butterfly. His world record time is 1.1% below the next best time swum by another.
The likelihood Lance is 5% better? Every year for seven years?
Anyone care to take that bet?
This also ought to make anyone who believes passing WADA random tests equals being clean rethink that stance.
I just want to understand something, you are ok with thinking Armstrong used, but not Pac. What about your whole innocent until proven guilty spiel?
I have NEVER said Manny is clean. He may well be using. The issue with Manny is PROCESS. Singling him out with not a shred of evidence (and I mean NOTHING) is very different from examining a guy who has beaten PROVEN USERS over and over and over again.
The most incriminating circumstantial evidence against Armstrong is that he beat cheaters. Doing that while clean? Pretty unlikely. Now had Cotto and Barerra and Sasakul and Oscar tested positive? THEN the situations would be similar.
You have two different opinions and anything to protect your God "Manny" wow I knew you were a Pactard.....
No test for Manny...no proof
But get rid of Lance? LOL
And you base your decision on your own opinion of who the talk of cheating is coming from. PACTARD
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No Contest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
It's one thing when caught cheaters Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton claim Lance used. It is another when the highly respected George Hincapie, never caught and Armstrong's closes riding buddy says "Lance and I used together."
I think the jig is up.
And it doesn't surprise me in the least.
These PED's WORK! Ordinarily the gap between top competitors at a world class level is measured in a fraction of 1%. Pretty clearly these drugs improve performance (where it can be measured) by 5%+. Now we know, because they were either caught or admitted cheating, that every significant competitive force during Armstrong's reign was using.
So, in order to believe Lance was clean you had to believe he was better clean than everyone else was dirty. That implies he would have been 5%+ better than everyone else clean vs. clean. Let's try to put that in perspective.
Sprinting Revolution Usain Bolt holds the 100 meter record at 9.58 seconds. That is 1.6% below the best time by another runner.
Micahel Phelps best event is the probably the 200 butterfly. His world record time is 1.1% below the next best time swum by another.
The likelihood Lance is 5% better? Every year for seven years?
Anyone care to take that bet?
This also ought to make anyone who believes passing WADA random tests equals being clean rethink that stance.
I just want to understand something, you are ok with thinking Armstrong used, but not Pac. What about your whole innocent until proven guilty spiel?
I have NEVER said Manny is clean. He may well be using. The issue with Manny is PROCESS. Singling him out with not a shred of evidence (and I mean NOTHING) is very different from examining a guy who has beaten PROVEN USERS over and over and over again.
The most incriminating circumstantial evidence against Armstrong is that he beat cheaters. Doing that while clean? Pretty unlikely. Now had Cotto and Barerra and Sasakul and Oscar tested positive? THEN the situations would be similar.
Ok, thats fair enough, tbh I really dont have alot of info on Armstrong, but his win streak and endurance is out of this world. It does shed doubts when that kind of performance occurs. Also, he battled cancers and won, and I thought that some of the treatments probably included steroids, but thats something I'm not really sure about.
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No Contest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No Contest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
It's one thing when caught cheaters Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton claim Lance used. It is another when the highly respected George Hincapie, never caught and Armstrong's closes riding buddy says "Lance and I used together."
I think the jig is up.
And it doesn't surprise me in the least.
These PED's WORK! Ordinarily the gap between top competitors at a world class level is measured in a fraction of 1%. Pretty clearly these drugs improve performance (where it can be measured) by 5%+. Now we know, because they were either caught or admitted cheating, that every significant competitive force during Armstrong's reign was using.
So, in order to believe Lance was clean you had to believe he was better clean than everyone else was dirty. That implies he would have been 5%+ better than everyone else clean vs. clean. Let's try to put that in perspective.
Sprinting Revolution Usain Bolt holds the 100 meter record at 9.58 seconds. That is 1.6% below the best time by another runner.
Micahel Phelps best event is the probably the 200 butterfly. His world record time is 1.1% below the next best time swum by another.
The likelihood Lance is 5% better? Every year for seven years?
Anyone care to take that bet?
This also ought to make anyone who believes passing WADA random tests equals being clean rethink that stance.
I just want to understand something, you are ok with thinking Armstrong used, but not Pac. What about your whole innocent until proven guilty spiel?
I have NEVER said Manny is clean. He may well be using. The issue with Manny is PROCESS. Singling him out with not a shred of evidence (and I mean NOTHING) is very different from examining a guy who has beaten PROVEN USERS over and over and over again.
The most incriminating circumstantial evidence against Armstrong is that he beat cheaters. Doing that while clean? Pretty unlikely. Now had Cotto and Barerra and Sasakul and Oscar tested positive? THEN the situations would be similar.
Ok, thats fair enough, tbh I really dont have alot of info on Armstrong, but his win streak and endurance is out of this world. It does shed doubts when that kind of performance occurs. Also, he battled cancers and won, and I thought that some of the treatments probably included steroids, but thats something I'm not really sure about.
Maui is a Pactard, not to be mistaken for a Pac fan. A Pac fan is a fan like anything else. Maui really shouldn't have started commenting on steroids. Nice how Lance and Manny should be treated different all off hearsay. This guys a Pactard
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
I'd be really disappointed if Armstrong was found out to have used. I've always admired him for fighting through his illness and then managing to go on a perform at such a high level. How many times did he win the Tour De France after he had the cancer, was it 5? I agree it looks shady, but I really hope he wasn't using
