-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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?
-
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
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mafiajoey
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
No, he isn't. He's one of the better posters on the site, despite being relatively new. You, on the other hand, are flirting with a ban by continuing to spam the site with your anti-Pacquiao ramblings.
-
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.
His treatments for cancer ABSOLUTELY included steroids. But that type of steroid, corticosteroids, are not at issue here. Those are medicinal as opposed to anabolics which are muscle builders.
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
His treatments for cancer ABSOLUTELY included steroids. But that type of steroid, corticosteroids, are not at issue here. Those are medicinal as opposed to anabolics which are muscle builders.
Which are also used in some cancer patients.
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CFH
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mafiajoey
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
No, he isn't. He's one of the better posters on the site, despite being relatively new. You, on the other hand, are flirting with a ban by continuing to spam the site with your anti-Pacquiao ramblings.
He's a great poster...has more knowledge of the game then I will ever have. But as time has moved on......yes he is Pro Pac and Pac is God
And oh please tell me how I "Spam" the site..... you mean I actually debate the hilucinating Pac fans? Is this illegal? I think there are many others that say just about the same things as I do or debate the "Hype" and "Myth" about Pac and his overrrrr rated accomplishments. How many do you ban for doing the same against Floyd? I think you like some others find problems with those not bowing down to Pac. Now we are in the "Off Topic" forum...is it ok that I defend myself or do I get banned now? Because everything I have ever said had a legitimate point SIR! And we are in the "Off Topic" section so God forbid I actually debate someone in regards to there opinion. Especially when it flip flops in favor of Pac... So if having a rebuttal for not believing Pac is God is spam then I guess we know where the forum really stands. I've laid off the Pac crap and changed my avatar back etc... Because my points are clear and have legitimacy to them. But god forbid someone not jump on the Pac train and they are a Flomo. Are there rules that we have to admire Pac to not get banned? Cause I don't think I spammed anyplace. Please refer me or this to your higher authority when threatening to ban me. If I can't speak up then what's the point of having me here? I was asked to come back many years ago after an initial ban because I didn't jump the JT train when he was fighting BHOP
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mafiajoey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CFH
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mafiajoey
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
No, he isn't. He's one of the better posters on the site, despite being relatively new. You, on the other hand, are flirting with a ban by continuing to spam the site with your anti-Pacquiao ramblings.
He's a great poster...has more knowledge of the game then I will ever have. But as time has moved on......yes he is Pro Pac and Pac is God
And oh please tell me how I "Spam" the site..... you mean I actually debate the hilucinating Pac fans? Is this illegal? I think there are many others that say just about the same things as I do or debate the "Hype" and "Myth" about Pac and his overrrrr rated accomplishments. How many do you ban for doing the same against Floyd? I think you like some others find problems with those not bowing down to Pac. Now we are in the "Off Topic" forum...is it ok that I defend myself or do I get banned now? Because everything I have ever said had a legitimate point SIR! And we are in the "Off Topic" section so God forbid I actually debate someone in regards to there opinion. Especially when it flip flops in favor of Pac... So if having a rebuttal for not believing Pac is God is spam then I guess we know where the forum really stands. I've laid off the Pac crap and changed my avatar back etc... Because my points are clear and have legitimacy to them. But god forbid someone not jump on the Pac train and they are a Flomo. Are there rules that we have to admire Pac to not get banned? Cause I don't think I spammed anyplace. Please refer me or this to your higher authority when threatening to ban me. If I can't speak up then what's the point of having me here? I was asked to come back many years ago after an initial ban because I didn't jump the JT train when he was fighting BHOP
Joey just for your own information? I'm such a Pactard I picked against him in five of his last seven fights and think Floyd would beat him.
Sorta odd thoughts for a Pactard aren't they?
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Wasn't this thread about Amstrong? How the fuck did it rotate into one about Pacquiao?
As for Armstrong, it makes you wonder what took the accuser so long to come forward, or if it's even true. Armstrong may well be guilty, but I don't have any respect for "snitches", and i'm suspicious of what might be ulterior motives. Anyway that's my $2 opinion. (inflation)
BTW, Joey, I don't know what your issue is with Marble, maybe jealousy, who knows, but you're barking up the wrong tree, i've known Marble for 5 + years, he's a damn good dude, and one thing he ain't is a fucking Pactard, give a rest and get a life asshole.
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
I've always assumed Lance was taking, it's simply impossible to compete, nay dominate a sport at the top level when we know everyone else was taking. I don't really blame him as literally all the top cyclists in that sport take them, the best thing to do would just be to legalise them.
Regarding Manny however, there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest he has taken anything. It was an accusation levied by Floyd Mayweather that just will not go away. But nobody of any significance has ever implicated Manny in any way.
This is completely the opposite of Lance Armstrong, whose own teammates have come out and said they took steroids with him.
When another boxer comes out and confesses that he and Manny injected together then the story will have some legs, but right now nobody has anything on Manny at all.
-
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.
So say the number 1 & 2 ranked boxers squared off to fight for the vacant title and the number one ranked fighter won on points, scoring 5% more than his defeated opponent. If we use your logic, then he has to have been on PED's?
Facts and figures can be manipulated to support any argument. Armstrong was the most tested competitor ever in that sport? I'm sure he would have been caught out.
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Preme
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.
So say the number 1 & 2 ranked boxers squared off to fight for the vacant title and the number one ranked fighter won on points, scoring 5% more than his defeated opponent. If we use your logic, then he has to have been on PED's?
Facts and figures can be manipulated to support any argument. Armstrong was the most tested competitor ever in that sport? I'm sure he would have been caught out.
Not the way you just did they can't. yeah, Lance would have been caught....just like Marion Jones.
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Why would you believe Lance Armstrong's riding buddy, but not Pacquiao's sparring partner?
If Lance has passed random blood testing then you have to say he has proven himself clean.
Would I put a bet on that he has never used, nope.
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Why would you believe Lance Armstrong's riding buddy, but not Pacquiao's sparring partner?
If Lance has passed random blood testing then you have to say he has proven himself clean.
Would I put a bet on that he has never used, nope.
How do the two compare? Lance is being accused by real people, who were his known teammates and are publicly coming out.
Manny's 'sparring partner revelation' was just a completely anonymous posting on an internent forum.
If a confirmed sparring partner comes out, and publicly states something then the story has legs but anyone can write an anyonmous email and say 'I was Manny's sparring partner and I used to inject him' and post it on a dodgy website.
That is no kind of story at all.
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
I don't see any difference.
It's emperor's new clothes. I'm not a pactard so i don't see it.
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
I don't see any difference.
It's emperor's new clothes. I'm not a pactard so i don't see it.
How is there no difference? :confused:
Lance Armstrongs teammates publicly came out and accused him.
In the case of Manny an anonymous posting was put on a forum.
Hos do the two even remotely compare?
I can write an anonymous email now saying that I supplied Oscar De La Hoya with cocaine last week and post it on that forum.
Does that mean there is a shred of evidence to support that?
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
And that's the point isn't it.
Not a shred of evidance.
In both accusations there is actually no evidence, both are just hear say. The actual only difference is that lance has been subjected to random testing many times and never failed it. Unfortunately for me that makes it very very hard to point the finger at him.
Unlike Pacquiao, Lance actually has evidence that he is clean.
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
And that's the point isn't it.
Not a shred of evidance.
In both accusations there is actually no evidence, both are just hear say. The actual only difference is that lance has been subjected to random testing many times and never failed it. Unfortunately for me that makes it very very hard to point the finger at him.
Unlike Pacquiao, Lance actually has evidence that he is clean.
How does Lance have more evidence for being clean than Manny? Manny has zero evidence against him. Lance has his own teammates publically speaking out and stating they either saw him take, or was actively taking alongside him.
That's a huge public testimony, subject to libel and a very serious allegation.
Please enlighten me of all those who have publically confirmed Manny doing anything wrong? If somebody publically comes forward, then that is a serious allegation. But nobody has.
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
i reject your logic for my speculation. ya dig?
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Youngblood
i reject your logic for my speculation. ya dig?
Oh! Well in THAT case? Party on Wayne!
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Youngblood
i reject your logic for my speculation. ya dig?
Oh! Well in THAT case? Party on Wayne!
lol I just find it funny how facts, solid logic and reason are so easily overridden by personal bias. but hardly a revelation is it.
-
Re: Is the Game Up for Lance Armstrong?
For the record, some sampler of Amstrong have been proven positive, made by one of the most advanced and top notched Lab in the world, Chatenay Malabry's labs in France. They double checked some old sampler from Amstrong and they have been proven unclean (i.e in 1999, EPO was undetectable or almost, re-visiting the old samplerswith new techniques allowed to detect the subterfuge) which Amstrong denied and said that it was false accusations because the frenchies couldn'T stand that a cancerous american did beat all their cyclists. Leaving the France-USA debate aside, this is a ludicrous argument.
When 3 of your ex team mates plus samplers from one of the best labs in the world in that domain say that you're guilty, you have to be the hell of a conspirationist to claim a hidden agenda against you.
RFI - Dopage : Armstrong accusé
