| List of available free bets on this event : |
Tour de France
Lance Armstrong
well there is what law would call circumstantal evidence
- ferrari,le monds testomony,emma o'reillys
testimony,shwarzs testimony etc.....
and then the hard factual evidence that lance failed not one
but SIX dope tests
thats x times more evidence than you have for saying
EVERYONE dopes
show me one piece of evidence that supports your argument
The fact that lance had cancer means nothing
he is either a cheat or not!
and the cold hard facts so far point to him being a cheat in
which there is nothing admirable
maybe i am getting the wrong impression but you seem to be
saying you don't care whether he doped or not
it says alot if that is true about your impression of sport
that you would rather see people suffocate to death(which is
what happens when epo goes wrong even under medical
supervision) in the name of "sport" rather than watch clean
sport where the best guy wins barring luck
i see nothing to admire in la s achievements if he has doped
i see alot more to admire in someone like Paula Radcliffes
achievements in getting to the top of her sport whilst also
actively campaigning against drugs and their dangers
The last point i have to make is regarding the argument that
it is a conspiracy
lemond was american-he was liked by the french
indurain dominated the tour but was not disliked this much
by the french
the truth is the french have not got it in for lance just
that they feel his achievements are questionable which i
would entirely agree with given the evidence pointed out
above
we never heard of former team mates coming out about
indurain
.the truth is it is a pretty flimsy reason
the second is the questioning of the test and the lab.
for anyone who doesn't know-The test was conducted by Drs
FRANÇOISE LASNE AND JACQUES DE CEAURRIZ in the IOC acredited
lab in paris.
the test is based on the premise that the proteins that bind
Human(Natural) EPO are different to the Proteins which bind
external(Un-natural) epo. (post translational glycosylation)
this is seen by the UCI,WADA,IOC etc as DIRECT evidence of
doping and is legally INDEFENSABLE
These two doctors are some of the most respected in their
field on the planet and i would believe them ahead of any
cyclist any day
Final Furlong you are missing this point: ALL winning riders
cheat. always have done, probably always will do. There
could be exceptions but there can't be many.
btw your conviction that Paula Radcliffe is clean strikes me
as very naive. That sport is also packed with drug cheats
and has been for a long time, you seem to think that if
someone campaigns against drugs they are clean ?!?!?
Winners always cheat?
is this some sort of excuse?
they win cos they cheated to rob another rider of what is
rightfully theirs
EPO is proven to improve athletic performance by ~10% and as
anyone in sport will testify that is HUGE, if you have got a
rider who has a basic talent but refuses to dope he will
never be able to compete
not all athletes cheat-there is not on single piece of proof
to support this
why don't we say all football players are dope cheats cos
ferdinand forgot to take a dope test
(Stupid logic i think we will all agree).just cos lance
tests positive doesn't mean they all do it but it also
doesn't mean he is the only one who does it,which is why i
am in full support for the full disclosure of those who
failed dope tests in 98/99 and the introduction of
retroactive testing
i can understand your opinion on p radcliffe but alot of her
physiological stats support her performance(Unlike lance)
and her support (Beyond the ordinary) for anti doping
Does it prove she is innocent?
NO i would agree with you but it is all the more reason to
become zero tolerant of doping
given that true , clean winners are being unfairly
questioned
|
