The Armstrong Lie
- Thread starter User
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Does that include the claims that there was no evidence that Simpson cheated..... because the drugs in his pocket were only circumstantial and that Post Mortem examination proof of drugs in his blood was not acceptable as evidence ?
Hardly refuting anything
StuAff
Silencing his legs regularly
- Location
- Portsmouth
Of course it's still cheating. And under regular testing, it would still get caught. No longer is there a need to have to have a test for a specific drug, or even for it to be known about by the people doing the testing. The whole point of the biological passport programme is to catch people using anything performance-enhancing, by looking for the effects of the substance, not just the substance itself.
U
User169
Guest
Make up your mind!
One minute you want a cheat defined with reference to rules introduced on1966, the next minute anyone that eats is a cheat.
StuAff
Silencing his legs regularly
- Location
- Portsmouth
No, I wasn't agreeing with you. I was stating that as it applies now, under current regulations and procedures, drug testing no longer needs to detect a particular substance. I utterly disagree with you on the rest. Retrospectively taking titles from riders when tests cannot be carried out, or when those titles were prior to drug regulations being implemented, is utterly ridiculous.
U
User169
Guest
I understand Stuaffs point, but don't see how it fits with your fixation on the 1966 date.
StuAff
Silencing his legs regularly
- Location
- Portsmouth
And I still don't get why he obsesses about Simpson (who, incidentally, died with PEDs as a contributing factor- surely a strong moral argument against taking them), yet never mentions Merckx (caught three times), Anquetil (forthright on his own doping), Coppi (ditto), Indurain (almost certainly doped).......
And AFAIK, Simpson never threatened to sue anyone who called him a doper, let alone repeatedly go through with it, never called anyone a whore under oath, never bullied his own team-mates into doping (or sacked those who couldn't/wouldn't dope), never hounded anyone out of the peloton....oh, and though he was doping, he was doping under the regulations and testing regime of the time. If he'd been caught, he'd have faced the sanctions in place then. He wasn't so he didn't.
And AFAIK, Simpson never threatened to sue anyone who called him a doper, let alone repeatedly go through with it, never called anyone a whore under oath, never bullied his own team-mates into doping (or sacked those who couldn't/wouldn't dope), never hounded anyone out of the peloton....oh, and though he was doping, he was doping under the regulations and testing regime of the time. If he'd been caught, he'd have faced the sanctions in place then. He wasn't so he didn't.
Pro Tour Punditry
Guru
That would be because he is not interested in Pro Racing and only knows about Simpson or what he can find on Wiki. He's free to carry on typing bilge, I shall no longer be responding; I've picked that scab.
It makes you almost miss Red Light
By the way, can anyone tell me if USADA have jurisdiction yet?
Pro Tour Punditry
Guru
Not over Simpson, no.
Hont
Guru
- Location
- Bromsgrove
For me that's the problem with Armstrong. I don't blame him for doping, any more than I blame Jan Ullrich, David Millar, Tyler Hamilton and all the others who doped and may have a conscience. It's the abuse of power and the depths that he would sink to to protect himself that are inexcusable. So yes, a memorial to Tom Simpson is fine, because he died doing what so many others did. Armstrong appears to stand alone in the contemptibility stakes.
