Phil Ligget – Credulous idiot
If WADA are going to continue to press then one must ask the question why because all they’re going to do is waste a lot of money and the guy has finished cycling, if they find him guilty what’s the point?”
Yes he seems really concerned about the issue ..still in a private moment in a bedroom Lance looked him right in the eyes and said this to him…it is like a modern love story.
He want to be believe LA is clean , hell I want to believe it, but it is quite unlikely to be truePosted 6 years agotitusriderMember
Out of interest who has read millar’s book and armstrongs books?
they have both informed my opinions on the people involved and on the less than black and white nature of good guys and villans.
In my opinion Lance didnt do drugs but certainly did ‘recovery’ injections. As the most focused on and tested athelte i see very little opportunity for him to do drugs and not have tested positive (i cant remember the full details of te supposed ‘cover up positive’ but im inclined not to believe it)Posted 6 years agoAlexSimonSubscriber
Well there’s so much information out there now, that there’s very little point in posting factual stuff without first reading it all.
The main problem is that so many people believe that cycling benefited hugely from The Lance Effect, that they find it difficult to investigate the issue fully. They feel like it would be an attack on their own sport.
When the UCI came to promoting new races, it found it much easier if Lance was involved. They’re struggling now. They know that even 5 Condators don’t equal one LA on a global stage.
So many feel that even if he did dope, the overall net effect was still a good one (as long as you don’t dig too deep).
Personally, I’m with all the people who feel that the LA Effect actually hurt the sport.Posted 6 years ago
How someone dominated the TDF cleanly (remember he didn’t bother with that many other races, unlike many previous heroes) when many others were on drugs is beyond me.
It just defies believe he could win 7 in a row ..look at pantani an exceptional cyclists and drugged up and Lance still beat him. Even on mountains when Panatani had done EPO ..HOW? Serioulsy HOW?Posted 6 years agoditch_jockeyMember
I’m not sure I really see the value in the endless pursuit of Lance Armstrong to be honest. I have a respect for the ruthless efficiency of his achievements, but they come across as the product of a personality that I have no wish to emulate.
I’m not sure I believe any of the cycling greats did what they did without resort to “the juice”, but I’d be far more interested in efforts to try and create a future for cycling where young men and women didn’t feel under pressure to fill their bodies with all sorts of pharmaceutical crap for my entertainment. However, anyone who thinks that drug use in professional cycling is down to individual riders and their choices is living in denial – the teams, managers, race organisers and the governing bodies are all implicated.
…and if we’re expressing personal preference, I’d far rather see McQuaid’s head on a pole than Armstrong’s.Posted 6 years agoTandemJeremyMember
Lance – just some of the evidence not proof
Micheal Ashendons analysis of the old urine sampleslink
Sworn testimony from previous teammate now known to have doped. Long list of previous teammates now known to have doped
His association with a doping doctor / trainer link
Make your own mind up folks.
Me – I believe he simply has been one step ahead of the testers all the time. I don’t believe in a drug free winner ever
His failed test for sterioids – medical exemption with little credibility given after the factPosted 6 years agolazybikeMember
[/quote]It just defies believe he could win 7 in a row ..look at pantani an exceptional cyclists and drugged up and Lance still beat him. Even on mountains when Panatani had done EPO ..HOW? Serioulsy HOW?
Pantani’s not the best example, he was a bit streaky in his form. When you look at the season of an average pro, you have to ask yourself how the hell can they do that.Posted 6 years agohisdogMember
Sworn testimony from previous teammate now known to have doped.
I assume you mean Landis? You have to question his motives at the time of the testimony though.
I’m probably in the “everyone he beat was doping, so it seems pretty amazing/suspicious that he wasn’t”, but the point is that he has been tested and tested and tested and it has never been proved. And now he’s finished in the sport, why bother continuing the hunt?
The thing with Lance is that there are a huge number of personal and political agendas and conspiracy theories on all sides, so the truth will never out and even if it did, someone would question it. It’s time to let it lie.Posted 6 years ago
well tj you can believe what you like but fortunatley evidence is not proof that someone has done wrong until it is tested and proved. Lets hope all of us don’t have to live in a society where hearsay, opinion, speculation and unprovable evidence are used to convict and punish. Oops!Posted 6 years ago
I’m with hisdog and CFH here.Posted 6 years ago
On the one hand, it seems very unlikely he could have done it all clean. On the other hand, despite all of the apparently overwhelming evidence of his guilt out there the fact is that he’s never failed a test or been otherwise proven to have doped, and I’m not sure even Armstrong’s powers of persuasion/money are enough to stop photos of refrigerated motorcycle panniers or whatever from poppping up on the internet.
I’m certainly not looking at Armstrong through rose-tinted specs but I think that maybe the accusers should either put up or shut up at this point.wallace1492Member
There are questions around the testing process for the samples. It was determined that the analysis was conducted improperly and they did not satisfy any standard for doping control testing. But lets not get the truth in the way of a good story.
This was not doping testing, it was research, and flawed at that, so in fact LA did not fail any tests. Fact.Posted 6 years ago
“There was only two conceivable ways that synthetic EPO could’ve gotten into those samples. One, is that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the ’99 Tour. The other way it could’ve got in the urine was if, as Lance Armstrong seems to believe, the laboratory spiked those samples. Now, that’s an extraordinary claim, and there’s never ever been any evidence the laboratory has ever spiked an athlete’s sample, even during the Cold War, where you would’ve thought there was a real political motive to frame an athlete from a different country. There’s never been any suggestion that it happened.”[
So they spiked anoymopus samples and somehow got 6 of LA- seems likely
In October 2008, the AFLD gave Armstrong the opportunity to have samples taken during the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France retested. Armstrong immediately refused, saying, “the samples have not been maintained properly.” Head of AFLD Pierre Bordry stated: “Scientifically there is no problem to analyze these samples – everything is correct” and “If the analysis is clean it would have been very good for him. But he doesn’t want to do it and that’s his problem.” However, according to the results of an investigative report by Emile Vrijman (a Dutch lawyer and the former head of the Dutch anti-doping agency, which he headed for ten years), who was appointed by the UCI to head an independent investigations into the LNDD lab’s findings, it was determined that the analysis of the urine samples were conducted improperly and that they “did not satisfy any standard for doping control testing.” Vrijman’s report went on to state that handling and testing of the samples fell so far short of scientific standards, and that “the process that generated those results and the subsequent reports was so deficient” that it was “completely irresponsible” to suggest that the results could “constitute evidence of anything,” and cleared Armstrong of any wrongdoing. But WADA rejected these conclusions stating “The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical.”.
There is nothing definitive and definte but there is plenty of stuff to suggest that he did and his refusal to allow his known samples to be tested speaks volumes IMHO
We have tests now for what he was alleged to be using
@aracer- Cav’s never failed any doping tests either. Just like Marion Jones.
No one has accused cav of being a drug cheat – it is obvious that clean riders will never test positive but Jones shows than know dirty athletes can alos have passed every drug test. This is the point of using her as an example – testing clean is not proof of not doping as most of the used drugs were untestable at the time.
So clean LA beat drug cheats, worked with drug cheats in his team and everyone was at it but good ol LA who was able to beat them all comfortably /with ease.Posted 6 years ago
Wish it was true but it is unlikely.
It seems to me the finding of EPO in his urine is evidence…I’m not sure what “legal” evidence is?
wallace1492 – Member
It was determined that the analysis was conducted improperly and they did not satisfy any standard for doping control testing
How and by whom?
If he’s refusing samples being tested that says a lot to me, unless there’s some reason not to.Posted 6 years ago
The topic ‘Phil Ligget – Credulous idiot’ is closed to new replies.