Do you think Lance Armstrong will ever admit to doping?

I will dispute his talent then. He was less talented than Jan Ulrich. He was a great cyclist, but not one of the greatest. I would put him in the top 10,000.

RunningHigh wrote:

Its probably also fair to say that cycling enthusiasts do not doubt that LA was one of (if the not the) greatest cyclists of all time. His talent isn't being disputed.

xzcvxc wrote:

Nathotdog,

You dont care that's fine. I do and we live in a country where you are expected to obey the law. You dont like that everyone has to obey the Law? get the F- out.

I will be more than happy to commit, literally, 50 cents of my taxpayer money to take down the greatest fraud in history of athletics.

Dopers ruin sports. They slant the playing field so that everyone else has to dope if they want to be competitive.

Drug tests don't work and I suspect if there is only "hearsay" etc. then he will be acquitted. Fortunately it looks like they have quite a bit more than that.

Oh cut the crap. It happened in Europe, what happens there, stays there.

At worst it was a level field. "Maybe" there was no difference between Lance and the rest. Except they were done for doping, he wasn't.

YOu want to fund a witch hunt on the grounds that he did better than you, and the French, so he must be a doper.

Drug tests don't work? So why are you so sure he is guilty? He must be guilty because he was never proven to have taken drugs?

What a wanker you are. Not a question actually.

Calling the trial a witch hunt proves you're a fool who doesn't have a clue about this. People don't think he's a doper just because of how good he was. There is a mountain of evidence against him. Anyone with a tiny bit of intelligence who can look at it with a neutral point of view will think he was dirty. Go to the Disney forums if you think he was clean.

Europe is not a bachelor party in Las Vegas. You are still subject to your nations laws, as a condition of citizenship, even when not in your home country. Ask any ex-pat who still files annual tax returns for a country he doesn't reside in. Or ask any German who was caught doing naughty things in Thailand.In the worst case, the field was surely not level. Some teams had more (state sponsored) funding, and more sophisticated doping regimes. Some teams could only dope in the off-season, while more sophisticated dopers have the access, and know how to cheat during the tour.I wouldn't want to use public funds to support anyone's doping habit. Law enforcement seems an appropriate use of public funds. Seems like there are stronger grounds for investigation, besides than "Lance did better than "xzcvxc" and the French".Honestly, who hasn't ever wanked?

natdog wrote:

Oh cut the crap. It happened in Europe, what happens there, stays there.

At worst it was a level field. "Maybe" there was no difference between Lance and the rest. Except they were done for doping, he wasn't.

YOu want to fund a witch hunt on the grounds that he did better than you, and the French, so he must be a doper.

Drug tests don't work? So why are you so sure he is guilty? He must be guilty because he was never proven to have taken drugs?

What a wanker you are. Not a question actually.

And now a similar mountain of evidence is being dropped on Barry Bonds.

Who I do think is as big a wanker as has posted here. And doper.

And I suspect he will get off.

Then they can go and throw yours and my money at a similar mountain of innuendo about LA.

Seriously, all the lawyer cares about is a run for governor in 15 years.

Your outrage is misplaced. MOuntain of evidence my ass. Mountains of imaginary evidence that will never be proven. It'll all be he said she said.

No one cares. Except when they spend my tax money.

And I just paid a ffcckking lot.

He already did, didn't he?

Yes wrote:

He already did, didn't he?

Look at the dates mate