This was a thread on Hoey improvement that has denigrated to this? Come on now...good for him, he was clearly talented 1:47.x in HS, got a real training program and is really good right now..do I wonder about massive improvement after nothing for 3 plus years..yeah. I guess. Guys calling each other morons? Back and forth? Hoey is good right now, I don't know how, but he is..good for him. I prefer to think, he went to Flagstaff, did the real work and now he is a viable threat, in more than one event. 3:33.x Indoors is good moving up. He gets tested I am sure like everyone else.
I have banned Armstronglivs for a few days.
I came on to see if this thread had outlives its shelf life. We are totally fine with our community discussing an athlete's improvement.
However, the last page was more than a few posts by Armstronglivs insulting other posters and essentially calling them morons. That is not the point of forums and insults of other posters can lead to timeouts. Please be civil as people insulting Armstronglivs will be banned as well.
You've got it backwards. I did the "moral thing" and confirmed Armstrong doped, and positive tests in 1999 also confirmed he doped in 1999, as was reported at the time.
Hi I’m Khamis’ sister, 1 moral admission of doping against 100 doping denials doesn’t really count as ‘moral’. It still counts as immoral due to overwhelming majority you feeling me sweetheart?
I find it immoral to accuse athletes of doping without any basis in fact.
So you are an American living in France? Do I look like I can read French? Further to that there must be a reason why multiple publications years after 1999 comprehensively believed that Lance Armstrong never failed a doping test. Could it be there is a huge confusion row over the article of ‘intent’? And this was not then clarified in law back then which resulted in multiple reports stating he had never failed a doping test.
I do live in Europe and know some French speakers, and have taken some classes.
How hard is it for English speakers to understand "Des traces de corticoïdes dans les analyses pratiquées sur Lance Armstrong". It's almost word for word the same in English. My browser has "Translate to English" built right-in, and there plenty of online translators. I gave the top google hit using English search terms for articles before 1/1/2000. Of course it appeared in English articles to, at the time, e.g. I found it at bikeraceinfo dated July 25, 1999.
In any case, I provided the link to Khamis, not Khamis's sister. Meanwhile, like you, Khamis alluded to "multiple publications", but provided no articles saying Lance never failed a test. If he had, we would then need to assess the source of the claim, and if it wasn't rooted in the empty self-serving claims of a charismatic pathological liar.
None of this excuses the claim still being made today, after the UCI itself, in a CIRC Commissioned Report, gave us all the facts in a report dated February 2015.
Hoey was obviously a big talent in HS who had the ability to run faster than 1:47 if he ever got his training right. He's a great story, and I'm happy to see him running well.
Also, being 100% honest... if this was a Moroccan or Kenyan going 1:48 > 1:43i and 3:38 > 3:33i in a single year I would be suspicious as hell. He's not just running fast times, Hoppel and Fisher are in NR shape and Hoey's smoked them both in the last couple weeks.
Hi I’m Khamis’ sister, 1 moral admission of doping against 100 doping denials doesn’t really count as ‘moral’. It still counts as immoral due to overwhelming majority you feeling me sweetheart?
I find it immoral to accuse athletes of doping without any basis in fact.
For me, the issue is the way Hoey finishes. It looks a lot like doped cyclists of the 90s and 00s. No rigging, no gasping, just running through the line w/a smile.
For me, the issue is the way Hoey finishes. It looks a lot like doped cyclists of the 90s and 00s. No rigging, no gasping, just running through the line w/a smile.
Did we watch the same race? Hoey was clearly straining and grimacing for the line. I get the suspicions but at least be objective.
Why is it so hard to believe that losing out to the Olympics by an extraordinarily short margin would be motivation enough to go all-in and just go on a revenge-tour-attitude with training and racing?
His whole family is running. It's his life.
I also get the suspicions, but maybe I'm also willing to champion a great story when I see it. Every runner peaks at different times.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
ThoSe tEstS doN't pRovE hE DOpEd!! ThEy pREsuMeD InTenT !!!!¡¡
ThEy WeRe foR cReaM foR saDLesOreS and THe reTro TeSts WeRe unDEr FalSe PREtenSe and SuPposeD to ChecK for RoIds, nOt EPO
Freekin Nutter
Funny.
Note that the applicable rules in 1999 were the UCI "ADR", predating WADA. In those UCI rules, "Intent" was not a factor that had to be proven or disproven, and there was no presumption of intent leading to a longer ban, if not rebutted. The cortico-steroids were permitted for topical use for saddlesores, but in that case they should have been listed on the doping control forms before the stages took place. At the very least, the UCI should have launched disciplinary procedures against Lance, regardless of the backdated prescription, according to the UCI's CIRC Commission Report. In any case, Lance confessed that he used cortico-steroids for performance enhancement, and not therapeutic use for saddlesores, resolving any question and confirming the CIRC findings.
The "retro tests" were part of legitimate EPO research, and not "Roids". Any "false pretense" was the investigative subterfuge employed to be able to match the sample numbers to Lance. But Armstrong had dared the reporters to come up with proof of his doping, and L'Equipe took up the challenge.
Are you saying he was a doper because he had a positive test?
Why is it so hard to believe that losing out to the Olympics by an extraordinarily short margin would be motivation enough....
His whole family is running. It's his life.
Isn't this the problem though? Or at least a big red flag. It's not healthy to be so tied up in something, to so thoroughly tie your existence and self-worth to athletic success. To the point where you and your family would do ANYTHING to achieve an outcome. At that point it's not much of a leap to something beyond the pale...
Are you saying he was a doper because he had a positive test?
I didn't actually say he was a doper. Anti-doping speaks in terms of violating rules. I started by saying he has tested positive, because an often repeated myth is that he never tested positive, despite testing positive four times for corticosteroids, and the six positive tests for EPO in subsequent research.
You brought up intent, but that was not a factor to be considered in the 1999 UCI rules, which predate WADA.
The UCI themselves said that disciplinary procedures should have been launched to determine if the positive tests broke the existing rules, and that the UCI broke its own rules by not launching disciplinary procedures.
But Lance is not a doper only because he had 10 positive tests from the 1999 TdF. Lance himself confessed he doped for all of his Tour victories, as did former teammates, and former friends, and former staff.
Are you saying he was a doper because he had a positive test?
I didn't actually say he was a doper. Anti-doping speaks in terms of violating rules. I started by saying he has tested positive, because an often repeated myth is that he never tested positive, despite testing positive four times for corticosteroids, and the six positive tests for EPO in subsequent research.
You brought up intent, but that was not a factor to be considered in the 1999 UCI rules, which predate WADA.
The UCI themselves said that disciplinary procedures should have been launched to determine if the positive tests broke the existing rules, and that the UCI broke its own rules by not launching disciplinary procedures.
But Lance is not a doper only because he had 10 positive tests from the 1999 TdF. Lance himself confessed he doped for all of his Tour victories, as did former teammates, and former friends, and former staff.
But the point you slither around is that he wasn't caught through testing. So it is with most dopers.
But the point you slither around is that he wasn't caught through testing. So it is with most dopers.
The original point I never strayed from was debunking the often repeated myth that Lance never tested positive.
If people instead started saying Lance was never charged/busted/sanctioned/etc., that would be correct, up until the Federal charges and the USADA charges.
This was a thread on Hoey improvement that has denigrated to this? Come on now...good for him, he was clearly talented 1:47.x in HS, got a real training program and is really good right now..do I wonder about massive improvement after nothing for 3 plus years..yeah. I guess. Guys calling each other morons? Back and forth? Hoey is good right now, I don't know how, but he is..good for him. I prefer to think, he went to Flagstaff, did the real work and now he is a viable threat, in more than one event. 3:33.x Indoors is good moving up. He gets tested I am sure like everyone else.
I have banned Armstronglivs for a few days.
I came on to see if this thread had outlives its shelf life. We are totally fine with our community discussing an athlete's improvement.
However, the last page was more than a few posts by Armstronglivs insulting other posters and essentially calling them morons. That is not the point of forums and insults of other posters can lead to timeouts. Please be civil as people insulting Armstronglivs will be banned as well.
Love to see it! The whole “everyone is doping and you’re an idiot if you think anyone isn’t” schtick is so old.
But the point you slither around is that he wasn't caught through testing. So it is with most dopers.
The original point I never strayed from was debunking the often repeated myth that Lance never tested positive.
If people instead started saying Lance was never charged/busted/sanctioned/etc., that would be correct, up until the Federal charges and the USADA charges.
You expend every effort in saying Lance failed doping tests (that nonetheless never resulted in a violation) while not acknowledging the same applies to Lagat, who also failed a doping test. In each case the tests were not conclusive sufficient to result in a violation. So it is just as pointless citing Armstrong's failed tests as Lagat's. Testing doesn't necessarily catch the cheats. I would no more trust Lagat was clean than Armstrong. He was luckier.
Idk he ran 1:47 from 2018-2023. Now he can hold off Bryce Hoppel who ran 1:45 >>> 1:41 during that stretch. Hoppel has been in so many big races, has won so many big races, knows how to win. Now he has nothing to get by Hoey. Hoey looked like he was working hard, sure, but there are no kinks in the armor. All of his races this year he's just plain better than really, really good guys he never used to be able to compete with.