donyiyo wrote:
Yes he did, he bullied and ruined quite a few in the process. He behaved like a total douche. Coming from someone who lied under oath in a recorded deposition, what else you can expect?
Maybe a future in comedy? Too funny:
https://youtu.be/MCbN6-nrZYchttps://youtu.be/9U2_VjPSRtkThe issue of "super-technology", motivations of USADA or the reliability of Tyler Hamilton has absolutely nothing to do whether Armstrong was "bad", "worse than others", went too far in his legal lawsuits or whether he was an utter pr*ck.
Perhaps one reason why it was easy to find witnesses against him was that he was the opposite of Miguel Induráin whom everyone remembers as a pretty much as a humble and a nice guy. As Floyd Landis pointed out a few years ago, even LeMond was buddy-buddy with the Spaniard even when LeMond has his more-or-less credible anti-doping stance and has claimed that pretty much every winner since 1990 has been tainted.
Aragon wrote:
The issue of "super-technology", motivations of USADA or the reliability of Tyler Hamilton has absolutely nothing to do whether Armstrong was "bad", "worse than others", went too far in his legal lawsuits or whether he was an utter pr*ck.
Perhaps one reason why it was easy to find witnesses against him was that he was the opposite of Miguel Induráin whom everyone remembers as a pretty much as a humble and a nice guy. As Floyd Landis pointed out a few years ago, even LeMond was buddy-buddy with the Spaniard even when LeMond has his more-or-less credible anti-doping stance and has claimed that pretty much every winner since 1990 has been tainted.
Hey...wait one minute here; "Big Mig" hasn't been taited! There may be some suspicion & speculation, but that's about it. You're talking about the 5-time Tour Champ and one hell of a physical specimen! He's a National hero in Spain and well respected with a races named after him. He gets to ride in the convertible with the other legends; "The Cannibal," Lemond & Hinault. Don't try to drag Big Mig down to the level of that pathetic, slimy Armstrong, who's a disgrace to cycling!
I Like Big Mig wrote:
Aragon wrote:
The issue of "super-technology", motivations of USADA or the reliability of Tyler Hamilton has absolutely nothing to do whether Armstrong was "bad", "worse than others", went too far in his legal lawsuits or whether he was an utter pr*ck.
Perhaps one reason why it was easy to find witnesses against him was that he was the opposite of Miguel Induráin whom everyone remembers as a pretty much as a humble and a nice guy. As Floyd Landis pointed out a few years ago, even LeMond was buddy-buddy with the Spaniard even when LeMond has his more-or-less credible anti-doping stance and has claimed that pretty much every winner since 1990 has been tainted.
Hey...wait one minute here; "Big Mig" hasn't been taited! There may be some suspicion & speculation, but that's about it. You're talking about the 5-time Tour Champ and one hell of a physical specimen! He's a National hero in Spain and well respected with a races named after him. He gets to ride in the convertible with the other legends; "The Cannibal," Lemond & Hinault. Don't try to drag Big Mig down to the level of that pathetic, slimy Armstrong, who's a disgrace to cycling!
Spain was Europe's doping capital in the '90's.
Hopefully no one wasted 45 min on the Lanced vid. Bob Roll has a credible take:
La Pharmaceutical wrote:
I Like Big Mig wrote:
Hey...wait one minute here; "Big Mig" hasn't been taited! There may be some suspicion & speculation, but that's about it. You're talking about the 5-time Tour Champ and one hell of a physical specimen! He's a National hero in Spain and well respected with a races named after him. He gets to ride in the convertible with the other legends; "The Cannibal," Lemond & Hinault. Don't try to drag Big Mig down to the level of that pathetic, slimy Armstrong, who's a disgrace to cycling!
Spain was Europe's doping capital in the '90's.
C'mon man...what's that got to do with Big Mig's dignity & status as one of the greatest cycling legends?
http://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/423/miguel-indurain-the-record-tour-winnerAragon wrote:
Armstrong was one of the most tested athletes of his era and as historian Paul Dimeo points out, there has been disproportional focus on him from part of legal and anti-doping activists:
The reason for targeting Armstrong seems to be that he was the most successful cyclist of the period. Yet, that seems an arbitrary and unfair criterion: why not pursue accusations against cyclists who came 2nd, 9th or 15th in Grand Tours? We could develop that further and argue that antidoping investigations should really be universal rather than individual – all cyclists should be treated with the same energetic focus, not just the one that is successful, unpopular and making a return to the sport.
Dimeo also quotes researchers Kathryn Henne who specialises on the legal side of the subject and even she noticed that there was something weird going on to put it mildly:
Having ethnographically studied the anti-doping regime since 2007, I can attest that nearly every anti-doping official I have met has gone on record saying that ‘catching’ Armstrong would be the anti-doping movement’s crowning achievement.
After all this borderline-obsessive behaviour to "catch him", it is pretty obvious that even with all the money spent, all the affidavits, all the crocodile tears of Mr. Tygart, all the money trails and other evidence, USADA and other participants have came up pretty much with nothing on the issue of his "super"-technologies not available to others. Even The Independent Reform Commission had access to all the relevant data from the UCI archives and didn't find this NASA technology and - as far as I can tell - had difficulties in finding evidence on the "preferential treatment" issue.
There is a body of literature on this subject, but debating the issue with anyone who sees Betsy Andreu as the foremost authority on the issue is a doomed effort.
Maybe he was using a motor? ?.
We all know that the vast majority of top GT contenders of his era were doped and some were also on very good teams, but yet LA crushed these rivals for seven straight years. With the exception of 2003 (where he won a close one over Ulrich by a minute) he literally destroyed the world's best!
Granted he had uncanny luck in avoiding crashes, but there seems to be something "fishy" going on with that much dominance displayed year after year.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
stupid and silly wrote:
He may have hurt some feelings, made a few people cry, scared a few people, but ruined lives?
Person must be pretty shallow to allow his threats and intimidation to that.
You seem to have forgotten he did much, much more than threaten.
Cheated other athletes out of a number of wins.
Litigated a number of support staff from poor to broke.
Ended Lemond's product line at Trek because Lemond publicly stated it couldn't be possible for him to win clean.
Put Landis in the poor house.
To make an omelette you have to break some eggs. Nothing wrong with that.
I Like Big Mig wrote:
Aragon wrote:
The issue of "super-technology", motivations of USADA or the reliability of Tyler Hamilton has absolutely nothing to do whether Armstrong was "bad", "worse than others", went too far in his legal lawsuits or whether he was an utter pr*ck.
Perhaps one reason why it was easy to find witnesses against him was that he was the opposite of Miguel Induráin whom everyone remembers as a pretty much as a humble and a nice guy. As Floyd Landis pointed out a few years ago, even LeMond was buddy-buddy with the Spaniard even when LeMond has his more-or-less credible anti-doping stance and has claimed that pretty much every winner since 1990 has been tainted.
Hey...wait one minute here; "Big Mig" hasn't been taited! There may be some suspicion & speculation, but that's about it. You're talking about the 5-time Tour Champ and one hell of a physical specimen! He's a National hero in Spain and well respected with a races named after him. He gets to ride in the convertible with the other legends; "The Cannibal," Lemond & Hinault. Don't try to drag Big Mig down to the level of that pathetic, slimy Armstrong, who's a disgrace to cycling!
Mig tested positive for a masking agent that just happened to be present in the syphilis medication he was taking. Who doesn't get syphilis these days?
a whiff of the syph wrote:
Mig tested positive for a masking agent that just happened to be present in the syphilis medication he was taking. Who doesn't get syphilis these days?
If I was banging hundreds of hot chicks like a tdf winner, I would be happy to get away with just syphilis...
a whiff of the syph wrote:
Mig tested positive for a masking agent that just happened to be present in the syphilis medication he was taking. Who doesn't get syphilis these days?
C'mon man!..have you been drinking too much during the holiday season? ?. Big Mig tested positive for "salbutamol" back in 1994 and was just given a warning or something like that (the same stuff Fromey tested for):
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/drugs-in-sport-indurain-allowed-to-use-banned-drug-1379584.htmlAnd please do explain to the listening audience how salbutamol/albuterol asthma medications are "masking agents." ?
I Like Big Mig wrote:
a whiff of the syph wrote:
Mig tested positive for a masking agent that just happened to be present in the syphilis medication he was taking. Who doesn't get syphilis these days?
C'mon man!..have you been drinking too much during the holiday season? ?. Big Mig tested positive for "salbutamol" back in 1994 and was just given a warning or something like that (the same stuff Fromey tested for):
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/drugs-in-sport-indurain-allowed-to-use-banned-drug-1379584.htmlAnd please do explain to the listening audience how salbutamol/albuterol asthma medications are "masking agents." ?
It was syph meds despite the altered narrative.
Aragon wrote:
Armstrong was one of the most tested athletes of his era and as historian Paul Dimeo points out, there has been disproportional focus on him from part of legal and anti-doping activists:
The reason for targeting Armstrong seems to be that he was the most successful cyclist of the period. Yet, that seems an arbitrary and unfair criterion: why not pursue accusations against cyclists who came 2nd, 9th or 15th in Grand Tours? We could develop that further and argue that antidoping investigations should really be universal rather than individual – all cyclists should be treated with the same energetic focus, not just the one that is successful, unpopular and making a return to the sport.
Dimeo also quotes researchers Kathryn Henne who specialises on the legal side of the subject and even she noticed that there was something weird going on to put it mildly:
Having ethnographically studied the anti-doping regime since 2007, I can attest that nearly every anti-doping official I have met has gone on record saying that ‘catching’ Armstrong would be the anti-doping movement’s crowning achievement.
After all this borderline-obsessive behaviour to "catch him", it is pretty obvious that even with all the money spent, all the affidavits, all the crocodile tears of Mr. Tygart, all the money trails and other evidence, USADA and other participants have came up pretty much with nothing on the issue of his "super"-technologies not available to others. Even The Independent Reform Commission had access to all the relevant data from the UCI archives and didn't find this NASA technology and - as far as I can tell - had difficulties in finding evidence on the "preferential treatment" issue.
There is a body of literature on this subject, but debating the issue with anyone who sees Betsy Andreu as the foremost authority on the issue is a doomed effort.
Aragon, ultimately he admitted in public TV his misdeeds, so you are wasting your time defending him when he already confessed. Are you sure you've been living on this planet since 2012?
sisyphus up the mountain wrote:
It was syph meds despite the altered narrative.
We'll, then...give me a link or something. Anybody can say anything about anyone on the internet these days (imagine that ?).
donyiyo wrote:
Aragon, ultimately he admitted in public TV his misdeeds, so you are wasting your time defending him when he already confessed. Are you sure you've been living on this planet since 2012?
1) Armstrong admitted only to those misdeeds that were already proven...
2) These drug cheat apologists like Aragon and rekrunner and JO crack me up, as repetitive and predictable they are, à la Armstrong was wrongfully targeted, Gatlin and Slaney doped only once by mistake, Radcliffe was clean, Farah really is deaf etc etc. Basically, take the most outrageous lie of any athlete, and keep repeating it here (I took my grandma's medication by mistake, those are my twin's data, I made out with a hooker etc etc).
breaking eggs wrote:To make an omelette you have to break some eggs. Nothing wrong with that.
I didn't know sports events were omelettes.
Entertainment that simulates sport is called the WWE. You can't have it both ways.
donyiyo wrote:
Aragon, ultimately he admitted in public TV his misdeeds, so you are wasting your time defending him when he already confessed. Are you sure you've been living on this planet since 2012?
The only ones left are religious about the scumbag, or trolling.
Drug cheat apologist? I never get that. I thought I was quite critical of Armstrong a few pages back. He took drugs, and should be punished to the full extent that rules permit, but that was the least of his sins. If you can show someone took drugs, by all means, punish them according to the rules. I just wonder how victims like Bassons, Mike Anderson, and Greg Lemond will be made whole again.
fixing stuff wrote:
donyiyo wrote:
Aragon, ultimately he admitted in public TV his misdeeds, so you are wasting your time defending him when he already confessed. Are you sure you've been living on this planet since 2012?
1) Armstrong admitted only to those misdeeds that were already proven...
2) These drug cheat apologists like Aragon and rekrunner and JO crack me up, as repetitive and predictable they are, à la Armstrong was wrongfully targeted, Gatlin and Slaney doped only once by mistake, Radcliffe was clean, Farah really is deaf etc etc. Basically, take the most outrageous lie of any athlete, and keep repeating it here (I took my grandma's medication by mistake, those are my twin's data, I made out with a hooker etc etc).
rekrunner wrote:
Drug cheat apologist? I never get that.
I thought I was quite critical of Armstrong a few pages back.
He took drugs, and should be punished to the full extent that rules permit, but that was the least of his sins. If you can show someone took drugs, by all means, punish them according to the rules.
Geez...rekrunner...why would you think that when you believe EPO/blood doping is ineffective? ?
rekrunner wrote:
Drug cheat apologist? I never get that.
I thought I was quite critical of Armstrong a few pages back.
Kidding, right?
Yes, you are critical of Armstrong, but are a strong apologist for
- Baumann (took only toothpaste)
- Decker (had menopause)
- Radcliffe ( measurement errors)
- Farah (does not hear well)
- Jeptoo (doped only once, which didn't help)
- Gatlin (doped only once, wins clean at age 35)
- Wilson (ate beef)
- Aden (handed out vitamins)
- Salazar (wasn't Decker's coach, using forbidden methods is ok)
and so on. Quite obvious a drug cheat apologist, whether you like Armstrong or not.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC
Clayton Murphy is giving some great insight into his training.
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion