If you believe Lance raced clean this is your thread. Livestrong here.

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
SilentAssassin said:
This thread is for people who think Lance raced clean. So if you support Lance you can voice your opinion here. I don't have an opinion of his innocence or guilt but I will point out the reasons why we can believe Lance raced clean:

1. Over 500 tests and Lance never tested positive. It's tough to cheat 500 tests you can't argue with that...so logically it can seem unlikely that Lance cheated taking this into consideration.
2. No video, sound recordings, recorded phone conversations, or pictures of Lance doping throughout his long career. This lack of evidence is a bit disturbing since he has been racing so long.
3. Most of the witnesses seem to be ex dopers who might be making deals to stay in the cycling game so long as they lie and confess to Lance...even if it's not true.
4. His peers seemed to have tested positive but Lance has not. Did his teammates not follow Lance's doping guide book? If they tested positive and Lance didn't...maybe they were the ones that were cheating and Lance wasn't.
5. USADA review board has a questionable judge who was charged with indecent exposure. Say all you want but if you wanted a judge in your case you probably wouldn't ask this guy to be on the review board deciding your life's work was one big cheat.
6. 7 Tour De France titles are the cause of cheating. In all likelihood this is very doubtful. For one, you still have to get your body over Mount Ventoux. All the cheats in the world won't get you up that mountain in first place...not unless you strap a motorcycle motor on that bike lol.
7. Lance's Character throughout race and life doesn't seem like one that would cheat:
a) Had and fought through cancer
b) Started Livestrong and made a comeback tour for Livestrong
c) Good gestures throughout the tour like waiting for Ulrich when he crashed.

I have no opinion in this matter. But there are a lot of compelling reasons to believe Lance raced clean. So it's important to look at both sides of the argument. I prefer to believe Lance raced clean but I don't really know. It's just a good thing to look at both sides of the argument, and you really can't do that in the other thread.
 
Jan 22, 2011
403
0
9,280
SilentAssassin said:
So if you support Lance you can voice your opinion here. I don't have an opinion of his innocence or guilt but I will point out the reasons why we can believe Lance raced clean:

I have no opinion in this matter. But there are a lot of compelling reasons to believe Lance raced clean. So it's important to look at both sides of the argument. I prefer to believe Lance raced clean but I don't really know. It's just a good thing to look at both sides of the argument, and you really can't do that in the other thread.
par·lance [pahr-luhns] noun
1. a way or manner of speaking; vernacular; idiom: legal parlance.
2. speech, especially a formal discussion or debate.
3. talk; parley.

This particular 'parLance' is more proLance in spite of 'no opinion' being clearly stated.
 
Feb 16, 2011
1,457
0
0
Of course Lance raced clean. He showered twice a day and was always freshly shaven. Smelled of Davidoff, too.
 
Feb 23, 2012
240
0
0
SilentAssassin said:
This thread is for people who think Lance raced clean ....
THINK being the operative word.

But the title of the thread is "If you BELIEVE ...".

THINKING and BELIEVING are opposites.

So, from the start, the OP's approach is flawed, based on confusion. Not logical.

Add to this the fact that the OP's "facts" are suspect, if not outright wrong, and I move on and away.

What's for dinner tonight?
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
lactictac said:
THINK being the operative word.

But the title of the thread is "If you BELIEVE ...".

THINKING and BELIEVING are opposites.

So, from the start, the OP's approach is flawed, based on confusion. Not logical.

Add to this the fact that the OP's "facts" are suspect, if not outright wrong, and I move on and away.

What's for dinner tonight?
The opposite of believing is disbelieving . The opposite of thinking is possibly unthinking. If you believe something you are still thinking it. Much like I think Lance doped in fact I believe it.......not that your disagreeing with my thoughts or beliefs on that, but to say someone isnt logical when what you say is also illogical....well.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
SilentAssassin said:
This thread is for people who think Lance raced clean. So if you support Lance you can voice your opinion here. I don't have an opinion of his innocence or guilt...
OK, so you don´t have an opinion? Your are just another Pharmstrong lover who can´t deal with the truth.

Here is what you really think:
SilentAssassin said:
Or he just got a year older and if you watched theh 2010 tour, he was involved in a few accidents and bad luck flats.

So wait, more witnesses are from people that made deals with USADA?

It's going to be interesting when this whole case falls apart and this thread disappears just like the failed federal investigation.
... from the USADA thread yesterday.... you poor little liar, same as your idol. Pfui. :mad:
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
TheEnoculator said:
Is this a troll? These arguments are the EXACT same ones used by people who know nothing about cycling. This thread might belong to a cricket forum going off-topic, but it has no place in CN's "The Clinic".

Yeah, it's a troll.
My thoughts also
It's not serious, even if it was intended to be.
Starting with faulty points to begin with.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
B_Ugli said:
....
7. Ashendens assessment of the 1999 samples
.....
As a scientist by education, reading this was a watershed moment for me.
I used to be a LA supporter due to being a life-long American cyclist.

Being a scientist makes you put logic before emotion and everything then falls into place. It's not a matter of "choosing" what to believe, as if it was a choice at all. Belief needs to be dictated by the facts. When presented with a fact, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you, you need to belive what is true and not simply what you wish were true.
 
Jun 25, 2012
283
0
0
SilentAssassin said:
This thread is for people who think Lance raced clean. So if you support Lance you can voice your opinion here. I don't have an opinion of his innocence or guilt but I will point out the reasons why we can believe Lance raced clean:

1. Over 500 tests and Lance never tested positive. It's tough to cheat 500 tests you can't argue with that...so logically it can seem unlikely that Lance cheated taking this into consideration.
I can find you atleast 10 high profile riders that can claim the same and they still came clean later on "without proof on them" that is if we count the real test number (120 test)
2. No video, sound recordings, recorded phone conversations, or pictures of Lance doping throughout his long career. This lack of evidence is a bit disturbing since he has been racing so long.
Because thats how dopers are caught right ?
3. Most of the witnesses seem to be ex dopers who might be making deals to stay in the cycling game so long as they lie and confess to Lance...even if it's not true.
Thats actually a lie ^^ since half of them would not have been convicted of doping
4. His peers seemed to have tested positive but Lance has not. Did his teammates not follow Lance's doping guide book? If they tested positive and Lance didn't...maybe they were the ones that were cheating and Lance wasn't.
There is a few test that shows armstrong doped (if we look at the values) we can only guess about why nothing happened, but he is not the first rider to get this treatment ^^
5. USADA review board has a questionable judge who was charged with indecent exposure. Say all you want but if you wanted a judge in your case you probably wouldn't ask this guy to be on the review board deciding your life's work was one big cheat.
Nobody would be convicted ever, if thats all it takes to get free ^^
6. 7 Tour De France titles are the cause of cheating. In all likelihood this is very doubtful. For one, you still have to get your body over Mount Ventoux. All the cheats in the world won't get you up that mountain in first place...not unless you strap a motorcycle motor on that bike lol.
I can remember several times, where the whole team was better than all others (even water boys did better than real climbers) a full doped team does alot, not to mention all the moto help Armstrong got ^^
7. Lance's Character throughout race and life doesn't seem like one that would cheat:
a) Had and fought through cancer
b) Started Livestrong and made a comeback tour for Livestrong
c) Good gestures throughout the tour like waiting for Ulrich when he crashed.


a) He doped and got cancer
b) after his doping comeback, he used fight against cancer as a front to look better... (who whould ever accuse a poor cancer victim)
c) I've seen plenty of armstrong moments where he intimidate other riders and being a ****

I have no opinion in this matter. But there are a lot of compelling reasons to believe Lance raced clean. So it's important to look at both sides of the argument. I prefer to believe Lance raced clean but I don't really know. It's just a good thing to look at both sides of the argument, and you really can't do that in the other thread.
All have their right to their own opinion, I respect that.. my opinion is that everone that believes Armstrong is clean is either. A) Lacks intelligens (also about cycling and big sport in general) B) need an american hero (sadly avg joe needs this to have a good life) C) got cancer and are sympathetic
Now this might sound harsh, but its not.. this is just my opinion, you are totaly entitled to yours, but if you look at old cases and cycling even science, you would know deep inside that he is a fraud...

Last comment, I don't hate Armstrong as such, I actually respect him for his effort (doped or not) since as you like to use as a comment "All doped anyway" the thing is.. most of those guys came clean and don't pressure young riders into hell where they might end up with getting cancer, Armstrong does.... in my opinion, he should face criminal charges for pushing riders into doping!! cancer kills people you know.
Responses in Magenta
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
This thread equates to trying to generate free advertising for liestrong, never mind PR BS and obfuscation of Armstrong's guilt.

Failed.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
SilentAssassin said:
I don't have an opinion of his innocence or guilt...

I have no opinion in this matter.
Seems like you presented your "opinion" in seven bullett points...
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
fishtacos said:
To stay on topic and refute your "logic": Lance has never proved your Item 1 with a comprehensive list of the alleged 500 tests he's undergone. He came up with the number; the onus is on him to prove that it's correct.
Exactly. A rider at his level, and with his attention to detail (not to mention his huge support staff) should have every test clearly logged in his training diary. Simple task to provide a copy.
 
Jul 19, 2010
741
1
0
I'm surprised so many people give this thread their time of day (including myself). SilentAssassin has not responded since he/she started this thread, and based on the responses, the OP knows he/she doesn't have a freaking leg to stand on with his/her points.

Even the title clearly shows the OP is just a fanboy/fangirl ("Livestrong here").
 
Jul 20, 2010
247
0
0
noddy69 said:
1. He did fail a test so thats a bad start.
2. There are no pictures etc that I know of most people who have doped.
3. Thats not even a defence, trying to say that the only ones who would know ie those who doped, are not to be trusted. If the dopers cant testify then he gets off.
4.His peers didnt all test positive, George Hincapie being one who looks like he is going to testify.
5.Change the judge.
6.That one doesnt make sense....if your doping you get over the mountain quicker.simple.
7.A) Fighting through cancer doesnt mean you are of good character.
B) Made a comeback tour for money, yes for livestrong, but he makes a personal fortune from that as well as doing good.
C)Good gestures....what about chasing down simeoni.

There are 2 sides to every story but you will have to come up with more convincing arguments then that.
1) If you believe in the conspiracy cover-up theories...but that's just not fact.
2) Well there was the recorded conversation of bonds discussing steroids:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/sports/baseball/24bonds.html
3) Witnesses testifying so that their charges can either be reduced or dropped isn't a new thing.
4) Who looks like....see that's the problem is when you guys mistake speculation for fact. You have no idea if Hincapie is a witness.
5) That's doubtful.
6) Or your simply better than your opponent. We shouldn't conclude winning to doping even if a lot of past winners like Contador has tested positive.
7) a) I never said it did.
b) Well he has to make a living. Most of us don't work for free and he does earn his money given the fact that he attracts a lot of attention and donors.
c) Simeoni I think offended the whole peloton when he stated something about all needed to use cheats to win the tour. If you were a clean rider and were a top rider you'd probably take offense I think.
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,238
0
0
I also don't have an opinion on whether he doped, but he did...

"These are not the droids you're looking for" - sorry mate, your Jedi mind tricks don't work on us Jabbas...
 
Jul 8, 2009
501
0
0
Benotti69 said:
proof why this thread is trolling
Correct.. And the fact that it is allowed is a reflection on who? I attempted to point it out on page 2.. But was told "All viewpoints are welcome in the forum, as always."

Pretty easy to look at a posters posting history to deduce that this joke of a thread is in fact... A joke.

"500 passed tests do not lie".. No wait? There's another thread debunking that lie. Might mosey on over there to see if the OP of this joke of a thread is "having no opinion" of Lances cleanliness?
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
SilentAssassin said:
1) If you believe in the conspiracy cover-up theories...but that's just not fact.
Leaving the conspiracy/cover-up stories aside, he did test positive for corticosteroids in 1999:

...In 1999, while Armstrong was on his way to his first Tour victory after beating cancer, a French newspaper received a tip that Armstrong had tested positive for a corticosteroid and had no therapeutic use exemption (TUE) on his medical form. Armstrong, who was riding for the Postal team, had just said in a press conference that he did not have any prescriptions for banned products. When the team discovered that the newspaper had received the tip, panic hit Armstrong and his inner-circle, according to Emma O'Reilly, a soigneur from Ireland who worked with the team and specifically with Armstrong. She was in the hotel room after the 15th Tour stage when, she says, Armstrong and team officials devised a plan.

"They agreed to backdate a medical prescription," O'Reilly tells SI. "They'd gotten a heads up that [Armstrong's] steroid count was high and decided they would actually do a backdated prescription and pretend it was something for saddle sores."

In violation of its own protocol requiring a TUE for use of such a drug, officials from the UCI announced that Armstrong had used a corticosteroid for his skin and his positive result was excused...
So a positive test is fact.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/magazine/05/23/lance.armstrong/index.html#ixzz1zvbelEJ7

and BBC News Story during the 1999 TdF: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/tour_de_france/400344.stm
 
Jul 20, 2010
247
0
0
peterst6906 said:
Leaving the conspiracy/cover-up stories aside, he did test positive for corticosteroids in 1999:



So a positive test is fact.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/magazine/05/23/lance.armstrong/index.html#ixzz1zvbelEJ7

and BBC News Story during the 1999 TdF: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/tour_de_france/400344.stm
O'Reilly does not know what substance Armstrong had injected. O'Reilly made these same allegations in a 2004 book about Armstrong, published only in French, called L.A. Confidentiel.

This is another good example of how badly certain details are passed off as fact. I could of said you murdered someone and wrote a book called "Peter Confidentiel."

Well the problem is when you are famous you have people that want to profit off of you, and will say things that are not true. Obviously there is motive for Oreilly to lie...hence the book "L.A. Confidential" or to gain money and maybe 60 seconds of fame.

Regardless that just isn't fact but could be a desperate attempt to sell more newspapers and books.

There was a woman that said she had Justin Beiber's child. It must be true right, since she said it was? She is a witness and was present at the concert...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS