ForumsWEPRLance Armstrong

62 6009
deathbewithyou
offline
deathbewithyou
534 posts
185

Lance Armstrong once considered the greatest cyclist in the world, now condemned because of accusations of using drugs to win his races. The FBI came to investigate Armstrong and questioned many of the witnesses. However, These witnesses' testimonies were considered unreliable by the FBI and because all of Armstrongs drug test came out positive, the FBI decided that he was innocent.
Another group decided to investigate Armstrong and they began using the testimonies of the witnesses whom the FBI already considered unreliable. Because of this Armstrong is considered a liar and a cheat even though he has already taken hundreds of drug tests. UCL has agreed that Armstrong should be stripped of his titles.

Lance Armstrong is famous for having won several awards on the "Tour De France" and raises money to help stop cancer. Lance Armstrong will be stripped of his titles and will be considered a lyer and a cheat.

  • 62 Replies
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,946 posts
21,265

He got what he deserved. The investigations found a whole network that made him capable of avoiding or passing tests, he pressed the members of his own team to also use drugs, and I don't see why they would speak against him and thus reveal their own cheat, if he didn't take any drugs himself. They got enough testimonies and evidence, I think, to ridicule the evaluation of the FBI. Besides, he's by far not the only one using drugs, the whole Tour de France is a drug nest and corruption makes it possible; actually, I think they should continute the investigation among the organisators and find out how this didn't happen earlier.

xerox
offline
xerox
715 posts
4,730

I really hate how peoples always believe the one who lie, and the one saying the truth are considered liars. the truth is that no one says the truth. You cant believe anyone anywhere.

He did not use drugs. It's a conspiracy! I bet that the group that investigated were send just to prove everyone that he uses drugs, after FBI proved he is innocent. Mostly because we do not believe in the government, and this serves as an opportunity for control.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

it shows again how easily we all can be fooled.

anyway, he wasn't my cycling hero. so i don't care much about it really. it sucks for the whole cycling world that something like this happens again and again. it doesn't make the sport more appealing.
but on the other hand did i hear somewhere that 80 to 90% of them use "steroids" so i guess it's a even game in the end after all.

oh well...

redslaughterer
offline
redslaughterer
257 posts
150

I'm not a big cycling fan, but I have heard of Lance Armstrong. I agree with Hahiha, he should not have use drugs in the first place. Actually, I think it was blood-doping or something. He should have done his races fair, without the use of steroids. Though he did some good work with the foundation he created for a disease. I don't know it off the top of my head. In the end, I think he wasn't a bad man.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,946 posts
21,265

It's a conspiracy!

ZOMG! Dozens of people admit having been part of a doping network just to take one guy down! Absolutely makes sense. He must be suuuch a poor, nice guy

, after FBI proved he is innocent.

From what the OP states, the FBI merely deemed the witnesses unreliable. If they had proof contradicting the current investigation, why did this investigation result in this? Huh?
VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
800

Armstrong

-FBI deemed him innocent
-Passes dozens of drug tests
-witnesses deemed unreliable
-Plus he is known for donating to charities

-Second group comes in after their own "investigations" and deems him guilty

Hmmm, I wonder what to think. Innocent or guilty. A real toss up (sarcasm)

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,946 posts
21,265

-FBI deemed him innocent

Because FBI are the bleeping gods now?

-Passes dozens of drug tests

He had connections that manipulated the results, if he made them at all; he avoided many by knowing when they'll pass, and simply not opening the door.

-witnesses deemed unreliable

See first point.

-Plus he is known for donating to charities

Aaaand that is an incredible argument for him not being doped!

-Second group comes in after their own "investigations" and deems him guilty

Maybe they have new evidence? People started to talk? He apparently did mob/control them, after all.

Hmmm, I wonder what to think. Innocent or guilty. A real toss up (sarcasm)

This whole affair is a mess, it's a real mud party, and everyone is involved; I'm not demonizing him for being the big deception, but the Tour de France is world-wide infamous for doping. I think the organisators aren't innocent either, and it is possible that they dropped Lance after tolerating him all these years. Who knows... at least I'm sure of one thing: Lance is not clean. Never has been.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,946 posts
21,265

Oh, and I forgot something..

-Passes dozens of drug tests

He did not pass them all however. But somehow managed to still get away.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

It's funny how it happened. He lost everything. His credibility, his job, his trustworthiness, his life, essentially. No one's willing to trust a man even accused of such a thing, whether or not he actually partook in such practices.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

He did not pass them all however. But somehow managed to still get away.


some tour de france official said like 3 times in a interview "he did pass all the tests".

it's to confusing. i'm just going to wait on the final rapport. and rest the case whit that.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

it's to confusing. i'm just going to wait on the final rapport. and rest the case whit that.


I doubt there'll ever be a "final report" because people will always have their doubts. Stupidly biased media will always say otherwise, and stupid people will either believed or argue the facts blindly.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

I doubt there'll ever be a "final report" because people will always have their doubts. Stupidly biased media will always say otherwise, and stupid people will either believed or argue the facts blindly.


there will be a official final rapport sometime. and i mend that.
i'm not going to care what the media and random people are going to say.

so i'm out of here. =)
VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
800

Because FBI are the bleeping gods now?

From the comments you make, it sounds like you are trying to rouse up a witch hunt against this Lance Armstrong guy and are paranoid about the government and how "corrupt" they are. I do not believe you would listen to any type of reasonable arguments considering your immature comments like "Because FBI are the bleeping gods now?" That is not a valid come back or argument.

Lance is not clean. Never has been.

Opinion of yours, not a fact.

Maybe they have new evidence? People started to talk?

So you believe Armstrong is guilty because of "maybes" and ifs?

I don't know about you or anyone else, but I have this crazy notion of believing people aren't out to get us and the government + FBI are mostly in-corrupt, especially about things like drug testing, so I tend to believe in the facts and FBI and not random groups coming in doing their own "investigations".
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,946 posts
21,265

My previous comments were a bit arrogant and heated, I admit. Still there are issues I just cannot ignore.

First, I never heard that thing about the FBI in any news. Doesn't have to mean anything. But I ask you, how could this investigation successfully bring Lance down, if the FBI had any valid proof of his innocence? The way it sounded, the FBI merely deemed some people unreliable and called it quits. I dunno, but maybe if you show me I could revise my opinion.

Second, he might seem like a great guy with his foundation and all, but those are all sentimental arguments that absolutely do not proove anything. Cyclist legend or not, "good guy" or not; who cares. Actually, all this fuss was made around that trial because of that; there are dozens other cases like these in the cyclism world, but noone speaks about it because it's not Lance. But he's by far not the first. And as I said, the Tour de France is a doping nest. It isn't that surprising, and actually, many people like me always suspected him to dope himself. He has done performances almost impossible to do without doping, over and over; and I know you like to believe in miracles and wonderpeople, but this was going too far.

VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
800

Second, he might seem like a great guy with his foundation and all, but those are all sentimental arguments that absolutely do not proove anything. Cyclist legend or not, "good guy" or not; who cares

Things like donating to charities is a character witness, it shows the morals of the said person, and shows whether or not the person is more likely to do something such as doping or not.

But I ask you, how could this investigation successfully bring Lance down, if the FBI had any valid proof of his innocence?

Perhaps because he refused to fight back and chose not to enter into arbitration (because of reasons linked below)?

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/24/lance-armstrong-fight-doping-charges]

First, I never heard that thing about the FBI in any news.

Well if you did search on google it does show that the federal government did follow and investigate Armstrong for about two years and then dropped the investigations.

He has done performances almost impossible to do without doping, over and over; and I know you like to believe in miracles and wonderpeople, but this was going too far.

Baseless claims. Because I'm defending Armstrong I'm an escapist now?
Showing 1-15 of 62