- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lance Armstrong wants apology from 60 Minutes
Posted on 6/2/11 at 1:54 pm to Chad504boy
Posted on 6/2/11 at 1:54 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
And fact: Lance Armstrong would not have won 7 tour de frenchies without doping.
Seriously?
I see it like this. If Lance was doping, so was everyone else. He still beat everyone else who was doping so the achievement is still equally as impressive for me. Same goes with Bonds. Why get mad at Bonds for steroids when everyone was doing it? Just because he happened to hit more homeruns than everyone else who was juicing? It's not fair that only the biggest stars get their asses handed to them for doping/steroids when every motherfricker in their respective sports is doing the same exact thing.
This post was edited on 6/2/11 at 1:55 pm
1
Posted on 6/2/11 at 1:59 pm to Los Tigres
quote:
Seriously?
quote:
And fact: Lance Armstrong would not have won 7 tour de frenchies without doping.
Um, yes Fact. If Lance wasn't doping, NO WAY NO HOW he'd win 7 frenchies.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 2:00 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
Um, yes Fact. If Lance wasn't doping, NO WAY NO HOW he'd win 7 frenchies.
Right, because everyone else was also doping.
It was an equal playing field in my eyes, and he still won.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 2:01 pm to Los Tigres
quote:
Right, because everyone else was also doping.
It was an equal playing field in my eyes, and he still won.
You are dodging the point I posted. Equal playing field nothing. If Lance wasn't doping, he would not have won 7 frenchies. Let me know when you agree.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 2:05 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
You are dodging the point I posted. Equal playing field nothing. If Lance wasn't doping, he would not have won 7 frenchies. Let me know when you agree.
So you wanted Lance to be clean while everyone else was doping? How does equal playing field have nothing to do with it? It suddenly isn't fair to all the other doping riders because he won more?
ETA: Calling them "Frenchies" doesn't make your point any better.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 2:15 pm to Los Tigres
quote:
So you wanted Lance to be clean while everyone else was doping? How does equal playing field have nothing to do with it? It suddenly isn't fair to all the other doping riders because he won more?
If that's Lance's reasoning then he should just admit that he was only keeping up with competition and only fair. So you are in agreement that he would not have won 7 frenchies if in fact he was not doping. Great. thanks for playing.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 2:17 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
Nobody likes Barry Bonds more than I do, but to suggest steroids didn't help him only because there hasn't been a definitive study to prove it is beyond naive.
Here's a long read which includes citations from multiple studies on whether or not steroids have had any MATERIAL impact on hitters.
LINK
A little snippet:
quote:
As I remarked above, there are at least five other studies--all listed and linked on the longer page--all based on sophisticated analysis of real data, and each using a different approach, that each reach the same basic conclusion: there is no visible effect attributable to steroids. In the most mathematically dense and rigorous paper, its author, Professor Arthur DeVany, spares no words: There is no evidence that steroid use has altered home-run hitting and those who argue otherwise are profoundly ignorant of the statistics of home runs, the physics of baseball, and of the physiological effects of steroids.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 2:28 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
If that's Lance's reasoning then he should just admit that he was only keeping up with competition and only fair. So you are in agreement that he would not have won 7 frenchies if in fact he was not doping. Great. thanks for playing.
You're pretty lame. Even if you have good points, you argue like a 12 year old girl who is a little insecure about going through puberty.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 2:30 pm to Los Tigres
quote:
You're pretty lame. Even if you have good points, you argue like a 12 year old girl who is a little insecure about going through puberty.
You called out my statement and are bringing points and reasoning that have nothing to do with my statement made. I'm only arguing like a 12 year old girl cause that's all the effort it is taking to squash you right now.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 2:31 pm to Chad504boy
If Lance wasn't doping, he would have 7 straight Tours de France. Want to know why? Becuase he modified his whole schedule just to ride that one race, instead of the whole season. He had a remarkable ability to endure suffering, his #1 attribute. And he was absolutely ruthless and he psychologically crushed his opponents. The only one he didn't mentally crush was in an accident so horrific I don't like to talk about it.
As long as we're dealing in unproveable hypotheticals, I say he wins 7 straight without doping. Prove me wrong.
As long as we're dealing in unproveable hypotheticals, I say he wins 7 straight without doping. Prove me wrong.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 2:33 pm to Baloo
quote:
If Lance wasn't doping, he would have 7 straight Tours de France. Want to know why? Becuase he modified his whole schedule just to ride that one race, instead of the whole season. He had a remarkable ability to endure suffering, his #1 attribute. And he was absolutely ruthless and he psychologically crushed his opponents. The only one he didn't mentally crush was in an accident so horrific I don't like to talk about it.
As long as we're dealing in unproveable hypotheticals, I say he wins 7 straight without doping. Prove me wrong.
Proof: He wouldn't have doped if tis was truth.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 2:35 pm to Chad504boy
Prove he doped.
And plenty of athletes do things which break the rules to give them a small, imperceptible edge (or even none at all, save a placebo effect). Witness how many hitters have corked their bats, when its not even proven that helps.
And plenty of athletes do things which break the rules to give them a small, imperceptible edge (or even none at all, save a placebo effect). Witness how many hitters have corked their bats, when its not even proven that helps.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 2:37 pm to Baloo
quote:
Prove he doped.
his teammates turning him in is all I need because i'm not a naive smuck.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 2:41 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
You called out my statement and are bringing points and reasoning that have nothing to do with my statement made. I'm only arguing like a 12 year old girl cause that's all the effort it is taking to squash you right now.
Probably because your statement is a worthless, moot point. Nobody can prove or disprove that he would or would not have won 7 tours if he even was doping, which you believe without any doubt obviously. You are just saying a subjective statement and then sticking your fingers in your ears going "la, la, la"
Posted on 6/2/11 at 2:44 pm to Los Tigres
quote:
Probably because your statement is a worthless, moot point. Nobody can prove or disprove that he would or would not have won 7 tours if he even was doping, which you believe without any doubt obviously. You are just saying a subjective statement and then sticking your fingers in your ears going "la, la, la"
Discussing anything about Lance Ballstrong is a worthless moot argument because nothing is proven either way as to his legitimacy of his accomplishments nor what his accomplishments could have been otherwise. What I do know is he's a lying doping weasel and cries like a bitch.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 2:59 pm to Chad504boy
quote:Oh, accusations are automatically proof of guilt. I'm glad the principle of innocent until proven guilty rings so strongly with you.
his teammates turning him in is all I need because i'm not a naive smuck.
Tyler Hamilton is one of my all-time favorite cyclists. I was a huge, huge fan of his (and I'm taking a wild stab in the dark that you don't follow cycling). Hamilton was a Postie on three of those Tours, but he left the team under fairly bitter circumstances. Lance demands total loyalt and everybody on the team had to give up their own goals for Lance's glory in the Tour. It rubbed a lot of guys the wrong way, and they left for other teams and became his biggest rivals.
Hamilton was caught doping, going back to his samples for the Olympics in 2004. In the timeline of his career, he left Lance in 2001. His implication of Lance didn't come until this year, nearly 10 years after his split. Also, the first objective proof of Hamilton doping wasn't until 2003, a good two years after he left Postal.
I love Hamilton. But I don't entirely trust his testimony on Lance due to the fact they, well, hate each other. Lance Armstrong is a massive dick. That's what made him good. I do trust Hincapie's testimony more, as he was a far more loyal lieutenant, but he's denied the 60 Minutes report. We'll see.
But your argument is pretty much straight out of Kafka. He's accused, so he is therefore guilty. his denials are proof of guilt. There's no need for proof, only what we know.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 3:47 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
Prove he doped.
I repeat, his urine samples from the '99 Tour de France tested positive for EPO. What other proof is needed?
Lance complained about the validity of the test results, so the French agency offered to retest the samples for him. Lance told them not to bother. Suspicious enough for anyone else?
Posted on 6/2/11 at 6:18 pm to Baloo
quote:
And plenty of athletes do things which break the rules to give them a small, imperceptible edge (or even none at all, save a placebo effect). Witness how many hitters have corked their bats, when its not even proven that helps.
But why would guys face scorn and exile by corking their bats if it doesn't give them a material advantage? /mocking that particular bit of steroid outrage
Posted on 6/2/11 at 11:45 pm to Baloo
quote:
You are completely misinterpreting that line. I'm saying why would you read a long Supreme Court decision if you didn't have to and it had no bearing on your life. You could read it if you're really curious, but, really... why?
Chill out. I'm just saying it's boring
shite, I apologize.
I shoulda known better, Baloo is the go to guy on the MSB.
My bad.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 11:58 pm to Sophandros
It's hard to tell with a corked bat. They can't measure it. The lighter bat swings faster, but it's hard to tell if that increase in velocity more than makes up for the loss of mass.
Steroids...you can point to whatever study you want, but any reasonable and sane doctor will tell you they work...and very well.
Steroids...you can point to whatever study you want, but any reasonable and sane doctor will tell you they work...and very well.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News