[SPORTS] I'm shocked!

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:08 pm

Suitably Ironic Moniker wrote:Lance Armstrong banned for life and stripped of his tour titles.

Semaj · Post by **Semaj** » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:26 pm

Hasn't every winner in the past like 15 years been stripped of their title for the most part?

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:51 pm

Heres a bit more positive column regarding Armstrong.
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8310 ... h-honoring" target="_blank

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:21 pm

Really nothing posted about this week's news?

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:54 pm

tjg_marantz wrote:Really nothing posted about this week's news?

Most of us aren't shocked, and the deniers are embarrassed.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:18 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
tjg_marantz wrote:Really nothing posted about this week's news?
Most of us aren't shocked, and the deniers are embarrassed.

You might be right.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:01 pm

Yet more news? What is it?

Google says new book. Is that it?

Koz · Post by **Koz** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:03 pm

USADA released their report and the reasoning for banning Armstrong and it's pretty damning stuff.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:04 pm

Koz wrote:USADA released their report and the reasoning for banning Armstrong and it's pretty damning stuff.

Thanks, will take a look.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:42 pm

Resigns from Livestrong. Dropped by Anheuser-Busch, Trek, FRS and Giro. How's your Wednesday?

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:45 pm

tjg_marantz wrote:Resigns from Livestrong. Dropped by Anheuser-Busch, Trek, FRS and Giro. How's your Wednesday?

Pretty sad turn of events these last few years for the Armstrong legacy. I used to really admire him ever since I read his first book. It's just a shame that it was not what it looked to be.

Newcastle · Post by **Newcastle** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:40 pm

For me, I just dont view him any less that I did before now that the accusations are proven.

I think an interesting angle to this is what he did after the Tour. In launching his Livestrong and really making a huge effort toward fighting cancer. How does that play into his legacy? He made a smart move in resigning from Livestrong.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:11 am

The big thing to me is, he could have come clean a long time ago. But done so in a way that was more dignified. "Yes, I doped. Everyone does it. I was trying to compete on a level playing field with my competitors". Instead he's gone down kicking and screaming, claiming so aggressively that he didn't cheat at any point. In doing so he's put himself in a corner where there is no graceful way out.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:18 am

Crux wrote:The big thing to me is, he could have come clean a long time ago. But done so in a way that was more dignified. "Yes, I doped. Everyone does it. I was trying to compete on a level playing field with my competitors". Instead he's gone down kicking and screaming, claiming so aggressively that he didn't cheat at any point. In doing so he's put himself in a corner where there is no graceful way out.

Clemens won his case (so far).

Qantaga · Post by **Qantaga** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:23 am

Pyperkub wrote: Clemens won his case (so far).

Maybe legally, but his reputation is severely tarnished.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:49 pm

Qantaga wrote:
Pyperkub wrote: Clemens won his case (so far).

Maybe legally, but his reputation is severely tarnished.

Only legally.

There was a report out that Nike paid $500,000 to suppress a positive drug test. "Kathy LeMond, the wife of American cyclist Greg LeMond, ... testified under oath during a 2006 deposition that Nike paid former UCI president Hein Verbruggen $500,000 to cover up a positive drug test."

Ouch

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:55 pm

Wait, aren't negative drug tests a good thing?

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:10 pm

stessier wrote:Wait, aren't negative drug tests a good thing?

uh. right. corrected!

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:52 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Qantaga wrote:
Pyperkub wrote: Clemens won his case (so far).

Maybe legally, but his reputation is severely tarnished.
Only legally.

There was a report out that Nike paid $500,000 to suppress a positive drug test. "Kathy LeMond, the wife of American cyclist Greg LeMond, ... testified under oath during a 2006 deposition that Nike paid former UCI president Hein Verbruggen $500,000 to cover up a positive drug test."

Ouch

Oh, man, if Nike gets implicated...it's like early Christmas.

gameoverman · Post by **gameoverman** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:29 pm

In that Nike story it features some guy's wife saying someone else told her something he heard from someone else. This is an example of the 'avalanche of evidence'?

One guy supposedly didn't report Armstrong because that guy was afraid that false reports of doping would tarnish his wins. So then the accusers have reason to know that mere accusations can ruin someone's reputation in this sport. I'm sure that has no impact on the fact that now, years later, people are saying he did all this stuff. I mean, if a false accusation could ruin your rep, imagine what an accusation that had merit would have done to Armstrong...and yet no one ever found anything even though they looked and looked.

Qantaga · Post by **Qantaga** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:48 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Qantaga wrote:
Pyperkub wrote: Clemens won his case (so far).

Maybe legally, but his reputation is severely tarnished.
Only legally.

While I'm sure this is needless clarification on my part, perhaps I should have gone with the more grammatically correct "Maybe he won his case so far legally," rather than rely on the lazier (slang) "Maybe legally."

gameoverman wrote:I mean, if a false accusation could ruin your rep, imagine what an accusation that had merit would have done to Armstrong...and yet no one ever found anything even though they looked and looked.

Seriously?

You really believe an innocent Armstrong would willingly step down from Livestrong and Nike (who has never terminated any other contract ever, including Kobe and Tiger) would terminate his contract if the accusations were false?

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:24 pm

Qantaga wrote:
While I'm sure this is needless clarification on my part, perhaps I should have gone with the more grammatically correct "Maybe he won his case so far legally," rather than rely on the lazier (slang) "Maybe legally."

I wasn't doing a grammatical correction. I just have a hard time anyone looking at him without a hard core Clemens bias could decide that he was clean.

Qantaga · Post by **Qantaga** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:34 pm

noxiousdog wrote: I wasn't doing a grammatical correction. I just have a hard time anyone looking at him without a hard core Clemens bias could decide that he was clean.

I'm with you.

I know we're into the land of semantics now, but my "Maybe legally" was a (perhaps regional) phrase that meant "setting aside that he won his legal case (so far)."

My "Maybe legally" meant the same thing as your "Only legally" (at least in my mind).

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:17 pm

So, anyone still in the its only a witch hunt camp?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:21 pm

CBS News

A person familiar with the situation says Lance Armstrong confessed to Oprah Winfrey during an interview Monday that he used performance-enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the interview is to be broadcast Thursday on Winfrey's network. CBS News cannot confirm the veracity of the AP source, but Winfrey will appear on "CBS This Morning" on Tuesday to talk about the Armstrong interview.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:59 pm

Fuck Lance Armstrong

What an asshole.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:57 am

Exodor wrote:

You seem shocked by this information. Had you already accepted he had cheated? If so, why does this testimony surprise you? Did you think they were doping after a prayer circle meeting?

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:00 am

I think he's more referring to the mafia tactics not the doping part. Not only was he lying to the public he was doing his best to keep everyone quite. What an asshat.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:12 am

He totally should write a book "What a Dope". I bet it would sell in the millions.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:15 am

Octavious wrote:I think he's more referring to the mafia tactics not the doping part. Not only was he lying to the public he was doing his best to keep everyone quite. What an asshat.

I guess I'm just surprised that anyone thinks a conspiracy is a pleasant endeavor. Of course there were mafia tactics.

Octavious wrote:He totally should write a book "What a Dope". I bet it would sell in the millions.

Well played!!

stimpy · Post by **stimpy** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:16 am

Archinerd · Post by **Archinerd** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:55 pm

Here is a Planet Money episode on the whole doping racket/scheme that I found very interesting. It's both impressive and disgusting at how sophisticated the whole thing is.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/11/ ... -of-doping" target="_blank

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:54 pm

I think Brandon McCarthy explains my feelings pretty well:

Brandon McCarthy ‏@BMcCarthy32

I don't want to see Lance admit to PEDs. I want him to admit to & apologize for ruining the lives of people who stood in the way of his ego

PLW · Post by **PLW** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:06 pm

I'm with Andrew Sharp

Troll Tuesday wrote: So here's a question: Does it matter if Lance took performance enhancing drugs?

If I told you that the 1980 U.S. hockey team was taking performance enhancing drugs, would it change the way we remember the Miracle On Ice?

Of course not. The Soviets were probably doped up to the gills, just like Lance's competition. This isn't steroids in baseball we're talking about. This is the world stage, and the playing field's not always level. If you can't roll with the big dogs, maybe you should stay on the porch.

Personally, I like it when America's the biggest dog of all.

Crabbs · Post by **Crabbs** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:13 pm

Exodor wrote:I think Brandon McCarthy explains my feelings pretty well:

Brandon McCarthy ‏@BMcCarthy32

I don't want to see Lance admit to PEDs. I want him to admit to & apologize for ruining the lives of people who stood in the way of his ego

This is probably my biggest issue, not that he actually took PED, but that he aggressively went after others that claimed he did dope - ala Landis, Adnreiu, LeMond, etc. His Lawyers and accountants are going to be kept very busy over the next years figuring out who gets restitution and settling suits.

I can't remember which commentator it was that was talking about it this AM, but it's still "All about Lance & Win at all costs." He's going to approach this 'apology tour' with the same vigor he did in every race he's ever entered.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:14 pm

PLW wrote:I'm with Andrew Sharp

Troll Tuesday wrote: So here's a question: Does it matter if Lance took performance enhancing drugs?

If I told you that the 1980 U.S. hockey team was taking performance enhancing drugs, would it change the way we remember the Miracle On Ice?

Of course not. The Soviets were probably doped up to the gills, just like Lance's competition. This isn't steroids in baseball we're talking about. This is the world stage, and the playing field's not always level. If you can't roll with the big dogs, maybe you should stay on the porch.

Personally, I like it when America's the biggest dog of all.

The intro to that piece certainly nailed it: "On Troll Tuesdays, we attempt to construct the most obnoxious column on earth"

Ugh.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:27 pm

PLW wrote:I'm with Andrew Sharp

Troll Tuesday wrote: So here's a question: Does it matter if Lance took performance enhancing drugs?

If I told you that the 1980 U.S. hockey team was taking performance enhancing drugs, would it change the way we remember the Miracle On Ice?

Of course not. The Soviets were probably doped up to the gills, just like Lance's competition. This isn't steroids in baseball we're talking about.

I'm not. That's just silly.

The Miracle was the Miracle precisely because it was David vs. Goliath. It wasn't a bunch of American pros (hypothetical, of course) playing Russia's elite. It was a bunch of college kids playing some of the world's best hockey players. And beating them. (Also, his casual accusation that all the Russians were on steroids shouldn't go unnoticed. Really? Fetisov on steroids? Kharlamov on steroids? Makarov, Tretiak, should I go on? It was a miracle because boys beat grizzled, battle-tested, elite men. Not because clean guys beat dopers.)

This is the world stage, and the playing field's not always level. If you can't roll with the big dogs, maybe you should stay on the porch.

Personally, I like it when America's the biggest dog of all.

Yeah, Ok. America, fuck yeah! I get it. But honestly, which was more memorable, the Miracle on Ice or the basketball Dream Team? He can have his "big dogs". Which is more rewarding, Harry Potter winning the ski jump or Lulu Zhou winning weighlifting?

If a sport like the Tour de France is composed of all steroid users and blood dopers, he says send the biggest, baddest doper of them all top win it. Wow, sounds like fun. I say screw that sport. Which is what I've said about the Tour and Armstrong all along.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:28 pm

Ahh, I bit.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:35 pm

I was comforted by the fact that the URL included "Troll Tuesday", because otherwise, yeah.

PLW · Post by **PLW** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:45 pm

More seriously, I just don't have it in me to care too much. Maybe if I followed cycling this would be a bigger deal to me, but as it is.. meh.