its great when you have two or three guys who are the same level. like last year froome built up a lead and then quintana attacked on the alpe d'huez (the famous alpe d'huez). now that was riveting stuff.
but when lance was doping he was so far ahead of everyone that it was boring to watch
"The mass of men live lives of quiet desperation" - Henry David Thoreau.
Mister Anderson (07-03-16)
Yes but you could count the amount of cyclists that weren't doping on one hand during most of the races across Armstrong's long and 'illustrious' career. The unfair advantage he had was that his body was better able to utilize the dope than everybody else that was taking the same dope. That's what makes him the better athlete.
I rest my case
Meursault (07-03-16)
Fuck sake she could have had some of my piss if she'd asked.
i would respectfully disagree. armstrong had a genius of doctor in michelle ferrari behind him. ferrari knew two things: How to give armstrong a great advantage through blood doping and secondly how to hide the fact that he was doping. armstrong then had so much power and money that he could dictate things. the whole system was corrupt. the irish guy who was head of the cycling corporation basically turned a blind eye. marco pantani who was doping as well was physiology wise better suited to the mountains, yet armstrong was able to match him on mount ventoux. the only difference is pantani got found out early, armstrong didnt.
armstrong was injecting himself with so much epo and his own blood that he used have to get up at four in the morning to go on his bike to stop himself getting a heart attack.
He had cancer and then comes back and wins seven tour de frances. such a recovery isnt possible unless your taking more than everyone else.
"The mass of men live lives of quiet desperation" - Henry David Thoreau.
Mister Anderson (07-03-16), willie wacker (07-03-16)
I only know what mainstream media has told me, that the doping was pervasive and persistent across the sport. I bow to your superior knowledge and thank you for elucidating from your perspective.
I've also included this free picture of the Armstrong vs Pantani rematch.
Great fookin' moovie
Meursault (08-03-16)
I always thought it would be Serena Williams one that would get caught
well the fact that the WADA only decided to ban it from the 1st of Jan this year, her story could yet prove true ,she said she never opened the link in the email they sent in December. I
Surely if it was performance enhancing she would be hammering Serena Williams year after year and be no 1 in the rankings , she has only won a handful of open titles, 6 i think and i assume she has been tested many times since she turned pro ,so it could be an honest mistake
and our ears breathe a sigh of relief...
Maria Sharapova
Last edited by knibbs; 08-03-16 at 10:43.
I'd seen the headline yesterday about it.
It's a strange twist, the whole issue of the substance she was 'caught' taking not being on the banned list until just last year...
I've also got a mate who was a personal trainer and physio therapist, and he had a few stories which echo much of what's been said by others about the widespread use of performance enhancers at professional and Olympic-level sports, including the never-ending chase for detecting the latest 'cocktails', which are almost always years ahead of what they currently test for. He mentioned having heard from others that the top-performing athletes in their respective sports at the university or junior championships levels will all hit a point in their careers where they are at their 'peak' of their presumably 'natural', drug-free performance levels, and face the inevitable choice:
Either 'retire' as an amateur athlete after they finish university or juniors-level competition, or get on a 'programme'... He mentioned how many of them, if they decide to go on the dope, end up smashing their own personal bests at whatever their sport or event is, something which they probably could never have attained without it.
Fighting the Good Fight...
willie wacker (08-03-16)