Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lanced

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lanced

    So what do you think: Lance Armstrong threw in the towel and might lose all of his Tour de France victories, etc.

    Was USADA on a witch hunt and he got tired of fighting them, as Armstrong said, or did they have him by balls?

  • #2
    Not really sure. Maybe he just got tired of fighting it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yup. Lanced all right. Your tax dollars hard at work.

      Comment


      • #4
        certainly, Lance isn't up for the aggravation(and cost)
        of defending himself...(and if he is guilty it becomes
        harder and harder...)(if the deck is stacked against him...
        harder yet.). Hidden in the info is the fact that Lance
        does not have at least one nut(and perhaps does not
        have two(from his "testicle cancer" issues))(does he have a "waiver" for "male hormones?)...he is a successful man
        and probably is tired of his stuff being broadcast to all
        ...all the time.
        (I am certainly against PED's...but credit should be given
        to Lance(even if at the heart of his "thing" is a lie) for really
        doing some good things with his charities... (how much of
        our culture is built on a lie?))

        Comment


        • #5
          Kim, to your knowledge were PEDs widely used in the NFL, esp in the seventies and eighties? back in the 'day' I'm sure testing protocols were not as strict or effective as they are these days so I'm guessing that many players and maybe teams were looking for shortcuts. were there any recorded cases of players failing tests in the league?

          I'm not asking you to name names and I am definitely not suggesting you were in any way involved - I just thought that as a Strength and Conditioning Coach in the NFL it may be something you had encountered over the years.

          I have a friend who played RT in college twenty years ago and he told that many players were on the juice back then, at least at college level.
          don't argue with idiots, they take you down to their level and then beat you with experience

          Comment


          • #6
            in the late seventies and early eighties steroids were
            big in certain college situations and on certain professional
            teams. It was not an "across the board" phenomenon.
            Where their use(they were always "illegal" ) was discouraged
            you'd see very few players involved...where they were
            encouraged you'd see many involved. My team, the Cincinnati
            Bengals was very much against the drugs...and I was fortunate
            to be backed up by ownership and management. There
            were some players involved...but very few. At one time
            we had the best players in all of football at the "strength"
            positions(Hall of Famer, Anthony Munoz and Tim Krumrie)
            both were anti-drug and real leaders. Steroids are something that appeal to the insecure...and although it appears that they might help
            one get stronger in "lifting"...it is not apparent that they
            help you become a better football player...

            (testing for steroids in the NFL didn't happen until the mid-'80's)

            Comment


            • #7
              just a note, Randy...under the circumstances your comment
              about them "having him(Lance) by the balls" is rather
              in-appropriate

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Kim Wood View Post
                in the late seventies and early eighties steroids were
                big in certain college situations and on certain professional
                teams. It was not an "across the board" phenomenon.
                Where their use(they were always "illegal" ) was discouraged
                you'd see very few players involved...where they were
                encouraged you'd see many involved. My team, the Cincinnati
                Bengals was very much against the drugs...and I was fortunate
                to be backed up by ownership and management. There
                were some players involved...but very few. At one time
                we had the best players in all of football at the "strength"
                positions(Hall of Famer, Anthony Munoz and Tim Krumrie)
                both were anti-drug and real leaders. Steroids are something that appeal to the insecure...and although it appears that they might help
                one get stronger in "lifting"...it is not apparent that they
                help you become a better football player...

                (testing for steroids in the NFL didn't happen until the mid-'80's)
                it does not surprise me that you were against steroids.

                being that I am in Australia I have little knowledge of the history of the NFL but I do love the game and watch as many games as I can during the regular season and playoffs - we get many games here live and via replay on cable. I had not been aware that testing only started mid-eighties though I guess times were different back then, a bit more of a 'don't ask, don't tell' attitude. not just NFL but many sports/codes would have had a similar approach while jockeying for popularity, media coverage and sponsorship dollars.

                you make a very good point that steroids make the athlete stronger but not necessarily a better football player, I'm sure the juicers don't think about that on their way to liver failure.
                don't argue with idiots, they take you down to their level and then beat you with experience

                Comment


                • #9
                  Most if not all the immediate guys below him in the Tour De France standings have all been busted as well. So just how far down will they have to go to find the new "winner" for the years they strip Lance of?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Kim -

                    Yes—that was a joke about having Lance by the balls, but you were the only one who got it.

                    On the cancer thing and the means justifying the ends kind of argument, this resembles (albeit at a much lower level) the argument raised in favor of Terry Todd, iron game historian and hustler, who used both sets of skills to create his museum, and given that the museum is seen as good, do you take the long view and overlook some of the surrounding details? And what if a kid wanted to follow in Arnold's footsteps? His fuel would not be the advertised breakfast of champions, would it, so would you say, well, forget that stuff and focus on being a governor and a movie star. So, do you compartmentalize or is that the biggest possible fraud?


                    All -

                    I had to learn a new drug testing concept/term here: non-analytical positive, which evidently means exactly what it sounds like.

                    My two cents is that they had Lance at least 27 ways, but the bigger question and problem is that he wasn't the only guy who was positive—both in all likelihood as well as in fact, and as Chris pointed out, the list of proven dirty guys goes below Lance so if they strip him of his Tour de France victories, who knows, maybe a mechanic will get the title (unless they're a big party crowd).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      At some point some one of the fringe Professional Sports is just going to give up and say the heck with the anti drug stuff.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Lanced

                        My opinion is that hes just had enough of the situation.... Why fight something when the people out to get you have all the finacial backing and you have none...

                        Its discusting really, it basically gives the message to the athletes of the future that if you try hard and are succesful someone will always bring you back down... Jelousy ... Just plain jelousy...

                        Was listening to dr jack kruse, whos come up with the cold thermogenesis protocol and he beleives and has substantial evidence to suggest that the cold plays a huge part in lances outstanding performance... The guy had a freezer built in his house so he could train in it...

                        Theres an amazing story to be told here and no where in this story is drugs..

                        I wonder how far into the future they will go after phelps... Who also trains in a freezing pool for benefits not completely known.... But whatever happens these guys are just fantastic and no one has the right to falsley judge them.
                        Just my opinion ofcourse .

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Ran across this:http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...2/08/24/858a13 Guess it was scrubbed?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Although I think Lance used PEDs, if they don't have a positive test, they should leave him alone. I don't understand how they can go so far back in his career just based on the testimony of proven cheaters.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There should be a bodybuilding type competition.... Drug / drug free.

                              I for one, do not care about an athlete using steroids. There is so much more to winning than steroids alone... Discipline with food and training, skill and so on. Steroids do help with joints longevity and will help to lift more in the gym but they do not guarantee top place in a competition.

                              However, the use of amphetamines etc in endurance sports.... Now that is doping. That is not fair.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Randy: I may be wrong but I feel there is a
                                real difference between Lance Armstrong and
                                Dr. Terry Todd(no ****)...yes, both were/are involved
                                in sports drug culture but the charity work for
                                cancer patients that Armstrong can not be ignored
                                (and was the reason the government did not pursue
                                their claims against him)

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  It's a slippery slope, though and where do you draw the line?

                                  I only mentioned those two examples from the iron game because what we're talking about is whether the end justifies the means—clearly neither one has done anything even remotely close to the obvious social good generated by Lance Armstrong's work with cancer patients.

                                  If any of these people are role models, which is what we would hope if we see them contributing to the social good, then why would someone separate their result from the process that got them there?

                                  Wouldn't a rational person say, I need to do x, if I want to do y—just like they did. Or, They did y, which is good, and since they also did x, it must be good (or at least ok), too.

                                  Less than all this philosophical stuff, it probably comes down to the practical points: if they (just about) are all dirty, it's unfair to single out one guy and it leaves the question of who is going to end up being named the champion because what's to say that even if not popped at the race in question that a case for a non-analytical positive wouldn't be built at some point down the road.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by Randall Strossen View Post
                                    It's a slippery slope, though and where do you draw the line?

                                    I only mentioned those two examples from the iron game because what we're talking about is whether the end justifies the means—clearly neither one has done anything even remotely close to the obvious social good generated by Lance Armstrong's work with cancer patients.

                                    If any of these people are role models, which is what we would hope if we see them contributing to the social good, then why would someone separate their result from the process that got them there?

                                    Wouldn't a rational person say, I need to do x, if I want to do y—just like they did. Or, They did y, which is good, and since they also did x, it must be good (or at least ok), too.

                                    Less than all this philosophical stuff, it probably comes down to the practical points: if they (just about) are all dirty, it's unfair to single out one guy and it leaves the question of who is going to end up being named the champion because what's to say that even if not popped at the race in question that a case for a non-analytical positive wouldn't be built at some point down the road.
                                    Great post.

                                    I have a theory...

                                    The psychology of taking PEDs goes much further than just winning competition... In brief, you could liken competition to a battle in an ongoing war... War being sports career. It is the survival instinct that takes over when Choosing to be drug free or not. Top level guys are survivors... And by this logic alone, i suspect all of them to be enhancing their performance by chemical means or otherwise.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Clicked submit by mistake... Anyway, the massive success has undoubtedly influenced decisions, which resulted in his charity work... Simple psychology again... When happy and fullfilled, most want to and will reciprocate good deeds... You are what you do and he's a true champion in my opinion, PEDs involved or not.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by Chris Rutkowski View Post
                                        Great post.

                                        I have a theory...

                                        The psychology of taking PEDs goes much further than just winning competition... In brief, you could liken competition to a battle in an ongoing war... War being sports career. It is the survival instinct that takes over when Choosing to be drug free or not. Top level guys are survivors... And by this logic alone, i suspect all of them to be enhancing their performance by chemical means or otherwise.
                                        It's not for nothing that sport is sometimes termed "a substitute for war".

                                        And Randy, that joke about having Armstrong by the balls didn't go unnoticed - kind of reminds my of the jokes about the Germans during WWII....

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X