Jump to content

Lance Armstrong


David

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'll say again that the fact he didn't test positive doesn't mean he didn't do it......

with that attitude, we may as well ban all sportsmen and women - just because we don't have proof that they're clean doesn't mean they are, so ban them - ridiculous approach....

In fact, why not just lock up anyone who has ever been suspected of breaking the law? - just because there is no actual evidence to convict them, we should still assume guilt and punish them (just in case they're guilty)....

There has been a long time witch-hunt to find Armstrong guilty of drugs (initiated by the French who hated the fact that a non-frenchman was dominating their event) because his achievements were so incredible - the USADA want their high-profile prosecution and appear to have used questionable means to get their 'witnesses'. If they have real evidence, they should publish it.

At the end of the day, Armstrong has either been incredibly clever in hiding his drugs use (astonishingly so given the number of cyclists found guilty during the time in question); or amazing lucky (again consider the number of drugs tests and prosecutions but he somehow wasn't found out); or else he was innocent and was just a remarkable athlete......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with that attitude, we may as well ban all sportsmen and women - just because we don't have proof that they're clean doesn't mean they are, so ban them - ridiculous approach....

In fact, why not just lock up anyone who has ever been suspected of breaking the law? - just because there is no actual evidence to convict them, we should still assume guilt and punish them (just in case they're guilty)....

There has been a long time witch-hunt to find Armstrong guilty of drugs (initiated by the French who hated the fact that a non-frenchman was dominating their event) because his achievements were so incredible - the USADA want their high-profile prosecution and appear to have used questionable means to get their 'witnesses'. If they have real evidence, they should publish it.

At the end of the day, Armstrong has either been incredibly clever in hiding his drugs use (astonishingly so given the number of cyclists found guilty during the time in question); or amazing lucky (again consider the number of drugs tests and prosecutions but he somehow wasn't found out); or else he was innocent and was just a remarkable athlete......

If they have evidence against him the argument that he never failed a test doesn't hold up- that's all I'm saying.

Oh and on the last bit - he could easily have been using a method that couldn't be tested for then (like the athletes were)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...