for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

So who won the tour from 1999 to 2005

80 watchers

Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
Next
Last

Naomi P Aug 2012 10:20am, 24 Aug 2012 10,441 posts	Quote Pin Naomi P It's all a very grey area, isn't it? If he needed drugs including steroids to treat the cancer then who knows how much of a lasting effect they may or might not have. Is he fitter for having had the cancer and the drugs that treated him? Is Pistorius a better sprinter because he has blades and not lower legs? Very very difficult to answer those questions. I don't know anything about the drugs testing regime but it must be next to impossible to be sure in this sort of case. It's further muddied by false positives, traces of drugs they feed animals (see Chinese athletes and steroid-fed pork) and wanting to find something / wanting not to find something.
Little Nemo - slow-but-steady Aug 2012 10:21am, 24 Aug 2012 1,516 posts	Quote Pin Little Nemo - slow-but-steady Ach, it's getting to the stage where you wonder if any of them were clean
JohnnyO Aug 2012 10:23am, 24 Aug 2012 13,696 posts	Quote Pin JohnnyO The history of doping convictions and sanctions is full of guilt by association that was then not contested. Lots of people received bans and were stripped of titles because they had contact with Ferrari and were in a team known to dope, no positive test required. You become guilty when you stop fighting.
The Teaboy Aug 2012 10:24am, 24 Aug 2012 885 posts	Quote Pin The Teaboy Indurain was dirty too. Three clean winners since Lemond.
Old Croc Aug 2012 10:26am, 24 Aug 2012 22,250 posts	Quote Pin Old Croc So Armstrong has been PROVEN guilty then?
Chrisull Aug 2012 10:26am, 24 Aug 2012 4,956 posts	Quote Pin Chrisull Roche is listed as never testing positive and never being sanctioned. Of course he is fingered by Paul Kimmage in the book "Rough Ride" pretty much as a doper...
Pace Aug 2012 10:26am, 24 Aug 2012 770 posts	Quote Pin Pace That doesn't seem appropriate to me. Don't you become guilty when the charges are proven? All the burden of proof seems to be on the accused at this point. Armstrong can never prove he wasn't doping. How can you prove a negative? I'm not part of the Lance Armstrong Disciples brigade, but I really don't like the way this has been handled. The fact that it seems to have taken place almost exclusively in the press iss the first thing that puts me off.
Brandon Aug 2012 10:27am, 24 Aug 2012 18 posts	Quote Pin Brandon This is incredible annoying. Lance hasn't failed a drugs test! Those saying they saw he cheat, like Tyler Hamilton, have lied through their back teeth when they actually failed the same tests! And who do USADA think they are to say he will lose his titles.... it's not there decision to make? As a fan of the tours, this is just depressing. Here in Australia, poor coverage on main TV channels, saying Lance won't defend it anymore so he must be guilty, I thought Lance actually said he was fed up with the nonsense that has been thrown at him without ANY evidence for over a decade!!!! Just very frustrated by the whole nonsense. Cycling has been going through it for too many years now.
Naomi P Aug 2012 10:28am, 24 Aug 2012 10,442 posts	Quote Pin Naomi P Yes, the way people are considered guilty until proven otherwise is a shame. Same in the 100m. Watching the Diamond League last night, I said (without thinking) "so who of them AREN'T on drugs?" Wrong of me, but I can't bloody keep track any more.
Brandon Aug 2012 10:29am, 24 Aug 2012 19 posts	Quote Pin Brandon I just did 21km on the bike with water and an Oaty Slice, mmmmmm.... no EPO