GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: Khare on 24 August 2012, 22:16
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375)
What are your views? I think outrageous. Why now when he retired in 2005? His anti doping tests have always come back clean.
-
The most tested sports person in history that never produced a positive result gets banned after he has retired. Not sure as we don't know or will ever know the full facts
-
Well obviously not if he's been found guilty of doping offenses! I dont know the ins and outs of it tbh, I dont really know whats going on with the whole debacle. But if hes been using drugs, he deserves everything he gets, and should hang what is a worldwide known and previously respected head in shame. Leave him out to the wolves imo.
-
I don't think he's be found guilty of anything. They investigated, a few of his former team mates came forward and said some stuff. They - the US cycling federation or something - charged him. He contested the charges.
LA had a titfull and said he's not going to contest the charges. BINGO, they find him guilty!
So their position is that he has to prove he's innocent, rather than they having to prove his guilt.
I've not read too much into the history of the allegations of his former team mates, but just what's been in the news recently, stuff about blood transfusions when he had cancer.
-
As someone has already stated, the most tested sports person in history and never had a positive result
End of in my opinion
-
I don't understand how anyone can be charged or banned without a positive test?
-
http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armstrongs-statement-of-august-23-2012
"The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?"
-
No smoke without fire gents! If he was innocent then he would fight till the end to clear his name.
-
No smoke without fire gents! If he was innocent then he would fight till the end to clear his name.
+1 I've been subjected to similar tests through work and I was damn sure that I stood my ground!