doping question (Re Lance Armstrong scandal)

[Dennis S]

Was there a banned substance that was also one of his cancer medications?

[mattkime]

>>Was there a banned substance that was also one of his cancer medications?

No. Some banned substances can be allowed with a doctor's prescription.

[Billybob]

Lance did test positive on at least one occasion. At least once he bribed or pressured officials to get away with it.

Moreover, there's no statute of limitation on doping offenses. Why should an athlete be able to get away with cheating simply because it's undetectable now?

I think the disincentive to doping is far greater if the athlete knows that he can be stripped of his winnings down the road.

[Mac-A-Matic]

Obviously, these agencies are trying to make a statement about doping. However, why should we really care? Truth is, it takes extraordinary ability to complete the Tour de France, much less win the event. And Armstrong clearly won those events - even with doping.

I read a good article in Bicycling Magazine the other month about this:

http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-s...ustice-all

With Armstrong being stripped of his titles, people like Jan Ullrich (an admitted and convicted doper) becomes a four-time champion.

If we can live and be happy with genetically modified food, then what's the problem with doping in sports???

[Carnos Jax]

The thing is are they going after him with more prejudice than other cycling athletes. With all the testing that they've done on him, and him coming clean, it seems that someone has an agenda. If they're willing to go after all the other cyclists with the same level of prejudice/aggressiveness, then so be it. Somehow I don't think that'll be the case. In the mean time it's a bunch of 'hearsay'. Don't get me wrong however, for all the smoke, I'm pretty sure myself that he doped. But I'm pretty sure that all the consistent top finishers have doped as well.

[Acer]

I heard this morning that there will be no declared winner for the Tour de France years vacated by the Armstrong decision.

Not sure if that's final, or just what's being considered, per this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/sports....html?_r=0

[zero]

Mac-A-Matic wrote:
If we can live and be happy with genetically modified food, then what's the problem with doping in sports???

With GMOS:
1. You are forced to eat them, and put them inside your body, in order to live and sustain your human body

With Steroids
1. Its a choice, but you will probably not be as good an athlete as someone else.

[Carnos Jax]

Maybe I'm not getting your point here, but in regard to GMO's, don't we have a choice not to eat them? Not necessarily I agree with Mac-A-Matic (I haven't thought about it one way or the other).

[mattkime]

>>And Armstrong clearly won those events - even with doping.

You don't win, NOBODY wins, if you cheat.

I don't understand what it is about that man that make so many people willing to circumvent the basic notions of fairness.

[M A V I C]

mattkime wrote:
>>And Armstrong clearly won those events - even with doping.

You don't win, NOBODY wins, if you cheat.

I don't understand what it is about that man that make so many people willing to circumvent the basic notions of fairness.

I'm still trying to understand his statement. "even with doping" - makes it sound like doping was a hinderance.

"Madoff clearly made lots of money - even with running scams."
"Enron clearly was very profitable - even with faking their books."
"Hussein clearly was the most popular leader - even with genocide."

Hmm, I still don't get that statement.