so why isn't congress out to get cyclists?

[deckeda]

About Lance:
Lance never tested positive, and other than some French haters there's no indication he took drugs. Maybe he did, but if so he hid it well. Coming back from cancer to win the Tour does not = "he did drugs".

Not to demean testicular cancer, but they cut off his nuts, not removed his lungs. All cancer isn't debilitating in the same way. Hell, losing his nuts may be why he became a better racer. Any bike rider will tell you they only get in the way when you're on the seat.

About Floyd:
He's tested positive once however it isn't official until they do another test. There's some question of accuracy due to his exemption (i.e. allowance) to take one steroid (Cortisone) for his arthritic hip ailment and something else for thyroid. If he took the bad shit he'll lose his trophy and be fired from the team, simple as that. Jury is out.

I don't see the conspiracy with these two racers.

About Bonds:
He gets heat because he's not credible. That may be unfair without a smoking gun, but not being credible/getting bad press remains his burden because:

1) His trainer is involved. It's reasonable to assume the same of Bonds unless your head's in the sand.
2) His attitude is "oh, I don't have any idea what they may have put in me." That "you're an idiot" attitude wins no friends.
3) Look at his body! His age and training would have never EVER lead to the kind of huge bulking-up, and in such a short time without steroids. No effin' way, no how. Don't forget, he got huge in one off-season. WTF?

The media is right to probe.

I agree the tax thing would likely never have come up/been discovered if it were not for the frenzy to GET HIM on something.

In my view, MLB "dropped the ball." The '94 strike made them shit their pants and it was a factor in them looking the other way regarding steroid use. For a while.

McGwire got his 70 HRs and I-170 renamed for him but he won't even comment on drugs today because he knows that back then steroid use was unofficially "OK". I think that's what pisses him off so much. But when it unraveled with Conseco and Bonds, well, something had to give. Call it unfair, but that's they way they all chose to play it.

[4CYLPOWER92]

but they cut off his nuts, Hell, losing his nuts may be why he became a better racer.

Well not to get nit picky or whatever, but I believe they only cut off one nut. He is steril, but still able to do the deed with one nut. There is no way Cheryl Crow would have stuck around for as long as she did if the dude couldn't have sex

[4CYLPOWER92]

About Lance:
Lance never tested positive, and other than some French haters there's no indication he took drugs.

They developed new technology for more accurate EPO tests. The French then used the new test on Lances old blood samples from 1999. It came out positive.
However, the results and tests were investigated by Dutch investigators, who cleared Lance of any wrongdoing.

Any test or sample can be altered, and it seems very questionable that they would use a blood sample as old 5 or 6 years old and say it came out positive. Why in the hell would they keep a blood sample that many years. And who would protect it from tampering. There are just to many variables.

[rickyduckworth]

They developed new technology for more accurate EPO tests. The French then used the new test on Lances old blood samples from 1999. It came out positive.
However, the results and tests were investigated by Dutch investigators, who cleared Lance of any wrongdoing.

Any test or sample can be altered, and it seems very questionable that they would use a blood sample as old 5 or 6 years old and say it came out positive. Why in the hell would they keep a blood sample that many years. And who would protect it from tampering. There are just to many variables.

investigated by the dutch? they wanted to test other samples and weren't allowed, all the dutch did was say "we're not 100% sure it was a legit test, so it's probably not"......they proved nothing, about like the WMD fiasco.....they go in, find nothing, but still assume the worst because it benefits them......

and how do you think so many cold cases get solved?

it wasn't long ago that DNA testing was non-existent........now they can take those OLD SAMPLES (from decades ago) and retest them and then put someone in prison for life.....

but you don't think the testing is reliable enough to implicated a mere cyclist and at worst, ruin his rep?

but it IS ok as far as putting someone behind bars for years or even giving them the death penalty?

there goes that argument lol..........

the problem was this: the french were as unliked as "the terrorists" at the time....remember the boycott of french items? and bringing down someone as "sweet" as lance just was not gonna happen.........it's politics, not real life

[rickyduckworth]

About Lance:
Lance never tested positive, and other than some French haters there's no indication he took drugs. Maybe he did, but if so he hid it well. Coming back from cancer to win the Tour does not = "he did drugs".

Not to demean testicular cancer, but they cut off his nuts, not removed his lungs. All cancer isn't debilitating in the same way. Hell, losing his nuts may be why he became a better racer. Any bike rider will tell you they only get in the way when you're on the seat.

About Floyd:
He's tested positive once however it isn't official until they do another test. There's some question of accuracy due to his exemption (i.e. allowance) to take one steroid (Cortisone) for his arthritic hip ailment and something else for thyroid. If he took the bad shit he'll lose his trophy and be fired from the team, simple as that. Jury is out.

I don't see the conspiracy with these two racers.

About Bonds:
He gets heat because he's not credible. That may be unfair without a smoking gun, but not being credible/getting bad press remains his burden because:

1) His trainer is involved. It's reasonable to assume the same of Bonds unless your head's in the sand.
2) His attitude is "oh, I don't have any idea what they may have put in me." That "you're an idiot" attitude wins no friends.
3) Look at his body! His age and training would have never EVER lead to the kind of huge bulking-up, and in such a short time without steroids. No effin' way, no how. Don't forget, he got huge in one off-season. WTF?

The media is right to probe.

I agree the tax thing would likely never have come up/been discovered if it were not for the frenzy to GET HIM on something.

In my view, MLB "dropped the ball." The '94 strike made them shit their pants and it was a factor in them looking the other way regarding steroid use. For a while.

McGwire got his 70 HRs and I-170 renamed for him but he won't even comment on drugs today because he knows that back then steroid use was unofficially "OK". I think that's what pisses him off so much. But when it unraveled with Conseco and Bonds, well, something had to give. Call it unfair, but that's they way they all chose to play it.

christ you're so in the dark about the bonds FACTS considering that you seem pretty intelligent

first off, i've followed bonds since i was 4 so you won't tell me anything i don't already know.......i have all but 13 of his baseball cards, fuck, i've got those in promotions, from cereal boxes, etc.........hundreds......

he never gained a ton of weight in one off season.....in 1993, he was listed as 205 and finished the season at 208.....that was 13 years ago and he topped out at 226.....the guy isn't any bigger than my brother.......

you DO know that his OTHER trainers also trained michael jordan and jerry rice, don't you? notice a trend amongst the 3? great shape in their 40's?
michael jordan gained 6lbs in one year by switching to more strength training, but of course he lost speed, the same way bonds did......barry used to be a fierce base stealer, and now, 5 in a year is good......he changed his game and if you don't think that's 100% plausible then you simply don't work out........i gained 10lbs of muscle in a year by going from speed/cardio to strength/eating...........bonds has always worked out for all around performance, but since he was losing speed due to age anyway, he just give up most of that training to work more with greg anderson and did more of the bodybuilding stuff, but he never even gained 5lbs in one off season......EVER........people will say "his head got huge overnight, he went from 200 to 250, etc" but there is NO proof of that at all.....even his cards show his gradual increase, although not all the early 90's cards show him going from 190 to 215 gradually, some do though....thing is that he supposedly started using in 1997......he's been friends with greg anderson since they were kids.....same with ken griffey jr.......same with a lot of people......most of his friends are lifelong friends, and that makes him look like a dick since he doesn't carry around a different entourage for every city they're in............he has a small, very close group of buds and that's it.......he's not fake either, and america eats up fake, just ask jeter or lance armstrong.......bonds is too real........america thinks "reality tv" is real even though it's scripted......when they see REAL real, they get angry......that's why they're idiots.......they'd rather hear a cliche answer as opposed to "yeah i'm good because i work out in the offseason more than anyone else"

you know gary sheffield was a damn good player in his prime, and he tried working out with barry for a while and quit after a few weeks.....he wouldn't get up at 6am, quit early and often, etc..........so then instead of saying "i couldn't take it" he simply said that bonds wanted to pay for everything and made him feel like a kid because he was being taken care of......even griffey laughed at that.......

if he supposedly started using in 1997, then why was he already around 220lbs at the time? he never even touched 230lbs, even last year while he was sedentary most of the year.......not steroid related injuries like achilles problems or other tendons tearing.......his knee has always given him issues and when it got infected it compounded the problem.....but even then, no fucked up tendons like you'll see with heavy steroid usage......

and the "cream" and the "clear" are scoffed at as steroids by those who DO use.......they're considerd a huge waste of money and not much better than what's 100% legal...........they're not something a top athlete would use to improve....they're something a nobody would use to become somewhat recognizable.........

barry has been taking days off for years now.....10-20 games a year....he's old and knows it......that's why he isn't all worn down after mid season, it's not because he's doped up and able to "super-recover".......

the fact is this: people know SHIT about steroids, they believe what the media says because they want to, and they make decisions based on no facts.....

fuck, ask the average person what steroids even do........they don't know....they think you gain muscle quicker by using them....they don't even understand that what they really do is just allow you to work harder......instead of 3 days a week you can go 10 times over 7 days a week....so it appears you're getting bigger 3x as fast......when it just allows you to bust your ass.....

don't bust your ass and you get fat.......

and something else......mcgwire was 205 when he started playing ball...he finished at around 260lbs.......he gained 55lbs of muscle.......he wasn't known for his work regimen either....he was definitely one of the best HR hitters ever, but compare his game to bonds'.........bonds has always been on another plane......mcgwire was happy to hit .300 while barry was 11 hits from .400 a few years ago.....

steroids do nothing for hand/eye coordination.........they would hinder your normal swing though, so for someone to start using them late in their career when the mechanics are all a part of them is ludicrous.....it would mostly likely fuck them up severely.....worse than a HR derby........

and where are the positive tests?

why hasn't anyone come forward with old samples and new tests?

the specimens exist, over 40 of them last i heard...........why rely on 2 witnesses with less credibility than a sofa?

this is a huge joke......

without ANY PROOF, bonds was judged as guilty

with a failed test, lance was always innocent
with a failed test, they're taking it easy on the "new white hope"

guilty by association just doesn't work......i'm associated with guys who smoke tons of weed, use meth, cocaine, sell this shit, etc..........fuck, i work with them.....doesn't mean a damn thing about me though.........

greg anderson was a top notch trainer.....he was associated with many people

but after all that's happened, why haven't conte or anderson rolled over on bonds?

how odd is that? this is no movie, in real life, people talk if they know something that will save their own ass........but it hasn't happened

not very likely one of the most revered people on earth doesn't have someone that knows something in his corner that won't tell..........more likely that ole lance benefitted from his "good boy" rep

[4CYLPOWER92]

but you don't think the testing is reliable enough to implicated a mere cyclist and at worst, ruin his rep?

but it IS ok as far as putting someone behind bars for years or even giving them the death penalty?

There is a hugh difference in DNA testing, VS testing abuse of a substance that we already have in our bodies anyway. Especially considering the test are based on elevated levels. But what about people that have naturally elevated levels?
So no, I don't think it is worth ending someones career and reputation over a big MAYBE.

Now DNA testing is 99.9% accurate or something like that. So yeah, send em to the chamber.

[rickyduckworth]

There is a hugh difference in DNA testing, VS testing abuse of a substance that we already have in our bodies anyway. Especially considering the test are based on elevated levels. But what about people that have naturally elevated levels?
So no, I don't think it is worth ending someones career and reputation over a big MAYBE.

Now DNA testing is 99.9% accurate or something like that. So yeah, send em to the chamber.

you were talking about how easily tainted a sample could be, remember?

it's easy to taint any sample........accuracy of the test doesn't matter in that case, but while you're on that point, yes, substance abuse testing IS pretty damn definitive...........you think they test HS athletes and grocery store workers because it's fun? those test aren't cheap.........there are different tests for whatever, but if they know exactly what they're looking for and have a test for it, then it's gonna be 99.9% too.......you have to remember, in bonds' case, they think they know EXACTLY what he took so if they test old samples with the test they now have for those substances, they'll know for sure whether or not he used them.......

it's different if they don't know the substance exists, that's what designer roids are...........they're undetectable because they're designed to not show up with the tests that are used.........but everything can have a test developed for it........they just can't develop a test for something they don't know exists, see what i'm sayin?

you make it sound like drug testing is hit or miss........they give a second test for confirmation.......2 positives mean you're fucked......like this cyclist claiming it's natural.......he's full of shit........it's "possible" that drugs can trick the test and give a false positive, BUT, they can also check that scenario out.........they can find out for sure whether or not you're cheating.....excuses may delay it, but when they know what they're looking for, you won't fool them..........it's just as accurate as DNA testing when there are no hidden variables

[4CYLPOWER92]

you were talking about how easily tainted a sample could be, remember?

Ofcource. But it all depends on who is holding the samples and running the tests. If someone has the motivation to take you down, and they have the ability to scue the results, you are going down.

But the motivation for holding blood samples of atheletes for so many years seems a little strange. It's just a lot different motivation than the kind that keep people awake at night, wondering who raped and murdered thier loved one.

[rickyduckworth]

Ofcource. But it all depends on who is holding the samples and running the tests. If someone has the motivation to take you down, and they have the ability to scue the results, you are going down.

But the motivation for holding blood samples of atheletes for so many years seems a little strange. It's just a lot different motivation than the kind that keep people awake at night, wondering who raped and murdered thier loved one.

but haven't we heard more about steroids in sports than other pertinent world news?

sports in the usa is a big thing....that's why guys can make $20 million a year.....i'm not saying it should be that way, it just is....

my whole problem is how it was INITIALLY handled......bonds never failed a test........after 3 years, there are still no failed test to show......bonds never admitted to taking steroids or even substances that could have been roids, he only said that "IF" the substances greg anderson gave him were roids, he hadn't a clue about it.........that's not the same as what was reported (bonds unknowingly took steroids).....they never even tested any substances linked to bonds to find out whether or not they were steroids, so there is NO LINK AT ALL between bonds and steroids other than anderson (a guy who made money on muscles and making them bigger).....bonds could be 140lbs and if he played the way he did, it was all the same.......his profession wasn't dependent on large muscles but elite skills......anderson was dependent on VISUAL RESULTS so yeah, it makes sense that he used roids and distributed them to clients, but why would bonds even need substances that would slow fast twitch fibers, harden tendons and make him bigger? he was already considered one of the best players ever in 1997, but he decided to "up his game"?
it just doesn't make sense.....not enough to say "he's a cheater" without a shred of proof......

but guys with failed test are given slack and even supported because the evil french are just out to get them?

we already know that cycling is FULL of illegal doping/substances.....look how many guys were suspended this year alone, not to mention the past 10 years...........if there was ever a time that we should say "damn, looks like another cycler bites the dust" when all the evidence isn't out, it should be now..........

lance had a lot of powerful peoples' support.......they could have proven he was a robot in france, and we'd never hear about it..........

just like the space race of earlier years..........it didn't really make a damn about who got to the moon first, but bragging rights apply in the political world just like they do on the playground.........

fuck, i wanna be able to say i'm the 3rd person to breed cottons/coppers and the first to do it intentionally........doesn't really make a damn, but i'll feel like my dick is bigger