floyd doping

gksmith · August 1, 2006

This is exactly what happens in cycling. The accused is left twisting in the wind for days or weeks until the final verdict is made.

Right now Floyd is getting judged in the court of public opinion. They still have to publish the results of the second test.

No one will remember that the second test was negative (if that is the case). Everyone will just remember "Oh, he had a positive test."

I am withholding my judgment till the report of the second test is final.

August 1, 2006

You can't have a double standard when your comparing apples to oranges. Try again.
Rick
←

You know, you might be right. One has never had a positive test or been proven guilty of anything. The other has had a positive test and has been proven to be lying about the test being positive due to natural occurance. Yet it's interesting how people rush to the defense of the proven liar with the positive test and rush to the attack of the one that has been proven guilty of nothing.

untgirl04 · August 1, 2006

You know, you might be right. One has never had a positive test or been proven guilty of anything. The other has had a positive test and has been proven to be lying about the test being positive due to natural occurance. Yet it's interesting how people rush to the defense of the proven liar with the positive test and rush to the attack of the one that has been proven guilty of nothing.
←

Steroids testing in baseball is a joke. They tell you before they do it, and there's not random sampling. If Bonds wanted to dope, he could do it easily without worry about passing any tests. Besides, based off the Game of Shadows stuff, he's probably got so much crap inside him that they can't tell what all he's doing.

Before you go crying foul about testing Bonds, I'd like to point out that I support random drug tests for all professional athletes. And I believe that they should be held to a high standard, and if they fail two performance-enhancing drug tests in a row, they should be banned from the sport and all their records wiped away. If that's not deterrant enough, I don't know what else to do.

And if an athlete is a known user of illegal drugs (i.e., Michael Irvin and Ricky Williams just to name a few) they should be suspended from their teams without pay and serve jail sentences just like everyone else.

August 1, 2006

Steroids testing in baseball is a joke. They tell you before they do it, and there's not random sampling. If Bonds wanted to dope, he could do it easily without worry about passing any tests. Besides, based off the Game of Shadows stuff, he's probably got so much crap inside him that they can't tell what all he's doing.
Before you go crying foul about testing Bonds, I'd like to point out that I support random drug tests for all professional athletes. And I believe that they should be held to a high standard, and if they fail two performance-enhancing drug tests in a row, they should be banned from the sport and all their records wiped away. If that's not deterrant enough, I don't know what else to do.
And if an athlete is a known user of illegal drugs (i.e., Michael Irvin and Ricky Williams just to name a few) they should be suspended from their teams without pay and serve jail sentences just like everyone else.
←

Are you joking? They don't tell players when they are tested. Every player is tested at least once during the season, randomly. And then, every player is subject to more random drug tests regardless of how many times they had been tested before. They are also tested in the offseason.

I love it when people point to Game of Shadows as proof that Bonds used steroids. L.A. Confidentiel is a book about Lance Armstrong using performance enhancing drugs. Is that proof that Armstrong is guilty?

FirefightnRick · August 1, 2006

You know, you might be right. One has never had a positive test or been proven guilty of anything. The other has had a positive test and has been proven to be lying about the test being positive due to natural occurance. Yet it's interesting how people rush to the defense of the proven liar with the positive test and rush to the attack of the one that has been proven guilty of nothing.
←

I am right. It's good to see your finally learning something.

Bonds hasn't had a positive test because he stopped doping since the attention has turned to him. He's admitted to taking the "Cream" and the "Clear" in the past, the "Clear" being the masking agent.

Bonds has lied in court about his knowledge of what he was taking when in fact multiple records of order records and workout journals shows that he was a customer of Balco and Anderson.

Bonds has cheated on his taxes. Basically a thief according to the law and people get nailed for this every day.

Bonds immoral issue with his wife has also played into the public eye, but only a little. I could care less.

Bonds has a pending federal indictment.

Floyd Landis had a urine sample come back with a raised testosterone level from a lab that has had a questionable past. The same lab now tells us it was from a synthetic source, not natural. Landis states otherwise. If it's so, he's lied to the public. Not in court. If found guilty by the Union he will be stripped of the Tour win and banned for 2 years and be out of a job. He will face no jail time if found guilty. Bonds will.

Apples and Oranges.

Rick

August 1, 2006

I am right. It's good to see your finally learning something.
Bonds hasn't had a positive test because he stopped doping since the attention has turned to him. He's admitted to taking the "Cream" and the "Clear" in the past, the "Clear" being the masking agent.
Bonds has lied in court about his knowledge of what he was taking when in fact multiple records of order records and workout journals shows that he was a customer of Balco and Anderson.
Bonds has cheated on his taxes. Basically a thief according to the law and people get nailed for this every day.
Bonds immoral issue with his wife has also played into the public eye, but only a little. I could care less.
Bonds has a pending federal indictment.
Floyd Landis had a urine sample come back with a raised testosterone level from a lab that has had a questionable past. The same lab now tells us it was from a synthetic source, not natural. Landis states otherwise. If it's so, he's lied to the public. Not in court. If found guilty by the Union he will be stripped of the Tour win and banned for 2 years and be out of a job. He will face no jail time if found guilty. Bonds will.
Apples and Oranges.
Rick
←

The way you speak I have to assume that Bonds has been convicted of all this, I take it?

This is all pretty funny. A likable guy has a positive test and people start making up conspiracy theories in order to defend him. The feds can't find enough evidence to convict a non likable guy, but it doesn't matter, he's still guilty.

It's also funny how it's no big deal that Landis lied to the public. Did you care when Bill Clinton lied to the public? I would hate to think that you would have a double standard and defend one person for lying to the public and not the other. So of course I'm assuming you were A-OK with Clinton lying. Even though he had his own "positive test" in the stained dress.

Indeed, I have learned something. Double standards are okay and defendable when they suit our purposes. And when they can't be defended we can just say "apples and oranges" and keep on going with the double standard.

Edited August 1, 2006 by e-bone

UNTLifer · August 1, 2006

The other has had a positive test and has been proven to be lying about the test being positive due to natural occurance. Yet it's interesting how people rush to the defense of the proven liar with the positive test...
←

Has Landis been proven to be lying?

August 1, 2006

Has Landis been proven to be lying?
←

That's what the whole article posted by CaribbeanGreen is about. Landis said the tests showed testosterone levels that were produced naturally by this body, when it was in fact synthetic testosterone that was found.

Anyways, I'm done with this thread. It is evident that some people are conent with the double standard and Bonds is guilty of everything he is being accused of without being convicted of anything. That's fine if they want to think that, I just don't understand it. I've always been taught a person is innocent until proven guilty. But when it comes to some people I guess they are innocent until a desperate ex-girlfriend or some writers who are trying to cash in say otherwise. No proof? No problem, we didn't like the guy in the first place!

UNTLifer · August 1, 2006

I just asked because, like FFR, I find it interesting that Landis had elevated testosterone levels, whether real or synthetic, in his system one day and then didn't the next. That doesn't add up. All Landis said was that he would prove he is innocent. Guess we ought to give him that chance.

Bonds is a sad individual.

FirefightnRick · August 2, 2006

The way you speak I have to assume that Bonds has been convicted of all this, I take it?
This is all pretty funny. A likable guy has a positive test and people start making up conspiracy theories in order to defend him. The feds can't find enough evidence to convict a non likable guy, but it doesn't matter, he's still guilty.
It's also funny how it's no big deal that Landis lied to the public. Did you care when Bill Clinton lied to the public? I would hate to think that you would have a double standard and defend one person for lying to the public and not the other. So of course I'm assuming you were A-OK with Clinton lying. Even though he had his own "positive test" in the stained dress.
Indeed, I have learned something. Double standards are okay and defendable when they suit our purposes. And when they can't be defended we can just say "apples and oranges" and keep on going with the double standard.
←

Bill Clinton? Please?

Rick