Do you think lance is doping? yes or no

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

as for corticosteroids i wouldn't have thought where performance enhancing? since my son has ecsma and when he has his elecon on, he doesn't seem to be any faster, active or fitter, etc. just helps his skin heal quicker and stop the itching that speeds up the healing process.

In contrast to the conditional permissive use of corticosteroids in acute injury treatment, the usage of corticosteroids to increase endurance, mask pain, and stimulate mental / CNS activity is strictly prohibited by sports organizations.

Corticosteroids increase the performance of endurance athletes significantly, by enabling them to keep their blood glucose elevated for longer periods, and by masking the pain of the physical overload on joints and muscles. Specifically speaking, the gluconeogenic activity and lipolytic actions provide the athlete's working muscles with a rich blood supply of energy substrates for going that "extra mile". Additionally, the anti-inflammatory and analgesic activity covers up the discomfort of the massive physical overload. Furthermore, the corticosteroids can have a mild stimulant and euphoric effect on the athlete, charging him up for the event and keeping him or her focused throughout the performance of the grueling task.http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/arnold/miscellaneous-ergogens.htm

As far as Lance Armstrong goes, the first-hand account is that he was written a prescription by a doctor AFTER he was found to have corticosteroids in his system during a test. The explicit purpose, according to the person giving the account, was to prevent a technical doping positive.

As Beastt will tell you, the amount found was under the legal limit. What he (she?) won't tell you, however, is that corticosteroids are a controlled substance in cycling, and any use requires a therapeutic use exemption, with extensive paperwork, if the athlete is to use them at all.. An exception is made for emergency administration, but even the experts at VeloNews can't think of a situation, other than a severe allergic reaction (such as a bee sting) that would require that. In 2001 about a third of TdF cyclists had doctors prepare TUEs for corticosteroids.

What I know is that the average number of annual EPO tests for each pro rider that the UCI has testing responsibility for is closer to zero than to one.

If you want to create some fantasy dream-land scenario where Lance Armstrong gets 25% of all the EPO tests administered by the UCI, you can be my guest.

The best critical guess is that Lance gets the same number of tests as any other pro who has won a stage in a stage race, or a criterium, or a one-day-classic, or a a race on the track. This still puts the median number of EPO tests for Lance on an annual basis at....exactly one. One test per year.

If you have hard data to refute this analysis, dig it up Beastt. I know you deftly evade other requests for hard data or backup, so I suspect you will in this case.

If you want to call me childish, go ahead and do that as well. It's all about deflecting attention from the issue at hand with you, which is the probability of your hero and idol, Lance Armstrong, using performance enhancing drugs.

Deflect, deny, obfuscate, and lie. It's your way.


Again you make unsubstantiated accusations toward me then follow up by commiting those acts yourself. Who said Armstrong receives 25% of the drug tests? I didn't. Hellonwheels didn't. The only comment even remotely linked to such a statement is the one you made, quoted above. My statement was that the total number of EPO tests given to cyclists isn't relevant to the topic of this thread. The relevant figure is the number given to Lance. That's still a valid statement and I continue to stand by it.

As for the number of tests he does or doesn't receive, if you have some actual data, please post it. If you don't, then what you refer to as an analysis is nothing more than your opinion and based on nothing factual.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/othersports/132099_gunn24.html
On the subject of drugs, she says, "There is no question in my mind that Lance is clean. I've been a sportswriter for 20 years. I'm a skeptic, not a fool.

"I know the signs of abuse. We swam in a Texas river together. His body doesn't have any of the signs of steroid use -- the acne or that bloated oil-base look."

Jenkins says if you do the math on his performances before and after his battle with testicular cancer -- accounting for the bigger loss of weight than power output -- Armstrong's times are logical extensions that don't require banned substances to account for the improvements.

"He's the most tested man on the planet," she says. "He's tested for drugs more than 40 times a year. ... They even gave him a surprise test at the hospital when his wife was in labor with twins."

("Jenkins", refers to Sally Jenkins who wrote Lances books.")

You make the claim that I deftly evade requests for hard data. As is relevant to this discussion, it is the lack of proof with which I am concerned. Since the burden of proof is on the accuser and proof of that which doesn't exist is impossible, you are on the side of the issue which must produce hard data. As for your personal attack, I invite you to offer one example where I have evaded a request for hard data when such request was reasonable or possible. For the record, I have several posts on this forum which are nothing more than lists of hard data including sources which had to be split into multiple posts as they exceded the 15,000 character limit per post. Fallen^sparrow eluded to a few of these posts in his comments on this thread. Keeping in mind that proving one has not doped is no more possible than proving the existance or lack thereof of a god, please show me one example... just one, to substantiate your accusation.

When you're done with that, then offer something tangible, substantiating your claim that I'm a liar. Otherwise you'll stand exposed as one yourself.

Beastt, you continue to evade. You claim that I am changing the subject, but then you give a quote that has NOTHING TO DO WITH EPO TESTING.

300+ tests for EPO in 2003 is a published fact. How many of those did Lance receive? What is wrong with my analysis on the likely number?

Can you provide any other official source for the number of "other" tests other than Sally Jenkins, who will join you in the special 8th level of hell reserved for indignant butt-kissers? Talk about a compromised source. If she says anything remotely bad about Lance, or even implies it, there goes the chance for another big payout on the next book deal.

Not to mention that we all know that there are ways to dope for which there are no tests right now.

Not to mention the EPO test is only valid if you've used EPO within a matter of days, even though the benefits last for weeks.

In a way, I love these forum debates because I can imagine the righteous indignation you must feel every time your hero is mentioned in the same post as the word "doping." You're fighting an uphill battle. Continue to invest the time though, it's entertaining watching you shovel water out of your sand-castle moat as the tide inexorably moves in....

You state that the only solid evidence which exists to substantiate Lance's claim that he's clean is that he has never failed a drug test. Isn't that the whole crux of the debate?

Last time I read the title it was "Do you think lance is doping? yes or no"

That calls for an expression of an opinion. Not with a supplementary disclosure of evidence to support your response.

BTW, Beastt, "beyond all reasonable doubt", as you keep re-iterating to support your case on evidence, is only applicable in a criminal court of law not when there is a breach of rules laid down by a sport's governing body. The UCI's rules are patently clear that any infraction of the rules as delivered to the rider must have a standard of proof less than beyond all reasonable doubt but more than the balance of probabilities. This, of course, refers to the collection of samples, delivery, storage and testing. To rebuke the infraction at the hearing, the rider has a lower standard of proof of the balance of probabilities.

Circumstantial evidence does not enter into the equation. However, for the purpose of this discussion it can support a forum argument when expressing an opinion.


http://espn.go.com/cycling/france99/stage16.html
Your reference to the corticosteroids is a completely moot point. Regardless of any inconsistency regarding the prescription itself, the level found was .2 and the limit set by the UCI for all riders is 5. He had less than 1/10th the level required for it to even be an issue. Is it inconceivable to you that when dealing with a stage race and a team doctor that sometimes the administering of medication might precede the writing of the prescription? This is again an example of trying to fabricate evidence out of nothing. He was well below the allowable level so the only thing you're demonstrating with this non-issue is your own desire to make an issue out of a perfectly normal, perfectly benign and perfectly legal situation. Riders do apply medications containing small levels of corticosteroids to saddle sores. Those corticosteroids work through absorption. That's why the UCI didn't set the limit at .1 or .01.

The allegation of Emma O'Reilly is that LA took the steroid during the Route du Sud and during testing for the 1999 TdF the corticosteroid had not cleared his system. Hence the low reading.

The back dated prescription for a topical ointment for saddle rash containing the steroid was allegedly a cover up. There was no exemption lodged by LA prior to the TdF disclosing the use of this claimed topical ointment. The UCI was obliged to sanction LA as he had no exemption to use the product. Inexplicably, they did not pursue sanctions. LA should not have been excused on the alleged backdated prescription. The topical cream should have been listed on LA's mandatory medical form.

...When Sally speaks out re: her personal beliefs on Lance, she is reading a corporate script. It is the same script that Bob Roll, Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwin were required to read on OLN.

...Has anyone else picked up on this point about Liggett and Sherwin exclusively commentating on OLN? I don't know much about OLN, but I noticed during the 2004 Tour de France that the TDF section seemed to be somehow sponsored by Trek/Armstrong (at least, it had them plastered all over it) and Liggett and Sherwin were the exclusive commentators (oh, and comments by Carmichael). Then I noticed that they seemed particularly favourable towards Armstrong and appeared to leap to his defence when Greg LeMond made his remarks about Armstrong doping.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick, or is there some deal between OLN/Armstrong/Liggett and Sherwin. I am a big fan of these two commentators and have immense respect for them, but if they are doing deals with individual competitors, I would regard this as very devious and unprofessional.

Any comments?

Cheers

Has anyone else picked up on this point about Liggett and Sherwin exclusively commentating on OLN? I don't know much about OLN, but I noticed during the 2004 Tour de France that the TDF section seemed to be somehow sponsored by Trek/Armstrong (at least, it had them plastered all over it) and Liggett and Sherwin were the exclusive commentators (oh, and comments by Carmichael). Then I noticed that they seemed particularly favourable towards Armstrong and appeared to leap to his defence when Greg LeMond made his remarks about Armstrong doping.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick, or is there some deal between OLN/Armstrong/Liggett and Sherwin. I am a big fan of these two commentators and have immense respect for them, but if they are doing deals with individual competitors, I would regard this as very devious and unprofessional.

Any comments?

Cheers

No. However, on another note, to underscore the knowledge of commentators of drug taking in the TdF peloton a quote can be attributed to Phil Sherwin in commentary during the closing stages of the 2000, from memory, TdF.

If this is the correct year (could be 1999), it was the year that the French authorities after the Festina Affair had come down hard on French registered riders concerning drug taking in the lead up to the TdF.

Sherwin said (or gaffed), with words to the effect: "Have you noticed that as a result of the French drug crackdown for the first time no French rider has won a stage of the TdF and a French rider is the holder of the Lanterne Rouge (last place)".

Obviously the drug raids had destabilised the French (drug) preparation and they were at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the peloton as implied by Sherwin.

I think Lance is, without a doubt, GUILTY of taking an oxegenated nitrogen compound, likely through inhalation, along with various "supplements" of a top secret amino acid/fat/carbohydrate formulation. These substances are used by his body to cause massive catalytic reactions in his heart, lungs and muscles - often for hours, and even weeks at a time.

The effect is that he has a far higher cardio-pulmunary and musculo-skeletal endurance and power ratio than other atheletes.

To simplify: It is completely unfair that Lance is able to breath, eat and train at such high, and well planned, levels as to destroy his competition.

If being genetically gifted, and then training harder, and smarter than anyone else is against UCI rules - LANCE IS GUILTY!

LIVESTRONG and keep ridin'

I have followed this thread for, I can't remember how long, and one comment that was made was that this forum is not subject to American justice.

That is correct but in most societies an accused is allowed to face his accusers before being convicted.
This is also true, however the truth is not revealed in questions but in answers.
In that I believe we will have to wait for any changes in what we now know to make any statements except what is "mere opinion".

Beastt, you continue to evade. You claim that I am changing the subject, but then you give a quote that has NOTHING TO DO WITH EPO TESTING.

300+ tests for EPO in 2003 is a published fact. How many of those did Lance receive? What is wrong with my analysis on the likely number?

Can you provide any other official source for the number of "other" tests other than Sally Jenkins, who will join you in the special 8th level of hell reserved for indignant butt-kissers? Talk about a compromised source. If she says anything remotely bad about Lance, or even implies it, there goes the chance for another big payout on the next book deal.

Not to mention that we all know that there are ways to dope for which there are no tests right now.

Not to mention the EPO test is only valid if you've used EPO within a matter of days, even though the benefits last for weeks.

In a way, I love these forum debates because I can imagine the righteous indignation you must feel every time your hero is mentioned in the same post as the word "doping." You're fighting an uphill battle. Continue to invest the time though, it's entertaining watching you shovel water out of your sand-castle moat as the tide inexorably moves in....

I'm evading nothing, antoineg. My quote offered a minimum number of tests administered directly to Armstrong. ("more than 40 times a year") Certainly the specifics of those tests weren't mentioned but at least there is a number and that's more than you have offered. Since the topic of the thread is about whether or not Lance Armstrong is doping and your data is applicable only to the full body of riders, neither of us has any idea how many or if any of the 300 EPO tests you speak of, were administered to Lance Armstrong. I'll say it for you one more time; the only tests relevant to the topic are those given to Armstrong. If you don't know that number, as obviously neither of us do, then you have nothing.

I noticed you completely ignored, (evaded) the challenge I put to you to give even one clear example of my failure to provide hard data when a reasonable request is made nor did you respond in any way to the challenge I set forth to offer some proof to back up your accusation that I'm a liar. It would seem that both of these accusations you cast toward me are similar in nature to the reason you are so completely assured that Lance is doping despite the fact that you can produce absolutely no hard data yourself to substantiate these assertions. He's done something you don't like so you're instantly willing to believe anything you hear against him. Likewise, I've offered reason to doubt doping accusations which you disagree with so you carelessly fling the accusation at me claiming that I'm a liar, that I share some kind of rectal intimacy with Lance and that I'm suffering some kind of hero worship. I think what he's done is remarkable. As for who he is, his personality, likes and dislikes, I can only say I don't know the man so I can neither like him nor dislike him.

As for the many comments that Sally Jenkins is bought and paid for by Lance Armstrong, I certainly can see where any negative comments she might make about his doping would have a very substantial backlash which she would likely wish to avoid. However, the accusations that she is lying are no more justified than those cast toward Armstrong or myself. Of those who made such comments, how many have met her? How many know her personally? How many know anything about her other than she has been the writer behind Armstrong's books?

It would seem that if someone claims Armstrong is doping then it serves as sufficient proof of his guilt and if anyone states that he is not or they have no reason to believe that he is, then in the minds of those who disagree, they're instantly a liar.

You're so completely twisted on this topic that you're unable to even conceive of anyone not being similarly twisted to the opposite direction should they suggest that until proper evidence exists, the only reasonable claim to make is that you believe he is doping. And some have very carefully retained that level of discretion. Some have not.

As for comments made by VeloFlash concerning the corticosteroids found in a drug test in 1999: The statement is made that Armstrong used the corticosteroid "during the Route du Sud" and that the level found in his blood was only below the allowable limit because it hadn't cleared from his bloodstream yet; what of the test done on the day just prior to the positive result which showed a corticosteroid level of zero?

The reason given; cortizone cream for saddle sores, fits within that scenario. The idea that the level had been higher to a degree likely to be outside that allowed by the UCI doesn't fit because the level would have been even higher the day before rather than being zero. As for the prescription written after use of the ointment, it's certainly reason for suspicion, but I would guess that close scrutiny would show a lot of instances where riders are given whatever medication their team doctor suggests and the paperwork may often tend to follow at a later date. That's only my suspicion but that's pretty much what this thread is built on - suspicions lending to the idea that Lance does dope and suspicions lending to the idea that he doesn't.

The problem is that if you happen to be someone who feels that accusations without sufficient proof are inappropriate - even wrong, then you're labeled as evasive and a liar. Others who don't simply state that they believe Lance is doping but go so far as to state that it's an absolute fact, seem not to be judged nearly so harshly, if at all.

"Lance is a doper and thats the bottom line" -- alpedhuez_86


It comes down to this, antoineg; you don't know how many tests Lance does or doesn't receive nor do you know when or how those are administered or whether he has any advanced notice. Similarly, I don't have any real numbers showing how many tests he receives or even if he is ever tested. I have only what reports the media offers and the comments made by Sally Jenkins. We all know the media often tosses out anything that will get a bite but I find it doubtful that anyone here knows Sally Jenkins. Please step up to the plate and correct me on that if anyone on this thread does know her. So the point remains; you don't know and I don't know. I tend to believe that he isn't doping and you tend to believe that he is. When you don't know and can't prove your suspicions and can't produce hard data relating directly to the one you accuse, then accusations are inappropriate. You can think or believe what you wish to think or believe and, as VeloFlash pointed out, that is the topic of the thread - what you believe, but to go beyond that with Lance is inappropriate as it is to label me a liar when you can't offer a single time when I have shown dishonesty.

Just for your peace of mind, I don't feel indignation when people suggest that Lance is doping. I'm willing to concede that a possibility exists. But I find it sad that so many are willing to pronounce sentence based on their gut feeling and a few unsubstantiated rumors and gossip.

I have followed this thread for, I can't remember how long, and one comment that was made was that this forum is not subject to American justice.

That is correct but in most societies an accused is allowed to face his accusers before being convicted.
This is also true, however the truth is not revealed in questions but in answers.
In that I believe we will have to wait for any changes in what we now know to make any statements except what is "mere opinion".

You are only "accused" if it relates to a crime. You are only "convicted" if it relates to a crime.

Being found positive for a PED is not a crime, unless it occurs in France or Italy where you can be charged with a sporting fraud. It can be a crime if you are caught with PED's in your possession without any legal right to have those drugs,ie, a prescription. You would be charged with possessing forbidden products.

Being found positive means you have breached your sporting body's rules which you had agreed to be bound by to compete. The rules set out the procedure to enter a defence against the infraction. No judge, no jury, no prosecutor.

There is a plethora of circumstantial evidence from which doubts are being raised that LA could not be a unique phenomena to turn mediocre performances to superlative performances through contracting testicular cancer.

The opinions expressed in response to the topic appear to be residency based.

jhusky: I took this thread to ask whether Lance is doping to mean; Is the whole UCI World Cup & Grand Tour peloton on drugs? Dozens of guilty athletes were exposed and several died in just the past ten months!!!
The topic of the thread is "Do you think lance is doping?".

We really do not need to wait for more guys to keel over and die to make that logical and inescapable conclusion do we?
How does accusing Lance of doping without sufficient evidence keep other riders from dying?

We're not picking on Lance per se, but he is the top dog, of what appears to be an 'anemia and oxygen drug dependent" group of endurance athletes. If it were Jan Ulrich who so destroyed his TDF competitors, we would be using him as the talking point. Lance deserves the scrutiny.
What you seem to be saying is that anyone who wins should be so scrutinized. I don't recall that happening to Ullrich in 1997 or to Pantani in 1998. Yet both of them have a history of illegal drug use. Lance doesn't. Virenque is the first man to win seven King of the Mountains titles in the Tour de France and has a well publicized history of doping. I don't see any threads asking if he's doping.

The fact that Lance has chemo therapy recovery experience and a Bristol Meyers Squib endorsement and a Cancer Foundation and Clinical Trial connections just makes him look all the more suspicious as a doper.How does recovering from cancer through chemotherapy make him more suspect? EPO is used to treat cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy to keep them alive, not to create world-class athletes. Many hospital patients are given morphine for pain. Does that mean they're all dopers, tweakers and crack addicts?

He certainly hangs out with dopers, is friends with dopers, has a dopey doctor as his advisor, has former Junior national teammates who suffer from doping & related illnesses, and has lots of researchers who have associate with him too. He opposes Richard Pound & WADA when they are vocal. Why?
Guilt by association? That's a precarious position to take. If we can be found guilty by association with those who are, or may be which I believe is actually the case, (has Ferarri been convicted?), then certainly the entire world is guilty. Lance spoke out against Pound because the assertion Pound made sounded like he was pointing fingers and proclaiming the peloton to be a group of dopers. Lance has been accused for at least the past 6 years and is a little tired of it. If you weren't guilty of cheating and had complied with every test thrown at you to prove that you weren't cheating yet constantly had people implying that you were, you might have something to say as well.

So if Lance does not use dope----why is he such a salesman for it? Why should cancer patients use drugs that he himself won't touch, or so he says??
I assume you're referring to his endorsements for Bristol-Meyers Squibb? He's endorsing medications to help people overcome cancer and live. You have a problem with medications that save lives? He doesn't use those drugs, or claims not to because he doesn't have cancer and has no need for the medicinal affects of those drugs. A man could accept a contract to endorse a feminine hygiene product. It doesn't mean he uses it. In Lance's case he definitely did use it when it was needed to save his life. I have trouble faulting him for that.

Clinical Phase 1 trials use only health persons. Could Lance be one of them?
He could be. Then again, so could you. So could any of us. But the point is, most of us... probably all of us, aren't.

Is it fair that Lance may have access to new drugs that his competitors do not? Is there really a "level" playing field or is that a fantasy too?
The key words are "may have access". Ullrich may be testing some German super drug, (which isn't working). Marco Pantani may be alive and well and living in Hawaii as a hula girl. Saddam Hussein may be a Hooter's girl at restaurant in California.

Lot's of empirical evidence for those to view.
I saw the conjecture and the "may", "possible", "could be". I guess I missed the "evidence".

You are only "accused" if it relates to a crime. You are only "convicted" if it relates to a crime.

Being found positive for a PED is not a crime, unless it occurs in France or Italy where you can be charged with a sporting fraud. It can be a crime if you are caught with PED's in your possession without any legal right to have those drugs,ie, a prescription. You would be charged with possessing forbidden products.
Steroid use is criminal in many if not all states in the U.S. Possession of controlled substances, (i.e. EPO), is a crime in most, if not all, states in the U.S. Isn't France where Lance is racing? Wouldn't that make the alleged drug use a crime?

Being found positive means you have breached your sporting body's rules which you had agreed to be bound by to compete. The rules set out the procedure to enter a defence against the infraction. No judge, no jury, no prosecutor.

There is a plethora of circumstantial evidence from which doubts are being raised that LA could not be a unique phenomena to turn mediocre performances to superlative performances through contracting testicular cancer.
Who suggested that contracting testicular cancer gave Lance the ability he demonstrates? What is being said is that in the process of undergoing chemotherapy, which is used to combat many kinds of cancer, Lance's body was reduced to a mere shell. Upon rebuilding that body, which started as a swimmer's body, then a triathlete and finally a cyclist, Lance lost about 20 pounds of upper body mass. But through rebuilding as a cyclist, he retained his former power but now has 20 pounds less body weight to propel up the mountains. No one is suggesting that cancer turns people into superlative athletes.

The opinions expressed in response to the topic appear to be residency based.
Which is very interesting in and of itself no matter which side of the debate you stand on. When geographical location plays such an obvious roll, perhaps it's not the supposed evidence so much as the nationality that matters.

Steroid use is criminal in many if not all states in the U.S. Possession of controlled substances, (i.e. EPO), is a crime in most, if not all, states in the U.S. Isn't France where Lance is racing? Wouldn't that make the alleged drug use a crime?

Italy modified its sporting fraud laws in 2000 to include doping. Pantani was acquitted of the charge as his alleged offence occurred in 1995 prior to the amendment to the laws.

Refer here to charges brought by Italian investigators relating to 2002 Giro.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=12055

I understand France's sporting fraud laws were enacted later. But Italian investigators were considering laying charges against LA relating to his brush with Simeoni during the 2004 TdF. Sporting fraud, intimidating a witness (re Ferrari trial) and violence were the referred charges.


Who suggested that contracting testicular cancer gave Lance the ability he demonstrates? What is being said is that in the process of undergoing chemotherapy, which is used to combat many kinds of cancer, Lance's body was reduced to a mere shell. Upon rebuilding that body, which started as a swimmer's body, then a triathlete and finally a cyclist, Lance lost about 20 pounds of upper body mass. But through rebuilding as a cyclist, he retained his former power but now has 20 pounds less body weight to propel up the mountains. No one is suggesting that cancer turns people into superlative athletes.

From what I have been reading from forums, LA is a far superior cyclist post illness through the loss of 20 lbs and increased resolve through his near death experience.

However, flat TT'ing efficiency is relative to power to air displacement not weight. So he must have significantly improved on his former power (I can recall Indurain going past him in a TdF TT as if he were standing still).

Despite all these claims of the new athlete being reborn post cancer, LA failed in his comeback in early 1998 and retired to Texas (read his book). That improved determination was not evident in this period.


Which is very interesting in and of itself no matter which side of the debate you stand on. When geographical location plays such an obvious roll, perhaps it's not the supposed evidence so much as the nationality that matters.

No, in this case it indicates whether the debater is more likely to be subjective or objective.

Lot's of empirical evidence for those to view.[/QUOTE]

I would not agree with this view. Priori knowledge yes as it relate to Armstrong's unusual abilities that transcends his apponents.
Mathematical possibilities ,as in, mathematically there must be life on other worlds but it is yet to be proven despite unconfirmed rumors and sightings of UFO's
Putting aside rumors the fact that he is so superior, at least in the tour, seems to be his most damning aspect.

NO!!


Why would someone who went through cancer cheat:confused:

Why? To make all that he made..:D

It appears that BEASTT does not have a "knack for the obvious". That's a fine world to live in. You can easily discard all of the empirical evidence of the doping problem in sport. How you do it, I would know. The same can be said of you. You lack the ability to see that circumstansial evidence is not proof, this is obvious to most people. Is it obvious to you?
Maybe you and Sally Jenkins can get more corporate PR work. That's the skill set that is required. Focus only on themes, and do not allow the doping environment to influence your judgment. You focus only on the theme of guilt by association. Logical Fallacy...
Do not let all the sick and dying, and dead athlete's in any way cause you to reason that perhaps there is a direct trendline in sports? Again with the guilt by association?
In today elite sports world, it is not about which athlete is the best, rather it is which "set-up" is the best. Very much like auto racing and Formula 1. It is an doping arms race, and the best medical support crew and budget may determine the winner. Equipment benefits are irrelevant when compared with drugs. You are using the conclusion of your argument to support it. Circulus in demonstrando. Logical fallacy...
If Lance's is on daily medications, then he will eventually suffer some sort of breakdown. At least, that's what I think might occur, just as synthetic hormones have caused health problems in so many other athletes, eg: Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, Mike Ditka, Lawrence Taylor, Jack Tatum, OJ Simpson, Ken Caminetti, Jose Concesco, and on and on. Plus the dozens of dead pro cyclists, all dead by age 37. This one is a mix of guilt by association, and ad numerum. Logical fallacies...
So we'll just stay tuned. Meanwhile do avoid reading any of the increasingly disturbing stories of busted athletes and their sad denials. That drum beat will continue regardless of our banter. More guilt by association...
Discussion of doping in sports, and Lance in specific, is very helpful to promote greater awareness. Many newer cyclists are simply not aware that powerful trauma doping has plagued road & track cycling for over 100 years. Today, the drugs are even more powerful and mostly undetectable. If athletes are super competitive, under pressure for results, are subjected to peer pressure, and have the access, they will use drugs. Another circular argument...
Awareness of current doping practices is something fans can grasp onto, if they wish to gain a clearer understanding for how the sport functions at the top levels. WADA & IOC can not stop doping. And the athletes will not stop doping either. The drug companies will continue rolling out new product too.

Accepting this sad fact of life helps to frame the context of the spectacle will are so passionate about.

That is the history of our sport.

As NIKE proclaims; Just do it!!! Winning or Doping to win??? Is that the right metaphor??


Be good. Every argument you have presented as to why you believe Lance must be doping is a logical fallacy. You present reasons to be interested in whether or not an individual is doping, but you have fail to grasp that none of this is proof. All BEASTT is saying is that there is no proof of Lance doping, and to insist otherwise is foolish. Dispite who much you disagree, by any objective measure, he is correct.

I can't believe you guys are still going around and around with this! It's obvious that for some individuals; the cricumstancial evidence, speculation and hearsay (which is what much of the current "evidence" is: evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath) is all the proof they need to be of the opinion that LA is guilty of using PED's and for others that's simply not enough. You guys could go back and forth and around and around forever! At least until some type of "concrete" evidence surfaces that will tip the scales one way or the other.

And these are some incredibly wordy posts too. You guys are expending way too much time and energy on an argument that really can't be won.

And these are some incredibly wordy posts too. You guys are expending way too much time and energy on an argument that really can't be won.[/QUOTE]

I just like to throw in a comment here and there to stir the pot.

You present reasons to be interested in whether or not an individual is doping, but you have fail to grasp that none of this is proof. All BEASTT is saying is that there is no proof of Lance doping, and to insist otherwise is foolish. Dispite [sic] who [sic] much you disagree, by any objective measure, he is correct.And I'd reply that this forum is not about "proof", and is not a U.S. court of law, as Beastt keeps implying it should be. This is about Do you think Lance is doping. So take your complaints about proof elsewhere. Plenty of circumstantial evidence would rightfully lead one to think Lance is doping, proof or no. Deal with that instead of changing the context of the discussion to "proved" or "not proved."