Do you think lance is doping? yes or no

HellonWheels

OK. IF Lance does dope, WHY has he PASSED EVERY drug test? Its not like he knows when not to dope because he's getting a test. They show up AT RANDOM, even 6 AM to give him a test.

__________________
"He who conquers himself is the mightiest warrior"--Confucius

antoineg

HellonWheels, how many tests has Lance gotten at 6 AM? You have no idea. I will tell you that published reports have put the number of EPO tests administered by the UCI in 2003 at 300-something. That works out to much less than one test per rider per year, for a substance whose window of positive effect lasts a lot longer that the window in which it can be detected by a drug test.

This whole "6AM unannounced test" thing is an urban legend as far as I'm concerned, no one can point to any data or secondhand reports from unbiased sources that show how many times Lance has been woken up, unannounced, early in the morning with no time to prepare for a test. I don't believe it happens to him.

antoineg

In fact, I would like one shred of proof that Lance was subject to ANY unannounced tests in, say, 2003. Unannounced meaning: He has no warning and no time alone between the knock on the door and the collection of the sample.

Published information from former riders show how teams beat the testers: they send the junior riders down first to have their samples taken, while the doped riders are quickly hooked up to a saline IV to reduce their hematocrit. All it takes is a matter of minutes for a 50+ hematocrit to be reduced to a legal level.

fallensparrow

My apologies mate, I misidentified you as someone else. "Beasst" and I have had an ongoing playful banter on another site and so without prior knowledge of our past conversations most of what I said in that previous post could be construed as being ignorant, rude, and off topic (beef comment specifically... he's very pro-vegetarian) which wasn't my intention. Personally I am enjoying the ongoing debate and the intellectual depth to which it has gone... so please do carry on and I look forward to how it eventually plays out over the coming month(s). My other opinions expressed "on topic" haven't changed... although, with the afore mentioned oversight in the simple interchanged "s" and "t", I'm sure they hold alot less weight. It'll be interesting to see how the investigation into Lances Motorola teamate's accusations plays out in the coming weeks... $5 million is a big chunk of change for winning a bike race.

fallen^sparrow

VeloFlash

To name a few that would escape a positive test.....

Autologous blood doping (preparing himself for only one main event per year allows him the time rather than homologous blood doping using another persons blood re TH - no test available)

Newer developments in EPO that the testers had not caught up with.

Micro dosing of EPO beats tests (testers have not a detection test)

Gene doping (new on the block - sports scientists predicted athletes would be into gene doping by 2000 - on the WADA banned list but no test)

LA did not compete at Athens Olympics - announcement was made all athlete's samples from Athens would be retained and tested in future when new drugs were identified and tested. This was a first. LA preferred to play with his kids than win an elusive gold medal.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

meehs

antoineg: I've seen this pointed out before (maybe not by you but by others on this forum). I don't think I've heard of any current or former riders on the USPS team make accusations of doping. I've asked this before and no one has given me an answer. Exactly who are the USPS riders who have made these alleged allegations? And what is your source for this? I'm not trying to be combative. I'm really just curious to know.

antoineg

Sorry, it was USA Cycling, not USPS, and Lance was on the team at the time, and Carmichael was a coach. Apologies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001...ain284958.shtml

meehs

Yeah, that I've heard about. No need to apologize, I was just curious. Thanks.

Beastt

Are you suggesting that when people recommend that the need for actual proof be overlooked that they don't really mean it? Because if they do mean that then they certainly feel that this would be appropriate and should they ever get what they're asking for, then there would be substantial fallout for Lance, for anyone awaiting trial for any offense and for anyone ever acussed of any wrongful act. Certainly if the need for proof were eliminated, his career would be ruined. Perhaps you've failed to grasp the consequences of touting the benefits of an unfair system. While you're quick to point out your belief that ruining Lance isn't the point of this "exercise", the absense of an explanation as to what you feel the point is seems painfully obvious.


No one stated it was the American justice system. You're trying to read things into my comments that aren't there for the convenience of creating a point for contention. The American justice system was utilized as a model and the error rate of that system placed on exhibition to show that even when proof is required, the potential for error is unacceptably high. Removing the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt would only inflate the rate of error. The numbers came from Scientific American.

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? That's what the testing is for. Certainly some riders have been found to be doping even after passing the drug tests. Other riders have been suspended for failing the drug tests and were later found to have been free of banned substance use. (Santiago Botero, for one). There is a rate of error as with any kind of testing. Your contention seems to be that since there is a potential for error, anyone you choose to believe is guilty, must therefore be guilty.

You might note that I am one of the forum readers. Therefore, by your own request, I'm as justified as any other to post opinions, data and information.


Winning has everything to do with it. If Lance weren't winning, no one would even bother to ask the question. As you state, there is a strong likelihood that many of the pro riders are doping yet Armstrong is the target sustaining the highest number of accusations because he's winning.

You talk of all of these reports and yet no one, not even those who claim to have seen the waste from the doping have produced the slightest shred of physical evidence. If you watch someone throw away medical waste you feel is connected to doping, then why not wait around and collect a bit of it so that you have more to offer than hearsay?

The relationship with Dr. Ferrari is yet another attempt to fabricate evidence out of imagination and emotion. A certain number of people simply want to believe that Lance is doping. Perhaps he is but if so, he's certainly not alone and as such, is still beating the other riders on a level playing field. I'm not excusing doping but many people wish to believe he's doping because he keeps winning against other riders they wish to believe are clean. But in the constant struggle to create something akin to evidence against Lance, they also incriminate those riders they feel could beat Lance if Lance weren't "cheating".

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.


If you want to be considered as someone with logical concerns who has looked into the situation from a mature, objective standpoint, I might suggest that you refrain from such childishness.

closesupport

Bravo beastt, i agree since we don't have a written confession, we have no case, we can just speculate and slander, possibly a good mans name. hey! but in alot of cases it wouldn't stop there until the ducking stool, the float test or possibly a good burning at the stake...

unfortunately it ain't a witch hunt, but some are convinced some aren't, some like to believe that there is an elite in cycling some like to believe that one can only reach such a high standard not through ones own abilities but through the assistance of drugs.

personnally i'd like to believe that through hard work and dedication ones personal goals can be met and even broken, dedication is about belief, self belief and the winners are the ones that believe, truly believe that they can achieve more its when you start to doubt the abilities of others that you will never achieve anything other than what you believe to be possible. So how can one ever achieve anything more if they doubt ones abilities, so i guess lance will be staying numberone, since there is such a great deal of doubt and no one seems to believe that his achievemnet are possible.

So until he his discredited he is number one, is goals are obtainable by others in my opinion.

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.

Beastt

The point, as far as this thread is concerned, isn't the total number of EPO tests administered but the total administered to Lance Armstrong as well as whether or not the tests were scheduled ahead of time and whether Lance was aware of the tests well in advance or not.

You state "the whole '6AM unannounced test' thing is an urban legend", as far as you're concerned. Meaning, of course, that you have no more proof of when or how the tests are administered than Hellonwheels has. What you're offering is simply your opinion of how, when and where the tests are administered. In other words, unsubstantiated, personal conjecture.

What you believe or don't believe is exactly the problem. You wish to base your judgement of Lance on nothing more than your personal feelings. When proof exists, then you have a basis for your comments. Until then it's just slander.

Beastt

Give this a try, fallen^sparrow; go to the advance search page for the forum and do a search for the number of posts made by "beasst". Doesn't exist, does he.

Nice try.

I'm quite familiar with the pro-vegetarian issue you mention as well as your nickname. Show me the site and the posts you're talking about and you'll have my sincere apology.

Beastt

No need for your concern, Flyer, I'm perfectly calm. Statements and issues were made which were erroneous, personal conjecture and irrelative. I simply responded.


Chances are most don't know the half of it. In addition to antibiotics, steroids and growth hormones, cattle are routinely fed sawdust, tree bark, industrial waste, poultry feathers and even plastic pellets to compensate for the lack of roughage. These pellets are later retrieved from the manure and fed to cattle again and again. In addition, while U.S. cattle are no longer fed offal, (slaughterhouse waste), due to the fear of BSE, (mad cow disease), chickens are still fed nerve tissues from slaughterhouse waste and the poultry waste is passed on to cattle so there is still a chain for prions to follow which may bring them to supermarket beef.
Yes, if we eat animal products, we're doped. But these are certainly not performance enhancing drugs. Much to the contrary.



In a real jury, (U.S. system), the jurors are instructed as to what they are to include or exclude in their deliberation. Despite this they do have the right to vote their conscience which is often excluded from their instruction. Most of what is offered here as indications that doping is a possibility would be inadmissable due to irrelevance and the fact that most of it is third-party hearsay. Whether people like this fact or not, third-party hearsay has all the credibility of gossip and rumors and should be treated as such. Certainly you're entitled to your opinion and certainly the possibility exists that Lance as well as most of the peloton may be doping. But until actual, valid, credible evidence with weight enough to exclude reasonable doubt exists, I feel it's prudent to offer the benefit of doubt to the issue.

My vote; Not guilty due to lack of evidence.