Do you think lance is doping? yes or no

VeloFlash

Tamman2000, if you were to read the book by Willy Voet, the Festina soigneur, who was arrested and convicted on having a pharmacy load of forbidden products in his car in 1998, you will see circumstantial evidence that a vast majority of the TdF peloton are on PEDs.

Voet claims to have been responsible as a team soigneur for hundreds of cyclists over many years. He claims only about 5% of those cyclists were clean.

Voet further claims that clean riders were known throughout the peloton and could be named. What does that say for the balance not named?

Voet also stated that you could not podium finish a multi stage event without the assistance of drugs for performance and recovery. He names known clean riders who were excellent one day riders but failed in multi stage events.

Richard Virenque, a 1998 Festina rider, emphatically denied drug use for months then finally admitted. Voet claims, unlike other Festina riders, Virenque was consulting Dr Ferrari for advice on drugs.

Voet also reported that drug abuse was so rife within the peloton that teams would trade phials if they ran out. EPO phial for a Hgh phial, etc.

If circumstantial evidence exists that about 95% of the peloton are on the juice and clean riders have difficulties in multi stage events does that place LA (or any multi stage winner) in the 5% or 95% bracket?

I would say the obvious can be seen on these statistics applying not only to LA in particular but the peloton in general.

__________________
VF

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

Beastt

Would this be the same Greg LeMond who still holds the record for the fastest time trial ever recorded in a Tour de France, yet claims that he raced clean but says that Armstrong can't possibly be performing as he is without cheating? That Greg LeMond?

Have you spoken with Phil Liggett off camera?

Beastt

My example of the U.S. Justice System as it is supposed to work, (though it doesn't), is about a simple ideal, antoineg. I'm not saying that this forum is held to the same standards, only that such standards are utilized and developed because they focus on not condeming the innocent. Obviously you and several others feel that condemnation without proof of guilt is purely acceptable.

Certainly there is nothing new about the human frailty which incites people to proclaim guilt without proof. It was the basis for the Salem witch trials and subsequent hangings as well as the frequent lynchings portrayed in writings of the early American west. Some of those subjected to lynchings may well have been guilty. Certainly some were not, yet they all died at the end of a rope - innocent and guilty alike because the mob allowed their anger to proclaim that suspicion was proof enough. When we punish the innocent, the guilty go free.

Had Lance lived in the 1690s, this forum might well be titled, "Is Lance a witch?" and many here would be convinced of his guilt and readying the gallows. Apparently, in all the years since then, collectively, we've learned not a thing.

jhuskey

jhuskey:

Nice connection. Great correlation.

Have there been more UFO sightings than 1) heart failures from young pro cyclists, 10 in past 20 months?? 2) admitted EPO drugs users, lots in just 2004, Philippe Gaumont, Jesus Manzano, Robert Sassone, David Miller, Oscar Caminzend to name a very few 3) failed doping tests, numerous???

If so, there may be someting to your UFO theory.

Keep me posted on your research.

Intrigued.[/QUOTE]

I thought we were talking about Lance. Sorry my mistake.Then by all means if one is guilty then all are.
"I ride therefore I dope".
There are statistical possibilities, I will admit. What bothers me is the absolute certainty of some of you individuals to make Armstrong guilty.
The probabilities that I perceive is that the ones that bash him so ravenously do not like him otherwise, doping or not.

No matter what the outcome there will always be doubters.
Heres something to consider if Armstrong is doping he must still be a cut above since his physical abilities have been able to withstand the ill side effect of doping longer that anyone else without adversely affecting his health.
If he drops dead tomorrow not only will I feel bad for posting this I will definitely admit I am wrong about him.

__________________
Sobriety is over rated!

Roadie_scum

Because the time-trial was much, much shorter than most time-trials in the tour, maybe?

tamman2000

I acknowledge that Lance could be doping. Do you acknowledge that it hasn't been proven that he is? If Flyer and Veloflash had been saying "he is probably doped" rather than "you are a fool for not believing he is doped" I wouldn't have said a thing.

Is that what you are about to do?
Guilt by association. All of the illness and death only proves that those who were ill and are dead doped, it proves nothing about others.
As Numerum. If all of these people were doped, surely Lance must be? Sorry, it doesn't follow.
False premise. Your argument lacks support. If you could prove this statment (which you can't) your conclusions would logically follow. (BTW: Millar disagrees with you on this)

All of these statments depend on your unproven lemma.

Actually, regardless of whether or not Lance has doped, you have shown an inability to use logic by your consistant use of a variety of logical fallacies proped up as proof.

Ohh, you haven't used that one yet... Appeal to athority is another logical fallacy.

I don't deny any of your lemmas, but to draw the conclusion that lance is doped, you too are commiting several logical fallicies. Appeal to Authority combined with Ad Numerum mostly...

1. You state yourself that the evidence is circumstancial.
2. Doped riders have a hard time in multi-stage events as well.
3. Probable, yes. Obvious, not really. Proven, definatly not.

The snipped segments contain more appeals to authority and ad numerum arguments. I didn't see the value in making this post any longer by including them.

I would like to address the LeMond part though. A book deal is worth a lot of money, and a book in which a retired racer says Lance is clean, or doesn't mention Lance will not sell as much as an indictment of the man at the top. He is most certainly not free from the influence of $ on this point. It is a he said, she said, with big money on both sides. No proof (but certainly cause for suspicion) lies in that book.

ATTENTION:
I am not arguing that it is unlikely that lance is doped. I said several posts ago that I think he may be doped (you will also see my gut was wrong about Tyler, I can admit it when I have made a mistake). I am only stating that it is not proven at this point.

If you intend to argue that it is proven that Lance is doped, by all means go ahead, I enjoy cutting down fallicous arguments.

However, if you intend to state that it is likely that he is doped. I DON'T DISAGREE! Stop trying to argue with me.

meehs

So if 95% of the pro peleton is using PED's (as many of you guys seem to believe), why the big "witch-hunt" to single-out and condemn Armstrong? If one doped rider is beating other doped riders, you could say that it's pretty much an even playing field. Why do some of you want to crucify Armstrong and evidently don't seem to care about the rest of the 95% that you consider to be doping? You can be sure that each and every one of them would vehemently deny using PED's if they were directly confronted with the question in front of the cameras as Armstrong has been.

antoineg

This is another BS argument and another one that the doping apologists use to suppose that the Lance thread is all about jealousy and envy.

In reality, we do post other threads about other cyclists doping. Lately Hamilton, Museeuw, and de Clercq have all had threads originated by me in regards to their alleged doping offenses. All you have to do is check. And I don't know about other posters here, but I'm a frequent contributor to anti-doping threads that focus on other sports as well.

Finally, the point is not about a "level playing field." The point is (1) doping is cheating, (2) a culture of doping means new riders are basically coerced or pressured into injecting their bodies with all sorts of things that break down their bodies in the long run, disrupt their metabolisms, ruin their normal endocrine function, harm their livers, and in all likelihood, based on the volumes of drugs reported from those that came out of the system, shorten their lives. Flyer asked a question that no one wants to answer: why the occasional waves of deaths by young, externally healthy cyclists?

I don't think you should have to play Russian Roulette with a needle if you want to try to make it as a pro cyclist.

antoineg

Also because Lemond has the highest VO2max ever recorded by a TdF rider? (94, IIRC)

Shame on you Beastt. You know this stuff.

antoineg

Beastt you are just about the biggest dissembler I've ever seen. I've said several times before that if this were a court, I would of course vote "not guilty." on the question of "Does Lance use PEDs."

This is not a court of law. This is an informal group of self-selected people who are responding to the question Do you think Lance is doping. It's fair game, given all the firsthand reports that have come out about him and his relation to PEDs, and all the circumstantial evidence that points to a strong probability (to some of us anyway) that he does.

If you think we're readying the torches and pitchforks to go to Austin or Girona, you're even crazier than I thought.

Quit changing the subject to Salem, or Lemond, or what have you and start to deal with the real issues surrounding LA.

VeloFlash

Tutt, tutt, Beastt. Is not this an attempt at referring to circumstantial evidence that possibly Greg Lemond was on the juice?

In a side reference to circumstantial evidence. The vast majority of convictions obtained in criminal trials are from circumstantial evidence. Forensic evidence (ballistics, DNA, fingerprints, etc) is circumstantial evidence. If the circumstantial evidence is compelling in the lack of direct evidence, a conviction can be obtained.

However, in this debate, we are only dealing with circumstantial evidence to support a response to the opinion requested from the topic.

__________________
VF

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