Do you think lance is doping? yes or no

VeloFlash

Attention is drawn to LA as distinct from any current or past successful multi stage winner for the following reasons:

1. Public awareness was drawn to the endemic and systemic doping in the cycling peloton by the Festina affair of 1998. UCI (and IOC) were only recently dragged by the non cycling media and governments to confront the drugs issue which resulted in the establishment of WADA.

2. LA started his dominance in 1999.

3. LA, if drug free, is a human phenomena in turning his near death experience into incomparable triumph.

4. In statements to the media throng LA has made defensive statements about drug taking that are inconsistent with the truth.

5. LA retains (or retained) the services of Dr Ferrari. Dr Ferrari is reputed to be the guru on maximising the benefits of PEDs and advises on the current drugs and/or the administration of drugs to avoid detection. Reference his recent conviction and evidence of former "patients."

6. LA's pre cancer performances are at odds with his post cancer brilliance.

7. Lastly but most relevant in internet forums. The absurd drivel (urban myths?) being produced by those in defence of LA to justify the phenomena. "LA trains harder than any other athlete", "LA after cancer would not participate in putting drugs in his body", "LA is psychologically stronger and more determined after his illness and can push his body harder", "LA does not dope as he has said he is clean" etc.

There are no exclusions of race, creed or nationality to the estimated 95% on the juice. Europeans, Americans, Australasians, etc are all represented.

__________________
VF

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

meehs

You make some good points here. Really though, most of the arguments you're presenting in this post are the same reasons that have been presented to suggest why one should believe that Armstrong is doping, moreso than reasons why Armstrong should be singled out (which is what I was really getting at). But I think what you're really suggesting is that Lance's success and visibility combined with the evidence that does exist to suggest he is using PED's is reason enough to single him out. Which I guess I can understand.

I was thinking about it a little bit after I posted the question too. Really one of the other reasons (I suspect) that Armstrong is such a hot topic of conversation is because there are so many people on each side of the argument ready to take-up the cause. If one were to put a "Do you think Kloden is doping" pole on here (for example), people would probably vote and then it would fall off the RADAR. People just wouldn't be as interested.

I really don't mean to argue the point one way or the other. I'd like to beleive Lance is clean but I can't bring myself to say "NO! Armstrong is not doping" simply because he very well may be. I don't know! I have argued that LA is probably just as clean as any of the other top riders in the peleton. Like I've said before, I didn't even vote in this pole one way or the other because I would classify myself as undecided.

And for the record: I certainly don't mean to defend dopers or support doping! Unfortunately it seems as though it's just a fact of life in pro cycling.

frride80

The simple fact is that Lance lives for the Tour and Tour alone. He has not competed in the classics regularly since after the cancer. He has a superior team and big monetary support. Couple that with an unparralled drive and work ethic as well as the fact that he has never tested positive for doping and I think that makes a pretty convincing case.

However, cheating will always be one step ahead of testing, so no one can be certian.

meehs

So are you saying that LeMond actually admits to having doped? I was unaware of this but that's certainly what you're implying here.

As for only a few people admitting the truth, all I can say is; of course! If an active competitive rider were to admit to doping he'd be suspended and his livelyhood and career ambitions would be out the window. Like I said in a previous post; if you surveyed every rider in the pro peleton, you can be sure that every single one of them would vehemently deny using PED's if they were directly confronted with the question in a public forum. Especially if they were in front of the cameras as Armstrong has been.

VeloFlash

Rule 268 of the UCI Anti Doping Rules states:

A License-Holder who declares or admits to having committed an anti-doping violation shall be considered as having committed that violation on the day of the declaration or admission, unless the facts admitted or declared can be tied to a specific instance, in which case the sanctions in force at the time of the facts shall be applied.

Admission is equal to having a positive test result and incurs the same sanction. One good reason to deny.

__________________
VF

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

Beastt

Not a bad observation and it certainly may offer partial explanation. But it's also important to remember that the day before that time trial the odds of LeMond winning were considered so far outside the range of what would be possible that Fignon had all but been announced the winner. Add to that the fact that LeMond still had 37 pellets from a hunting accident with a shotgun, embedded in his flesh, (some in the lining of the heart), from a hunting accident that was nearly fatal, and you have the same kind of "evidence" that many are offering to proclaim Armstrong a doper.

Beastt

Why is it not possible for anyone to consider Lance clean until proven otherwise without being referred to as a "neo Armstrong Cult fan"? This is just two sides of an issue, each lacking absolute proof of anything. Some of us prefer to believe that some people would choose not to cheat. Someday we may be proven wrong. For all we know, Lance may win a seventh then announce that he's been using a banned substance to win, (though this is highly doubtful). But for now, some of us find cheating and cheaters to be beyond reproach and feel that until some proof is produced, it is unfair to classify anyone as such. Others apparently are less disgusted with cheating and/or cheaters and perhaps that is why it is so easy to classify someone as such without the need for substance.

People tend to expect from others what they would expect from themselves.

antoineg

You obviously didn't count Go check the Hamilton threads on these very forums and you'll see that I either have posted way more about that topic than on this thread, or it's very very close. If you factor in the length of time each thread has been around then there is no question I have been much more active on the Hamilton issue. The reason is simple -- Hamilton got busted.

Go check. You'll see that it's true.

VeloFlash

Beastt, I think you had better ascribe blame to MGM who started this thread with the title. He/she set the terms of reference.

If it was "Can anyone provide evidence that LA is doping" the thread would have fallen off the first index page within a week instead of having over 320 posts to date.

LA is not the first Tour winner to be under suspicion about performances. Same applied to Indurain, Riis and Pantani. But when there were rumbles you heard zilch from the Spanish, Danes and Italians in defence.

I believe the sensitive (and usually uninformed) over reaction from the US creates and expands the debate.

I can recall CyclingNews.com reporting in 1999 by copying a French news report on LA's decimation of his opposition in the mountains during the Tour. The report said something to the effect "Not since the now dope proven climbing exploits of Riis and Pantani have they seen another rider so dominate."

Aside from forum meltdowns, there was unprecedented reaction coming from parts of the US as it was considered this article contained innuendo that LA doped. There was a concerted effort to put CyclingNews out of business by writing to the advertisers to boycott CyclingNews and even attempting to get the editor/owner (Bill Mitchell) sacked from his full time job as a lecturer at a University. As a result, Bill sold the business to the current owners in September 1999. He contributed a parting letter on his reasons for getting out.

__________________
VF

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

Roadie_scum

Lemond's doctor hasn't been convicted of sporting fraud. He hasn't been accused by a former teammate, physiotherapist or soigneur. It's entirely possible that Lemond was on PED's but the evidence against Armstrong is much more compelling.