ImmaculateKadence said:
Thanks. I typically try to avoid Lance discussions, but sometimes I can't help myself
![Eek! :eek: :eek:]()
Maybe one day I'll learn.
Immaculate, its a common misconception of Lance supporters that all the other posters on here have it in for just Lance when it comes to doping. Not true, Ask most of these same guys if they think Contador, the Schlecks, Sastre and others are doping or doped and most of them believe they too are, so its not just Lance and most of those guys have far less evidence against them than there is against Lance.
In the 20 years that I have followed the sport, no athlete has singularly used PR and the media as Lance has(well perhaps Cipo but that was more self promotion). The point is that Lances backstory brought him to the attention of the mainstream media which is less interested in the details rather than the story and due to this, the myths surrounding Lance have been spread to the masses and Lance has done an admirable job in using these sources. Lets be honest, very few mainstream papers have dedicated cycling reporters in the English speaking countries so they dont look at things in depth.
In my opinion, Lance fed into the paranoid, siege mentality of early 00s mainstream US to fuel the conspiracy theories when anything was thrown against him. If Contador or the other guys I mentioned were in the same position as Lance in 2005 regarding the EPO in the samples, the posters here would still have no doubt about the guilt of the athlete. Would you still hold to your belief if it was anybody else?
If you spend time in the Clinic, you will realise there are different views on doping. There are those who believe everybody is doped regardless of whether there is any evidence or not. They believe doping is so ingrained in pro cycling that its normal to assume eveybody is dirty until proven otherwise.
Then there is a group who believe that doping is a problem in the sport but reserve judgement until there is some form of evidence against an athlete. Does not have to be a positive test, could be like the Lance case or the Puerto file or suspicious blood profiles or sudden performances. This group recognise that people could be doping but until there is some form of evidence, its unfair to point fingers.
There is a small percentage who believe fullproof evidence or positive tests are necessary before accusing people. I think most people who followed the sport pre 98 would have fallen into this category but are now in the other two categories.
I sometimes wonder if there is any mentality differences of the cycling fans who lived through the whole Festina affair in 98 and those who came to the sport during the Lance era. Would be an interesting study. Judging from the people on here, I dont think there is any poster who was following the sport before 98 that believes Lance was/is clean. I stand to be corrected on that though.