Lance Armstrong's blood values from the Tour de France looks suspicious and indicate

[blackcat]

OK, Betsy would never lie under oath. Great.

Armstrong would, his attending physician would, and he would criminally alter medical records -- just to embarass Betsy? Seriously?

There were ten people in the room, eight disagree with Betsy. Only her husband supports her claims and has curiously distanced himself from the issue since this took place and refuses to talk about it.

So we are also clear, the 'recorded voice' is actually one Greg LeMond who said one of teh witnessed made the statement to him (curious how many people confide in the good LeMond who has a tendancy to take revelations before courts sort of undercutting any reason for anyone to confide in him). The witness publically called LeMond a liar for making the statement.

And so we are clear, the statement, "I was there, I heard it," is genaric enough that it supports Lance's version every bit as much as it does Betsy's. I would be the next statement that would be important, "Lance Armstrong said .... blah." Curious that this key statement is missing.

Now, for those who are utterly convinced there is huge cnspiracy of which Betsy is a victim, I say it is time to pony up or shut up. Would you like to accuse Armstrong's physican of a criminal act that would get him thrown out of his profession? If so, by all means do so. Put your money where your mouth is. Issue a formal complaint and demand an investigation. If Armstrong's doctor and his records are lying, there will be evidence in the records and he will be punished as a result of the complaint.

Step up. BY all means, step up and put your money where your mouth is.

In short, I got it, Betsy Andreau is the Pope herself. The 280 pages of medical documentation find absolutely nothing to support her claim. And so we are aware long term drug use and its interaction with cancer treatment would reveal something in a course of treatment that was abnormal. No such evidence exists. That is why SCA promotions lost the case.

how about Landis telling one of Armstrong's journalist buddies "just so you know, Lance doped".

Was Landis not credible?

 

[gree0232]

When you are working with Dr. Ferrari who needs Fuentes?

You do know who Dr. Michele Ferrari is?

Go back and read my previous posts, Dr. Ferrari has been dealt with.

Dr. Ferrari had a lot of patients, would you care to list them all and accuse each and every one of them of doping?

Would you care to explain why someone who was doping with Mr. Ferrari would fight toth and nail to defend him rather than distance himself from the doctor?

How many riders have come out and said, "Yeah, I worked with Dr. Fuentes, we never talked about doping at all, what is the problem?"

Quite the contrary.

Also, so we are tracking, on 27 May, 2006, Ferrari was absolved of all charges. Granted there are technicalities that forced this, but one is that the prosecution failed to hand over evidence to support the charges, resulting in the reversal of the conviction on appeal. Seems an easy problem to avoid if there is evidence available.

His riders also include Levi Leipheimer, Paolo Savoldelli, and Axel Merckx. Clearly, all dopers.

 

[gree0232]

how about Landis telling one of Armstrong's journalist buddies "just so you know, Lance doped".

Was Landis not credible?

Oh really, Flyod Landis has accussed Lance Armstrong of doping? Seriously?

Now, we are in to pure fiction. Please show me a source, where LANDIS, not LeMond claiming to have heard or something similar, is making THAT acussation.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am still anxious to know when the court case is for the LA vs David Walsh battle.

The book is out 2 years now - surely it must be soon.

Maybe Lance doesn't know about it ...... Oh no, wait he does.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11250000&ps=rs

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh really, Flyod Landis has accussed Lance Armstrong of doping? Seriously?

Now, we are in to pure fiction. Please show me a source, where LANDIS, not LeMond claiming to have heard or something similar, is making THAT acussation.

http://www.martindugard.com/blog/2009/7/18/72-hours.html

 

[gree0232]

Your babble is making less sense then normal.

I never said Hincapie or Armstrong was involved in OP
Your faith in the UCI is misguided.
Armstrong sold his house in France years ago, he does not live there. Stalker's like yourself should know this.

Let us know when Armstrong sues Walsh for his books in English

Maria, if you don't understand the difference between 'book' and 'books', plural and singular, there is really not much I can do to help that intellectual short fall.

The BOOK, singular, in question is LA: Confidential. From Lance to Landis has very little to do with Lance, ergo not a whole lot to sue for in a libel suit. You've got a copy, apparently, and I am assuming you have read it rather than kept it as some holy relic encased in glass? So you should know this.

That is the THIRD time I have made that distinction for you, and one that like every other bit of exonerating evidence you choose to willfully ignore.

So by all means, instead of trying to play childish grammar games, step up. File a formal ethics complaint against Armstrong's physician. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[gree0232]

I am still anxious to know when the court case is for the LA vs David Walsh battle.

The book is out 2 years now - surely it must be soon.

Maybe Lance doesn't know about it ...... Oh no, wait he does.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11250000&ps=rs

Wow, the book is from Lance to Landis, not LA:Confidential. Go figure.

Somehow, I am the idiot for not making the correct distinction between different books from the same author. Yes, very embarassing for myself.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh really, Flyod Landis has accussed Lance Armstrong of doping? Seriously?

Now, we are in to pure fiction. Please show me a source, where LANDIS, not LeMond claiming to have heard or something similar, is making THAT acussation.

Here you are. It is an excellent article.

http://www.orangecoastmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=156

 

[Eva Maria]

How many riders have come out and said, "Yeah, I worked with Dr. Fuentes, we never talked about doping at all, what is the problem?"

Quite the contrary.

Frank Schelck? He gave $10,000 to the Madrid Gynecologist for "Interval training"

Also, so we are tracking, on 27 May, 2006, Ferrari was absolved of all charges. Granted there are technicalities that forced this, but one is that the prosecution failed to hand over evidence to support the charges, resulting in the reversal of the conviction on appeal. Seems an easy problem to avoid if there is evidence available.

Wrong, again. the technicality was Italy's vague "Statue if limitations" rules that Ferrari exploited. Even the Judge on the case said that Ferrari was guilty.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Wow, the book is from Lance to Landis, not LA:Confidential. Go figure.

Somehow, I am the idiot for not making the correct distinction between different books from the same author. Yes, very embarassing for myself.

Firstly - I never called you an idiot!!

Lance to Landis came after LA confidential. It has everything that LA Confidential has - but some new articles added as more incidents came to the surface.

 

[Eva Maria]

Maria, if you don't understand the difference between 'book' and 'books', plural and singular, there is really not much I can do to help that intellectual short fall.

The BOOK, singular, in question is LA: Confidential. From Lance to Landis has very little to do with Lance, ergo not a whole lot to sue for in a libel suit. You've got a copy, apparently, and I am assuming you have read it rather than kept it as some holy relic encased in glass? So you should know this.

That is the THIRD time I have made that distinction for you, and one that like every other bit of exonerating evidence you choose to willfully ignore.

So by all means, instead of trying to play childish grammar games, step up. File a formal ethics complaint against Armstrong's physician. Put your money where your mouth is.

I have read both books, it appears you have not. If you would like to you can Download the English version here
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=6368b894083c9ae51f8e0fff488e27e09674effc11594f9fb8eada0a1ae8665a

Lance to Landis covers all that is in LA Confidential and more.

NEXT!

 

[Digger]

Well was out training, contrary to the stereotype of a 'hater'!!!

Gree, I'm just after scanning your posts. I think your aim is to throw in as many factual inaccuracies as possible, so that people wouldn't have the time to reply to your drivel.
There's a few that stand out though. You mention 10 people in the room, 8 disagreed with Betsy...link please to support this.

Stephanie said plenty on that, a tape which you can hear if you want the link, as I posted the link on this forum about two weeks ago.
One line from that conversation, Stephanie: "And the part that ****es me off about the whole thing, even if we were close now, it's how many people he has given false hope to, and I think that is the most disgusting thing ever to do."
On a separate occasion, the journalist James Startt testified under oath that Stephanie had admitted hearing Lance telling doctors that he doped.
Two days after Betsy and Frankie testified, the LAF announced it was establishing an endowment in oncology at Indiana University.
There is a film, it was on France 3 TV during the 2000 Tour. USP Doctor Luis Del Moral and the team's chiropractor were followed and filmed. They drove for about an hour and dumped their bag at a dumpster. The bags contained 160 used syringes, blood soaked compresses and Actovegin.

Riders who were 'treated' by Ferrari:
All of the Team Gewiss that took the entire podium in the 1994 edition of La Flèche Wallonne with Moreno Argentin, Giorgio Furlan and Eugeni Berzin...these riders all were shown on files to have HCT over 50%.
Lance Armstrong
Gianni Bugno - files show EPO
Giorgio Furlan - Same
Pavel Tonkov - Same
Tony Rominger: Same
Abraham Olano - Same
Ivan Gotti - Same
Claudio Chiappucci - Same
Filippo Simeoni: admitted the use of doping
Patrik Sinkewitz: had a positive out-of-competition test while preparing for the 2007 Tour de France
Eddy Mazzoleni - Convicted doper
Floyd Landis: tested positive on testosterone during the 2006 Tour de France
Alexandre Vinokourov: positive doping test at the 2007 Tour de France
Kevin Livingstone - Files show EPO use

Martin Dugard, the journo, who is a huge Lance fan, said that Floyd told him about Lance doping.

FLTL, as I said yesterday, contains ALL the main points about Lance as LAC. And i have read both. Good for you that you feel able to comment on books you have not read.

The publishers of LAC let Lance know they wouldn't settle, and Lance withdrew his action shortly before tge trial date of October 2005.
L'Equipe called Lance a liar and cheat and asked him to sue, when the EPO positives came out. He made no attempt to.

 

[elapid]

No, but they were examined by the judges in the SCA case. I will take their word for it, unless we should also accuse the judges of falling under the nefarious influence of Darth Armstrong?

Dr. Maserati is correct. The SCA trial came down to a contractual dispute. Armstrong won on the pure fact that his contract stated he was due his $5 million dollars if he was declared the winner of the TdF. The UCI declared him the winner, so he won the case. As simple as that.

SCA promotions introduced a lot of evidence to prove that he won the TdFs using dishonest means, but this meant naught because the UCI declared him the winner and hence SCA Promotions had to pay Armstrong according to the terms of their contract.

BUT this does not mean the evidence presented at this trial has been discredited. Far from it. The evidence presented was so damning to Lance and his public image that he has not sued since the SCA Promotions case.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Stephanie said plenty on that, a tape which you can hear if you want the link, as I posted the link on this forum about two weeks ago....On a separate occasion, the journalist James Startt testified under oath that Stephanie had admitted hearing Lance telling doctors that he doped.

For the sake of clarity, let's bring some out in the open. Lemond recorded the phone call with Stephanie and when she made a blank comment about the conversation being recorded, Greg basically lied, and alluded away from the fact that he was indeed recording it. When it came time for the SCA trial and Stephanie was asked, she contradicted Betsy and Frankie, saying she didn't remember Lance saying that. Or she wasn't paying attention, and may have confused it with his treatment. After that (I presume) Greg leaked the tape, or it was brought into evidence (I don't recall details here, can someone verify), showing she knew very well what Lance said, and that she felt very intimidated by Lance. Something echoed by Emma O'Reilly, who told David Walsh that she feared for her safety by revealing what she knew about Lance and USPS.

 

[gree0232]

Frank Schelck? He gave $10,000 to the Madrid Gynecologist for "Interval training"

Wrong, again. the technicality was Italy's vague "Statue if limitations" rules that Ferrari exploited. Even the Judge on the case said that Ferrari was guilty.

So, as soon as Operation Puerto went public, Frank came up and said, "What I am working with Dr. Fuetes (A gynecologist), what is the big deal?" Of was after suspicion was caste upon him that he spilled the beans ... finally.

And, as I say in earlier posts, there are several reasons that Ferrari got off and was, officially, exonerated, cleared of all charges. There were several 'technicalities', the one about lack of evidence presentation being the most egregarious and easily fixed.

That you continue to cherry pick only that evidence you wish to see is telling.

The fat remains that we have a system to prove guilt, and if necessary, we can use the system to prove innocence. Ferrari says he was innocent and takes it to court and wins. However imperfect you feel the system is, I still think that failure to present evidence to confirm a conviction is pretty obvious concession. I know of not a single self-respecting prosecutor (and I have worked with both the Italians and the French) who would allow such a rookie mistake.

But, heh, Chuck Norris got Lance in cycling, would you like to hear that rumor?

 

[gree0232]

Dr. Maserati is correct. The SCA trial came down to a contractual dispute. Armstrong won on the pure fact that his contract stated he was due his $5 million dollars if he was declared the winner of the TdF. The UCI declared him the winner, so he won the case. As simple as that.

SCA promotions introduced a lot of evidence to prove that he won the TdFs using dishonest means, but this meant naught because the UCI declared him the winner and hence SCA Promotions had to pay Armstrong according to the terms of their contract.

BUT this does not mean the evidence presented at this trial has been discredited. Far from it. The evidence presented was so damning to Lance and his public image that he has not sued since the SCA Promotions case.

You are right. And the contratual dispute was? That's right ....

The contract is not valid because Lance allegedly doped.

All that contract stuff is exactly why Betsy took the stand and made her accusation. If all it took was Lance being certified the winner of the TdF, why was Betsy, all the others, plus Lance's medical records entered into evidence then?

Why did SCA pay $7.5 million in a case about $5 million? And just for the sake of arguement, having secured that resuylt, exactly why would he sue them again? What coverup would be furthered by that? What could he take them to court for exactly?

Again, vast crimnal conspiracy with Darth Armstrong at the helm, or a simpler explanation.

In the SCA case it is pretty simple, they failed to prove that Lance was a doper.

Whether you like it or not, that is how our system allows people to exonerate themselves.

Now for the sake of simple arguement, the reverse side of the coin, if indeed Lance is innocent, what can he do to prove it?

If you name the ring, sans allowing LNDD o test his samples after what happened in 2005 (and frankly I wouldn't allow them to test my samples after that episode either), what can he do?

Put yourself in Lance's shoes, and just for the sae of arguementation, assume that he is innocent. What can he do?

 

[gree0232]

Well was out training, contrary to the stereotype of a 'hater'!!!

Gree, I'm just after scanning your posts. I think your aim is to throw in as many factual inaccuracies as possible, so that people wouldn't have the time to reply to your drivel.
There's a few that stand out though. You mention 10 people in the room, 8 disagreed with Betsy...link please to support this.

Stephanie said plenty on that, a tape which you can hear if you want the link, as I posted the link on this forum about two weeks ago.
One line from that conversation, Stephanie: "And the part that ****es me off about the whole thing, even if we were close now, it's how many people he has given false hope to, and I think that is the most disgusting thing ever to do."
On a separate occasion, the journalist James Startt testified under oath that Stephanie had admitted hearing Lance telling doctors that he doped.
Two days after Betsy and Frankie testified, the LAF announced it was establishing an endowment in oncology at Indiana University.
There is a film, it was on France 3 TV during the 2000 Tour. USP Doctor Luis Del Moral and the team's chiropractor were followed and filmed. They drove for about an hour and dumped their bag at a dumpster. The bags contained 160 used syringes, blood soaked compresses and Actovegin.

Riders who were 'treated' by Ferrari:
All of the Team Gewiss that took the entire podium in the 1994 edition of La Flèche Wallonne with Moreno Argentin, Giorgio Furlan and Eugeni Berzin...these riders all were shown on files to have HCT over 50%.
Lance Armstrong
Gianni Bugno - files show EPO
Giorgio Furlan - Same
Pavel Tonkov - Same
Tony Rominger: Same
Abraham Olano - Same
Ivan Gotti - Same
Claudio Chiappucci - Same
Filippo Simeoni: admitted the use of doping
Patrik Sinkewitz: had a positive out-of-competition test while preparing for the 2007 Tour de France
Eddy Mazzoleni - Convicted doper
Floyd Landis: tested positive on testosterone during the 2006 Tour de France
Alexandre Vinokourov: positive doping test at the 2007 Tour de France
Kevin Livingstone - Files show EPO use

Martin Dugard, the journo, who is a huge Lance fan, said that Floyd told him about Lance doping.

FLTL, as I said yesterday, contains ALL the main points about Lance as LAC. And i have read both. Good for you that you feel able to comment on books you have not read.

The publishers of LAC let Lance know they wouldn't settle, and Lance withdrew his action shortly before tge trial date of October 2005.
L'Equipe called Lance a liar and cheat and asked him to sue, when the EPO positives came out. He made no attempt to.

OK, I have dealt with this one numerous times.

Let me put it to you on a personal level, so you see why I give Lance the benefit of the doubt.

I grew up in a very poor and crime ridden area. Many of my childhood friends are now convicted criminals. I rose above that, sought out a commission in the US Army, I've lead troops in battle, worked at very high strategic levels, and have moved beyond my background so to speak.

However, in the guilt by association methodoloy, I am also a criminal because many of the boys I grew up with are criminals. My honor is tarnished, and my accomplishments are non-existant.

Doesn't quite work that way does it.

I will be the first to say that it is entirely possible that Lance did dope. That stands in stark contrast to the Lance Haters who refuse to acknowledge the opposite side of that zero sum question and conceed the possiblilty that Lance Armstrong did not dope.

The standard that must be met is that Lance must have verifiably and testably committed an anti-doping violation. That is not my standard, that is the systems's standard.

I will admit that I am playing a bit of devil's advocate on this thread. However, simply saying, "Gree is spreading misinformation by punching holes in my theory," is not how the system works. If what you say is true, if the evidence is solid, Lance will be convicted based on that analysis.

If a big, dumb, grunt can drive holes in it, imagine what a good attorney can do to it? That is the system: That's guilt, that's innocence.

(It is also the Constitution I swore an oath to).

 

[Eva Maria]

You are right. And the contratual dispute was? That's right ....

The contract is not valid because Lance allegedly doped.

All that contract stuff is exactly why Betsy took the stand and made her accusation. If all it took was Lance being certified the winner of the TdF, why was Betsy, all the others, plus Lance's medical records entered into evidence then?

Why did SCA pay $7.5 million in a case about $5 million? And just for the sake of arguement, having secured that resuylt, exactly why would he sue them again? What coverup would be furthered by that? What could he take them to court for exactly?

Again, vast crimnal conspiracy with Darth Armstrong at the helm, or a simpler explanation.

In the SCA case it is pretty simple, they failed to prove that Lance was a doper.

No. The case was about contract law. The SCA contract did not stipulate that Lance had to win the Tour clean, only that he had to win. They proved that he doped.

 

[blackcat]

gree, how right you are, in the narrow parameters you can set.

1. There are non-analytic measures for finding a rider positive.
2. The UCI and UCAC have one major incentive to maintain the Armstrong charade and are thus beholden to his interests. If the UCI were impartial, and wished to minimise doping, Armstrong would not have gone free from sanction. The same standard that sanctioned Rasmussen for two years, could have been applied to Armstrong.

You mention the 50 hematocrit figure. However, the anecdote of USPS being at 49 'crit, as a collective team of individuals, prior to the Tour in 1999, is just as damning as Pantani. Ofcourse, Armstrong was beneath the arbitrary cut-off.

If you wish to maintain a specious definition of doping, as a sanction, and only a sanction, I am here to agree with that assessment. But I vehemently disagree with the analysis that creates such parameters to make an objective finding on Armstrong's doping status. You rig the game. Like Armstrong your target of worship.

 

[Digger]

OK, I have dealt with this one numerous times.

Let me put it to you on a personal level, so you see why I give Lance the benefit of the doubt.

I grew up in a very poor and crime ridden area. Many of my childhood friends are now convicted criminals. I rose above that, sought out a commission in the US Army, I've lead troops in battle, worked at very high strategic levels, and have moved beyond my background so to speak.

However, in the guilt by association methodoloy, I am also a criminal because many of the boys I grew up with are criminals. My honor is tarnished, and my accomplishments are non-existant.

Doesn't quite work that way does it.

I will be the first to say that it is entirely possible that Lance did dope. That stands in stark contrast to the Lance Haters who refuse to acknowledge the opposite side of that zero sum question and conceed the possiblilty that Lance Armstrong did not dope.

The standard that must be met is that Lance must have verifiably and testably committed an anti-doping violation. That is not my standard, that is the systems's standard.

I will admit that I am playing a bit of devil's advocate on this thread. However, simply saying, "Gree is spreading misinformation by punching holes in my theory," is not how the system works. If what you say is true, if the evidence is solid, Lance will be convicted based on that analysis.

If a big, dumb, grunt can drive holes in it, imagine what a good attorney can do to it? That is the system: That's guilt, that's innocence.

(It is also the Constitution I swore an oath to).

My biggest problem with your posts is the downright inaccuracies in them. You've barely skirted over some of the points I've raised, and almost all of it has been wrong in some way or another. Then when confronted with the truth of the matter, you ignore it and say it's been dealt with. How is this fantasy world, where you ignore things that don't support preconceived ideas?

Link for ten people in the room, and for eight to have gone against Betsy?
You still won't accept SCA was about a contractual dispute?
Do you accept what Martin Dugard said?
Do you accept what the French TV cameras actually filmed?
Have you read the books?
Do you accept there is a tape on here, which I can give you, of Stephanie talking?


Almost all your posts are symptomatic of a guy who relies completely on Lance for his information. You are not getting any balance.


Answer the questions or Iwill take it as a tacit admission that you don't want to address that you must be wrong.

 

[Digger]

So, as soon as Operation Puerto went public, Frank came up and said, "What I am working with Dr. Fuetes (A gynecologist), what is the big deal?" Of was after suspicion was caste upon him that he spilled the beans ... finally.

And, as I say in earlier posts, there are several reasons that Ferrari got off and was, officially, exonerated, cleared of all charges. There were several 'technicalities', the one about lack of evidence presentation being the most egregarious and easily fixed.

That you continue to cherry pick only that evidence you wish to see is telling.

The fat remains that we have a system to prove guilt, and if necessary, we can use the system to prove innocence. Ferrari says he was innocent and takes it to court and wins. However imperfect you feel the system is, I still think that failure to present evidence to confirm a conviction is pretty obvious concession. I know of not a single self-respecting prosecutor (and I have worked with both the Italians and the French) who would allow such a rookie mistake.

But, heh, Chuck Norris got Lance in cycling, would you like to hear that rumor?

"Today, a Bologna court returned a guilty verdict for Dr. Michele Ferrari regarding charges of sporting fraud and of writing too many prescriptions."
Ferrari cleared of all charges?

 

[Digger]

You are right. And the contratual dispute was? That's right ....

The contract is not valid because Lance allegedly doped.

All that contract stuff is exactly why Betsy took the stand and made her accusation. If all it took was Lance being certified the winner of the TdF, why was Betsy, all the others, plus Lance's medical records entered into evidence then?

Why did SCA pay $7.5 million in a case about $5 million? And just for the sake of arguement, having secured that resuylt, exactly why would he sue them again? What coverup would be furthered by that? What could he take them to court for exactly?

Again, vast crimnal conspiracy with Darth Armstrong at the helm, or a simpler explanation.

In the SCA case it is pretty simple, they failed to prove that Lance was a doper.

Whether you like it or not, that is how our system allows people to exonerate themselves.

Now for the sake of simple arguement, the reverse side of the coin, if indeed Lance is innocent, what can he do to prove it?

If you name the ring, sans allowing LNDD o test his samples after what happened in 2005 (and frankly I wouldn't allow them to test my samples after that episode either), what can he do?

Put yourself in Lance's shoes, and just for the sae of arguementation, assume that he is innocent. What can he do?

Is there something intellectually wrong with you? The ruling on the SCA case: It said that whether Lance Armstrong doped or not was not the point. The point is whether he was the designated winner of the Tours in the eyes of the UCI. "His vistory in the case was assured once Richard Faulkner, chairman of the arbitration panel, ruled that SCA was an insurance company. (Thus making the matter of whether he doped or not mute).
You show me a link that shows that SCA failed to prove Lance doped. Should be in the summary one would think. Lance twitter feeds or press releases don't count.
Also, after what happened in 2005? How do you believe EPO miraculously appeared in his urine? The sample was anonymous. so you think it was spiked? Eventhough this is scientifically impossible.

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

Wasn't the SCA case ultimately settled out of court? If so, is there even a legal decision on the matter?

 

[blackcat]

Digger, be careful with the term "balance".

This is the Fox News and American paradigm of journalism. Even balance gives Armstrong to submit his twitters into evidence. Someone wishing to pursue a sober analysis of the issue will assess all the information. There is no need to make it an adversarial inquiry. Rational minds will come to their own conclusion on assessment of all the facts.

See: Fisk for his take on this journalistic hogwash with the euphemism "balance".

 

[podilato]

It's easy to say everyone is doping and to win so must you. Heck, I'll admit there is virtually no one that would surprise me of PEDs in any sport these days. But I just don't know that you can always default to such an assumption. Carl Lewis is an example of a guy who dominated for a long time, even past his prime. I don't know if Carl was clean (and rumors circulated about him, too), but he was adamant Ben Johnson was cheating and was proven right. He's made recent comments about anyone running the 100m under 9.8 has to be on 'roids. Micheal Phelps must be cheating, too, right?

I just don't accept that it's impossible to be clean and dominate a sport full of cheaters. It should be very rare and why the skepticism is fully justified. However, given your post I quoted above, how can you be certain he's come back to doping with so much to lose? And if you allow the possibility he isn't doping now - 4 years away from the sport and nearly 38 - and he ends up on the podium, does it not then become entirely possible he wasn't doping in the past?

On another website I posted on how, to me, Michael Phelps is very suspicious as he eats like a pig and has almost no body fat. According to the 1998 Festina doctor all the riders were eating like crazy and still losing weight because of the drugs. The responses to my post were the same as the Armstrong groupies. He just trains hard; it is his unique physique; he has always been good; no positives; all-American boy, etc., etc.

As much as I despise the Republican poster boy that is Lance Armstrong, (he doesn't seem to mind the plutonium warheads that were used by the US and its allies in Yugoslavia which UN doctors have said will vastly increase cancer rates for many years, as he says he is trying to fight the disease, right?), doping and corruption doesn't start and finish with him.