Official Lance Armstrong thread

[whiteboytrash]

VITTEL, France — French Minister for Sport Roselyne Bachelot hit out Thursday at cycling's world ruling body, calling for a more stringent approach to carrying out the doping controls on the race.

An incident involving the Astana team of race favourites Alberto Contador and Lance Armstrong last week prompted France's national anti-doping agency (AFLD) to hit out at the International Cycling Union (UCI).

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iDLAMuzoLLm77tx-5jscFkC62W0A

 

[objective skeptic]

A. There is proof.
B. That is a ridiculous statement. Who says we cannot speculate? A Lance fan hell bent on protecting his little shrine of hero worship?

I know this is lame for my first post Been reading for awhile and finally got motivated.

A) I'm not convinced of said "proof". It's been a LA witch hunt for years, and he retires and the focus turns to the rest of the peloton and they start dropping like flies. Riders clean with Armstrong caught down the road can be interpreted for or against, I lean toward the latter because I think if they learned to beat the tests with Lance they'd continue to do so (he is, right?)

B) Lance, at least earlier in his career (and his first book, I think) used to choose his words carefully, at least initially, about doping before cancer (stuff like "I don't use or would not consider using" - present tense - rather than "I've never used"). Suspicious, and lines up with other "hearsay" comments.

C) I tend to believe Lance when he says "after cancer, I can't imagine putting anything foreign into my body". That said, nearly quitting altogether and then soon dominating the TdF is suspicious. Even if he didn't dope before, that temptation had to be huge because what else could he do?

D) Let's entertain the idea he doped before and after cancer. Fast forward a few years when he is a giant name in the US and a hero to cancer patients. That is A LOT to risk continuing to dope, and yet continuing to win would be an argument supporting he didn't dope.

E) No other athlete, to my knowledge, has been so relentless in pursuing allegations against him, not even close along with being the most tested. That would take an ego of massive proportions, which is not impossible for some athletes. But after his 3rd title, I just can't see him justifying that risk to his legacy in any shape or form. It would be maybe the biggest scandal and hippocracy in sports ever, at least in the US. I don't think even Lance's ego is that big for such a risk. I think that's a huge point that doesn't seem to be considered at all by his critics.


So, in conclusion, I tend to attach a pretty high probability that Lance doped before cancer, and quite possibly in his first two or three TdF wins. I think he does care about his legacy and his cause, and I just can't see him continuing to dope in those latter wins or this year. And if you believe he was clean in those, then it casts more than reasonable doubt on him being dirty those first few wins. Although I'll admit a decent argument can be made that he doped as a crutch his first year or two back because else his career may have been over.

 

[Rupert]

Armstrong 09...

I posted this in another thread, but this is probably the appropaiate place for it: I think that it is highly unlikely that Lance is doing any kind of doping this year, since he is under the microscope as never before (not that he wasn't extensively tested before). Given that he is a bit older and hasn't raced for a few years, it seems to me the a good performance this year would lend credence to the possibility that he never was doping, he was (is) just really strong (genetically gifted), trained incredibly hard, and was incredibly focused (obsessed - hence the "control freak, a&&hole comments that show up here a lot). I don't mean he has to kick **** on everybody to constitute a good performance, but perform credibly in the mountains and finish well (podium probably). I do expect Contador (and possibly others) to outperform him in the Alps... In addition to being older, I do not think he is as single-minded about winning as he was in past years, and it's going to be reflected in his performance this year.

I do not buy the argument that kicking **** on other riders (some/many of whom may have been / probably were doping) is proof, on it's face, that Armstrong was juiced. The same could be said of Greg Lemond or anyone else who ever won the Tour or any other race in a convincing manner.

Isn't it worth considering that a good performance this year is evidence that past performance may be due to something other than cheating?

 

[Anonymous]

I know this is lame for my first post Been reading for awhile and finally got motivated.

A) I'm not convinced of said "proof". It's been a LA witch hunt for years, and he retires and the focus turns to the rest of the peloton and they start dropping like flies. Riders clean with Armstrong caught down the road can be interpreted for or against, I lean toward the latter because I think if they learned to beat the tests with Lance they'd continue to do so (he is, right?)

B) Lance, at least earlier in his career (and his first book, I think) used to choose his words carefully, at least initially, about doping before cancer (stuff like "I don't use or would not consider using" - present tense - rather than "I've never used"). Suspicious, and lines up with other "hearsay" comments.

C) I tend to believe Lance when he says "after cancer, I can't imagine putting anything foreign into my body". That said, nearly quitting altogether and then soon dominating the TdF is suspicious. Even if he didn't dope before, that temptation had to be huge because what else could he do?

D) Let's entertain the idea he doped before and after cancer. Fast forward a few years when he is a giant name in the US and a hero to cancer patients. That is A LOT to risk continuing to dope, and yet continuing to win would be an argument supporting he didn't dope.

E) No other athlete, to my knowledge, has been so relentless in pursuing allegations against him, not even close along with being the most tested. That would take an ego of massive proportions, which is not impossible for some athletes. But after his 3rd title, I just can't see him justifying that risk to his legacy in any shape or form. It would be maybe the biggest scandal and hippocracy in sports ever, at least in the US. I don't think even Lance's ego is that big for such a risk. I think that's a huge point that doesn't seem to be considered at all by his critics.


So, in conclusion, I tend to attach a pretty high probability that Lance doped before cancer, and quite possibly in his first two or three TdF wins. I think he does care about his legacy and his cause, and I just can't see him continuing to dope in those latter wins or this year. And if you believe he was clean in those, then it casts more than reasonable doubt on him being dirty those first few wins. Although I'll admit a decent argument can be made that he doped as a crutch his first year or two back because else his career may have been over.

I think he doped the entire time, and that the whole "why would I use anything after having cancer" to be disingenuous based upon the fact that many of those drugs or similar types of drugs were used during his treatment.

However, I appreciate a civil argument based upon more than just "I don't think he did it because he had cancer/he is my hero/he is American/the French are out to get him/etc/etc/etc."

Thank you for thoughtfully considering the topic. You are a diamond among cow chips when it comes to the subject.

 

[objective skeptic]

I think he doped the entire time, and that the whole "why would I use anything after having cancer" to be disingenuous based upon the fact that many of those drugs or similar types of drugs were used during his treatment.

Fair point. I don't rule it out early, even after cancer. I just find it very difficult to suspect he continued doping when his legacy had evolved beyond the TdF. I mean, I really can't comprehend the sort of ego and selfishness that would require.

As for being disingenous because it's the same type of drugs. Well, for a sort of comparison, I once got food poisoning at McDonald's and it was years before I could stomach even the thought of a burger from there. I realize it's not the same, but it may be a bit hyperbole to act like it's no big deal to him because it was the same drugs he was treated with - drugs that caused horrible pain and suffering, by the way.

Like I said, I can understand not wanting to risk your health with that stuff after nearly dying. But in his book he talks about nearly quitting all together, then the next year he's winning the TdF. I agree that's highly suspicious, but not damning, IMO

 

[RigelKent]

Fair point. I don't rule it out early, even after cancer. I just find it very difficult to suspect he continued doping when his legacy had evolved beyond the TdF. I mean, I really can't comprehend the sort of ego and selfishness that would require.

As for being disingenous because it's the same type of drugs. Well, for a sort of comparison, I once got food poisoning at McDonald's and it was years before I could stomach even the thought of a burger from there. I realize it's not the same, but it may be a bit hyperbole to act like it's no big deal to him because it was the same drugs he was treated with - drugs that caused horrible pain and suffering, by the way.

Like I said, I can understand not wanting to risk your health with that stuff after nearly dying. But in his book he talks about nearly quitting all together, then the next year he's winning the TdF. I agree that's highly suspicious, but not damning, IMO

What about the ego and selfishness that would cause an Ensign/Stanford/Edwards/Clinton to get some on the side and risk destroying much more significant careers? There is no limit to the ego and selfishness of people at the top. Especially in a culture of deception such as Washington or the pro peloton.

I'm not a Lance hater or lover. But I'm done being surprised by the arrogance of people at the top of their game.

 

[objective skeptic]

What about the ego and selfishness that would cause an Ensign/Stanford/Edwards/Clinton to get some on the side and risk destroying much more significant careers? There is no limit to the ego and selfishness of people at the top. Especially in a culture of deception such as Washington or the pro peloton.

I'm not a Lance hater or lover. But I'm done being surprised by the arrogance of people at the top of their game.

Maybe so. I don't think that's a valid comparison, though, you're talking affairs/sex scandal, which are common among average folk (and Lance is already guilty guilty guilty) and unrelated to their fame. In other words, Clinton's misconduct really had no material impact on his constituents, other than perhaps embarrassment, and his career could hardly be characterized as "destroyed".

What I'm talking about is on a completely different level. I can't really even think of a good example. Maybe like Martin Luther King Jr. being a racist and abusing white women or Nelson Mandela secretly participating in genocide. I'm talking about someone who is an inspiration and has through his work has helped thousands of people, and then for the basis of all that to be fraudulent is light years away from the examples you gave. Thousands or millions of people who would feel a deep sense of betrayal that you don't exactly get because Bill is a bit of a player. Heck, I was more disappointed in Bill AFTER I saw Monica Lewinsky.

 

[RigelKent]

Maybe so. I don't think that's a valid comparison, though, you're talking affairs/sex scandal, which are common among average folk (and Lance is already guilty guilty guilty) and unrelated to their fame. In other words, Clinton's misconduct really had no material impact on his constituents, other than perhaps embarrassment, and his career could hardly be characterized as "destroyed".

What I'm talking about is on a completely different level. I can't really even think of a good example. Maybe like Martin Luther King Jr. being a racist and abusing white women or Nelson Mandela secretly participating in genocide. I'm talking about someone who is an inspiration and has through his work has helped thousands of people, and then for the basis of all that to be fraudulent is light years away from the examples you gave. Thousands or millions of people who would feel a deep sense of betrayal that you don't exactly get because Bill is a bit of a player. Heck, I was more disappointed in Bill AFTER I saw Monica Lewinsky.

Just a few disjointed thoughts on the topic:

OK. Jimmy Swaggert. Jim Baker. Ted Haggard. It's called hubris. Tragic flaw. Just because you may have seen through them doesn't mean that millions of others didn't (and some sent money long after they were disgraced.)

I see it now. "Sure he cheated to win the Tour, but look at all the good he's done in the fight against cancer!"

And what does cheating to win a bike race have to do with the fight against cancer? Why is that hypocrisy? Or even racing a bike and the race against cancer? Lance created the connection. For those he's touched positively along the way, many will be just as ready to let him off the hook when he breaks the tie.

The same EPO that help you fight cancer can help you win a bike race. Why would it be anathema to use it to win? Especially when you used to have a personal training advisor that said it was no more dangerous than orange juice?

 

[nobody]

Difficult to believe he doped for his first 3 wins and then no. In 1999 he used EPO, 6 + 2 of his 13 samples contained enough EPO to test positive or to conclude that he was using EPO. Whereas EPO or blood doping give a big boost and increase recovering, it would have been difficult to achieve the same performance cleanly, and more difficult to beat EPO doped riders.

For that year, if he is able to produce the same wattage as he did, we will know that biopassport is not ready to catch top dopers.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I'm talking about someone who is an inspiration and has through his work has helped thousands of people, and then for the basis of all that to be fraudulent is light years away from the examples you gave.

Have you looked at this list of doping cases in cycling?

Please look at in now. Just take a quick skim as you scroll down the page. Read a few of the stories here and there, just to get the idea.

Now, please answer this question. Do you think these guys thought what they did was fraudulent? Do you think Eddie Merckx, Laurent Fignon, Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Jan Ullrich, Roberto Heras, Ivan Basso, etc. each consider what they did was fraudulent? More importantly, do you think Lance Armstrong considers what they did to be fraudulent?

Remember, for these guys doping is an integral part of what they do, like training. For them, finding a particularly effective doping concoction is no more fraudulent than is finding a particularly effective training routine, like scouting out the stage routes, or training at altitude, or sleeping in an altitude tent.

Armstrong likes to talk vaguely about guys "that cross the line". He knows what that means to most people - the line of doping. But what he means is doping in a way that is crossing the line of what is detectable. For years these guys have lived by the rule of no hematocrit level of 50% or above - so they're all doing what they can and must do to make in the upper 40s. That's not crossing the line. That, for them, is not fraudulent.

When pushed, Lance will make absolute statements about never using PEDs; lying about that is just a necessary occasional thing to do. Just about everyone on that list I linked above told the same lie countless times for years prior to eventually getting caught or admitting to the doping (not to mention passing countless doping tests despite the doping). But he's much more comfortable saying that he's never failed a doping test , which is true (if you ignore the 1999 stuff), and saying something that is completely different.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Have you looked at this list of doping cases in cycling?

Please look at in now. Just take a quick skim as you scroll down the page. Read a few of the stories here and there, just to get the idea.

Now, please answer this question. Do you think these guys thought what they did was fraudulent? Do you think Eddie Merckx, Laurent Fignon, Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Jan Ullrich, Roberto Heras, Ivan Basso, etc. each consider what they did was fraudulent? More importantly, do you think Lance Armstrong considers what they did to be fraudulent?

Remember, for these guys doping is an integral part of what they do, like training. For them, finding a particularly effective doping concoction is no more fraudulent than is finding a particularly effective training routine, like scouting out the stage routes, or training at altitude, or sleeping in an altitude tent.

Armstrong likes to talk vaguely about guys "that cross the line". He knows what that means to most people - the line of doping. But what he means is doping in a way that is crossing the line of what is detectable. For years these guys have lived by the rule of no hematocrit level of 50% or above - so they're all doing what they can and must do to make in the upper 40s. That's not crossing the line. That, for them, is not fraudulent.

When pushed, Lance will make absolute statements about never using PEDs; lying about that is just a necessary occasional thing to do. Just about everyone on that list I linked above told the same lie countless times for years prior to eventually getting caught or admitting to the doping (not to mention passing countless doping tests despite the doping). But he's much more comfortable saying that he's never failed a doping test , which is true (if you ignore the 1999 stuff), and saying something that is completely different.

Even I'm starting to wonder if making posts like this is a worthy activity. This is the kind of thing that totally angers Lance. Not because it's untrue, but because it "hurts the sport".

If we accept that doping can never be eliminated or even reduced to a significant degree - that the best we can achieve is to test for the most blatant currently known stuff - then what is the good in convincing others that this is what is going on? In other words, maybe in this case ignorance is bliss. Lance apparently believes so. Why shouldn't I?

 

[saxe_coburg_gotha]

Just enjoy the racing and the hype. Lance is clean and doing a good job, get over it.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Just enjoy the racing and the hype. Lance is clean and doing a good job, get over it.

Exactly.

 

[objective skeptic]

Now, please answer this question. Do you think these guys thought what they did was fraudulent? Do you think Eddie Merckx, Laurent Fignon, Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Jan Ullrich, Roberto Heras, Ivan Basso, etc. each consider what they did was fraudulent? More importantly, do you think Lance Armstrong considers what they did to be fraudulent?

You have completely and utterly missed the point. The point is not whether dominating the sport while using PEDs is fraudulent. Most athletes will justify it on the basis many others do it.

What would be blatantly fraudulent is to pick-up a cause and become on icon by dominating a sport all the while maintaining you are clean. That is on an entirely different level.

Lance didn't have to seek that out for fame and fortune - he was already a star dominating the premier event of cycling. Presumably he picked-up that cause because it means something to him (he was involved before winning the tour, which is how he met his wife in '97). I find it extremely difficult to believe he would risk his legacy, damage his foundation and cause and people he has helped and inspired by continuing to dope, if he did post-cancer. I believe he was clean in his later tours, which means he easily could have been clean the whole time post-cancer. Here's a guy who beat cancer and, if you believe some of the hearsay, once worried the PEDs may have caused his cancer. Do you really think after going through that, after achieving fame and fortune, that he'd continue to dope? That's simply not a logical assumption.

We're talking about a guy who, if disgraced, quite literally is hurting thousands upon thousands of people emotionally and physically. That makes him very different from, say Barry Bonds. And rather than try to keep a "low profile", relatively speaking, he has quite literally taken on and instigated detractors in the press and the courts in a manner that's completely unrivaled by any other athlete with allegations against them. Barry Bonds THREATENED to sue BALCO and the investigative reporters for libel, but we know why he didn't.

I've long since learned that no athlete would surprise me of PED's, to the point where I wouldn't bet on anyone being clean. However, if there is ONE top athlete who is clean, Armstrong is about your safest bet. No other athlete has been as tested and faced as much scrutiny, no other has as much to lose or direct experience for the pain caused to cancer patients and their families if he's a fraud, and no one has defended themselves as vigorously. On those three points, it's not even remotely close.

 

[unsheath]

However, if there is ONE top athlete who is clean, Armstrong is about your safest bet.

Holy Moly, I just spilled my hot coffee on my pants.

Congratulations you've just made the 'stupidest comments' hall of fame.

 

[Greisty]

Holy Moly, I just spilled my hot coffee on my pants.

Congratulations you've just made the 'stupidest comments' hall of fame.

Explain your thinking, please.

 

[nobody]

Lance didn't have to seek that out for fame and fortune - he was already a star dominating the premier event of cycling. Presumably he picked-up that cause because it means something to him (he was involved before winning the tour, which is how he met his wife in '97). I find it extremely difficult to believe he would risk his legacy, damage his foundation and cause and people he has helped and inspired by continuing to dope, if he did post-cancer. I believe he was clean in his later tours, which means he easily could have been clean the whole time post-cancer. Here's a guy who beat cancer and, if you believe some of the hearsay, once worried the PEDs may have caused his cancer. Do you really think after going through that, after achieving fame and fortune, that he'd continue to dope? That's simply not a logical assumption.

We're talking about a guy who, if disgraced, quite literally is hurting thousands upon thousands of people emotionally and physically. That makes him very different from, say Barry Bonds. And rather than try to keep a "low profile", relatively speaking, he has quite literally taken on and instigated detractors in the press and the courts in a manner that's completely unrivaled by any other athlete with allegations against them. Barry Bonds THREATENED to sue BALCO and the investigative reporters for libel, but we know why he didn't.

I've long since learned that no athlete would surprise me of PED's, to the point where I wouldn't bet on anyone being clean. However, if there is ONE top athlete who is clean, Armstrong is about your safest bet. No other athlete has been as tested and faced as much scrutiny, no other has as much to lose or direct experience for the pain caused to cancer patients and their families if he's a fraud, and no one has defended themselves as vigorously. On those three points, it's not even remotely close.

There is no other athletes with so many books relating his doping stories, there is no other athletes who have 6 EPO samples in a lab, there is no clean athletes that can beat so often EPO doped riders,....
If Lance would have thought that doping would damage his legacy why did he threaten Bassons or Simeoni who were speaking against doping?

Did Lance sue L'Equipe, Walsh, or Mondenard? Lance's defense was always and only speaking, most of lies, without strong scientific argues.

The facts are against the logic he could have been clean. Even this year, his come back is extremely impressive for someone who would have done it without PED.

 

[B.Rasmussen]

There is no other athletes with so many books relating his doping stories, there is no other athletes who have 6 EPO samples in a lab, there is no clean athletes that can beat so often EPO doped riders,....
If Lance would have thought that doping would damage his legacy why did he threaten Bassons or Simeoni who were speaking against doping?

Did Lance sue L'Equipe, Walsh, or Mondenard? Lance's defense was always and only speaking, most of lies, without strong scientific argues.

The facts are against the logic he could have been clean. Even this year, his come back is extremely impressive for someone who would have done it without PED.

You're wasting your time. You're trying to explain evolution to a bunch of creationists and that just doesn't work. No matter what evidence you come up with it's never good enough. Evidence has been posted time and time again and every time the worshippers just ignore it.

I've been following many different sports for most of my life and i can honestly say I have never come across anything like the Lance worshippers anywhere else.

 

[objective skeptic]

There is no other athletes with so many books relating his doping stories, there is no other athletes who have 6 EPO samples in a lab, there is no clean athletes that can beat so often EPO doped riders,....
If Lance would have thought that doping would damage his legacy why did he threaten Bassons or Simeoni who were speaking against doping?

Did Lance sue L'Equipe, Walsh, or Mondenard? Lance's defense was always and only speaking, most of lies, without strong scientific argues.

The facts are against the logic he could have been clean. Even this year, his come back is extremely impressive for someone who would have done it without PED.

This will be my final thoughts on the subject as I realize there is separate forum for this.

The simple truth is, even without concrete proof those who insist he is dirty will never be convinced he isn't. Armstrong can never prove he is clean, and it's obvious many give him absolutely zero benefit of the doubt.

Pre-cancer and even in the first few TdF wins compelling arguments can be made on both sides. Beyond that, I look at motivations, and I think I've pretty well laid out why Lance simply has more to lose and reasons NOT to cheat than just about any other athlete out there. And if later tours are clean, it certainly throws plenty of doubt on the speculation of the early ones.

Yes, books and articles have been written, and Armstrong has won libel suits (or the defendants have settled) against most of those people. It has to be an almost completely baseless attack to lose a libel case.

And let's talk about this year. 37 or 38 years old, four years off the bike and he's competing to win the tour? You say he must be using again. That's such an absurd claim it borders on fantasy. Why Why Why? Why, after beating it all those years, why come back and risk it all? Why come back, at least partially, to raise awareness and promote his foundation and jeopardize all that? Why stir up the old witch hunts and go through all this again? Why risk a potential political career (I've seen speculation, I find it laughable). He's an icon that has transcended sports and it simply makes ZERO sense to come back to the bike and risk it all getting caught cheating. I find the contention that he's motivated more, or even equally, to win another TdF as opposed to building some awareness for his foundation and other causes to be laughable. Your idea that he came back and is doping again because he cares more about winning another TdF than everything else he has going on, when he's arguably already the greatest TdF rider ever, is patently absurd. No one really expected he could win, he just has to not embarass himself. Yet if he does finish on the podium, you'll believe he doped out of some inexplicable desire to risk everything for another victory (yawn, #8).

Believe it or not, the most logical explanation here is that freaks come along every now and again (Babe Ruth, Secretariat, Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan, to name just a few). And there's more to it than that, Armstrong's TdF-specific training and dominant teams.

Honestly, to not look at motivations and legacy when speculating Armstrong has doped all along is ignorant. To dismiss the extremely powerful incentives Armstrong has to NOT dope is to ascribe to him a subhuman level of ego, hubris and self-centeredness that is pretty much rivaled by only some truly nasty people in human history. That's where the absurd wild speculation comes in, because I think that's what it would take for Armstrong to ignore those incentives.

I simply think it unfair and irresponsible to assume Armstrong dopes because "that's what it'd take to dominate a sport with other dopers" while dismissing or ignoring the very real (and obvious) motivations and incentives he has NOT to dope. You've got a large amount of circumstantial evidence, a pretty good circumstantial case there actually, but you fail miserably when it comes to motive. And a lot of that circumstantial evidence has been contradicted or retracted by the accusers themselves, or proven false. Of course, the sensational press doesn't have as much to say about that.

Again, I'm going to leave it at this:
If the most tested and scrutinized athlete, the most vigilant athlete in defending his name, and the athlete with the most to lose is cheating, then there is not one athlete in the world that I will ever believe is clean.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Ah! Once again the old, "Armstrong is a freak of nature" gambit, although, I must admit, I have never seen him compared genetically to a racehorse, before!

Look. If this was the case. Why, post cancer, has he won so little beside the Tour?
All the other freaks listed only win one race/tournament/game a year?
No? Well, there you go then.

 

[BroDeal]

And let's talk about this year. 37 or 38 years old, four years off the bike and he's competing to win the tour? You say he must be using again. That's such an absurd claim it borders on fantasy. Why Why Why? Why, after beating it all those years, why come back and risk it all?

This has to be one of the stupidest assertions ever. The prisons are filled with people who took dumb risks.

We know this: Armstrong used EPO in 1999. That is a fact. His performance never decreased after that and EPO gives a huge performance gain, so we can safely assume that he continued to dope. If he was the type of person to use this "why continue to take the chance" decision making that you advocate then why did he not stop after one win? Or three wins? Or five wins? Or six? Why would a person who obviously doped for seven wins not dope again when he returned?

 

[objective skeptic]

This has to be one of the stupidest assertions ever. The prisons are filled with people who took dumb risks.

We know this: Armstrong used EPO in 1999. That is a fact. His performance never decreased after that and EPO gives a huge performance gain, so we can safely assume that he continued to dope. If he was the type of person to use this "why continue to take the chance" decision making that you advocate then why did he not stop after one win? Or three wins? Or five wins? Or six? Why would a person who obviously doped for seven wins not dope again when he returned?

Again, just ignore everything else I posted and accept the 1999 as indisputable fact, although I think some degree of skepticism due to the extreme witch hunts is valid. But I'd bet he was clean in later races, and so just as easily as you say he continued to dope because of '99 (remember, he's only a year or two back in racing after being savaged by cancer), I can say he never doped because a reasonable person can believe he was clean in later years when he was just as dominant. It's the exact same logic, how can you dismiss that argument with 100% certainty?

Why return at all if it involves having to dope? You can't make a logical argument why he needs to do that. If he wins, you're going to say he doped, and if he cracks in the Alps you're going to point to that - and not 4 years off the bike and being nearly 38 - as evidence he doped before.

Comparing him to some prisoner who knocked over a pawnshop? That has to be one of the stupidest analogies ever. This guy has everything, you cannot make a reasonable argument why he would risk it all, especially when nothing forces him to (which is usually a key driver behind such stupid risk) You can't, but you pretend like it doesn't matter because it's strikes a serious blow to what you seem desperate to want to believe.

 

[B.Rasmussen]

This will be my final thoughts on the subject as I realize there is separate forum for this.

The simple truth is, even without concrete proof those who insist he is dirty will never be convinced he isn't. Armstrong can never prove he is clean, and it's obvious many give him absolutely zero benefit of the doubt.

Pre-cancer and even in the first few TdF wins compelling arguments can be made on both sides. Beyond that, I look at motivations, and I think I've pretty well laid out why Lance simply has more to lose and reasons NOT to cheat than just about any other athlete out there. And if later tours are clean, it certainly throws plenty of doubt on the speculation of the early ones.

Yes, books and articles have been written, and Armstrong has won libel suits (or the defendants have settled) against most of those people. It has to be an almost completely baseless attack to lose a libel case.

And let's talk about this year. 37 or 38 years old, four years off the bike and he's competing to win the tour? You say he must be using again. That's such an absurd claim it borders on fantasy. Why Why Why? Why, after beating it all those years, why come back and risk it all? Why come back, at least partially, to raise awareness and promote his foundation and jeopardize all that? Why stir up the old witch hunts and go through all this again? Why risk a potential political career (I've seen speculation, I find it laughable). He's an icon that has transcended sports and it simply makes ZERO sense to come back to the bike and risk it all getting caught cheating. I find the contention that he's motivated more, or even equally, to win another TdF as opposed to building some awareness for his foundation and other causes to be laughable. Your idea that he came back and is doping again because he cares more about winning another TdF than everything else he has going on, when he's arguably already the greatest TdF rider ever, is patently absurd. No one really expected he could win, he just has to not embarass himself. Yet if he does finish on the podium, you'll believe he doped out of some inexplicable desire to risk everything for another victory (yawn, #8).

Believe it or not, the most logical explanation here is that freaks come along every now and again (Babe Ruth, Secretariat, Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan, to name just a few). And there's more to it than that, Armstrong's TdF-specific training and dominant teams.

Honestly, to not look at motivations and legacy when speculating Armstrong has doped all along is ignorant. To dismiss the extremely powerful incentives Armstrong has to NOT dope is to ascribe to him a subhuman level of ego, hubris and self-centeredness that is pretty much rivaled by only some truly nasty people in human history. That's where the absurd wild speculation comes in, because I think that's what it would take for Armstrong to ignore those incentives.

I simply think it unfair and irresponsible to assume Armstrong dopes because "that's what it'd take to dominate a sport with other dopers" while dismissing or ignoring the very real (and obvious) motivations and incentives he has NOT to dope. You've got a large amount of circumstantial evidence, a pretty good circumstantial case there actually, but you fail miserably when it comes to motive. And a lot of that circumstantial evidence has been contradicted or retracted by the accusers themselves, or proven false. Of course, the sensational press doesn't have as much to say about that.

Again, I'm going to leave it at this:
If the most tested and scrutinized athlete, the most vigilant athlete in defending his name, and the athlete with the most to lose is cheating, then there is not one athlete in the world that I will ever believe is clean.

Thank you for proving my point. Well done.

 

[objective skeptic]

Ah! Once again the old, "Armstrong is a freak of nature" gambit, although, I must admit, I have never seen him compared genetically to a racehorse, before!

Look. If this was the case. Why, post cancer, has he won so little beside the Tour?
All the other freaks listed only win one race/tournament/game a year?
No? Well, there you go then.

Ummm, no, I didn't make a "freak of nature" argument per se. Just pointing out that athletes do come along every so often and dominate a sport, and that doesn't make them a cheat.

And, as you point out, Lance didn't dominate the sport so much as one particular event. We can find similar examples in tennis, where a guy is dominant on one surface but not very good on others, or swimming where a guy is dominant on a particular stroke or distance but not other events.

 

[objective skeptic]

Thank you for proving my point. Well done.

I do wonder what people hate more: That LA has 7 TdF wins, or that they believe he lies about doping. Because it CAN'T be that they hate him for doping, since a key part of their belief is dominating a sport - which they still avidly watch and follow - they believe riddled with doping.