- Mar 18, 2009
gregod said:There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. Nothing that has earned him a sanction.
I apologize. It was not my intention to hijack the thread.
These are not confessions, they are accusations. They may be the truth, but they have not meritted any sanctions.
I am sure there is a great deal of expertise here. But I don't think anybody here is actually analyzing Lance's samples. Furthermore, I am not critizing anybody's work. But none of it has earned Lance a sanction.
I cannot. Perhaps this question has been addressed, but I haven't found the answer. But why in the face of all of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence has Lance not been kicked out of cycling? Especially, considering that Rasmussen was booted for lying about his whereabouts.
As for how Lance changed post-cancer: he could have doped. Maybe someday he will be caught or confess and put the speculation to rest. But until then, it is just speculation in my opinion.
On a side note to everybody: I am not quite sure what the rules are in this forum when it comes to disagreement. But it seems that for many people it means, "start your own thread. We want only people who love-lance/hate-lance/agree-with-me."
Gregod - I appreciate your answers and your stance. Most of us are way more moderate than you would appreciate. There are few polarizing "haters" and "lovers", but I admire Lance for some of his attributes (cycling talents, dedication, cancer work), but not for others (doping, support of Omerta, manipulation, immaturity, etc). Unfortunately, a number of threads do degenerate into polar opposites (love and hate if you will), and I am definitely guilty of this as well when I get a bee in my bonnet about certain facts. However, when it comes to a true disagreement (rather than some endless argument perpetuated by troll-like behaviour), then it is easy just to say we agree to disagree.
While I do not agree with your stance that he has not doped because he has not been sanctioned (because I personally think that is taking the decision making process out of your hands and you are relying on someone else to tell you what your opinions should be rather than processing the available information for yourself and coming to your own independent opinion), I do appreciate your honesty and directly answering my post.
In regards to why Lance has not been sanctioned, no one has ever accused him of being dumb. Rasmussen committed a doping-related offence by missing doping controls and lying regarding his whereabouts. While he may not have tested positive, these offences are considered the same as testing positive because of the UCI's regulations. Rasmussen was also implicated in other doping-related infractions (HBOCs in shoe box and testing positive to Dynepo in the 2007 TdF), but these were not sanctionable events for various reasons. Armstrong has never been sanctioned because he knows how to play the game: 49% hematocrit in the 1999 TdF knowing that the cutoff is 50%, and his recent hematocrit and OFF score spikes in the 2009 TdF which are within the UCI limits but not physiologically explainable during a GT.