Havent thrown my LIVESTRONG band away yet, but there's something about the whole thing, especially his recovery in Tour de France 2003.

Wish 2004 could have been a better contest for him to really show his talent off, even with the mountain stages coming late in the tour and Alp Duez being a TT stage, there wasnt anyone in his league.

Everyone has strong days and weak days... Did you notice that Jan Ullrich sucked in the pyrenees, but was in good form in the alps? Does that make you think he was taking drugs for some reason?

You probably right, maybe beacuse he is just so good, that there's a double standard 'being applied.

He is such a talented, gifted and inspirational rider, I am just hoping...no praying...that there is nothing to all the allegations from teammates, ex Postal doctors, Lemond etc etc.

Despite your inability to produce your opinions in anything resembling a mature manner, perhaps you do make one or two valid points. Firstly, yes, the arguments against the probability that Lance is doping are old. They're as old and at least as valid as the arguments used in an attempt to promote a possibility that illegal substances are being used.

In the end, however, the fact remains that nothing remotely resembling proof exists on the side which assumes that because he wins and he isn't liked by many, he must be doping. On the non-doping side, we have a consistent failure for the drug testing to produce a single positive. Your assumptions concerning the doping issue are no more credible than any of the somewhat sophomoric assumptions you fling toward me simply because we disagree.

Just for your peace of mind, (or should that be "piece of mind"?), I'm not paid for anything I post on any online forum. I see one side of the issue while you see the other and I present my side with facts while you prefer to sling unsubstantiated and sometimes ridiculous insults. In responding as you do you reveal yourself to be incapable of separating fact from fiction once your emotions are involved. You appear to be very quick to anger and once there, are incapable of logical thought or even a civil tongue. Do you somehow perceive that such behavior buys you credibility? Perhaps if/when Run_and_Ride finds the professional help he needs, the good doctor can manage to squeeze in a session or two for you.

You nicely sweep aside all of the many allegations of drug use, not only by LA in particular, but also by the peleton in general.

I believe that it's you who are living in a fictional world of your own choosing, and you've set LA up as your Idol-in-Chief.

Two names: Christophe Bassons, Fillipo Simeoni. If LA were truly pristine would he act the way he did? Give me a break.

</me prepares for more blah blah blah from Beastt>

To believe either side of the doping debate whole heartedly is foolish. The simple fact is that nobody (well, none of us anyway) knows whether any individual person in the peleton is doping. It is impossible to prove a negative (quick, prove you don't have WMD), no amount of testing (or inspections) will ever prove without a doubt a negative, like not doping (or not having WMD).

Most rational people understand this, and take the position that an afirmative proof (the absence of a negative proof is not afirmative proof) is required to BELIEVE something. I think there are probably several dopers in the peleton, but without proof, I will not claim to KNOW that there are dopers in the peleton.

Additionally I believe that all people should be considered inocent until proven guilty, and I would also appreciate it if my peers were to believe the same if I were ever acused of something. Seeing as Lance has not been proven guilty, I see no reason to believe that he is, and additionally based on my desire to not have my guilt assumed I would feel like a hypocrite if I were to assume his guilt without proof of it.

Your stuborn insistance that he is doping is based on what? His responce people who accuse him?

I have an experiment for you to do, accuse an aquantance of yours of being an asshole, or incompitant, spread the word around. Would you be suprised if they reacted to you agressively, even if they are not incompitant assholes?

Arguing with the Lance Idolaters is like arguing with the Scientologists. Look, I do think there's a possiblity he has never used PEDs. I'll agree with that. I wish the other side would at least agree that there's a lot of smoke, if not a burning fire, surrounding Lance and the doping debate.

But I don't think you will. It would harm your image of him, which is what the real issue is here. Lance is an inspiration to a lot of people, a real blessing to a lot of cancer victims, a role model for American cyclists, etc. etc. Considering the possibility that he dopes/doped is not in the cards for the LA Idolater crowd.

BTW, as far as I know neither Bassons or Simeoni ever accused Lance personally of doping or using PEDs. So why would Lance get all upset? Answer that question and win a prize!

If I'm wrong someone please point to the URL with the quotes that prove me wrong and I'll gladly retract.

Lance is not my idol. Where in my explanation did you gather any idol worship of Lance?
I think I posted in this thread 5 times, find one where I idolize Lance.

I even stated in the first sentance of my post that I think believing either side is foolish. I later said that I think there are several dopers in the peleton. I will state right here:
I WOULD NOT BE SUPRISED IF EVIDENCE PROVING LANCE DOPES SURFACES.

BUT: Until then I will not act as if I know that he is.

I was mearly pointing our that the world you are living in is no more based in fact than the one you acuse Beastt of living in.

I think your reading comprehension skills are sadly lacking. Re-read my post, comprehend it, then refute my arguments with facts and/or logic, or... shut up.

P.S. I hope, for the sake of free society, that you are never selected for jury duty. Your willingness to assume guilt is a danger to freedom.

I guess we are in agreement then -- the only "act" that I have done that might make one think that I know that he is is posting on message boards about the problematic rumors, accusations, and Lance's own actions that in my mind make blind faith in his purity so difficult.

At least I acknowledge the other side. As you do. Beastt doesn't.

LOL

Disingenuous, and completely irrelevant. Jury decisions require a much greater burden of proof that on a message board.

It is completely relevant and a very good point. You've already passed judgement on Lance though you admit you have no solid evidence. What reason would anyone have to believe that you would grant any more right to due process to anyone just because you're in a court room? People either believe in the justice system or they don't. There is no such thing as believing in the justice system only when in the court room. It's a system -- a set of rules and ideals, not a location.

Oh come off your high horse. Do I believe that Lance has used PEDs? Yes, probably. Would I convict him of it with what I know? No way.

For the love of god would you guys PLEASE apply some common sense.

I want to clarify something: I do not KNOW that Lance has used PEDs. No way in a million, since I don't have firsthand sources.

Tamman, if you THINK that there are probably several dopers in the peleton, who are your most likely candidates? I think that's a great question that will point out how intellectually honest you might be.

Iban Mayo... yes
Lance... maybe
Ullrich... maybe
Beloki... probably
Tyler Hamilton... probably not
Pantani (when he was around)... yes
Simoni... yes
Anyone else... haven't formed an opinion yet... I'd rate them a maybe.

Wow, I didn't think you'd do this...thank you.