I believe Lance is being controlled by extraterrestrials. Can't prove it but you know how clever those aliens are.They have found a way to cover it up. That is where he gets his super ability, after all he can't just be that good.
That's my theory until it is disproven.It is just a viable as anyone elses. I have no proof just a lot of pissing and moaning because I didn't get my way.
PS: Elvis will win the 2005 tour. Bet big on it!

__________________
Dope,when training and talent just aren't enough.

Care to enlighten us as to why Mayo and Simoni merit a "yes" or why Hamilton is "probably not".

I notice that all your "yes" votes are for riders from southern europe while riders with an aryan background are "maybe" or "probably not". Is your speculation based on ethnic background?

I was worried this would happen. Have you read the lead up to that post?
This is not based on much, and if you read the lead up, your will understand that these are just hunches that I was pushed to produce when I stated that I thought there was doping in the peleton, but I did not hold any of the evidence to be of a standard that I would use for decision making.

Mayo: I recall having heard about a positive test for cocaine (don't know for sure). And he had a large performance drop correlated with an increase in doping scrutiny.
Lance And Jan: Just big names that I was sure I would be asked about if I did not mention them explicitly (hence the maybe).
Tyler: Call is gut instinct (the man has grit...)
Beloki: not based on much (heard a rumor).
Pantani:died of an overdose, seemed high a lot...
Simoni:Heard a rumor... (probably shouldn't have had him as a yes, should have been a probably...)

As for the ethnic background. I will not dismiss the posiblity that some unconsious racism is at play, but I doubt it...

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were racist. I was referring to the common perception that Spaniards and Italians are dopers and Americans are clean. I think a lot of people are quick to assume someone is (not) doping based on their country of origin.

FYI, Pantani is already known to have doped so no need to speculate on that one.

No problem...

I thought he had only been tested and had elevated levels of hemocrit, which while not proof of blood boosting, is an indicator that blood boosters have likely been used. (this is the same thing I heard in the rumor about Simoni)

Is there another incident involving Pantani that I am unaware of?

His death, for one. As I recall the cause of death, following his autopsy, was a cocaine overdose. While this is certainly different than using performance enhancing drugs for competition, it does show that he wasn't above using illegal substances.

The haematocrits Pantani was tested with, and his ensuing bone marrow problems, have almost no explanation except for chronic EPO use (easily beyond reasonable doubt if you want a criminal standard of proof). His cocaine use, however, was after his retirement and thus is not a doping offence. I do agree though that he definitely doped - EPO is the drug to nail him on though, not coke.

Guess I should have underlined. Sorry.

"While this is certainly different than using performance enhancing drugs for competition, it does show that he wasn't above using illegal substances."

Actually I passed reading comprehension, thanks.

All his cocaine use shows is he had serious personal issues, probably relating to his depression. It has nothing whatsoever to do with doping (although it would if you showed he had started using while a licenced rider because cocaine is illegal under the UCI code). Other information suggests he definitely was using EPO anyway. If you want to say Pantani was a doper, all you need to do is look at his blood tests and medical problems and conclude he was on EPO. There is no other plausible explanation.

Nonetheless, a combative and inspiring rider with a tragical personal life - it's a pity he left so quickly.

While your conclusions in the first paragraph are but an opinion, I whole-heartedly concur with the second paragraph. He is and will continue to be missed. I didn't mean to imply that your comprehension was lacking. It just seemed that you were blowing past the intent of my comment in order to find something to take exception to.

If anyone is european or just lives there, you will know how darn easy it is to find quality steroids/growth stuff/etcetera, AND the proper information to test negative. And yes, the pressure to win is enough 'cause' If technology and science can be applied to what a cyclist mounts, it can be applied directly to the cyclist him/herself.

Believe me, it's easier to get professionally manufactured PED's in most parts of Europe than in the USA. And as with all else in life, a few extra zeros in your bank account makes it absurdly easy.

Of course it's an opinion. It's 'just an opinion' that David Millar intentionally used EPO to improve his chances of winning the world championships TT last year, as he confessed to. It's 'just an opinion' that Adam Bergman took EPO, although his positive test makes it more likely. With a positive test or a confession, the chances of those statements being true increase markedly and it becomes more difficult to rationally explicate the circumstances without concluding that dope was used.

Similarly, the circumstances surrounding Pantani increase the probability he was taking EPO chronically so much that there are few if any other rational explanations. Pantani's Haematocrit was elevated far, far beyond natural levels - while a raised crit 'indicates' rather than confirms drug taking, an extreme elevation, and volatility rather than a reasonably steady crit make it much more likely that an exogenous aid (EPO) was used. It is also relevant that these values were tested in season - when 'on form' lower crits should be recorded due primarily to increased blood volume, also due slightly to increased turnover of red cells in intense cariovascular activity. Crits are generally lower in summer too. Finally, the medical problems (failure to manufacture red cells properly) described in Pantani are most likely caused by chronic EPO abuse - this process is beginning to be described in literature regarding renal failure patients, and is similar to other situations where endogneous hormones are added to with exogenous products (eg insulin supplementation in non-diabetics, heroin addiction leading to failure of endogenous opiate production). Given these factors increase the probability of Pantani having used EPO drastically, I can see no explanation beyond the fantastical that would exonerate him. I would be very interested to see an alternative explanation, but I haven't yet and these factors have been discussed publicly for some time now.

I'd say the same logic is employed when someone calls Millar or Bergman a doper. We didn't perform the tests. Most of us aren't endocrinologists and can't explain exactly how the tests employed pinpoint drug taking in Bergman's case. We weren't there when Millar confessed either. But given our knowledge of the situation, doping is by far the most plausible explanation - so convincing a case can be made that it extends beyond the balance of probabilities - it is a near certainty.

I'm not actually taking exception to anything you said really - I just think that Pantani's EPO use is more relevant to a discussion of doping than his cocaine use after he became unlicensed.

I just read on the Vuelta site that Floyd Landis is Amish!!! Seeing as how the amish are opposed to any technological progress I think you should add Floyd as a "probably not".

Wow. How does some Amish kid end up in the seedy world of professional bicycle racing. It boggles the mind.

It sounds like you have first-hand experience! Any stories to tell us?

It seems to me that the US is just as involved in organized doping as much as anywhere else and I can't imagine that its difficult to find PEDs in the US (not that I've tried). Professional bicycle racing happens to be centered in Europe so I think the impression is that the Europeans are more advanced, but I don't think that is the case in other sports.

It's a nice job of attempting to cloud the pond but if you look closely, you can still see to the bottom. Opinions backed by confessions and positive test results become more than opinions because they are opinions accompanied with positive test results and confessions just as a suspicion confirmed with an action becomes more than just suspicion.

Certainly his EPO use is more relevant but since I lacked the information you had on the subject and preferred not to attempt to manufacture specific information, I applied what information I did have. The last information I had read suggested only an elevated hematocrit level and lacked any hard data or compounding medical information to aid in substantiation. Hence my comment regarding the difference between utilization of performance enhancing drugs and other illicit drug use.

So what do opinions become when they are factually backed?

I would submit they are still opinions, though more likely to be true. There are still alternative explanations in all the situations we covered - Bergman's sample was tainted or switched, Millar confessed under duress. I just think that on the probabilities and given a correct analysis of the other opinions that can be reasonably held (eg doping labs don't normally get it wrong, Millar had too much to lose to confess under duress) the obvious explanation is also the likely one. That's what rationality is - weighing up opinions and their factual basis, applying commonsense, experience, etc. Sometimes the process falls down (there is a finite probability in every situation that the fantastical explanation will turn out to be true). I don't lose sleep over that. If you say in every situation - 'yes but that could be wrong' (which is what I think you might mean by saying 'just an opinion') you negate the ability to weigh probabilities and act rationally. The important thing isn't that you might be wrong, it's what the chances of you being wrong are.