Do you think lance is doping? yes or no - Page 12

Actually, the consequences of being wrong should also be considered if you plan to act on an opinion. My bad...

The only factual truth that may be discerned is that on a professional level too much money is at stake and therefore secrecy is the norm. BUT, on a personal note, if one sees the riders and knows how good each guy can ride, a noticeable difference is exactly that - darn noticeable! This isn't good day / bad day stuff. It's quite evident because of the various factors influenced - race strategy, physical appearance, temperament, etcetera.

What I find interesting is why so many non-pro cyclists see doping in a negative light. It's the natural outgrowth of competition and will become even more difficult to detect with the advance of medical science. The audience may or may not accept this as fact, but only those that are willing to use their bodies in an experimental manner should judge the right and wrong. Our attitude toward doping is presently based on (1) the need to maintain an equal footing for all pros and (2) the very tainted notion that top riders are demi-gods. Perhaps this attitude, this simplistic ethical stance may change with time. But, rest assured, the clandestine nature of manipulating our bodies in order to win will never go away.

This is true in extreme cases, but dietary and training manipulations can also have extreme effects on body composition, muscle type and ability. What these manipulations can't do is lead to enlarged jaws and changed bone structures, or non-functioning bone marrow.

Although some versions of the ethical argument against doping are simplistic, it is not simplistic in itself. There are less and more complex versions. While fair play or equality is one notion that merits consideration in the doping debate, the health of the riders and the ability of those that want to to compete without placing one's health at risk are equally if not more important. I certainly don't view riders as demi-gods.

I agree with everything you wrote. What I failed to mention is the old argument concerning INTEGRITY - of the rider in particular, of the sport in general. There are instances when one is apt to compromise more than we normally do. The reasons are boundless. That is why I mention that a rider is the one to choose. Outside influence, on the pro circuit, simply isn't enough. The pressure to perform, let alone win, is enough to drive one beyond reason and into the arms of the 'doctor'. Another thing to consider is injury. The recuperation process may be quickened. Take that a bit further and consider the relatively short career of a pro. I'm not trying to justify the use of anything outside of what you mention (Diet/Training/Sports Science) but doping is always going to be an alternative, a choice - a crippling and sometimes deadly choice, but one nonetheless.

The only reason behind my use of the term demi-god has more to do with the marketing of sports professionals and how it distorts reality beyond the minds of many - specially the young.
Thank you for your comments. And I personally hope the testing can keep up with the creating.

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that if I said, "hello", you'd attempt to argue the point.

But we were getting on so well in the nutrition threads...

No biggie, I'm just a pedantic nit-picker with strong beliefs and so are you. I think we have more in common than you think.

I didnt read previous posts, just the title made me lough
I am sure that all riders, participating in Tour, are doping. Tour de France is the hardest race in calendar and to win that race, you just cant do it without doping! I heard a lot what riders in much lower categories are doing if they want to go fast and thats the highest category, so...

And why doping controls showed that all are clean? Because they are using doping for training. And, for example (if there is anyone who dont know that hehe), EPO can be detected in just 72 hours after using it, growth hormone cant be detected with these tests.

Oh, I'm quite certain we have much in common. Perhaps that's why certain behaviors appear fairly transparent. Nobody can spot fear as well as a paranoid or know cold like an Eskimo... so to speak.

Could you offer your qualifications for substantiation of the above claims? I suspect your first name isn't "Richard".

I'm curious, are you guys (RoadieScum or Beastt) attorneys?

Though I have some background in the legal field, I've not had to stoop that low.

No, I'm not an attorney.

And my second isnt "Virenque"

Hence my inquiry as to your qualifications. Otherwise we'd all know what your qualifications were.

Do you think the drugs make you super man?

David Millar has admitted to doping, but, if you believe his story, he did not dope until after the 2001 tour de france (which he rode). He also feels that he could have won the TT championships without EPO (but does he really know...). He has riden clean and doped, he is qualified to report on the benifits of the drugs. He says they help, but they don't make a huge difference. He has also stated that the difference between Lance and the next best riders is way more than could be explained by dope (he thinks that if lance is doping, he would still be winning clean).

Sadly, worse. I'm not even a qualified asshole - I'm studying to be one.