Do you think lance is doping? yes or no - Page 16

No more absurd than you standing here and telling me that he has.

The bottom line is anyone who believes that without a doubt he is clean or believe without a doubt that he is dirty, is not making decisions based in facts...

1. Its usually impossible to catch someone doping.

2. All the riders assume some of the other guys are doping during a race.

3. Doesn't it make sense that if you know the other guy is doing it and won't get caught, then you had better do it as well if you want an even field? I know its cynical, but I think the system forces everyone to try what they think they can get away with. This absolutely includes Armstrong.

4. The UCI needs to develop tests that work, or stop worrying about testing altogether.

Wow, looks like someone forgot to drink the "Worship Lance" Kool-Aid.

Nice post, I never cared for Kool Aid much myself.


[QUOTE=Flyer]

WTF does that mean? Are you calling me a lance worshiper? Go back a few pages in this discussion and read some of my posts.

I am not a lance worshiper, I just find it very frustrating that people condemn a man (any man) based on such faulty logic. He very well could be doping, and I wouldn't be supprised if someone found proof that he was, but at this point, anyone who says they know he dopes is extremely gullible fool who doesn't require much in the way of facts to establish beliefs.

FOR THE LAST TIME, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT THE FIRST TO MAKE THIS MISTAKE. MY ATTACKING BAD REASONING OF LANCE ACUSERS DOESN'T MEAN I THINK HE'S CLEAN! IT IS A BIG FALSE DICHOTOMY.

The anti-Lance crowd are probably just pissed off because Lance has a hotter bod than they do.

__________________
"He who conquers himself is the mightiest warrior"--Confucius

Miss Sheryl Crow

Awesome!! Its nice to hear the voice of reason once in a while. I've never been into idol-worship, much less the false ones.

Exactly

I don't think he has to. He has no need to be desperate; his natural abilities and training are supurb. My theory is that there is more doping on average at the lower end of the performance scale. Unfortunately, a very low percentage of doping riders are actually detected, so statistics on those caught can be misleading due to too few observations.

No, I'm not Sheryl Crow, I never had any issues with her until AFTER I saw the nude pic of Lance on his bike. Now I HATE Crow, that biatch.

__________________
"He who conquers himself is the mightiest warrior"--Confucius

For your information, when one loses a testicle the other compensates by producing more testosterone. Losing a testicle would never warrant testosterone treatment. However, there is evidence that steroid use can cause testicular cancer. But this does not necessarily have anything to do with LA.

I wondered this very same thing....because a few years ago, I lost one ovary (the female equiv to the testicles in men)...for a few weeks I was a mess...mood swings, sweats, etc...as if I';d gone thru menoipause. But then the other ovary took over the job of both, as my dr said would happen.


The shock of surgery makes the one shut down temporarily, and it takes over in a couple of weeks. So its possible that for two weeks or so, Lance had test supps. But he wouldnt need it beyond that, only until the one good testicle took over.

__________________
"He who conquers himself is the mightiest warrior"--Confucius

i think maybe you where right, his mother didn't hold him enough, gosh! even his dad didn't wnat to stay with him, i bet he is one of those ugly kids, that had venetian blinds on his pram drawn to keep out prying eye's, you know the ones i mean, the prams that you see outside the local store, whilst she goes around town.

i can picture him now, sat in his high chair, mum with her catipult to afraid to get to close, obviosly he had a very high iron diet, maybe nuts and bolts, maybe more than one or 2 misses would explain a number of things.

This is perhaps one of the better examples of how having only part of the information can lead to drawing conclusions on insufficient and misunderstood grounds. There was no "admitting" to the use of EPO because admission suggests confessing to having done something wrong, immoral or illegal. There is nothing inappropriate about the use of EPO when undergoing chemotherapy. Replenishing red blood cells, (erythrocytes) is the medically approved use for EPO and is perfectly appropriate for a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy.

Without EPO, many chemotherapy patients might not survive because too few red blood cells would exist to provide even the minimum amount of oxygen to the body tissues. Chemotherapy works by destroying living cells. Those cells which reproduce the most frequently are more highly subjected to the affects of the toxins and radioactive materials in the chemotherapy drugs. That's why a person undergoing chemotherapy loses their hair. Hair cells reproduce rapidly and as such become targets for the chemotherapy drugs. Cancer cells also reproduce at a rapid and very uncontrolled pace which is why chemotherapy is effective in the treatment of cancer. But erythrocytes, (red blood cells) have a life span of about 120 days which also puts them at risk. Erythropoietin, (EPO), causes the body to produce extra red blood cells which helps to offset the loss of oxygen carrying cells in the blood. It's a very standard medical treatment.

Does one "admit" to using morphine when such is used for pain control under a doctor's supervision? No, certainly not. And to suggest that such use is wrong shows a very clear lack of understanding about the whole subject. Perhaps it is wise to do a little research and learn about the subject before proclaiming anyone guilty or twisting the 13-loops of rope above the noose. Is it a foregone conclusion that once someone has utilized morphine under appropriate medical conditions that they will continue its use under an illegal status? Again, certainly not. Any overabundance of blood cells produced in Armstrong's body while undergoing chemotherapy would have died within 6-months of his last dose of EPO. There can be no legitimate connection between his cancer treatments and any accusation of current doping. People are quite capable of utilizing medications for their intended purpose then discontinuing their use when they are no longer needed. The suggestion that former use proves current use is totally unfounded. Nothing in the statement posted by alpedheuz_86 either proves or disproves the current use of illegal substances.

I see your suggestions and from where they are drawn. I find it a bit telling that my "conclusions" were brought into question when my only conclusion was, "Nothing in the statement posted by alpedheuz_86 either proves or disproves the current use of illegal substances."

Lance's pudding may indeed be doped. Then again, it may be that it isn't and most people are considered to be deserving of the benefit of doubt when proof is lacking.

I'm not sure exactly how anyone can consider it a wrong conclusion to say that it neither proves nor disproves anything. To say otherwise is to conclude that his need for EPO during chemotherapy is proof that he is doping or proof that he is not. I see no way that it can be proof of either. If it were, then the discussion would be closed. Proof would exist and there would be no basis for debate. Certainly it doesn't prove anything. To claim that it does would be to suggest that everyone who has ever needed EPO for legitimate medical purposes but also has an interest in peak athletic performance would also have to be cheating through the continued use of EPO. That would be a fairly huge and unfounded claim.

The whole basis of the discussion would seem, to me, to be unfounded claims. You can have suspicions and reasons for those suspicions but to call them anything more than suspicion would be a bit premature and more than a bit irresponsible. Seems to me the Pope does an inordinate amount of traveling. Maybe he's smuggling cocaine in his underwear. Then again, maybe he isn't. There isn't any proof, just a suspicion, (albeit an intentionally flimsy one), based on something which might be said to be circumstantial evidence. Clearly there is more reason to suspect that Lance may be doping than to suspect that the Pope is a drug smuggler, but hopefully the point is made.

When I was a teenager I had long hair and perhaps to some looked the part of one who might be experimenting with illegal drugs. I even played in a rock band and some of the members certainly did use marijuana. Perhaps this was guilt by association. As it turned out, I ended up in the chair of an oral surgeon who made the mistake of assuming I was using drugs and would therefore have a high drug tolerance. He found out the hard way that his assumption was incorrect and I found out the hard way what happens when someone with a low drug tolerance is given a high dose of Demerol. Conclusions drawn on circumstantial evidence are often wrong. When proof is lacking what you have left is reasonable doubt.

Yes, it could be. Then again, it might not be. Just as the Pope could be using all of those trans-continental flights as a way to smuggle drugs. The existance of circumstances and opportunity is where suspicion starts, not where conclusions should rest. A man may own a firearm and have a well known hatred for another man found dead from a bullet wound. Reason for suspicion would exist. No valid conclusions may be drawn.

Is there even a single rider who makes it to the Tour de France who doesn't have a commitment to success? Does that mean they're all doping? Does it mean that everyone world-wide with any committment to succeed at any endeavor must be cheating? It may be a more valid question to ask how a man could continue to use drugs which may lead to dreaded diseases after having come so close to dying of such a disease. Neither question offers any real answers.

No argument. Such is the nature of most drugs developed for medicinal or even non-medicinal purposes.

The same reason we assumed none of them were until proof was presented perhaps?

Perhaps the one truth of human nature which stands above all others is that people will expect from others what they would expect from themselves. Those who would cheat would expect others to do the same. Those who would let principle and ethics allow them to lose before winning unethically would expect that others would hold similar values.

Greg Lemond is a singular interesting factor in this whole debacle. So few seem to recognize that while Lemond maintains a status of having raced clean, he still holds the record for the fastest time trial ever ridden in a Tour de France. And yet, he assumes Lance is guilty of doping because he claims that no one could perform as Lance does without some form of cheating. Perhaps Lemond is the voice of experience? Perhaps he is the voice of jealousy. Perhaps Lemond knows something he isn't telling. But if so, why won't he tell us what he knows? If he doesn't know something he's not saying, then his comments are no more than conjecture and suspicion. The very idea that Lance would confess to anyone not among his very closests and most trusted of friends or family is suspect. Why would anyone do such a thing? Certainly that doesn't mean it didn't happen but it offers reason to believe that it didn't.

A very valid question. Perhaps they're all telling the truth and Lance is lying. But if so, how many people who are close enough to Lance to know the truth are also lying? Why should we suspect they are all lying and only the people you mention are telling the truth? It's a two-sided coin which leaves us with no answers.

Perhaps the most obvious trait about common sense is that it is nothing close to common. It's indeed a rare trait and seemingly growing more scarce over time. Is it common sense to assume that because there is an association with someone accused, (last I heard Dr. Ferarri had been accused but not convicted. Perhaps I'm behind on the events since I have to scrounge for every shred of cycling-related news), who needed a chemical which can be used as a PED to overcome cancer and has shown a remarkable ability to win, that they must be using drugs? If such were common sense then the entire operational premise of the American justice system is built on a lack of common sense. There is an assumption that if someone appears to be guilty, even if only to a few, their guilt is a foregone conclusion. I find it fortunate that such is not the case. Common sense, to my mind, dictates that only when proof exists can conclusions of guilt be drawn. A man with blood on his hands, standing over a bloody body may appear to many to be the suspect of an assault or attempted murder. However, I have been in that situation more than a few times as an ambulance attendant. When you know all of the facts, the obvious conclusion can be very different from that drawn when only a select few circumstances are known.

Indeed. Which is what the debate is all about. To me, if he is doping I will be disappointed. If he isn't, we'll probably never know. While proving someone is doping can be difficult, proving they're not is nearly impossible.