Do you think lance is doping? yes or no - Page 17

Obviously this is the kind of thing than can go around in circles for an indefinite period of time. But just for the sake of clarity, a conclusion is the final resting place of a quandry. Therefore, the lack of a verdict is not a conclusion but the exact opposite.

My point was in regard to the suggestion that the combination of Lance's former need for EPO with his success in the Tour de France, offer proof that he is doping. Such circumstances offer nothing even remotely related to proof of anything concerning doping. Such a suggestion is not only inaccurate, it is completely fool-hardy.

I believe the proper term is "reasonable doubt" rather than "all shadow of hypothetical doubt", but I think I grasp your point. In this particular situation you have a former patient who required EPO, the fact that EPO can be misused as a performance enhancing drug and the fact that Lance has now done what no other athlete in the history of the Tour de France has done; win 6 Tours. You also have the fact that he claims he's clean, his drug testing has never shown any indication of unethical practices and the suggestion you make that PEDs may have lead to his cancer would suggest that continued use, would raise his risk of contracting cancer again to incredibly high levels. The prior three points can be considered suggestive of the use of PEDs. The latter three are suggestive that he is not using PEDs. That's what's called, "reasonable doubt". There exists circumstances which suggest to a reasonable person, doubt to suspect that he is doping.

From what theory of law comes the conclusion that circumstantial evidence is the strongest form of evidence? I think one would be hard pressed to make such an argument in a court of law, the classroom of any law school or even a high school debating team. If a man is said to hate another man and overheard to say that he planned to kill him, this would be circumstantial evidence should the other man turn up dead. However, if ten people witnessed the murder, the bullets from the corpse match those of the gun owned by the accussed and the accussed willfully confessed to the killing, such is not considered "circumstantial" and is indeed, much stronger evidence than the former. If drug testing shows residues and effects of an illegal drug and the athlete confesses to having used such illegal substance, that is far stronger evidence than the word of associates and peers. Hearsay verses physical evidence and willful confession.

When one has no doubt in the presence of reasonable doubt, then perhaps the strongest evidence is in regard to the values applied to the standard of reason by the one placing himself in the seat of judgement. It's a lynch-mob mentality and generally regarded as inappropriate, inaccurate and somewhat primative.

Wow you guys are still at it, lol. Beasst likes to debate simply for the pure sport of it as I've seen on other forums... right Beasst? "Psst! ... I heard Lance likes to eat beef too!" The American public in general are woefully nieve about the extent of drug use by their athletes. Start a poll asking with governor Schwarzenegger used drugs during his competitive days and you'd get similar results. Whats evidence is there that Arnold used/uses drugs during his career?... no more no less then what Lance has stacked up against him. I prefer to use just a little bit of common sense. If it walks/swims/flies like a duck, has feathers and ^quacks... do you really need that DNA test to confirm that its a duck? Beasst would argue yes...and then wonder why his pet "dog" doesn't like his milk-bones....

fallen^sparrow

If you are going to make an analogy, make it accurate. Arnold does not deny having used 'roids extensivly. He also appeared on video smoking marijuana in a 1977 documentory (I believe that he also used steroid in the film).

There are mountains of evidence against the governor.

If you had video of Lance using banned substances, or he admitted freely to using them, I have no doubt that Beasst would conclude that lance doped (I know I would).

Yes! arnold may have used roids, they aren't banned in the sport that he contended in, so he wouldn't get discredited although since they are a banned substance in athletics and cycling, maybe there is a little reluctance there for lance to admit the use of any doping methods, if he ever did or has..

only he and his physician would really know, i guess.

Give it time as we currently see with U.S. Track and Field and their athletes... everything eventually comes out. Fortunately though the American public has a real short attention span and doesn't care about anything older then the previous seasons Survivor episode winner. Honestly, as has been said over and over, the only way the American public would believe it as %100 fact is if Lance personally comes out and admits to the fact, which won't happen any time soon with the kinda money he's making these days. From what I've seen around these parts there seems to be a pretty solid concensus that even Tyler was either framed or was the victim of some kinda lab mix up... so even when somebody is proven to be doping no one believes it anyway. My opinion isn't going to change and neither will the Lance = CLEAN fan base... so I say we forget about it and look forward to next years RACE SEASON! ... (or get on with business if your one of those cyclo-cross freaks).

fallen^sparrow

Firsty, it's B-E-A-S-T-T. There are two "t"s and one "s". Perhaps that simple error should illustrate to you how easily you can look directly at something numerous times and still not see all there is to see. To you it looked, walked, swam, flew and quacked like a "beasst" and yet it wasn't and never has been - not once. Others have come along behind you and acted in faith that your interpretation of the name is correct. It's a simple, yet convenient demonstration of how easily your idea of evidence and the "sense" of a common variety can leave people convinced of non-factual information.

Secondly, perhaps before you take sport in insulting others you should take a good look in the mirror. Are you not debating the issue? You've clearly stated that Americans are poorly informed in regard to the drug use in professional sports. It sounds rather like you've taken the affirmative side of the debate. That being as it is, you're debating. Why are you posting to this forum? Do you get paid to post here? Are you being forced to post here and offer your opinions to the thread? No, you're here debating for the same reason as everyone else. If it walks, swims, flies and quacks like a hypocrite...

What Lance eating beef has to do with a thread concerned with the possibility of illegal drug use, I have no idea. Perhaps it's only a cheap and poorly thought out shot mearly for the sake of taking a cheap shot. I'll carry that issue no further since it has no bearing whatsoever on the topic of this thread. You're assumption that because you do or believe something, and others do or believe likewise, it's automatically correct and harmless is more than just naive. It's dangerous and irresponsible.

The topic of this thread has nothing to do with Arnold Swarzenegger. It's about Lance Armstrong.

Perhaps we should take a good look at the two opposing ideas here concerning what level of evidence should constitute proof. To you, if it walks, swims, flies, has similar plumage and vocalizations, then you're convinced. Surely a biologist would want a bit more, especially if it were suggested that a new sub-species should be wrecklessly wiped out because... "sure looks like a duck - it's just a form of duck, what's the big deal?" When the fall-out of a possibly wrongful judgement carries such substantial weight, one should always err on the side of caution. You're willing to ruin a man's career and his name because you "think" he's guilty of something for which you have only shards of circumstantial evidence. Were you the one being accused, it's unlikely you would be satisfied with the personal suffering thrust upon you, for only the existence of such flimsy and careless "evidence".

The American justice system is theoretically based on the idea that guilt cannot be established until evidence exists with sufficient weight to eliminate reasonable doubt. Using this system, the country has executed a minimum of 1 in 19 accused individuals wrongly. A full 5% of people executed for crimes in this country have later been found to have been innocent. When you consider how unprofitable, and therefore rare, it is to continue investigations after judgement and sentence are passed, it is appropriate to assume that the 5% figure we know of, is substantially below the actual figure. Keep in mind that this is the result of a system which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now consider what might happen to those numbers should the system change to one that required only a preponderance of evidence, (meaning the bias of the evidence is toward guilt - 51 percent.) Where would we then stand on our ratio of wrongful executions? Where might we stand on our ratio of wrongful convictions on all criminal accusations across the board? As scary as that should be to those who understand the merits of requiring proof, one must look further into this situation and realize that even a preponderance of evidence is lacking in this case. In fact, if you look at what actual evidence exists, there is little more than assumption and conjecture. The solid evidence, all mitigates the assumption that Lance is clean. The only things that can truly be considered aggravating evidence are the relative few who claim to have first-hand knowledge and the fact that he is consistently winning the arguably most prestigious cycling event on the planet.

Your brand of sense is certainly common, what it lacks is logic. It's based on emotion and a personal belief fueled by that emotion.

Sheesh. What is the fallout from someone (or many people) posting on an internet forum? Get off the hysteria train.Where did anyone (particularly me, I guess), say that we wanted to ruin his career? That's not the point of this exercise.

Beastt, this is not the American justice system. This is a FORUM. With a lot of non-U.S. posters, I might add.Where did you get these numbers?The only "solid" evidence Lance has is that he hasn't failed a dope test. All other circumstantial evidence, from every source, points to the more likely probability that he does dope. And how many riders recently turned out to be dopers recently even though they never failed a drug test? Hmmm....let the forum readers make the call.
Winning has nothing to do with it. It's the first-hand reports from Lemond, O'Reilly and others, that plant the seed. Not to mention Lance's relationship with Ferrari, his abuse of riders in the peleton who speak out on doping, his sudden comeback in 98-99 from a terrible disease, the reports from French journalists about the USPS team disposing of doping products in far-off dumpsters, The reports from former USPS riders about doping within the team, Lance's suspicious test result for corticosteroids and the reported post-mortem prescription, PLUS the fact that the UCI testing program has been, well, a joke, and a number of published reports has shown how former cyclists and teams have gotten around the tests -- if the test is even held at all. For example, in 2003 only 300+ EPO tests were done by the UCI. That averages out to much less than one test per pro rider per year, for a substance that has a much longer positive effect on performance than the time in which it can be detected.

I'll say it again: you have your head so far up Lance Armstrong's butt that when he eats, you taste his food for him.

OK. IF Lance does dope, WHY has he PASSED EVERY drug test? Its not like he knows when not to dope because he's getting a test. They show up AT RANDOM, even 6 AM to give him a test.

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

HellonWheels, how many tests has Lance gotten at 6 AM? You have no idea. I will tell you that published reports have put the number of EPO tests administered by the UCI in 2003 at 300-something. That works out to much less than one test per rider per year, for a substance whose window of positive effect lasts a lot longer that the window in which it can be detected by a drug test.

This whole "6AM unannounced test" thing is an urban legend as far as I'm concerned, no one can point to any data or secondhand reports from unbiased sources that show how many times Lance has been woken up, unannounced, early in the morning with no time to prepare for a test. I don't believe it happens to him.

In fact, I would like one shred of proof that Lance was subject to ANY unannounced tests in, say, 2003. Unannounced meaning: He has no warning and no time alone between the knock on the door and the collection of the sample.

Published information from former riders show how teams beat the testers: they send the junior riders down first to have their samples taken, while the doped riders are quickly hooked up to a saline IV to reduce their hematocrit. All it takes is a matter of minutes for a 50+ hematocrit to be reduced to a legal level.

My apologies mate, I misidentified you as someone else. "Beasst" and I have had an ongoing playful banter on another site and so without prior knowledge of our past conversations most of what I said in that previous post could be construed as being ignorant, rude, and off topic (beef comment specifically... he's very pro-vegetarian) which wasn't my intention. Personally I am enjoying the ongoing debate and the intellectual depth to which it has gone... so please do carry on and I look forward to how it eventually plays out over the coming month(s). My other opinions expressed "on topic" haven't changed... although, with the afore mentioned oversight in the simple interchanged "s" and "t", I'm sure they hold alot less weight. It'll be interesting to see how the investigation into Lances Motorola teamate's accusations plays out in the coming weeks... $5 million is a big chunk of change for winning a bike race.

fallen^sparrow

To name a few that would escape a positive test.....

Autologous blood doping (preparing himself for only one main event per year allows him the time rather than homologous blood doping using another persons blood re TH - no test available)

Newer developments in EPO that the testers had not caught up with.

Micro dosing of EPO beats tests (testers have not a detection test)

Gene doping (new on the block - sports scientists predicted athletes would be into gene doping by 2000 - on the WADA banned list but no test)

LA did not compete at Athens Olympics - announcement was made all athlete's samples from Athens would be retained and tested in future when new drugs were identified and tested. This was a first. LA preferred to play with his kids than win an elusive gold medal.

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"

antoineg: I've seen this pointed out before (maybe not by you but by others on this forum). I don't think I've heard of any current or former riders on the USPS team make accusations of doping. I've asked this before and no one has given me an answer. Exactly who are the USPS riders who have made these alleged allegations? And what is your source for this? I'm not trying to be combative. I'm really just curious to know.

Sorry, it was USA Cycling, not USPS, and Lance was on the team at the time, and Carmichael was a coach. Apologies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in284958.shtml

Yeah, that I've heard about. No need to apologize, I was just curious. Thanks.