Do you think lance is doping? yes or no - Page 19

You are only "accused" if it relates to a crime. You are only "convicted" if it relates to a crime.

Being found positive for a PED is not a crime, unless it occurs in France or Italy where you can be charged with a sporting fraud. It can be a crime if you are caught with PED's in your possession without any legal right to have those drugs,ie, a prescription. You would be charged with possessing forbidden products.

Being found positive means you have breached your sporting body's rules which you had agreed to be bound by to compete. The rules set out the procedure to enter a defence against the infraction. No judge, no jury, no prosecutor.

There is a plethora of circumstantial evidence from which doubts are being raised that LA could not be a unique phenomena to turn mediocre performances to superlative performances through contracting testicular cancer.

The opinions expressed in response to the topic appear to be residency based.

__________________
VF

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

The topic of the thread is "Do you think lance is doping?".

How does accusing Lance of doping without sufficient evidence keep other riders from dying?

What you seem to be saying is that anyone who wins should be so scrutinized. I don't recall that happening to Ullrich in 1997 or to Pantani in 1998. Yet both of them have a history of illegal drug use. Lance doesn't. Virenque is the first man to win seven King of the Mountains titles in the Tour de France and has a well publicized history of doping. I don't see any threads asking if he's doping.

How does recovering from cancer through chemotherapy make him more suspect? EPO is used to treat cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy to keep them alive, not to create world-class athletes. Many hospital patients are given morphine for pain. Does that mean they're all dopers, tweakers and crack addicts?

Guilt by association? That's a precarious position to take. If we can be found guilty by association with those who are, or may be which I believe is actually the case, (has Ferarri been convicted?), then certainly the entire world is guilty. Lance spoke out against Pound because the assertion Pound made sounded like he was pointing fingers and proclaiming the peloton to be a group of dopers. Lance has been accused for at least the past 6 years and is a little tired of it. If you weren't guilty of cheating and had complied with every test thrown at you to prove that you weren't cheating yet constantly had people implying that you were, you might have something to say as well.

I assume you're referring to his endorsements for Bristol-Meyers Squibb? He's endorsing medications to help people overcome cancer and live. You have a problem with medications that save lives? He doesn't use those drugs, or claims not to because he doesn't have cancer and has no need for the medicinal affects of those drugs. A man could accept a contract to endorse a feminine hygiene product. It doesn't mean he uses it. In Lance's case he definitely did use it when it was needed to save his life. I have trouble faulting him for that.

He could be. Then again, so could you. So could any of us. But the point is, most of us... probably all of us, aren't.

The key words are "may have access". Ullrich may be testing some German super drug, (which isn't working). Marco Pantani may be alive and well and living in Hawaii as a hula girl. Saddam Hussein may be a Hooter's girl at restaurant in California.

I saw the conjecture and the "may", "possible", "could be". I guess I missed the "evidence".

Steroid use is criminal in many if not all states in the U.S. Possession of controlled substances, (i.e. EPO), is a crime in most, if not all, states in the U.S. Isn't France where Lance is racing? Wouldn't that make the alleged drug use a crime?

Who suggested that contracting testicular cancer gave Lance the ability he demonstrates? What is being said is that in the process of undergoing chemotherapy, which is used to combat many kinds of cancer, Lance's body was reduced to a mere shell. Upon rebuilding that body, which started as a swimmer's body, then a triathlete and finally a cyclist, Lance lost about 20 pounds of upper body mass. But through rebuilding as a cyclist, he retained his former power but now has 20 pounds less body weight to propel up the mountains. No one is suggesting that cancer turns people into superlative athletes.

Which is very interesting in and of itself no matter which side of the debate you stand on. When geographical location plays such an obvious roll, perhaps it's not the supposed evidence so much as the nationality that matters.

Italy modified its sporting fraud laws in 2000 to include doping. Pantani was acquitted of the charge as his alleged offence occurred in 1995 prior to the amendment to the laws.

Refer here to charges brought by Italian investigators relating to 2002 Giro.

Supplements for the Giro

I understand France's sporting fraud laws were enacted later. But Italian investigators were considering laying charges against LA relating to his brush with Simeoni during the 2004 Tour de France. Sporting fraud, intimidating a witness (re Ferrari trial) and violence were the referred charges.


From what I have been reading from forums, LA is a far superior cyclist post illness through the loss of 20 lbs and increased resolve through his near death experience.

However, flat TT'ing efficiency is relative to power to air displacement not weight. So he must have significantly improved on his former power (I can recall Indurain going past him in a Tour de France TT as if he were standing still).

Despite all these claims of the new athlete being reborn post cancer, LA failed in his comeback in early 1998 and retired to Texas (read his book). That improved determination was not evident in this period.


No, in this case it indicates whether the debater is more likely to be subjective or objective.

__________________
VF

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

Lot's of empirical evidence for those to view.[/QUOTE]

I would not agree with this view. Priori knowledge yes as it relate to Armstrong's unusual abilities that transcends his apponents.
Mathematical possibilities ,as in, mathematically there must be life on other worlds but it is yet to be proven despite unconfirmed rumors and sightings of UFO's
Putting aside rumors the fact that he is so superior, at least in the tour, seems to be his most damning aspect.

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

NO!!


Why would someone who went through cancer cheat

Why? To make all that he made..

The same can be said of you. You lack the ability to see that circumstansial evidence is not proof, this is obvious to most people. Is it obvious to you?
You focus only on the theme of guilt by association. Logical Fallacy...
Again with the guilt by association?
You are using the conclusion of your argument to support it. Circulus in demonstrando. Logical fallacy...
This one is a mix of guilt by association, and ad numerum. Logical fallacies...
More guilt by association...
Another circular argument...
Every argument you have presented as to why you believe Lance must be doping is a logical fallacy. You present reasons to be interested in whether or not an individual is doping, but you have fail to grasp that none of this is proof. All BEASTT is saying is that there is no proof of Lance doping, and to insist otherwise is foolish. Dispite who much you disagree, by any objective measure, he is correct.

I can't believe you guys are still going around and around with this! It's obvious that for some individuals; the cricumstancial evidence, speculation and hearsay (which is what much of the current "evidence" is: evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath) is all the proof they need to be of the opinion that LA is guilty of using PED's and for others that's simply not enough. You guys could go back and forth and around and around forever! At least until some type of "concrete" evidence surfaces that will tip the scales one way or the other.

And these are some incredibly wordy posts too. You guys are expending way too much time and energy on an argument that really can't be won.

And these are some incredibly wordy posts too. You guys are expending way too much time and energy on an argument that really can't be won.[/QUOTE]

I just like to throw in a comment here and there to stir the pot.

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

And I'd reply that this forum is not about "proof", and is not a U.S. court of law, as Beastt keeps implying it should be. This is about Do you think Lance is doping. So take your complaints about proof elsewhere. Plenty of circumstantial evidence would rightfully lead one to think Lance is doping, proof or no. Deal with that instead of changing the context of the discussion to "proved" or "not proved."

No. He is a freak of nature and the most tested athlete on the planet. If Lance somehow isn't clean, then he's the greatest cheat in Sporting History. I was, however, more shocked by Tyler Hamilton's positive tests than I would have been had Lance tested positive. I'm still hoping, somehow, that Tyler is clean. Tell us it ain't so, Tyler!

Bzzzt. Wrong. This is what the doping apologists really want to believe -- that anyone who thinks LA might be doping is really deep-down secretly envious and jealous of his success, talent, and cycling acumen, and want to bring him down a peg.

This is because their own feelings toward LA are inherently personal -- they want to "own" the image of Lance as a hero because it makes them feel good inside.

In reality, speaking for myself, I subscribe to the "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, well then it's probably a duck." And there is way too much first-hand reporting about Lance and doping topics, and way too much circumstantial evidence, for me to think that the duck I'm looking at is anything but a duck.

If people were saying "I think he is doping for these reasons..." I wouldn't have reacted. I am responding to the contingent stating, as fact, that Lance is doped, and that you have to be blind to not see it. Flyer (to name one) is responding to posts, that do not claim Lance is clean attacking the posters for thier "lack of ability to see the obvious".

Well BZZZZT your wrong. I guess we disagree.

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