exactly, I am in the same boat as you. As a fan of cycling, I find it extremely hard to believe that lance is doping. But when credible people (people who are in the know of cycling) start talking about lance doping (i.e. team doctor, lemond, etc), then things get questionable.

I have no opinion on whether he or the entire pro tour take drugs but read in that the UCI doesn't even have an approved test for Humam Growth Hormones (HGH) yet. My point being that as long as athletes don't use drugs the drugs the testers are looking for they can escape the wrath, no?

Perhaps that over simplifies it a little though as surely a blood test would show certain blood components to be abnormal and therefore suspicious - ALTHOUGH NOT CONCLUSIVE.

Well, I don't believe that he's done them. He said himself it's a shame that whoever wears the yellow jersey always gets bashed about drug use. But if he has done them, then, well... there goes a lot of peoples inspiration down the drain... I obviously don't personally know the guy but he seems like an honest good guy.

__________________
LiveSTRONG

Maybe more than that. He crashed not long after that, and that injury stayed with him long after the Tour.

He didn't fail that test. The dosage was too small to be of performance benefit. The chamois cream was allowed.

My feeling is if he hasn't failed a test, then why is it even brought up or even discussed?

__________________
Scott

HELL NO!!!! there is no way, read his books if you want to hear about the devotion this man has for cycling, he rides and trains when no one else is even on the bike!!!! thats the proof he doesnt dope! the man is a cycling miracle! im not saying he's the best cyclist ever, but he definatley is the best tour de france rider ever and people hate on him just b/c their jealous!! good ridance to all the haters!!! also heres some more proof, like once a week some drug testing couple barges into his house at any time of day and they get their piss sample b/c if he refuses he's out for the season w/ leagal crap!

This is the second time in two days that I've read about his "failed drug test" from the '99 Tour de France. It's certainly not the fault of the public for having this perception since the French media made such a huge issue out of it but he never failed a test.

His sample showed a level of 0.2 from cortisone cream that he applied to a saddle sore. The limit allowed by the UCI is 5, so he had only 1/25th the allowable limit. Even though he was well within the allowable range, the French media tried to turn it into a story worthy of suspicion. We can see how successful they were in that people are still under a misconception about the situation six years later.
---

http://espn.go.com/cycling/france99/stage16.html

"The UCI confirmed that the cream was taken with the permission of the U.S. Postal team doctor. The UCI also said Armstrong was negative when he was tested July 3 and that minute levels - a level of 0.2, according to sources - were detected July 4. To be considered positive, the corticosteroids level must be above 5."

http://members.tripod.com/~ChipDoc/TdF99/AStage16.html

"But Armstrong had little time to celebrate the Tour’s departure from the mountains, as the yellow jersey holder again found himself responding to a news report in French paper Le Monde that a recent drug test had revealed trace amounts of cortisone in a urine sample submitted July 4. The Union Cycliste Internationale cleared the U.S. Postal rider, noting that the trace amounts were far below the level required to confirm a positive drug test and that the substances detected were the result of Armstrong’s use of a topical ointment to treat a saddle sore."

During the 1970's Americans sucked in cycling so bad I remember the French said we Americans did not have the "moral fiber" to compete in such a tough and grueling event. Now that the Americans have officially won nine Tour de France (really 10 since LeMond gave one to Hinault) since the last French victory they use the doping excuse.

What is odd is the French love Virenque and he has been busted as a doper. Why shouldn't they hate him as much as Armstrong? It must be jealousy.

I think Lance Armstrong, who only really contends for one race a year, doesn't need to dope. He can boost his hematocrit by using legal hypoxic training.

Also, consider that he is tested on an average of 24 times a year. I know Millar tested clean as well, but again until some investigation uncovers that LA dopes (and the investigations against USPS so far have found them to be clean), I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Of course Lance is doping. No doubts at all. He cannot be physically so much more 'gifted' than the rest of the best. And if some of the challengers are on dope, as no doubt many are, how can Lance still beat them? If everyone raced clean, in that case Lance would win by 20minutes

The denials of doping are worthless. Millar denied it until caught, as have others. The dopers are ahead of the game and easily avoid detection. All this B/S about been the 'most tested athlete' is garbage, as are the tests. I believe many of the tests are useless and are merely an attempt to try and convince us supporters of cycling that the UCI etc.. are doing something about the probleem. But the tests are worthless.

I also wonder what Lance's post-cancer treatment consists of? The (poor) guy lost a testicle to the disease, so does he receive testosterone injections to provide him with the 'normal' level of a normal man? Without testosterone he would not recover from heavy training or racing, so would be no where (look at Chris Boardman, he had low T and struggled to recover in stage racing and just faded towards the end). So, does he receive external testosterone, and what amounts?

Having recently seen some speculation on his power output before and after cancer, suggesting something like a 7.5% increase in his VO2max before vs. after (impossible for a highly trained pro, damn good for someone in their 2nd year of cycling I would say!) it's all too fishy.

Some of the responses on here are hilarious (jrewill ). Does anyone want to argue based on facts, or just on hope, or from the blind bias of being a US fan/citizen?

Merckx may have used dope, amphetamines, to race on even when tired, but that does not improve performance except allowing an athlete to push beyond their limits. That's pretty tame stuff compared to the products available for performance enhancement these days.

The non-sense about Lance training harder than everyone else. Do you really believe Pro's at the very top level, the very best of the best, the one or two that make it out of each region of a nation, really cannot be bothered training hard? Do you think no one but Lance trains hard? Do you think you can train hard everyday, or longer or harder than everyone else? It's just not possible. Improvement comes when resting. You can only train so much, anyone can, anymore and you will make yourself ill.

Lance's reported VO2max results from way back are good, world class, but certainly not the best ever. I believe Brad McGee has an amazing 90+ VO2max, yet as a clean athlete (I do believe him) he is only just competitive. Saying Lance was beating others in Triathlons at 12 is all well and good, but Lance is physiologically gifted (great VO2max and an attitude in training to push himself and improve his LT) and at 12 (I think he was older though?) he would have beaten people in their 20s who were considered 'good' with the VO2max he had.

And to find some people that still think Marion Jones is clean. Wow. Do you really believe that? With the associations she has had with people from Balco, her husband's name is all over paperwork discovered at Balco? And her performance since her comeback is nowhere near her previous level.

I can't believe some of you are so naive

The question put is "Do you think lance is doping? yes or no"

Willy Voet (ex Festina soigneur) in his book asserted that 95% of the peloton are on performance enhancing drugs. He even named some of the clean riders which would suggest those unnamed are held to be on the juice. He even pointed out that the held view was that Charlie Mottell, the top French rider, could never win a multi stage tour, like the Tour de France, because he was clean and riders needed illegal drugs to at least to recover and perform in the Tour de France.

So I "think" I would pigeon hole Lance Armstrong in the 95% category.

There are a lot of presumptions made by patriotic Americans about Lance Armstrong. That cancer made him more resolute and determined, he would never take PED's because it would harm his body and he was an uncommitted trainer before cancer.

Read LA's first book. He trained hard (supposedly with this new found determination and resolve) for his comeback after cancer but found he was not competitive. He retired in a dejected and depressed state from the sport and by April 1998 had put on excess weight from being idle around the house watching TV all day and consuming beer and Mexican food. I would have thought his oncology doctor would have been appalled at his physical state by allowing his body to deteriorate through alcohol and a poor diet.

He was encouraged to make another comeback and with just a few weeks of training was winning races in Europe. It was not cancer that turned LA around, it was what occurred in circa April 1998 and thereafter.

__________________
VF

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

So what are your facts?You place the same argument as everyone else. He is so much better than my loverboy that he must be cheating. Laugh when you got the goods on him. Get some facts yourself or take a back seat. He got the title so take it like a man. Geez I am so sick of this crap.

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

It is amazing how many people like to express an opinion on a subject for which they have no facts.