Do you think lance is doping? yes or no - Page 21

The simple fact is that Lance lives for the Tour and Tour alone. He has not competed in the classics regularly since after the cancer. He has a superior team and big monetary support. Couple that with an unparralled drive and work ethic as well as the fact that he has never tested positive for doping and I think that makes a pretty convincing case.

However, cheating will always be one step ahead of testing, so no one can be certian.

So are you saying that LeMond actually admits to having doped? I was unaware of this but that's certainly what you're implying here.

As for only a few people admitting the truth, all I can say is; of course! If an active competitive rider were to admit to doping he'd be suspended and his livelyhood and career ambitions would be out the window. Like I said in a previous post; if you surveyed every rider in the pro peleton, you can be sure that every single one of them would vehemently deny using PED's if they were directly confronted with the question in a public forum. Especially if they were in front of the cameras as Armstrong has been.

Rule 268 of the UCI Anti Doping Rules states:

A License-Holder who declares or admits to having committed an anti-doping violation shall be considered as having committed that violation on the day of the declaration or admission, unless the facts admitted or declared can be tied to a specific instance, in which case the sanctions in force at the time of the facts shall be applied.

Admission is equal to having a positive test result and incurs the same sanction. One good reason to deny.

__________________
VF

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

Not a bad observation and it certainly may offer partial explanation. But it's also important to remember that the day before that time trial the odds of LeMond winning were considered so far outside the range of what would be possible that Fignon had all but been announced the winner. Add to that the fact that LeMond still had 37 pellets from a hunting accident with a shotgun, embedded in his flesh, (some in the lining of the heart), from a hunting accident that was nearly fatal, and you have the same kind of "evidence" that many are offering to proclaim Armstrong a doper.

Why is it not possible for anyone to consider Lance clean until proven otherwise without being referred to as a "neo Armstrong Cult fan"? This is just two sides of an issue, each lacking absolute proof of anything. Some of us prefer to believe that some people would choose not to cheat. Someday we may be proven wrong. For all we know, Lance may win a seventh then announce that he's been using a banned substance to win, (though this is highly doubtful). But for now, some of us find cheating and cheaters to be beyond reproach and feel that until some proof is produced, it is unfair to classify anyone as such. Others apparently are less disgusted with cheating and/or cheaters and perhaps that is why it is so easy to classify someone as such without the need for substance.

People tend to expect from others what they would expect from themselves.

You obviously didn't count Go check the Hamilton threads on these very forums and you'll see that I either have posted way more about that topic than on this thread, or it's very very close. If you factor in the length of time each thread has been around then there is no question I have been much more active on the Hamilton issue. The reason is simple -- Hamilton got busted.

Go check. You'll see that it's true.

Beastt, I think you had better ascribe blame to MGM who started this thread with the title. He/she set the terms of reference.

If it was "Can anyone provide evidence that LA is doping" the thread would have fallen off the first index page within a week instead of having over 320 posts to date.

LA is not the first Tour winner to be under suspicion about performances. Same applied to Indurain, Riis and Pantani. But when there were rumbles you heard zilch from the Spanish, Danes and Italians in defence.

I believe the sensitive (and usually uninformed) over reaction from the US creates and expands the debate.

I can recall CyclingNews.com reporting in 1999 by copying a French news report on LA's decimation of his opposition in the mountains during the Tour. The report said something to the effect "Not since the now dope proven climbing exploits of Riis and Pantani have they seen another rider so dominate."

Aside from forum meltdowns, there was unprecedented reaction coming from parts of the US as it was considered this article contained innuendo that LA doped. There was a concerted effort to put CyclingNews out of business by writing to the advertisers to boycott CyclingNews and even attempting to get the editor/owner (Bill Mitchell) sacked from his full time job as a lecturer at a University. As a result, Bill sold the business to the current owners in September 1999. He contributed a parting letter on his reasons for getting out.

__________________
VF

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

Lemond's doctor hasn't been convicted of sporting fraud. He hasn't been accused by a former teammate, physiotherapist or soigneur. It's entirely possible that Lemond was on PED's but the evidence against Armstrong is much more compelling.

My point exactly.

You're right I didn't actually count! But I'll take your word for it that you've posted more on the Hamilton threads than this one. I guess it just seems like (at least to me) there has been a lot more back and forth on Armstrong than anyone else with respect to the doping issue.

Well... If LeMond does know something more than what he has revealed, I think it would be in his best interest to let it be known. Making the allegations that he has made without offering evidence to back them up only makes him look bad in my opinion. If Greg Lemond does know something and does end-up revealing it, I for one would have renewed respect for him.

(Emphasis mine) Flyer, please don't take this as an attack, I am just trying to understand your thought process.

I would like to tell you a bit about myself and then ask you a question.

My brain is the part of me that is the most competative. I was on a state champion quiz bowl team in high school, I was also a regional finalist in competative public speaking (forensics). I got a perfect on my AP calculus exam (not just the highest score available, but I didn't miss any questions). I went to a top 10 engineering school, and majored in Applied Mechanics (regarded by many as the most difficult engineering discipline), and because that just wasn't enough, I minored in Computer Science as well. I was president of a student society, and an officer for another. I was in charge of transmission design and construction for our solar race car. There is a plaque in the mechanics building at my Alma Mater that lists the recipients of 3 different awards for every year sice the degree program started in the 60's, on this plaque there are 2 names that appear more than once, mine is one of them. My GPA at graduation was over 3.5. I then went on to work in the highly competative aerospace industry for 3 years doing computational fluid dynamics and turbine design and analysis. I didn't feel chalanged enough there, so now I am on the research staff at a different top 10 engineering school.

I say all of that not to brag, but to prove that I am obviosly highly competative, and capable.

Now, I was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) when I was in the 3rd grade. This disorder makes it difficult to focus on any task for more than a few minutes, an obvious hinderance to the acedemically inclined. I was put on ritalin shortly after my diagnosis, and it helped me greatly in school.

Given what I have told you about me, Flyer. Do you think I currently use drugs to enhance my intelectual performance?

[
Given what I have told you about me, Flyer. Do you think I currently use drugs to enhance my intelectual performance?[/QUOTE]

I myself would not make that judgement about you but would further state that it is obvious that there are many here that most probably don't considering their responses. Maybe medication would help.
Sorry couldn't resist.

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

Also note the differences in meaning between

Using drugs
Doping
Cheating

There is not a perfect correspondence between the three in cycling, let alone in your situation.

For example, you can "use drugs" (Sudafed) and get banned. I would not really consider that cheating.

You can dope with blood transfusions, which I would not really call using drugs.

You can cheat without doping or drug use, say by hanging on to the team car in an attempt to catch a rest.

I guess you can't dope without it also being cheating. Hm.

Using Ritalin is so far away from cheating that I don't really consider it the same ballpark.

Cheating or not. Do you think I use it to gain advantage?

Besides, this is really directed at Flyer, you don't seem to point to the fact that people had medical conditions which required them to use medications that can be used to gain advantage (in the Lance/Greg case it is cheating) at a point in their past as being indicative of continuing use, that is the point (which is so increadably rediculous that I wonder if Flyer really believes it) that I was trying to understand...