I think alot of it depends on your definition of doping. You call it doping, he calls it supplements.

Much has been said about the message passed to children and those just starting to get serious in the sport when they see the pros using performance enhancing drugs. The suggestion is made that the message they receive is that it's common and therefore, there really isn't anything wrong with it.

Posts and opinions such as the one above cause me to contemplate the message passed to them by those who require no proof before making accusations. It would seem that those new in the sport might as well dope since even if they don't, should they rise to the top of the sport, there will be a fair number of people who allow their bias and bitterness to suggest that they are doping and even to act as though it's absolute fact even in the absence of the slightest tangible evidence.

Is this the message we want to pass to the newbies? Go ahead and dope because no one will believe that you aren't doping anyway.

of course he does, just like any other top rider..No way in the world I believe someone doing 100rpm on Alpe D'Huez is going the 'natural way'.. But I don't mind, since in my opinion, no top cyclist is clean..

The former USPS doctor you're talking about claimed that Tyler and another USPS team member both approached him at the same time for doping purposes and "seemed to represent the team," as this doc put it. Tyler's a pretty straight-up guy and on his web site (www.tylerhamilton.com) he gives a pretty strong response denying this accusation. Lance isn't doping. His VO2 max uptake is just off the charts. Because of this he produces very low levels of lactic acid. He also trains like a man possessed. He's just one of those guys, genetically gifted with a strong will. What can you say?
-Peter

Amen brother I'm with you.

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

You must be aware by now that an admission to taking illegal performance enhancing drugs is the equivalent in the imposition of sanctions as failing a drug test.

No athlete admits to taking PED's for this reason. They only finally concede after they have challenged the drug testing regime and the case has been proved against them. The US track sprinter, Kelli White, did admit to taking drugs but I understand there was mounting circumstantial evidence.

Would you expect Tyler Hamilton (or any other rider) if on PED's would admit to taking drugs without a positive test if it meant automatic banning from the sport for 2 years?

Read about the BALCO case. The athletes and their chemists were ahead of the testers and could confidently use variants of particular drugs knowing there was no test for them. BALCO even had a mole inside WADA secretly keeping them updated on the introduction of new drug tests. All those athletes could claim "I'm clean because I never failed a drug test."

__________________
VF

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

If anyone has read his second book, "every second counts" you would see that there are a couple of things that are very important to him. Winning, his family and his reputation.



On the one hand, winning might make him dope, as it has done for so many others.



However I think his family and his reputation are more important than winning. He openly states that he would hate for his kids to grow up with a father that was known as a doper. He also states that if his reputation was damaged it would also damage the cause that he has fought so hard for. So with that said I leave you to make up your own mind. Just remember, our society is based around the presumption of innocence. So until someone produces evidence to the contrary in an appropriate forum, we have no choice but to take him at is word and admire is achievements

I've seen reported that Lance is the most tested athlete on the planet. My faith has been shaken by Millar but I'm clinging onto my believe Lance is clean.

If he had come from no where won the Tour de France and world champs then disappeared again I think that would be very suspect. I think his consistency in this single race for the past 6 years whilst continually being tested is good proof that he isn't doping.

If the opposite is ever proved I'll be gutted.

There were some good articles on doping in cycling in the comic this week. Nicole Cook had some good points.

I really don't thing Lance would take the risk of doping. He has to much to loose if he did.

I think Lance is taking PED's.

Even amateur racing in Europe is fast and the best amateurs are riding as motorbikes. When amateurs race with the pro's, amateurs have no chance even against 2nd and 3rd division pro's. Lance doesn't ride any smaller races where there are also amateurs riding, Lance rides only in bigger races where there's no weak riders, only better half of the pro peloton. So Lance races with the best of the peloton and still beats them in Tour. OK...Now people start to write replies saying "Lance have Tour as his only goal...". Do you think Basso didn't have only one goal for 2004 after his 2003 Tour?

I know many European amateurs take PED's and they still don't have any chance in pro peloton. There's no not gifted in international amateur peloton in Europe. Lance beats the best of the pro peloton and he's doing it just because he's so gifted and he trains so hard when everybody else are just drinking and eating. Knowing how riders train, there's not too many hangover mornings.

I change my opinion a bit...It's really hard to think Lance is clean IMO.

__________________
Pain is just weakness leaving the body.

So again we have the opinion that if you're winning you must be doping. Is it possible that one rider would be faster than the rest even if doping weren't a factor? Without doping would all the riders cross every line simultaneously?

Someone has to win. It might as well be the smartest, fittest, strongest one.

Drugs have a half life. You can't tell what the dosage was from the amount in the test.

It's relatively unlikely to have very high performance differences between top level athletes. The natural composition of the human body can only go so far with genetics - look at the % difference between most athletes in athletics or swimming, then look at the % difference between riders in important events in the tour (TT's, critical climbs, etc). This doesn't mean they are doping, but requires explanation. Doping is one rational explanation - others are available.

Yes, but I heard that the chemotherapy he had lowered his lactic acid... If that's true then he could easily ride longer/harder than others...

__________________
LiveSTRONG

What's a fact? How do we deal with them? All of us have very limited access to facts. Noone here knows the answer for sure; if you believe LA is clean, that's speculative and not fact based. If you believe he dopes, same goes. On the limited facts we have, we form a conclusion - telling accusers to put up or shut up is just silly. The level of proof required for speculation is lower than that for a criminal trial. To hold the opinion that LA dopes you don't need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, you just need to think that it provides the best explanation of what you do know. Just the same as people who think he doesn't dope.