So here are some facts, and some possible explanations:

Fact: LA had a small amount of corticos in his blood on July 4th but not July 4th 1999.

Fact: Corticos are performance enhancing in large doses.

Explanation: it is unlikely this was an example of doping
BECAUSE: If he had sufficient dose to enhance performance it would still be in his system.
ALTERNATIVE: It is an example of doping - LA responds differently to corticos to the average person or USPS knows a way to dilute/ flush the drugs.

FACT: Members of USPS support staff have claimed the doctor forged the prescription to get LA off.

EXPLANATION: False
BECAUSE they are motivated by money
OR True
(But it seems likely LA was still not performance enhancing - could have been forged to cover an accident)
OR He was performance enhancing.

ETC...

Fact: LA is likely to have a low endogenous testosterone level (due to removal of testi).

Fact: Riders such as Boardman with low testosterone were unable to ride well in tours despite extremely good results for other physical markers.

Fact: Testosterone supplementation is an illegal and recognised form of performance enhancing.

Fact: With the exception of athletes using drugs, it is rare to see a sport dominated by a single individual.

Fact: LA has vehemently denied doping.

Fact: Athletes would vehemently deny doping whether or not they were on drugs.

Fact: The public persona of public individuals (books, media appearances, etc) are very tightly stage managed.

Fact: None of us have the insight to know whether or not LA is telling the truth.

NOW HOW ABOUT THIS:
Fact: No pro cyclist condemned David Millar.

Question: If they felt cheated and angry, why the hell not?

Fact: Simeoni was roundly condemned.

Question:HUH??!?!??!?!!!?

Etc, etc, etc...

Put up or shut up is not a rational argument. It's not an argument at all. I'm basically with TT'er on what I believe, although I think the amateurs use more drugs than pros (due to less stringent testing regimes and the stress of not having a contract) and that the majority of pros are clean. However, I can recognise that in a situation with limited facts speculation and personal prejudice is likely to dictate the conclusion one reaches. We can argue about the speculationm but how about we apply logic not histrionics???

What metric should we use to examine facts? Occam's razor?? Simplest explanation win's out? What reinforces our prejudices? What is commonsense? Is commonsense any help at all? Go study logic people...

I was just trying to point out that very many professional rider is doping and still Lance beats them in those races he rides to win.

Lance's VO2 max isn't extraordinary if it's somewhere around 84ml/kg. There are many riders with same or better VO2 max and many of them can't win GT's. I'm trying to find some info about cyclists VO2 max on the net to prove this. My tested VO2 max is between 73-75ml depending on my weight so Lance's 84 doesn't sound so unbelievable to me. Some finnish cross country skiers have 88-90ml tested vo2 max, but offcourse that's different because they use also upper body muscles. What is so amazing with his rest heart rate? How does heart rate correlate with performance?

BTW did those tumors in Lance's lungs have some effect on his ability to use the oxygene he's inhaling?

__________________
Pain is just weakness leaving the body.

There are cortisones which doesn't show in tests if taken day before but they effect even for two days.

__________________
Pain is just weakness leaving the body.

Doping and drug use is part of sports at the elite level today, and has been for many years. And honestly I don't expect it will ever change... at least in a positive reversal of todays trends. I believe that the public should however be educated on just how general their use has become in international athletics (cycling included). It seems athletes today can take pretty much anything they want while the anti-doping commissions (IOC, WADA etc.) pretty much stick their heads in the sand and shout the "Alls Clear!" directed at the oblivious paying public who believe it. I don't think there really is any way to ever return sport to level of purity it once existed in, and we should quite trying. We should just accept that fact (like competitive Bodybuilding) and quite trying to hide the "dirty little secret." But right there is the crunch of the problem. The public loves to have and believe in their sports heros (Lance, etc.) and telling them that they, (and everyone else by in large) have been using phameceutical aids for years would really "piss in their cornflakes" ... and that can't be allowed to happen because guess who ultimately pays the athletes/teams/sponsors/IOCs salaries? ... the PUBLIC. The whole house of cards would likely come tumbling down if its cornerstone (Public) became disillusioned and turned away... taking their $$$ with them when they left. Its a pretty delicate situation but one they are going to be forced to face and deal with very soon. There are enough documentaries being produced and aired these days that the public is rapidly being educated on the true nature of todays sporting events. How they respond "en mass" we'll have to wait and see.

fallen^sparrow

Fortunately, all of us poor, ignorant, pathetic, silly, little, naive individuals have you here to guide us.

Mate, no worries.

I would like to take this oportunity to correct a commonly held misconception.

We (humans) do not have 2 testicals so that we can produce more sperm/testoterone than if we had only 1. We have 2 for redundancy.

The way the endocrine system works is all based on feedback mechanisms very similar in nature to the types of coputerized controlers you find on everything these days. Some gland produces hormone A when the levels of hormone B reach a certain level, this causes the B producing gland to cut production...

This is how production of testosterone is managed. The loss of a single testicle in no way dictates hormone replacement therapy as a necesity. In other words even though he only has 1, he makes just as much testosterone as he did before.

I follow Formula 1 racing a lot, and there is a certain driver (Michael Schumacher) who, like Lance Armstrong, has also won 6 championships, more or less back to back, and he is going to win his 7th this year. Although driving is not something that promotes doping, as there are no real 'physical' requirements other than being in good shape, Michael Schumacher and his team (Ferrari) is accused of cheating every year. Now everybody bends the rules a bit, and they are no different, but being the best is not automatic grounds for having cheated. I've watched Schumacher do utterly amazing things, having nothing to do with his team, the man alone simply performs at a level unequaled by anyone on the grid. I think this is also true with Lance Armstrong. Besides, Lance has done things strategically and otherwise that doping cannot help in, yet he pulls it all off like it's nothing.

Then why do people like Ullrich and Vainsteins show up in February carrying excessive amounts of weight if they are training just as hard as Lance? Why was Millar freaked out when he called Lance on Dec. 1 and Lance was out doing a long ride? Why does Bruyneel limit how many does a week he lets other team members train with Lance after seeing Lance destroy them day after day in training? Why is it news when Lance rides Alpe d'Huez four times in one day? Or when he rides a climb, gets to the top and decides to do it one more time because he "doesn't get it?" It will be interesting to see you answer these questions while sticking to your above assesment.

Samual Abts book "Pedalling for Glory" in 1996 details the following :
LA "Yes Tony (Rominger) says that Jalabert was always a great rider but that
he was inclined to be lazy.
Then in 1994, it was noticeable that Jalabert started to really motor - and I mean really motor.
Tony is still good friends with Jalabert and Jalabert was telling him that he put
phenomenal milage in during winter 1994/95 and that's how he started to win
so many races.
Tony gave me the stats and I have tried to match that level of preparation
thousands of kilometres training and training. "

Compare LA and Jalaberts results in 1995 and 1996.
The training excuse that LA offers up for his "improvement" between 1998-2004, was tried in 1995-1996.
It didn't work back in 1995-1996.
So why should we accept that it can work between 1999-2004 ?

Well here are a few reasons:
1) JaJa's training was never specified to Lance's abilities as his training is now
2) Lance was not the same rider then as he is now because of the way his musculature came back after cancer
3) It's not about the number of miles but the quality of those miles
4) JaJa was a talented sprinter who learned to climb well, Lance was someone who could already climb and win 10 day tours before cancer and was given a $1m contract to be on the Tour podium
5) Lance was very unfocused back then

Anything else?

Exactly! It's just like this silly belief that Albert Einstein was really smarter than all of the other top physicists in the world. I mean really! Wake up! How can anyone believe that one person can be so much better than the other people in his field? Do you really think that these other physicists and mathematicians sat around not studying, hypothesizing, or calculating while ol' Einstein was burning the midnight oil with his sliderule? You probably believe that Einstein's brain actually had 73% more functioning neurons than a normal brain just because that's what was reported by those who examined his brain after he died. If a person were really that smart, he'd be burning twice as many calories as an average person, just in mental exercise! If you look back at his earlier performances, you'll find that he failed the entrance exam for the Federal Polytechnic Academy in Zurich, Switzerland. And now we're supposed to believe that he was some sort of brilliant, freakish, genius?

Then again, maybe I'm just making an example for those who seem to feel they're just naturally smarter than the rest of the world and are here to set us poor idiots straight.

I guess I am a cynic when it comes to sudden improvements in cycling performances.

If I recall correctly Albert developed the theories of general relativity and
specific relativity while working in the Post Office !

Another mysterious superhuman arising from the financial support of USPS?


Not that it's terribly relative to the thread, but I've heard it stated, (actually I think I read it somewhere), that the basis for the Theory of Relativity came to Einstein while he was riding a bicycle. He noted how a road that seemed quite flat in a car displayed some rather obvious inclines when experienced from the seat of a bicycle. The degree of incline and hence, the forces of gravitation, were relative to the viewpoint of the observer. Perhaps another myth but a fun story at the very least.