Do you think lance is doping? yes or no

andrello

For your information, when one loses a testicle the other compensates by producing more testosterone. Losing a testicle would never warrant testosterone treatment. However, there is evidence that steroid use can cause testicular cancer. But this does not necessarily have anything to do with LA.

HellonWheels

I wondered this very same thing....because a few years ago, I lost one ovary (the female equiv to the testicles in men)...for a few weeks I was a mess...mood swings, sweats, etc...as if I';d gone thru menoipause. But then the other ovary took over the job of both, as my dr said would happen.


The shock of surgery makes the one shut down temporarily, and it takes over in a couple of weeks. So its possible that for two weeks or so, Lance had test supps. But he wouldnt need it beyond that, only until the one good testicle took over.

__________________
"He who conquers himself is the mightiest warrior"--Confucius

closesupport

i think maybe you where right, his mother didn't hold him enough, gosh! even his dad didn't wnat to stay with him, i bet he is one of those ugly kids, that had venetian blinds on his pram drawn to keep out prying eye's, you know the ones i mean, the prams that you see outside the local store, whilst she goes around town.

i can picture him now, sat in his high chair, mum with her catipult to afraid to get to close, obviosly he had a very high iron diet, maybe nuts and bolts, maybe more than one or 2 misses would explain a number of things.

Beastt

This is perhaps one of the better examples of how having only part of the information can lead to drawing conclusions on insufficient and misunderstood grounds. There was no "admitting" to the use of EPO because admission suggests confessing to having done something wrong, immoral or illegal. There is nothing inappropriate about the use of EPO when undergoing chemotherapy. Replenishing red blood cells, (erythrocytes) is the medically approved use for EPO and is perfectly appropriate for a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy.

Without EPO, many chemotherapy patients might not survive because too few red blood cells would exist to provide even the minimum amount of oxygen to the body tissues. Chemotherapy works by destroying living cells. Those cells which reproduce the most frequently are more highly subjected to the affects of the toxins and radioactive materials in the chemotherapy drugs. That's why a person undergoing chemotherapy loses their hair. Hair cells reproduce rapidly and as such become targets for the chemotherapy drugs. Cancer cells also reproduce at a rapid and very uncontrolled pace which is why chemotherapy is effective in the treatment of cancer. But erythrocytes, (red blood cells) have a life span of about 120 days which also puts them at risk. Erythropoietin, (EPO), causes the body to produce extra red blood cells which helps to offset the loss of oxygen carrying cells in the blood. It's a very standard medical treatment.

Does one "admit" to using morphine when such is used for pain control under a doctor's supervision? No, certainly not. And to suggest that such use is wrong shows a very clear lack of understanding about the whole subject. Perhaps it is wise to do a little research and learn about the subject before proclaiming anyone guilty or twisting the 13-loops of rope above the noose. Is it a foregone conclusion that once someone has utilized morphine under appropriate medical conditions that they will continue its use under an illegal status? Again, certainly not. Any overabundance of blood cells produced in Armstrong's body while undergoing chemotherapy would have died within 6-months of his last dose of EPO. There can be no legitimate connection between his cancer treatments and any accusation of current doping. People are quite capable of utilizing medications for their intended purpose then discontinuing their use when they are no longer needed. The suggestion that former use proves current use is totally unfounded. Nothing in the statement posted by alpedheuz_86 either proves or disproves the current use of illegal substances.

Beastt

I see your suggestions and from where they are drawn. I find it a bit telling that my "conclusions" were brought into question when my only conclusion was, "Nothing in the statement posted by alpedheuz_86 either proves or disproves the current use of illegal substances."

Lance's pudding may indeed be doped. Then again, it may be that it isn't and most people are considered to be deserving of the benefit of doubt when proof is lacking.

I'm not sure exactly how anyone can consider it a wrong conclusion to say that it neither proves nor disproves anything. To say otherwise is to conclude that his need for EPO during chemotherapy is proof that he is doping or proof that he is not. I see no way that it can be proof of either. If it were, then the discussion would be closed. Proof would exist and there would be no basis for debate. Certainly it doesn't prove anything. To claim that it does would be to suggest that everyone who has ever needed EPO for legitimate medical purposes but also has an interest in peak athletic performance would also have to be cheating through the continued use of EPO. That would be a fairly huge and unfounded claim.

The whole basis of the discussion would seem, to me, to be unfounded claims. You can have suspicions and reasons for those suspicions but to call them anything more than suspicion would be a bit premature and more than a bit irresponsible. Seems to me the Pope does an inordinate amount of traveling. Maybe he's smuggling cocaine in his underwear. Then again, maybe he isn't. There isn't any proof, just a suspicion, (albeit an intentionally flimsy one), based on something which might be said to be circumstantial evidence. Clearly there is more reason to suspect that Lance may be doping than to suspect that the Pope is a drug smuggler, but hopefully the point is made.


When I was a teenager I had long hair and perhaps to some looked the part of one who might be experimenting with illegal drugs. I even played in a rock band and some of the members certainly did use marijuana. Perhaps this was guilt by association. As it turned out, I ended up in the chair of an oral surgeon who made the mistake of assuming I was using drugs and would therefore have a high drug tolerance. He found out the hard way that his assumption was incorrect and I found out the hard way what happens when someone with a low drug tolerance is given a high dose of Demerol. Conclusions drawn on circumstantial evidence are often wrong. When proof is lacking what you have left is reasonable doubt.


Yes, it could be. Then again, it might not be. Just as the Pope could be using all of those trans-continental flights as a way to smuggle drugs. The existance of circumstances and opportunity is where suspicion starts, not where conclusions should rest. A man may own a firearm and have a well known hatred for another man found dead from a bullet wound. Reason for suspicion would exist. No valid conclusions may be drawn.


Is there even a single rider who makes it to the Tour de France who doesn't have a commitment to success? Does that mean they're all doping? Does it mean that everyone world-wide with any committment to succeed at any endeavor must be cheating? It may be a more valid question to ask how a man could continue to use drugs which may lead to dreaded diseases after having come so close to dying of such a disease. Neither question offers any real answers.


No argument. Such is the nature of most drugs developed for medicinal or even non-medicinal purposes.


The same reason we assumed none of them were until proof was presented perhaps?


Perhaps the one truth of human nature which stands above all others is that people will expect from others what they would expect from themselves. Those who would cheat would expect others to do the same. Those who would let principle and ethics allow them to lose before winning unethically would expect that others would hold similar values.

Greg Lemond is a singular interesting factor in this whole debacle. So few seem to recognize that while Lemond maintains a status of having raced clean, he still holds the record for the fastest time trial ever ridden in a Tour de France. And yet, he assumes Lance is guilty of doping because he claims that no one could perform as Lance does without some form of cheating. Perhaps Lemond is the voice of experience? Perhaps he is the voice of jealousy. Perhaps Lemond knows something he isn't telling. But if so, why won't he tell us what he knows? If he doesn't know something he's not saying, then his comments are no more than conjecture and suspicion. The very idea that Lance would confess to anyone not among his very closests and most trusted of friends or family is suspect. Why would anyone do such a thing? Certainly that doesn't mean it didn't happen but it offers reason to believe that it didn't.


A very valid question. Perhaps they're all telling the truth and Lance is lying. But if so, how many people who are close enough to Lance to know the truth are also lying? Why should we suspect they are all lying and only the people you mention are telling the truth? It's a two-sided coin which leaves us with no answers.


Perhaps the most obvious trait about common sense is that it is nothing close to common. It's indeed a rare trait and seemingly growing more scarce over time. Is it common sense to assume that because there is an association with someone accused, (last I heard Dr. Ferarri had been accused but not convicted. Perhaps I'm behind on the events since I have to scrounge for every shred of cycling-related news), who needed a chemical which can be used as a PED to overcome cancer and has shown a remarkable ability to win, that they must be using drugs? If such were common sense then the entire operational premise of the American justice system is built on a lack of common sense. There is an assumption that if someone appears to be guilty, even if only to a few, their guilt is a foregone conclusion. I find it fortunate that such is not the case. Common sense, to my mind, dictates that only when proof exists can conclusions of guilt be drawn. A man with blood on his hands, standing over a bloody body may appear to many to be the suspect of an assault or attempted murder. However, I have been in that situation more than a few times as an ambulance attendant. When you know all of the facts, the obvious conclusion can be very different from that drawn when only a select few circumstances are known.


Indeed. Which is what the debate is all about. To me, if he is doping I will be disappointed. If he isn't, we'll probably never know. While proving someone is doping can be difficult, proving they're not is nearly impossible.

Beastt

Obviously this is the kind of thing than can go around in circles for an indefinite period of time. But just for the sake of clarity, a conclusion is the final resting place of a quandry. Therefore, the lack of a verdict is not a conclusion but the exact opposite.

My point was in regard to the suggestion that the combination of Lance's former need for EPO with his success in the Tour de France, offer proof that he is doping. Such circumstances offer nothing even remotely related to proof of anything concerning doping. Such a suggestion is not only inaccurate, it is completely fool-hardy.


I believe the proper term is "reasonable doubt" rather than "all shadow of hypothetical doubt", but I think I grasp your point. In this particular situation you have a former patient who required EPO, the fact that EPO can be misused as a performance enhancing drug and the fact that Lance has now done what no other athlete in the history of the Tour de France has done; win 6 Tours. You also have the fact that he claims he's clean, his drug testing has never shown any indication of unethical practices and the suggestion you make that PEDs may have lead to his cancer would suggest that continued use, would raise his risk of contracting cancer again to incredibly high levels. The prior three points can be considered suggestive of the use of PEDs. The latter three are suggestive that he is not using PEDs. That's what's called, "reasonable doubt". There exists circumstances which suggest to a reasonable person, doubt to suspect that he is doping.


From what theory of law comes the conclusion that circumstantial evidence is the strongest form of evidence? I think one would be hard pressed to make such an argument in a court of law, the classroom of any law school or even a high school debating team. If a man is said to hate another man and overheard to say that he planned to kill him, this would be circumstantial evidence should the other man turn up dead. However, if ten people witnessed the murder, the bullets from the corpse match those of the gun owned by the accussed and the accussed willfully confessed to the killing, such is not considered "circumstantial" and is indeed, much stronger evidence than the former. If drug testing shows residues and effects of an illegal drug and the athlete confesses to having used such illegal substance, that is far stronger evidence than the word of associates and peers. Hearsay verses physical evidence and willful confession.


When one has no doubt in the presence of reasonable doubt, then perhaps the strongest evidence is in regard to the values applied to the standard of reason by the one placing himself in the seat of judgement. It's a lynch-mob mentality and generally regarded as inappropriate, inaccurate and somewhat primative.

fallensparrow

Wow you guys are still at it, lol. Beasst likes to debate simply for the pure sport of it as I've seen on other forums... right Beasst? "Psst! ... I heard Lance likes to eat beef too!" The American public in general are woefully nieve about the extent of drug use by their athletes. Start a poll asking with governor Schwarzenegger used drugs during his competitive days and you'd get similar results. Whats evidence is there that Arnold used/uses drugs during his career?... no more no less then what Lance has stacked up against him. I prefer to use just a little bit of common sense. If it walks/swims/flies like a duck, has feathers and ^quacks... do you really need that DNA test to confirm that its a duck? Beasst would argue yes...and then wonder why his pet "dog" doesn't like his milk-bones....

fallen^sparrow

tamman2000

If you are going to make an analogy, make it accurate. Arnold does not deny having used 'roids extensivly. He also appeared on video smoking marijuana in a 1977 documentory (I believe that he also used steroid in the film).

There are mountains of evidence against the governor.

If you had video of Lance using banned substances, or he admitted freely to using them, I have no doubt that Beasst would conclude that lance doped (I know I would).

closesupport

Yes! arnold may have used roids, they aren't banned in the sport that he contended in, so he wouldn't get discredited although since they are a banned substance in athletics and cycling, maybe there is a little reluctance there for lance to admit the use of any doping methods, if he ever did or has..

only he and his physician would really know, i guess.

fallensparrow

Give it time as we currently see with U.S. Track and Field and their athletes... everything eventually comes out. Fortunately though the American public has a real short attention span and doesn't care about anything older then the previous seasons Survivor episode winner. Honestly, as has been said over and over, the only way the American public would believe it as %100 fact is if Lance personally comes out and admits to the fact, which won't happen any time soon with the kinda money he's making these days. From what I've seen around these parts there seems to be a pretty solid concensus that even Tyler was either framed or was the victim of some kinda lab mix up... so even when somebody is proven to be doping no one believes it anyway. My opinion isn't going to change and neither will the Lance = CLEAN fan base... so I say we forget about it and look forward to next years RACE SEASON! ... (or get on with business if your one of those cyclo-cross freaks).

fallen^sparrow

Beastt

Firsty, it's B-E-A-S-T-T. There are two "t"s and one "s". Perhaps that simple error should illustrate to you how easily you can look directly at something numerous times and still not see all there is to see. To you it looked, walked, swam, flew and quacked like a "beasst" and yet it wasn't and never has been - not once. Others have come along behind you and acted in faith that your interpretation of the name is correct. It's a simple, yet convenient demonstration of how easily your idea of evidence and the "sense" of a common variety can leave people convinced of non-factual information.

Secondly, perhaps before you take sport in insulting others you should take a good look in the mirror. Are you not debating the issue? You've clearly stated that Americans are poorly informed in regard to the drug use in professional sports. It sounds rather like you've taken the affirmative side of the debate. That being as it is, you're debating. Why are you posting to this forum? Do you get paid to post here? Are you being forced to post here and offer your opinions to the thread? No, you're here debating for the same reason as everyone else. If it walks, swims, flies and quacks like a hypocrite...

What Lance eating beef has to do with a thread concerned with the possibility of illegal drug use, I have no idea. Perhaps it's only a cheap and poorly thought out shot mearly for the sake of taking a cheap shot. I'll carry that issue no further since it has no bearing whatsoever on the topic of this thread. You're assumption that because you do or believe something, and others do or believe likewise, it's automatically correct and harmless is more than just naive. It's dangerous and irresponsible.

The topic of this thread has nothing to do with Arnold Swarzenegger. It's about Lance Armstrong.

Perhaps we should take a good look at the two opposing ideas here concerning what level of evidence should constitute proof. To you, if it walks, swims, flies, has similar plumage and vocalizations, then you're convinced. Surely a biologist would want a bit more, especially if it were suggested that a new sub-species should be wrecklessly wiped out because... "sure looks like a duck - it's just a form of duck, what's the big deal?" When the fall-out of a possibly wrongful judgement carries such substantial weight, one should always err on the side of caution. You're willing to ruin a man's career and his name because you "think" he's guilty of something for which you have only shards of circumstantial evidence. Were you the one being accused, it's unlikely you would be satisfied with the personal suffering thrust upon you, for only the existence of such flimsy and careless "evidence".

The American justice system is theoretically based on the idea that guilt cannot be established until evidence exists with sufficient weight to eliminate reasonable doubt. Using this system, the country has executed a minimum of 1 in 19 accused individuals wrongly. A full 5% of people executed for crimes in this country have later been found to have been innocent. When you consider how unprofitable, and therefore rare, it is to continue investigations after judgement and sentence are passed, it is appropriate to assume that the 5% figure we know of, is substantially below the actual figure. Keep in mind that this is the result of a system which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now consider what might happen to those numbers should the system change to one that required only a preponderance of evidence, (meaning the bias of the evidence is toward guilt - 51 percent.) Where would we then stand on our ratio of wrongful executions? Where might we stand on our ratio of wrongful convictions on all criminal accusations across the board? As scary as that should be to those who understand the merits of requiring proof, one must look further into this situation and realize that even a preponderance of evidence is lacking in this case. In fact, if you look at what actual evidence exists, there is little more than assumption and conjecture. The solid evidence, all mitigates the assumption that Lance is clean. The only things that can truly be considered aggravating evidence are the relative few who claim to have first-hand knowledge and the fact that he is consistently winning the arguably most prestigious cycling event on the planet.

Your brand of sense is certainly common, what it lacks is logic. It's based on emotion and a personal belief fueled by that emotion.