For three weeks I have tried to enter a dialogue on the state of cycling and the doping issue.
It seems to me that the fanaticism of Lance has reached religious proportions and the majority of people in rbr are more willing to suspect that his brakes were sabotaged than even consider the possibility that Lance as well as the majority of the peloton is doping either by substance or method.
On one hand we have several hundred urine and blood tests that give the result 'negative' which is not the same as 'not doping'. It is only that of the substances and methods that are known and tested, that none were detected.
On the other hand we have a huge body of evidence, testimony of actual knowedge by qualifed and probable witnesses, performance deviations and conflicting statements and actions by suspected individuals and their coaches.
Many activities that are way more apparent, public and impact to a considerable greater percentage of the population have remained in debate despite very few having 'actual knowledge' of the event.
Very few people have 'actual knowledge' of anything of impact. We rely constantly on our own thinking processes and ability to accumulate, assimilate and codify knowledge that comes to us second hand yet has a far greater impact on our lives than this subject. It makes little sense to me how anyone here can justify their position by repeating 'show proof'. Even if I were an ex-doctor with actual knowledge the subject would still remain under debate here.
Michael Shermer, (the RAAM cyclist) now runs a magazine called Skeptic, writes:
"A sizable body of literature exists on the scientific method and there is little consensus among the authors. This does not mean that scientists do not know what they are doing. Doing and explaining may be two different things. For the purpose of outlining a methodology for the rational skeptic to apply to questionable claims, the following four step process may represent, on the simplest of levels, something that might be called the “scientific method”:
1. Observation: Gathering data through the senses or sensory enhancing technologies.
2. Induction: Drawing general conclusions from the data. Forming hypothesis.
3. Deduction: Making specific predictions from the general conclusions.
4. Verification: Checking the predictions against further observations. "
I am hoping to progress through this method by continued observation, (gathering more evidence), and testing the logical conclusions with an informed audience. It seems that we can't even get to step 2 when the majority of participants end up never considering the information or allowing the possibility.
I find it cowardly that the majority of you here are afraid to test your conviction of Lance other than to ask for actual knowledge and to point to the current testing results.
As we know, governing bodies have a conflict in their interests, the USOC and Carl Lewis is an example that took almost 15 years to reveal.
As we know, athletes and coaches have a conflicts of ego, reputation and pecuniary interests with the truth. It wasn't until liver damage attacked Thevenet that he admitted his involvement
with doping in attempt to alleve his own conscience on doping.
I have posted a large amount of information and would like to discuss with others the issues not because of bitterness, jealousy or to be an agitatator but to possibly collectively raise awareness and out of that create change that brings about the honesty, art and drama that clean cycling can be.
It seems to me that the fanaticism of Lance has reached religious proportions and the majority of people in rbr are more willing to suspect that his brakes were sabotaged than even consider the possibility that Lance as well as the majority of the peloton is doping either by substance or method.
On one hand we have several hundred urine and blood tests that give the result 'negative' which is not the same as 'not doping'. It is only that of the substances and methods that are known and tested, that none were detected.
On the other hand we have a huge body of evidence, testimony of actual knowedge by qualifed and probable witnesses, performance deviations and conflicting statements and actions by suspected individuals and their coaches.
Many activities that are way more apparent, public and impact to a considerable greater percentage of the population have remained in debate despite very few having 'actual knowledge' of the event.
Very few people have 'actual knowledge' of anything of impact. We rely constantly on our own thinking processes and ability to accumulate, assimilate and codify knowledge that comes to us second hand yet has a far greater impact on our lives than this subject. It makes little sense to me how anyone here can justify their position by repeating 'show proof'. Even if I were an ex-doctor with actual knowledge the subject would still remain under debate here.
Michael Shermer, (the RAAM cyclist) now runs a magazine called Skeptic, writes:
"A sizable body of literature exists on the scientific method and there is little consensus among the authors. This does not mean that scientists do not know what they are doing. Doing and explaining may be two different things. For the purpose of outlining a methodology for the rational skeptic to apply to questionable claims, the following four step process may represent, on the simplest of levels, something that might be called the “scientific method”:
1. Observation: Gathering data through the senses or sensory enhancing technologies.
2. Induction: Drawing general conclusions from the data. Forming hypothesis.
3. Deduction: Making specific predictions from the general conclusions.
4. Verification: Checking the predictions against further observations. "
I am hoping to progress through this method by continued observation, (gathering more evidence), and testing the logical conclusions with an informed audience. It seems that we can't even get to step 2 when the majority of participants end up never considering the information or allowing the possibility.
I find it cowardly that the majority of you here are afraid to test your conviction of Lance other than to ask for actual knowledge and to point to the current testing results.
As we know, governing bodies have a conflict in their interests, the USOC and Carl Lewis is an example that took almost 15 years to reveal.
As we know, athletes and coaches have a conflicts of ego, reputation and pecuniary interests with the truth. It wasn't until liver damage attacked Thevenet that he admitted his involvement
with doping in attempt to alleve his own conscience on doping.
I have posted a large amount of information and would like to discuss with others the issues not because of bitterness, jealousy or to be an agitatator but to possibly collectively raise awareness and out of that create change that brings about the honesty, art and drama that clean cycling can be.