Flyer said:
Great points and very well written. Wrong conclusion, maybe.
The "proof" is in the pudding. And this pudding maybe doped.
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.
Flyer said:
Unfounded thesis?? Not so fast. Lance was seeing Michele Ferrari from 1995 on. His hGC levels were off the chart in 1996, but it wasn't until Lance's power output and recovery fell off that more diagnosis was warranted. Why??? If Lance's blood is so closely monitored why not react when his hCG was so high???? maybe Ferrari expected that because he injected the Clomid himself? Is that what happened?
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.
Flyer said:
Could it be because Lance was injecting Clomed (hCG) in order to boost his testosterone even higher, but hold at the allowed 6 to 1 ratio for doping control? (2.5 to 1 is normal) Perhaps Lance's drug use (1990 thru 1996) actually caused the testicular cancer in the first place?
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.
Flyer said:
And what of the pyschology of Lance? Is he not fully commited to success. How could such a man, quit using the very drugs which saved his life in order to pursue a highly stressful and traumatic activity (racing)?
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.
Flyer said:
True enough that these amazing synthetic hormones do indeed work---but they work for BOTH sick people AND healthy people alike.
No argument. Such is the nature of most drugs developed for medicinal or even non-medicinal purposes.
Flyer said:
Alex Zulle, Oscar Caminzend, Richard Virenque, David Miller are all committed to using these anemia and anabolic drugs. Why do we assume Lance is not?
The same reason we assumed none of them were until proof was presented perhaps?
Flyer said:
Lance is by far the most likely to be committed to them based upon 1) human nature, 2) his own convicted cheater performance coach 3) his own peer group 4) his former teammate Steve Swartz story 5) Greg LeMonds revelation of Lance's own confession to him 6) Actovegin (bovine plasma) & insulin and IV feed medical waste discarded by USPO staff and found in the dumpster in July 2000, 7) his former National Junior Teammates Greg Strock & Erich Kaiter all of whom contracted dread diseases after doping using the exact same dope tha Lance did, and finally 8) his former employee, Emily O'Reily who handled oral medications and makeup for the champ.
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.
Flyer said:
Why are all these people lying---but Lance is to be believed???
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.
Flyer said:
Are advertising themes and media targeted public relations images so powerful as suspend objectivity and common sense??
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.
Flyer said:
Great points, just a different conclusion drawn from them.
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.