Lance positive?

[stilesiii]

Considering all the scrutiny Lance has faced in years past, his current performance, do you think he will be caught doping in this years Tour?

I suspect that there are plenty of people with the ASO and organizers who would like to nail "pharmstrong". Will they get him? If he is not popped, does this add to the credibility of his claim of never doping?

IMO if he finishes on the podium and is not popped during the Tour, I think the "pharmstrong" moniker should go away, because he's either clean are the greatest cheat ever.

8 podiums, no positives. Incredible!

 

[jimmypop]

As the Landis case demonstrated, even a rider with an obvious positive test and a case of flagrant doping doesn't mean that fans will think the rider is doping.

Same goes for Armstrong testing/not testing positive: it's a religion now, fans' opinions won't be changed.

Armstrong cleverly couched doping allegations in a cloud of xenophobia, so testing positive only means that the French conspiracy is alive and well. Lance may not be bright, but his handlers are experienced in PR.

Not testing positive, on the other hand, may mean that he's not doping, but a more likely scenario is that he's simply not testing positive. In other words, he may be doping, just like the scores of other cyclists who are doping and are not testing positive.

 

[jimmypop]

As the Landis case demonstrated, even a rider with an obvious positive test and a case of flagrant doping doesn't mean that fans will think the rider is doping.

Same goes for Armstrong testing/not testing positive: it's a religion now, fans' opinions won't be changed.

Armstrong cleverly couched doping allegations in a cloud of xenophobia, so testing positive only means that the French conspiracy is alive and well. Lance may not be bright, but his handlers are experienced in PR.

Not testing positive, on the other hand, may mean that he's not doping, but a more likely scenario is that he's simply not testing positive. In other words, he may be doping, just like the scores of other cyclists who are doping and are not testing positive.

EDIT: Why is "Google Page Ranking" substituted for 'P R'? PR!

 

[steve]

EDIT: Why is "Google Page Ranking" substituted for 'P R'? PR!

Some default settings left in the forum config, sorry about that.

 

[geerfree]

Considering all the scrutiny Lance has faced in years past, his current performance, do you think he will be caught doping in this years Tour?

I suspect that there are plenty of people with the ASO and organizers who would like to nail "pharmstrong". Will they get him? If he is not popped, does this add to the credibility of his claim of never doping?

IMO if he finishes on the podium and is not popped during the Tour, I think the "pharmstrong" moniker should go away, because he's either clean are the greatest cheat ever.

8 podiums, no positives. Incredible!

I don't think anyone will ever know

 

[Bro Deal]

IMO if he finishes on the podium and is not popped during the Tour, I think the "pharmstrong" moniker should go away, because he's either clean are the greatest cheat ever. 8 podiums, no positives. Incredible!

What the hell? Most substances the riders are using are not detectable. Kohl recently said that he only used blood transfusions at the Tour, which are undetectable. Armstrong has already been proven to have doped. Six of his retrospectively tested urine samples came back positive for EPO. The question, if there ever was one, about whether he is a doper or not has been conclusively resolved. Even the two scientists who developed the EPO test have looked at Armstrong's positives for EPO and said there is no question he doped.

 

[leerobbs]

So...and...if they pop him they pop him if they don't they don't. I have always heard that if...ifs and buts were fruits and nuts we would all have a merry christmas. We can go on and on forever about what might have been, but it has not happened... yet. If those old tests had come back earlier and they had another sample to test..then what if? I really don't see the obsession some have with continually bringing up things from the past that cannot be used to confirm or deny anything. If the French had what was necessary to hang Armstrong he would be swinging without question. As much as some of you hate on Armstrong the French despise him more. You may not like Armstrong and that is your opinion and you of course have that right to express it. I just see some sort of mental illness afoot when it seems that "Armstrong doping" can be weaved into every subject matter on this forum. Maybe its just me. I do know without question that this years tour has been energized because Armstrong is riding and for anyone to say it has not indicates they have not been watching the tour. I am not so naive to deny doping has been a big part of this sport in the past and to a lesser degree in the present. I love sports and if I were to slam all the sport where some sort of doping has been present I guess I might be able to follow the annual soap box derby without a problem. Armstrong had been retired for 4 years and this thread did not slow down at all regarding Armstong doping. Some of you folks are a sad bunch to say the least. I would hate to have a Holiday dinner with you and have to hear an afternoon filled with "I hate Armstrong" and did you hear that "Pharmstrong" did this or that. Oh, did you know that he tested positive 5 years ago and it was proof positive, but the French did not do anything about it. Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I think a we have a bunch who are on medication themselves.

 

[kennf]

So...and...if they pop him they pop him if they don't they don't. I have always heard that if...ifs and buts were fruits and nuts we would all have a merry christmas. We can go on and on forever about what might have been, but it has not happened... yet. If those old tests had come back earlier and they had another sample to test..then what if? I really don't see the obsession some have with continually bringing up things from the past that cannot be used to confirm or deny anything. If the French had what was necessary to hang Armstrong he would be swinging without question. As much as some of you hate on Armstrong the French despise him more. You may not like Armstrong and that is your opinion and you of course have that right to express it. I just see some sort of mental illness afoot when it seems that "Armstrong doping" can be weaved into every subject matter on this forum. Maybe its just me. I do know without question that this years tour has been energized because Armstrong is riding and for anyone to say it has not indicates they have not been watching the tour. I am not so naive to deny doping has been a big part of this sport in the past and to a lesser degree in the present. I love sports and if I were to slam all the sport where some sort of doping has been present I guess I might be able to follow the annual soap box derby without a problem. Armstrong had been retired for 4 years and this thread did not slow down at all regarding Armstong doping. Some of you folks are a sad bunch to say the least. I would hate to have a Holiday dinner with you and have to hear an afternoon filled with "I hate Armstrong" and did you hear that "Pharmstrong" did this or that. Oh, did you know that he tested positive 5 years ago and it was proof positive, but the French did not do anything about it. Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I think a we have a bunch who are on medication themselves.

I would say the majority of people who question whether Lance was clean do not "hate" him, although I realize that using the term "hater" makes people sound really hip. And it appears that this Lance doping thread was started by a "lover," not a "hater."

 

[kennf]

8 podiums, no positives. Incredible!

Agreed.
Some other podium finishers with no positives:
Ullrich (7)
Raimondas Rumsas (1)
Ivan Basso (2)
Vinokurov (1 podium placing before testing positive)

 

[leerobbs]

This must be your first time on this forum if don't think people on this forum hate him. The majority of people in general who question his doping don't hate him, I agree. I was referring in my comments to this forum and those who regularly make hateful comments. Of course using the term hater does in fact make me hip. I appreciate you pointing that fact out. I thought everyone would feel that way but you pointed that out and that is really cool. Thanks.

 

[Bro Deal]

This must be your first time on this forum if don't think people on this forum hate him.

Gotta love this. The member with fifty posts is questioning whether the member with six hundred has been on the forum or not.

 

[leerobbs]

Hey Bro. I've been reading/observing/lurking etc. since 2003 the number of redundant comments about hating Lance Armstrong does not make you any more or less seasoned on this forum. However, if you have been here for any length of time you will see a common thread among the comments and that is the hatred leveled at him.

 

[Mansmind]

I've been reading/observing/lurking etc. since 2003 the number of redundant comments about hating Lance Armstrong does not make you any more or less seasoned on this forum. However, if you have been here for any lenght of time you will see a common thread among the comments and that is the hatred leveled at him.

You know what.. you're right. I've been reading this forum as long as you have, and even for a while I posted a lot...although haven't in quite some time. What you're saying is exactly true as far as I'm concerned.

No one really denies that doping is rampant in cycling...I think just about everyone around "here" knows that. For all I know, Lance may have been/be doping as well. It doesn't change the fact of what he accomplished since everyone he was competing against has doped too...many of them now caught (officially). He hasn't been caught officially...yet it seems the whole thing gets blamed on him and his success.

Whether you love him or hate him...the general public is more excited about the tour this year, and much of that is attributed to him being back in cycling.

I haven't posted in a long time, in fact I haven't been cycling regularly in a long time although strangely now I seem to miss by bike a little more. Hmmm.. yeah you could even say that perhaps some of the nudge toward cyling again is perhaps due to Mr. Armstrong coming back himself. So say or feel what you want.. but he hasn't been bad for cycling in my opinion.

Instead of sitting here yapping about it though, I think I'll go ride my bike. He's right though.. this forum was very heavily bent on "hating" Lance Armstrong.

In fact it seemed that way pretty much until sometime in the not too distant past. I've noticed there isn't NEARLY as much "hate" being flung his way. I've been impressed by it in fact...hence I'm reading it much more regularly.

 

[mitosis]

So...and...if they pop him they pop him if they don't they don't. I have always heard that if...ifs and buts were fruits and nuts we would all have a merry christmas. We can go on and on forever about what might have been, but it has not happened... yet. If those old tests had come back earlier and they had another sample to test..then what if? I really don't see the obsession some have with continually bringing up things from the past that cannot be used to confirm or deny anything. If the French had what was necessary to hang Armstrong he would be swinging without question. As much as some of you hate on Armstrong the French despise him more. You may not like Armstrong and that is your opinion and you of course have that right to express it. I just see some sort of mental illness afoot when it seems that "Armstrong doping" can be weaved into every subject matter on this forum. Maybe its just me. I do know without question that this years tour has been energized because Armstrong is riding and for anyone to say it has not indicates they have not been watching the tour. I am not so naive to deny doping has been a big part of this sport in the past and to a lesser degree in the present. I love sports and if I were to slam all the sport where some sort of doping has been present I guess I might be able to follow the annual soap box derby without a problem. Armstrong had been retired for 4 years and this thread did not slow down at all regarding Armstong doping. Some of you folks are a sad bunch to say the least. I would hate to have a Holiday dinner with you and have to hear an afternoon filled with "I hate Armstrong" and did you hear that "Pharmstrong" did this or that. Oh, did you know that he tested positive 5 years ago and it was proof positive, but the French did not do anything about it. Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I think a we have a bunch who are on medication themselves.

Well I hope it feels good to get that off your chest. I bet you've been waiting for 4 years to get stuck back into those Armstrong haters. Good on you. And it sure is good to see all those other armstrong lovers back after their temporary retirement.

 

[nonns]

Lance doping/not doping.
It has been said that all the top finishers in cycling are doping. That may be but it begs the question that if they are then they're all competing on an equal footing and by definition are therefore not cheating. It could be further argued that taking the juice doesn't make them racehorses without doing the work therefore those doping are even more motivated than the rest.

The truth is that whilst doping may be rife we don't actually know who is doing it. Has Lance doped? Well if he had I am inclined to believe that the samples every one refers to would have been hauled out regardless - Lances name would have been total mud. The samples have been alluded to but never used. This is simply not credible if they are Lances and if they are +ve. There must be room for singificant doubt about these samples or he would have been given a very hard time. Is there achance that they are Lances and that they are positive - yeah I guess so but there must also be a view that either due process wasn't followed to the extent that there is a strong likelihood thta they could have been tampered with or that the results could be refuted that the sample results are not credible. Do you ruin someones career for this.

The value of the samples for those who have a bone to pick with Lance have been utilised anyway. The question "Do you beat your wife?" has been asked of Lance and like everyone else who's asked that question his answer damns him both ways.

I have no idea what Lance is like an whether he dopes. He's probably not a very nice person. His focus is so intense on what he does that I suspect he is pretty selfish. He is however an outstanding and exceptional individual and is inspirational for many. There is no formal proof that he is guilty of doping. He does good work for charity. He is helping to make the sport exciting. The American riders have helped to make cycling a great sport and race its profile.

I beelive that until a person is tried in court and found guilty they are innocent. Everything else is hearsay and rumour. The most destructive, valueless and foul forces that one can encounter in modern society.

I hope Lance does well. If he could win an 8th TdF that would be great. if he finishes highly placed that impressive also. If he's found doping and its proved beyond reasonable doubt then he should take his medicine like everyone else. I will be equally happy to see Cadel come out as a winner or Dave Millar or Sastre or Contador or Lepheimer or or or. I want to see great racing.

As for all the other riders. People come out with statements that x or y is clean. if Kohl is right none of them are clean. Why don't the same people start rumours ab out Evans or Sastre or Lepheimer or Menchov or others. Is Dave Millar Clean? I hope so but we can't be sure. Its all very well for Lemond ot cliam to be clean. We'll never know. As for Mercx who the heck knows. I suspect they were no cleaner than the rest either.

Personally I intend to enjoy the sport at the level I see it which is what are the riders doing on the day. History, rumour and all the rest well gee thats b*ll.

 

[QikSmurf]

Lance doping/not doping.
It has been said that all the top finishers in cycling are doping. That may be but it begs the question that if they are then they're all competing on an equal footing and by definition are therefore not cheating. It could be further argued that taking the juice doesn't make them racehorses without doing the work therefore those doping are even more motivated than the rest.

The truth is that whilst doping may be rife we don't actually know who is doing it. Has Lance doped? Well if he had I am inclined to believe that the samples every one refers to would have been hauled out regardless - Lances name would have been total mud. The samples have been alluded to but never used. This is simply not credible if they are Lances and if they are +ve. There must be room for singificant doubt about these samples or he would have been given a very hard time. Is there achance that they are Lances and that they are positive - yeah I guess so but there must also be a view that either due process wasn't followed to the extent that there is a strong likelihood thta they could have been tampered with or that the results could be refuted that the sample results are not credible. Do you ruin someones career for this.

The value of the samples for those who have a bone to pick with Lance have been utilised anyway. The question "Do you beat your wife?" has been asked of Lance and like everyone else who's asked that question his answer damns him both ways.

I have no idea what Lance is like an whether he dopes. He's probably not a very nice person. His focus is so intense on what he does that I suspect he is pretty selfish. He is however an outstanding and exceptional individual and is inspirational for many. There is no formal proof that he is guilty of doping. He does good work for charity. He is helping to make the sport exciting. The American riders have helped to make cycling a great sport and race its profile.

I beelive that until a person is tried in court and found guilty they are innocent. Everything else is hearsay and rumour. The most destructive, valueless and foul forces that one can encounter in modern society.

I hope Lance does well. If he could win an 8th TdF that would be great. if he finishes highly placed that impressive also. If he's found doping and its proved beyond reasonable doubt then he should take his medicine like everyone else. I will be equally happy to see Cadel come out as a winner or Dave Millar or Sastre or Contador or Lepheimer or or or. I want to see great racing.

As for all the other riders. People come out with statements that x or y is clean. if Kohl is right none of them are clean. Why don't the same people start rumours ab out Evans or Sastre or Lepheimer or Menchov or others. Is Dave Millar Clean? I hope so but we can't be sure. Its all very well for Lemond ot cliam to be clean. We'll never know. As for Mercx who the heck knows. I suspect they were no cleaner than the rest either.

Personally I intend to enjoy the sport at the level I see it which is what are the riders doing on the day. History, rumour and all the rest well gee thats b*ll.

One of the best posts I have read in years.

Well done and well put!

 

[poulidor]

Well stated but that is like to say the earth is flat because I don't have see it from space.

Because Lance never sued L'Equipe, Ressiot, LNDD or Ashenden, we can reasonably believe that there were EPO in Lance's 1999 urines. Besides there is other evidences and clues like actovegin and serynges, astonishing come-back and transformation after cancer, witnesses and legal testimonies,...

Why didn't sue a newspaper in France, that have one of the strongest law against defamation, if he was clean?

 

[nonns]

Because it doesn't matter who he sues the speculation will never go away.

Suing is expensive and requires effort and energy and is a huge destraction from his key focuses. I wouldn't sue if in his shoes because it would be one of the most useless expensive time consuming wastes of time I could think of.

If he wins the B*llsh*t goes on and on and if he loses he's just as damned as before but mebbe he's now firmed up the general view of people against him. If he ignores it then he is saying its b*ll and that he doesnt think its worth bothering with. He diminishes it and doesn't waste his time with nonsense - fight the battles you can win.

defamatory stories are defamatory stories. Does Lance beat his wife. Lance said no but none belives him. If he said yes then everybody would say see we told you so. The guy can't win.

 

[Bro Deal]

defamatory stories are defamatory stories. Does Lance beat his wife. Lance said no but none belives him. If he said yes then everybody would say see we told you so. The guy can't win.

Bad analogy. We have evidence that Armstrong doped--lots of it. We have no evidence that he beat his wife. Artificial EPO was found in his urine. Witnesses heard him admit to PED use. Teammates have said he encouraged dope use. His personal assistant found steroids in his bathroom. Et cetera. Et cetera. Armstrong doped.

 

[nonns]

Nope what you are claiming is proof is in fact heresay and nowt more. Proof is when they can slap it on a table otherwise it is little more than their word against his. If two people say Evans dopes does that make it true?

Proof will be when they do a test and declare the result as they have for Vinokourov or Basso or Hamilton or any of the others.

Until that point there is rumour finger pointing and b*ll leavings and that is all.

That said there is nothing Ican say to convince you so you beleive what you believe and I will sit on the fence. I still maintain it doesn't actually matter. I prefer to believe that they're all doping. Its still quite a spectacle.