What would it take to convince you Armstrong is clean?

[flintman]

I take it your not religious then

There are miracles you should have more faith

Im sure anyone being as near to death as him would afterwards have had their life change quite significantly

What's religion got to do with this? If you wanna talk about the "miracles" of religion, then bring it on. We can start with how many people Pope Pius III and Pope Innocent V had slaughtered in the name of Christ, just for the kickoff. But that should take place in a more general forum.

However, this board is about cycling. To answer the title of this thread, I don't know? It's obvious the peloton has a long history with drug use. I suppose there will be a cloud hanging over the sport for sometime to come? THG wasn't known or detactable either, and most of us know how that whole thing has begun to unwind?

Now, from what records (lack of) that MLB has disclosed about their infant drug testing program, it would seem Barry Bonds is as clean as a slate. 99% of SF Giant fans believe it to be true. Just look at the guy, I'm pretty damn sure he's pumping something.

 

[Ted B]

This revisionism listed above only started to be published after he came back from cancer and to justify his "improvement"...The entire propoganda published by our Friend Ted B is the reason why one could not posiibly believe that Armstrong is clean.

But of course. There could not possibly be truth in any this, and it explains nothing. It is all just a thinly disguised fabrication that involves the cooperation of numerous unrelated parties, and was conjured solely for the purpose of covering up what must be a huge doping scandal. It's all propaganda, all lies.

Meanwhile, everything Limerickman has posted is just the purest, most honest, unbiased truth. Just listen to Limerickman and you'll learn why everyone hates LA and why you should too. You'll never see Limerickman post any good news about LA, simply because there isn't any. In fact, anything you may read that appears to be supportive of LA is only propaganda and lies. Furthermore, if you read such things more carefully (using Limerickman's techniques), you will really see that they in fact criticize and expose LA for the loser he really is, and rightfully so.

Now pardon me, but I have to go...just got a phone call from Santa Claus.

 

[Rudy]

Look. There has been exactly 1 winner of the Tour since 1998. There have been lots of cyclist who have either tested positive, or been caught in other ways, since that time. Not one of them has won the TdF.

Drugs alone do not make the champion, and it isn't really the point. The point is about the integrity of the titles.

For all I know, LA would win 10 TdF titles if everyone competed clean, since he's that much better. It's certainly possible given what I know about his drive and his desire and his natural athleticism.

Do this mind exercise: Imagine for a minute that LA is doping. Just imagine. How would you feel if you finished 2nd and were riding clean? Or imagine the first 10 finishers are doping. How would you feel if you rode 11th clean?

Of course...but if LA hadn't won 6 TDF or any at all, would you have doubted whether he's doped at all? I don't think so.
When you win the TDF, you're in the spotlight and subjected to criticism (sp?).
So, it's not so much about a bad taste in your mouth or the integrity thereof, but it's also the outright win.

 

[Miguel_garcia83]

Of course...but if LA hadn't won 6 TDF or any at all, would you have doubted whether he's doped at all? I don't think so.
When you win the TDF, you're in the spotlight and subjected to criticism (sp?).
So, it's not so much about a bad taste in your mouth or the integrity thereof, but it's also the outright win.

exactly thats why, do you wonder if kurt van de wouwer is doped??
if armstrong hadnt won any tour we would have the same doubts as we have with this rider

 

[Miguel_garcia83]

i have read on the news that frank vandenbrouckes house has been registed by the police, was frank related to dr ferrari as well? if so why dont they register armstrongs as well?

 

[Miguel_garcia83]

i have read on the news that frank vandenbrouckes house has been registed by the police, was frank related to dr ferrari as well? if so why dont they register armstrongs as well?

sorry i made a mistake
vandenbroucke was related to dr mabusse, but still i dont understand why police registers some houses and not others

 

[mojomarc]

The second biggest is the high red cell count for many pro cyclists. Don't know what Armstrongs is but it seems more than coincidence that many pros have a packed cell volume at about 49% (I think 50 % means you are banned) while mr average is about 42. This indicates some blood doping or EPO use.

First of all, Mr. Average is more like about 45%, not 42% (the "normal" range for men is between 40-54% according to our friends at webmd.com, but I suspect the lower limit set by the IOC is due to the fact that hydration will reduce the percentage, thus keeping a healthy athlete in training below the upper reaches). The difference between the two is not quite as large as you make it out to be. Secondly, the exact same concentrations of packed cell volume can be achieved simply by sleeping in an altitude tent at low altitudes for several weeks (4-6) before the competition can raise that average to 50%, all without any illegal doping. Furthermore, our Mr. Average can also get to 50% by sleeping and training at altitude, something that our TdF riders definitely do as they're preparing for mountain stages. Heck, Mr. Average can also get to 50% by being totally normal and suffering from a bad case of Montezuma's Revenge, if he allows himself to become too dehydrated.

I think the point is clear: your assertion that the only logical conclusion for riders being near 50% is because of doping is erroneous.

Third, at that level, it is unusual for there to be such a big gap between the top players. Armstrong didn't just win, he left the others in his wake.

Once again, as has been brought up a number of times, why just Lance and why not Indurain or Merckx? Both destroyed stages or tours much more effectively than LA ever did, after all? I'm not saying that either of these men doped, nor that Armstrong doped, but rather pointing out the utter futility in pointing to the gulf between first and the field as your evidence, when the margins Armstong has had are hardly historic.

Fourth is Ferrari.

For those who cite this, how many do so because the news reports say that he said EPO was as safe as orange juice, and how many of these folks who say that's the reason are aware that this isn't actually what he said nor remotely close to the point he was driving at? As near as I can tell, the *only* evidence against Ferrari is hearsay, which I suppose is a *kind* of evidence.

Fifth. As shown with david millar, you have to be caught with the stuff. He tested clear for years, probably still would. That's why Lances claims of "never a positive blood" test ring hollow.

I personally sleep better at night with an "innocent until proven guilty" attitude, but it's fine if you don't. I just find it ironic that this position seems to imply that the more negative tests Armstrong has, the more guilty he must necessarily be.

 

[mitosis]

Yeah, any one of my reasons when looked at on its own can be criticised and I accept that.

But when looked at as a whole (as most thinking people would) you see the big picture.

The increase in PCV's you mentioned are correct, but, however you do it, the UCI will ban you if it is too high because of the danger to your heart.

Whatever method that is used to increase PCV, it seems a bit dodgy (I read it somewhere, can't remember and you can criticise me for it) that there are so many pro cyclist hovering just below the limit.

Obviously, when you look at the evidence you can go either way, but in the wake of the denial of and subsequent busting of so many cyclists over the years there is a high level of suspicion when you take everything into account.

And, no, I'm not just suspicious of Armstrong. But he's the one profiting mostly from it.

 

[mojomarc]

But when looked at as a whole (as most thinking people would) you see the big picture.

Looked at as a whole, it is nothing but a pile of flimsy conjecture. I would like to think most thinking people would see that.

 

[gntlmn]

Ann Curry of MSNBC interviewed Lance Armstrong today, and asked him, for the benefit of those who idolize him at home, whether he has ever, ever used performance enhancing drugs. He said no. He didn't just say, "I didn't test positive." He said no.

Absent a shred of evidence to the contrary, perhaps the naysayers ought to back off. Bring evidence before you bring accusations.

 

[mitosis]

Looked at as a whole, it is nothing but a pile of flimsy conjecture. I would like to think most thinking people would see that.

I'm obviously not the only one to think this way. Look at the rest of the posts on this thread - and all the other threads that have dealt with this issue.

I'm happy if you don't agree with me, but just because you can't accept my arguments, it doesn't make them any less valid.

 

[gabopagan]

I usually just read but I feel compelled to post here.
Did Michael Jordan get this much **** about doping?
What about Wayne Gretzky?
Every once in a while an athlete totally dominates his sport. He/she is usually admired becuase his/her actions are viewed as advancing the sport, raising the bar etc. I just don't understand why so many ppl don't see Armstrong like that. Why the hate, the need to find something other than skill and hard work as the cause of his greatness.
If they get LA's **** and blood right after a race, in front of everyone and analyze it right then and there, the Lacne is a doper crowd would remain unconvinced.

 

[mitosis]

I usually just read but I feel compelled to post here.
Did Michael Jordan get this much **** about doping?
What about Wayne Gretzky?
Every once in a while an athlete totally dominates his sport. He/she is usually admired becuase his/her actions are viewed as advancing the sport, raising the bar etc. I just don't understand why so many ppl don't see Armstrong like that. Why the hate, the need to find something other than skill and hard work as the cause of his greatness.
If they get LA's **** and blood right after a race, in front of everyone and analyze it right then and there, the Lacne is a doper crowd would remain unconvinced.

Yet another convincing argument. Did you have a point to make here?

 

[gntlmn]

Yet another convincing argument. Did you have a point to make here?

His point is that some people become convinced not by evidence but by some unknown factor. For example, some people believe it's bad luck for a black cat to cross your path. There is no evidence that will prove that to be true, but they believe it nonetheless. That's the case with these people making the doping accusations. They are much like the people who are superstitious. No amount of convincing or clean anti doping tests will convince them otherwise. They are not interested in the truth. They simply have a belief that they refuse to relinquish in spite of no concrete evidence.

 

[mojomarc]

I'm happy if you don't agree with me, but just because you can't accept my arguments, it doesn't make them any less valid.

Or any more valid, either.

 

[mitosis]

"Once again, as has been brought up a number of times, why just Lance and why not Indurain or Merckx?"

I forgot to add that Indurain and Merckx always had that ability. Lance hasn't.

I have not accused Armstrong of doping. I am pointing out some evidence -that can be interpretted in more than one way.

Equating presenting facts with superstition is a longshot. Your usual objectivity has lost a little with this argument, gntlmn.

 

[gntlmn]

"Once again, as has been brought up a number of times, why just Lance and why not Indurain or Merckx?"

I forgot to add that Indurain and Merckx always had that ability. Lance hasn't.

I have not accused Armstrong of doping. I am pointing out some evidence -that can be interpretted in more than one way.

Equating presenting facts with superstition is a longshot. Your usual objectivity has lost a little with this argument, gntlmn.

It depends on how you interpret what I said. I was referring to anti doping tests. And I stand by what I said. Lance can continue to pass a lot of anti doping tests, and some people will never believe that he's clean. The results mean nothing to them. My argument is limited to the anti doping tests.

As for the evidence you want to examine, it appears that the evidence of Armstrong's talents goes back a long time--all the way back to when he was 8 years old and began swimming competitively. His successes in swimming, running and finally biking have been documented. He was winning US national triathlon events when he was 16 competing against 26 year olds, the best in the nation.

But US cycling was about to have a void vacated by the champion Greg Lemond. The opportunity was there. So instead of following in the footsteps of other greats, such as Honolulu, Hawaii Ironman multiple champions Dave Scott and Mark Allen, he chose to pursue a career in cycling. All the years of swimming, however, left him with quite a bit more body mass than is typical for a Tour rider. It took him quite a few years to get this weight off. In fact, he wasn't successful in this regard until he got cancer.

But for the record, he was still the number one ranked road cyclist in the world in 1996, only to later that year succumb to the effects of cancer. The number one ranking is not something that is handed out to someone on the basis of what people think you will do in the future, but on what you have accomplished already. Clearly, he was on a path to greatness as a young 24 year old.

Anyone who follows Tour races will tell you that age is punishing to the young. They simply do not do as well. Riders in their early twenties are not nearly as resilient as they will be in their late twenties in multi stage races. That's just the way that it is. That some riders have had early greatness and continued greatness is the exception, not the general rule. Eddy Merckx was great in his early twenties, but by the time he was 29, he was finished.

Combine the effects of getting past the early twenties and weight loss, and you have a very powerful effect indeed. The fact that you could not see the transformation in progress from age 24 to 26 due to cancer is not to say it did not happen. Indeed it did.

 

[Saucy]

What exactly would those who are convinced he is doping require before they believed he wasn't?

I am going to forego a discussion of the onerous medical requirements necessary to convince me of this (not sure if its even possible??) and focus on other aspects:

Namely, he never, ever speaks honestly about the drug problem in cycling. He is constantly saying things like "things have changed since 98, we are the most tested riders etc." instead of admitting there is a HUGE problem. Why can't he come out and speak openly [and honestly[/i]about the drug problem? Why is he making negative comments about **** Pound and WADA?

If he were more honest about the drug problem in cycling like say LeMond has been, , then I would be far less inclined to suspect him. And it would certainly help if he lent his name and reputation to the anti-doping crusaders in the sport. Why doesn't he join other clean cyclists trying to clean up the sport?

Re: What would it take to convince you Armstrong is clean?

1) Speak openly and honestly about the drug problem in a way that does not insult my intelligence.

2) Make an effort to clean up the sport that has given so much to him:
- engage in a dialogue with WADA instead of making public statements insulting them.
- pressure UCI to make changes to their doping policies and penalties.
- support other clean riders who are publicly fighting the problem instead of pressuring them from talking.
-support formerly doping riders who are now coming clean and testifying about doctors and teams involved in drug use instead of isolating them in the peloton.
- refuse to remain a client of doctors under investigation for/ repeatedly alleged to be prescribing PED's to athletes.

This would help a lot. Not only would it convince me he was clean but I might actually even start liking the guy.

 

[gntlmn]

Namely, he never, ever speaks honestly about the drug problem in cycling. He is constantly saying things like "things have changed since 98, we are the most tested riders etc." instead of admitting there is a HUGE problem. Why can't he come out and speak openly [and honestly[/i]about the drug problem? Why is he making negative comments about **** Pound and WADA?

If he were more honest about the drug problem in cycling like say LeMond has been, , then I would be far less inclined to suspect him. And it would certainly help if he lent his name and reputation to the anti-doping crusaders in the sport. Why doesn't he join other clean cyclists trying to clean up the sport?

Re: What would it take to convince you Armstrong is clean?

1) Speak openly and honestly about the drug problem in a way that does not insult my intelligence.

2) Make an effort to clean up the sport that has given so much to him:
- engage in a dialogue with WADA instead of making public statements insulting them.
- pressure UCI to make changes to their doping policies and penalties.
- support other clean riders who are publicly fighting the problem instead of pressuring them from talking.
-support formerly doping riders who are now coming clean and testifying about doctors and teams involved in drug use instead of isolating them in the peloton.
- refuse to remain a client of doctors under investigation for/ repeatedly alleged to be prescribing PED's to athletes.

This would help a lot. Not only would it convince me he was clean but I might actually even start liking the guy.

How do you know that Armstrong is withholding information, and Lemond is telling the truth? Isn't this being a bit presumptuous?

As for speaking openly and honestly about the drug problem, this is not as simple as that. If you talk openly, then you must become specific. You must name people, places, times, what kind of doping they were doing, how you've come up with that information, etc. If you get it wrong, you have a slander (or libel) problem on your hands. Doping allegations, as you know, damage a rider's reputation even when the allegations are later proved to be erroneous or false.

I agree that if a rider knows something about another team or rider as regards doping, it should be reported, but not openly and to the general public. That would do more harm than good.

As for formerly doping riders now coming clean, they shouldn't be allowed in the peloton at all. That includes Simeoni and Virenque, David Millar and all the other dopers out there who have been caught. They should be eliminated for life from pro cycling competition.

 

[antoineg]

Did Michael Jordan get this much **** about doping?
What about Wayne Gretzky?

The problem with cycling, which is similar to the problem with some track and field events, is that compared to sports like hockey, basketball, baseball, etc. the skill / endurance ratio is very low.

In other words, success comes from high endurance, not necesssarily high skill. Not to belittle anyone, but the sport-specific skills of hockey far outweigh that of cycling.

So, a drug that has a strong effect on basic aerobic endurance, like EPO, has a very strong correlation with increased performance.

Combine that with the well-known problems that cycling in general has with drugs, and you get where we are today.