# Lance Armstrong



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

Please shut up about LA. He's no longer racing or really involved in cycling. He got out before he got caught so let's move on and try to catch the guys that are doping now, not the guys that used to dope. We all agree that LA is a royal jerk and there is evidence he may have doped. We know the story, it gets brought up in every post so let's just move on. I would prefer to read a post every now and then without having to skip over half a thread full of LA stuff.


----------



## dkweikel (Jan 17, 2008)

Word.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*In a word, no.*



TheDon said:


> Please shut up about LA.


There's no good reason to.



TheDon said:


> He's no longer racing or really involved in cycling..


He casts a long shadow. How about Bruyneel? Is he involved?



TheDon said:


> He got out before he got caught so let's move on and try to catch the guys that are doping now,


If LA is exposed for what he is, I think it may put the kibosh on future doping.




TheDon said:


> not the guys that used to dope.


You mean like Riis? You're in favor of him still having his yellow jersey?



TheDon said:


> We all agree that LA is a royal jerk


Who may have political ambitions



TheDon said:


> and there is evidence he may have doped.


May have doped? This is the reason it won't get dropped.



TheDon said:


> We know the story, it gets brought up in every post so let's just move on..


I love how some people put an arbitrary statute of limitations on sh*t. When Jay Leno refers to LA as a fraud the way he calls OJ a murderer(an innocent man LOL) It may be time to drop it here.



TheDon said:


> I would prefer to read a post every now and then without having to skip over half a thread full of LA stuff.


Life is so hard..I would prefer that LA is exposed once and for all. For all their threats of litigation, LA and Stapleton are terrified of it because in Stapleton's words "it would blow the whole sport." 

It's the doping forum for goodness sake. LA is the crown jewel of doping stories and his influence is still being felt until he is defrocked.

Here's another poster on LA



Under ACrookedSky said:


> Before Armstrong retired, the apologists denied that he doped. Now that he is retired they plead to move on and not discuss it. We'll stop bringing it up as soon as the Armstrong chamois sniffers stop using ridiculous excuses to defend Armstrong's fraud.
> 
> The sport cannot move forward unti it comes to grip with fraud perpetrated on the fans through the 90s and 00s.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

TheDon said:


> Please shut up about LA. He's no longer racing or really involved in cycling. He got out before he got caught so let's move on and try to catch the guys that are doping now, not the guys that used to dope. We all agree that LA is a royal jerk and there is evidence he may have doped. We know the story, it gets brought up in every post so let's just move on. I would prefer to read a post every now and then without having to skip over half a thread full of LA stuff.


as he's likely the most prolific doper in the history of the sport (perhaps even in the history <i> of sport</i>) I think that's a somewhat fantastic request. Perhaps if everyone with whom he's connected retires or generally stays out of the headlines it'll happen due to no new information coming to the surface but until then, he's topical.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Do I need to point out the irony of a post about Lance Armstrong in the Doping Forum about how there shouldn't be posts in the Doping Forum about Lance Armstrong?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

do you think Lance doped?


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

I don't know whether Lance doped or not. I'm guessing virtually all top tier athletes from around 1980 on doped, and plenty before as well, but I can't prove it. There seems to be plenty of evidence that LA can be a jerk, but I wish the doping stories weren't all innuendo and character assassination. Sure, in his last TdF he beat Basso and Ulrich, and both of them are out due to doping, so it stands to reason that somebody who beat them hands down is under suspicion, but the question becomes- what if he was just really fast? 

The only way sports can ever get clean is when some type of secure storage protocol is developed. Dopers count on being one or more steps ahead of detectors. When samples are kept for extended periods to allow technology for detection to advance, with mandatory testing of the samples 20 years out, then at least the history books can be accurate.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

'The question becomes - what if he was just really fast?' If you watch the footage of Indurain catching him at the Tour, if you collate all the information about his TdF climbing performances pre 1996 then the question becomes - when exactly did he start the EPO programme?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

California L33 said:


> but I wish the doping stories weren't all innuendo and character assassination. Sure, in his last TdF he beat Basso and Ulrich, and both of them are out due to doping, so it stands to reason that somebody who beat them hands down is under suspicion, but the question becomes- what if he was just really fast?


I think one of the major problems is this.

Many believed in '99 that LA's performances were too otherworldly and questioned them. LA's response was to try to intimidate other riders in the peloton who were outspoken against doping. He did it to Jean-Cyril Robin at Circuit de la Sarthe after Robin spoke up about doping after Rabobank's domination at Paris Nice.. 

According to Vaughters, LA wanted to chase down a meaningless breakaway by Bassons at the Dauphine because LA just didn't like him. LA later told Bassons after Sestriere at the Tour that he should go home and find some other kind of work if he felt like he had to continue to speak out about doping. Then the 2004 thing with Simeoni at the Tour. Bassons VO2 max is actually higher than LA's, 85 to 83, and LA was recorded in the 70's on more than a few occasions. Most of the riders in the peloton have similiar numbers to Armstrong....

These weren't isolated incidents, if LA was clean, what would be the need to ostracize and intimidate Walsh?

Anybody who thinks there is a question about whether LA doped has to read Walsh's stuff. It's not just one or two things from a couple of haters. It's an argument from just about every conceivable angle. Incredibly eye opening....


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

lookrider said:


> I think one of the major problems is this.
> 
> Many believed in '99 that LA's performances were too otherworldly and questioned them. LA's response was to try to intimidate other riders in the peloton who were outspoken against doping. He did it to Jean-Cyril Robin at Circuit de la Sarthe after Robin spoke up about doping after Rabobank's domination at Paris Nice..
> 
> ...


 

If somebody called me a doper and I was doping I wouldn't draw attention to it. Why would I chase down a meaningless break away and piss the guy off, get him shouting louder? I could let it succeed and say, "How can that guy call me a doper when I couldn't catch him? If I'm on dope, he's taking twice as much as me." If somebody called me a doper and I wasn't doping, but I was a faster rider, I could see myself getting angry enough to chase the SOB down and do anything within the rules to make his life miserable. I'm not sure if I'd lower myself to telling the guy to get another job, but that speaks to the whole prima-donna syndrome, and LA is certainly not the only pro athlete to ever have that. 

When there's an indisputable paper trail that leads to LA, or when there's reliable testimony from his supplier, I'll move from 'suspicious performance,' worth investigating, to 'probable doper,' or 'definite doper.'


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Bianchigirl said:


> 'The question becomes - what if he was just really fast?' If you watch the footage of Indurain catching him at the Tour, if you collate all the information about his TdF climbing performances pre 1996 then the question becomes - when exactly did he start the EPO programme?


Then you have to ask yourself, could there have been anything in the man's life that explains a performance difference pre and post '96? Anything that could have changed his training determination, or possibly even his physiology? They cut his brain and glandular systems apart while filling him with drugs, including EPO. I'm not certain whether that could have a long term effect or not, but it doesn't stretch the imagination that it could. It also doesn't stretch the imagination that a near death experience could turn a driven pro into and obsessive one- an obsession which could lead someone to train like there is no tomorrow, check his bike fit every day with a meter stick to make sure it was set up to the millimeter, or to take illegal drugs. Like a lot of people I'm suspicious, but I'm not sure. I don't know why so many people are. 

One reason I give people the benefit of the doubt is that I have been falsely accused of things.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*I appreciate what you wrote*



California L33 said:


> Then you have to ask yourself, could there have been anything in the man's life that explains a performance difference pre and post '96? Anything that could have changed his training determination, or possibly even his physiology? They cut his brain and glandular systems apart while filling him with drugs, including EPO. I'm not certain whether that could have a long term effect or not, but it doesn't stretch the imagination that it could. It also doesn't stretch the imagination that a near death experience could turn a driven pro into and obsessive one- an obsession which could lead someone to train like there is no tomorrow, check his bike fit every day with a meter stick to make sure it was set up to the millimeter, or to take illegal drugs. Like a lot of people I'm suspicious, but I'm not sure. I don't know why so many people are.
> 
> One reason I give people the benefit of the doubt is that I have been falsely accused of things.


and believed many of those things myself until I looked closer.

*Are you aware of the evidence.* If you haven't seen the Walsh stuff (and LA Confidential was linked here) I don't see how you can be confident with an opinion on LA.

I think the worry about the long term effects of the drugs, was that they were so toxic, his major organs might not function properly. The EPO was to counteract the anemia caused by those toxins. 

A good summary of the damning argument against LA is in From Lance to Landis.Just on the physiology argument, LA had a VO2 max of 81.2 in Sept of '93. This was obtained by Ed Coyle. In 1999 Coyle obtained a measurement of 71.5 which is very mediocre for a tour rider.

The numbers Coyle obtained in his time(7 years) with LA are 70, 76,,81, 66, and 71. They don't predict a rider who could leave everyone else behind...

Basically if you take the time to look, there is a mountain of evidence against LA.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

California L33 said:


> If somebody called me a doper and I was doping I wouldn't draw attention to it. Why would I chase down a meaningless break away and piss the guy off, get him shouting louder? I could let it succeed and say, "How can that guy call me a doper when I couldn't catch him? If I'm on dope, he's taking twice as much as me." If somebody called me a doper and I wasn't doping, but I was a faster rider, I could see myself getting angry enough to chase the SOB down and do anything within the rules to make his life miserable. I'm not sure if I'd lower myself to telling the guy to get another job, but that speaks to the whole prima-donna syndrome, and LA is certainly not the only pro athlete to ever have that.


*Absolutely no one* interpreted those episodes that way.. Tour strategy isn't even remotely as you've depicted it.. The Yellow jersey *never* chases breakaways down, when they're like an hour behind on the second to last stage. It's just ridiculous...The cycling press, and expert commentators, (who were generally celebrating LA's incipient 6th win) were disgusted with LA chasing down Simeoni. Even milque toast Bicycling magazine wrote "The ugliest side .... of the race's grandest champion..."

Also that's just one of a book full of examples of circumstancial evidence.. It would take crazy mental gymnastics to explain everything away...

What bothers me a little is that you're just inventing stuff here.




California L33 said:


> When there's an indisputable paper trail that leads to LA, or when there's reliable testimony from his supplier, I'll move from 'suspicious performance,' worth investigating, to 'probable doper,' or 'definite doper.'


There was no paper trail with Riis, or any of the guys that led to his downfall. There is with Kevin Livingston, his hematocrit went from 41 to almost 50 in 6 months, basically physiologically impossible..That was in 1998 while working with Ferrari. Livingston, LA, and Hamilton worked with Ferrari in 1999 leading up to the Tour.

*There's two books filled with this kind of sh*t!*


No paper trail with Marion Jones. No paper trail with Roger Clemens. Mark Mc Gwire, no....With the kind of evidence you're looking for half of the prison population would have to be released. 

Actually the way the way LA's 6 EPO positives were obtained *is* a pretty convincing paper trail...as is the paper trail on the corticoid positive in '99 also...


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

lookrider said:


> and believed many of those things myself until I looked closer.
> 
> *Are you aware of the evidence.* If you haven't seen the Walsh stuff (and LA Confidential was linked here) I don't see how you can be confident with an opinion on LA.
> 
> ...


True, VO2 max is probably the most important measurement for a cyclist, but it's not the only one. A relatively low VO2 max could explain why he was never a great rider at the one day classics. But to play Devil's Advocate yet again (because nobody else will even consider it) I saw an interview with one of the scientists at the US Olympic training facility who said Lance had the lowest lactic acid production of any athlete they had measured- ever. That would give him a tremendous advantage in multi-day grand tour type events because his muscles would work more efficiently in the long term. 

As for the evidence against him, apparently it hasn't been enough for any court of law, or even the far, far less stringent governing body courts. The media makes lots of money on the concept of guilty until proven innocent. I prefer the other way around. 

And please keep in mind I'm not saying Lance is innocent. 'Innocence' is a construct. In courts there is guilty and not guilty. (And depending upon the court it can be guilty by preponderance of the evidence, or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt- two very different standards). As of right now Lance is not guilty; Floyd is guilty.


----------



## roadie92 (Jan 21, 2008)

I don't know what to believe. He claimed it has to do with he lost so much weight when he had cancer. He lost alot of wieght and kept all his strength?


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

He DIDN'T lose a lot of weight. It was somewhere in one of the "Lance-doped-and-we-can indirectly-prove-it" books....


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

The debate rages...  He's out of the sport...who cares...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*The more you know, the worse it is for LA.*



California L33 said:


> True, VO2 max is probably the most important measurement for a cyclist, but it's not the only one. A relatively low VO2 max could explain why he was never a great rider at the one day classics..


Before cancer he was *only *a great rider in the one day classics. All discerning people in cycling only saw him as a classics rider before cancer.



California L33 said:


> But to play Devil's Advocate yet again (because nobody else will even consider it) I saw an interview with one of the scientists at the US Olympic training facility who said Lance had the lowest lactic acid production of any athlete they had measured- ever...


Who, Ed Coyle?

The role of lactic acid has been misunderstood until fairly recently. According to Dr. Mike Ashenden in From Lance to Landis, "the truth of the matter is that back , say, ten , fifteen, twenty years ago, lactic acid was viewed in a completely different context. It was thought of as an evil thing. You know, lactic acid impairs your muscle function, blah, blah, blah. The most recent literature turns out...lactic acid is really good during exercise. It's essential. It's used as a fuel by the muscle, so the notion that having a high level is going to give you, or a low level is going to give you better performance is flawed."
page 283 From Lance to Landis.

Here are some article discussing the science from the New York Times and cycling news, do a google search yourself....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness.php?id=fitness/2004/lactic_frederick


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...1575BC0A9629C8B63&scp=5&sq=lactic+acid&st=nyt

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...25755C0A9609C8B63&scp=4&sq=lactic+acid&st=nyt

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.html?scp=1&sq=lactic+acid&st=nyt



California L33 said:


> That would give him a tremendous advantage in multi-day grand tour type events because his muscles would work more efficiently in the long term. ...


Are you a physiologist? How come it didn't give a huge advantage in the Tour when he was 24 years old? He was World Champ at 22. He finished his first TdF in three attempts and was 36th place, over an hour behind Indurain. Lemond had already been 3rd and 2nd at that age and won at 25. Fignon had won at 22 and 23 years old.. Hinault won at 23,24,26,27 and 30.
Merckx, 24,25,26,27 and 29.





California L33 said:


> As for the evidence against him, apparently it hasn't been enough for any court of law, or even the far, far less stringent governing body courts....


Bonds is reviled and he's just starting to coming into trouble. LA has the halo effect with his cancer research foundation..

Page 330, From Lance to Landis, the last page of the book.

"His victory was assured once Richard Faulkner chairman of the arbitration panel, ruled that SCA was an insurance company. Once that was decided, all that mattered was that the UCI considered Armstrong the winner of the 2004 Tour. His libel acions weren't so conclusive . After trial dates were agreed in both London and Paris, Armstrong settled in one city and withdrew in the other. The settlement with _The Sunday Times_ in London was a victory of sorts for Armstrong because the newspaper agreed to apologize for the offending article and to pay one third of his legal costs. Under France's more sympathetic libel laws, the publishers of _L.A. Confidential_ let it be know they were not for settling. Shortly before the trial was scheduled to happen October 2005, Armstrong withdrew his action. Bill Stapletons's prophecy, uttered during the secretly taped conversation with Frankie Andreu at the 2004 Tour de France, had come to pass. "because the best result for us is...drop the f&cking lawsuit and it all just goes away. Because the other option is full out war in a French court and everybody's gonna testify and it could blow the whole sport."




California L33 said:


> The media makes lots of money on the concept of guilty until proven innocent. I prefer the other way around. ...


And it is illegal to knowingly publish false material...



California L33 said:


> And please keep in mind I'm not saying Lance is innocent. 'Innocence' is a construct. In courts there is guilty and not guilty. (And depending upon the court it can be guilty by preponderance of the evidence, or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt- two very different standards). As of right now Lance is not guilty; Floyd is guilty.


You left out the court of public opinion...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

cyclesport45 said:


> He DIDN'T lose a lot of weight. It was somewhere in one of the "Lance-doped-and-we-can indirectly-prove-it" books....


Yeah, it was less than a kilo, as if people are accurately measuring a static weight of the body that remains the same every day. Mine changes that much after a morning cup of coffee....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*I checked out your photos*



chuckice said:


> The debate rages...  He's out of the sport...who cares...


With all of the prominently featured dopers, I'd say you'd have a vested interest in people *not* caring....:yikes:

Also being the publicity hound he is, don't you think it's odd, how LA has so quickly distanced himself from cycling. Why? I mean he's the Babe Ruth of cycling.. Also if I had all of these questions about me and I was innocent, wouldn't I want to showcase that at every opportunity? I mean I would.

He won't show his face though, Hmm, he's retired, leave him alone. These arguments are laughable..


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

cyclesport45 said:


> He DIDN'T lose a lot of weight. It was somewhere in one of the "Lance-doped-and-we-can indirectly-prove-it" books....


Just as a side note:

I am pretty sure Armstrong did lose a significant amount of weight pre to post cancer. I have had the occasion to talk to Max Testa (who was the team doctor for Motorola) about a picture of the team when Armstrong was a part of it. Armstrong looks pretty hefty up top, much more so than you would expect with even a larger than average cyclist. I asked Max how much he weighed at the time and he said it was around 77-78 kilos, and after his issues with cancer his weight was closer to 72-73 kilos.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Other than to disagree*



chase196126 said:


> Just as a side note:
> 
> I am pretty sure Armstrong did lose a significant amount of weight pre to post cancer. I have had the occasion to talk to Max Testa (who was the team doctor for Motorola) about a picture of the team when Armstrong was a part of it. Armstrong looks pretty hefty up top, much more so than you would expect with even a larger than average cyclist. I asked Max how much he weighed at the time and he said it was around 77-78 kilos, and after his issues with cancer his weight was closer to 72-73 kilos.


by pointing out the weights Coyle pointed out from Nov '92 to Nov '99

11/92 78.9 kg
01/93 76.5 kg
09/93 75.1 kg
08/97 79.5
11/99 79.7

Even LA stated that "if I saw the low 74's, I would be happy" and this was during his during his testimony of SCA..

This is all on page 287 Lance to Landis...

At the absolute most, he was 1 kg lower post cancer than pre cancer. The whole weight thing is bs... 2.2 pounds is not even worth talking about....


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

I am leaving him alone. I don't even have his phone number. The fun is in the debate with youse guys.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

I care - he lied, he cheated, he stole (the race) and the palmares of those who did not dope.... and he put down those who were trying to race clean. Cancer foundation or not, I find him thoroughly despicable.... and this is from a former fan who cheered him along the roads in France.

What's truly sad is that now I have to admit that Virenque has proven to have (slightly) more moral fiber than Armstrong -- and that alone is worthy of my everlasting enmity!!


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*wow!*



philippec said:


> I care - he lied, he cheated, he stole (the race) and the palmares of those who did not dope.... and he put down those who were trying to race clean. Cancer foundation or not, I find him thoroughly despicable.... and this is from a former fan who cheered him along the roads in France.
> 
> What's truly sad is that now I have to admit that Virenque has proven to have (slightly) more moral fiber than Armstrong -- and that alone is worthy of hefty my everlasting enmity!!


Your pictures are absolutely incredible, fantastic, you must be in fantastic condition to ride through those pictures, the only ones I looked at so far were these

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=106490


----------



## roadie92 (Jan 21, 2008)

Well if he did dope answer this question:

If he doped why didn't he get caught. He rode and won the tour 7 times and did not get caught while some rides dope and did get caught. Why din't he get caught??????????


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

roadie92 said:


> Well if he did dope answer this question:
> 
> If he doped why didn't he get caught. He rode and won the tour 7 times and did not get caught while some rides dope and did get caught. Why din't he get caught??????????


Simple. He didn't dope. The clowns here who think he did have no proof and a carload of HATE. Shrug.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

roadie92 said:


> Well if he did dope answer this question:
> 
> If he doped why didn't he get caught. He rode and won the tour 7 times and did not get caught while some rides dope and did get caught. Why din't he get caught??????????


Please don't tell me there are people out there that are this naive...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

roadie92 said:


> Well if he did dope answer this question:
> 
> If he doped why didn't he get caught. He rode and won the tour 7 times and did not get caught while some rides dope and did get caught. Why din't he get caught??????????


Read Walsh. Marion Jones didn't get caught. A lot of dopers didn't get caught.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Hey*



wipeout said:


> Simple. He didn't dope. The clowns here who think he did have no proof and a carload of HATE. Shrug.


Did you see when Borat was on his quest to marry Pamela, and the frat boys played the Tommy Lee video for him. Pretty sad when the tears came to Borats eyes.

That'll be you if you read the Walsh books...


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Did you see when Borat was on his quest to marry Pamela, and the frat boys played the Tommy Lee video for him. Pretty sad when the tears came to Borats eyes.
> 
> That'll be you if you read the Walsh books...


I did not watch "Borat". A bit too lowbrow for my taste.

What's Walsh's motivation? $$$$ or truth?

Nice try.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

wipeout said:


> I did not watch "Borat". A bit too lowbrow for my taste.
> 
> What's Walsh's motivation? $$$$ or truth?
> 
> Nice try.


I'll let you be the judge. The LA Confidential excerpts are on the internets. Why don't you check it out. They're linked on these threads. I'm sure you could find them..

BTW, Irish triple gold medal winning swimmer Michelle Smith was exposed as a drug cheat at the '96 Olympics by Walsh also with no evidence or positive tests. He was vilified in Ireland at the time, but was vindicated 2 years later

_According to Walsh, his pursuit of Armstrong evolved from his experience covering the high-stakes cat-and-mouse game between cheating athletes and anti-doping agencies beginning in the late eighties. After Irish swimmer Michelle Smith won three gold medals at the Atlanta Olympic Games, in 1996, Walsh wrote a Sunday Times column questioning her achievements. His argument, like the one later used in L.A. Confidentiel, was based largely on circumstantial evidence, and in Smith's case Walsh was vindicated. During the preceding decade, Walsh pointed out, Smith had never been a top competitor; her physique had grown more muscular in a brief period of time; and she was coached by her future husband, former discus thrower Erik de Bruin, a Dutchman who had served a ban from competition for elevated testosterone levels. Even though Smith had never tested positive, Walsh refused to believe she was clean.

"That she would become a woman who could win three gold medals was just bizarre," says Walsh.

In 1998, Smith did test positive: Evidence of androstenedione, a testosterone booster that supposedly helps increase lean muscle mass, was found in a urine sample, and, just as significant, she was busted for spiking the sample with alcohol. After being banned from competition for four years, she retired.
_ 

http://outside1.away.com/outside/features/200512/lance-armstrong-3.html

Don't be afraid of the truth.....


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

wipeout said:


> I did not watch "Borat". A bit too lowbrow for my taste.
> 
> What's Walsh's motivation? $$$$ or truth?
> 
> Nice try.


As if that is an either/or question.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Henry Porter said:


> Please don't tell me there are people out there that are this naive...


_SO FAR IN THE WAR of public opinion, most Americans side with Armstrong, putting little faith in the charges made by the likes of Ressiot and Walsh. In a USA Today online poll conducted after the L'Équipe story broke, 72 percent of the more than 38,000 respondents agreed with Armstrong's statement that he was the victim of a journalistic hit._

Read it and weep...

:sad: :sad: :yesnod: :yesnod: :yikes: :yikes: :yikes: :wink: :wink: :eek6: :eek6: :frown2: :frown5: :mad5: :23: :9:


----------



## Slim Again Soon (Oct 25, 2005)

*Oswald couldn't have done it alone*

Oops ... wrong never-ending debate.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*i'm spoon feeding you*



wipeout said:


> Simple. He didn't dope. The clowns here who think he did have no proof and a carload of HATE. Shrug.


http://outside1.away.com/outside/features/200512/lance-armstrong-4.html

_Even so, anti-doping authorities have had some success since the Festina scandal, but it seems that the majority of busts have been the result of police investigations, not drug testing. Millar was caught when police found traces of EPO in syringes in his Biarritz, France, apartment. He later admitted that, even though he had tested negative, he'd won his world championship while on EPO._:idea: :idea:  :cryin: :cryin: :mad2: :mad2:


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

lookrider said:


> _SO FAR IN THE WAR of public opinion, most Americans side with Armstrong, putting little faith in the charges made by the likes of Ressiot and Walsh. In a USA Today online poll conducted after the L'Équipe story broke, 72 percent of the more than 38,000 respondents agreed with Armstrong's statement that he was the victim of a journalistic hit._
> 
> Read it and weep...
> 
> :sad: :sad: :yesnod: :yesnod: :yikes: :yikes: :yikes: :wink: :wink: :eek6: :eek6: :frown2: :frown5: :mad5: :23: :9:


That was long ago, in a galaxy far away.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*I know*



Henry Porter said:


> That was long ago, in a galaxy far away.


but do you think it has changed that much? I really don't know.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

lookrider said:


> but do you think it has changed that much? I really don't know.



Yes, with Jens and other cycling people being caught (for cycing fans). Bonds, Merriman for the causal American fan. It's completely changed. The majority of people who don't believe it will willingly say that they just don't want to know. The know they can't deny it anymore.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

read up bright eyes... Millar, Ulrich, Basso, etc... never failed a dope test either.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

philippec said:


> read up bright eyes... Millar, Ulrich, Basso, etc... never failed a dope test either.


The point is evident- that all cheaters haven't been caught, that doping controls have been woefully inadequate, and may still be. But if we change the criteria for labeling dopers to-

-you were fast

-you won at least one race

-you failed a drug test OR passed a drug test

-then everyone who won a race would be labeled a doper. That doesn't work either. I think it might be time for some outside the box thinking. One way is to put doping control in the lead. Right now they're always fighting the last war. Maybe some of their budget should be spent on researching the best ways to cheat. Assuming their scientists are as good as the doper's scientists, they should come up with at least some of the same ideas. Of course their goal would be to figure out how the next generation will cheat, AND come up with detection methods as soon as the doper's begin a new regimen. It obviously won't always work, but the first time an athlete using something 'brand new' is caught the first time they use it, it will make others think. Then there's also the idea of long term sample storage to allow technology to catch up to current undetected techniques. If all this were implemented then dopers would have to worry about being caught past, present, and future.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Yes ++


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> I'll let you be the judge. The LA Confidential excerpts are on the internets. Why don't you check it out. They're linked on these threads. I'm sure you could find them..
> 
> BTW, Irish triple gold medal winning swimmer Michelle Smith was exposed as a drug cheat at the '96 Olympics by Walsh also with no evidence or positive tests. He was vilified in Ireland at the time, but was vindicated 2 years later
> 
> ...




I dont agree with the comparison with LA. It states Smith was NEVER a top competitor. Where lance was. Sure he wasnt GC factor in the tour, but he won his fair share of races. Only rider to win all 3 philly week races. Second overall in the tour de trump(or was it tour of the americas, dont remember, 92 or 93) Won a stage in the TDF with motorola. Also world champion BEFORE cancer. 

Do I "think" he doped??? not sure, But he probably did. I dont think there are many riders from that era that didnt. Look at the podiums from the mid 90's, Mostly convicted or accused dopers. Lance was the BEST GC rider of his era period. Doper or not.

Lance got out just in time. Never convicted of doping. Do I think differently of him if he doped??? No. The ones who want to destroy him dont see the big picture. 

1) If he WAS doping, he was a doper in a land of dopers. He no longer races....forget about it!!!

2) Lance came back form cancer to win the TDF 7x. He gives hope to MILLIONS of people, who otherwise may have given up. 

3)He has raised 181 MILLION DOLLARS for cancer reasearch and surivors. 

On a personal note, a friend of mine is battling cancer, I met him through our local tri club. Been racing/training together for the last 2yrs We plan to to race in the Florida 70.3 in may. He was diagnosed in Nov with thyroid cancer. He had his thyroid removed, receiving radiation treatments. He looks at LA for insperation and motivation.

Cancer took my Grandmother, Grandfather, and Father. I wear my livestrong band to support those battling and those who are gone. I for one thank Lance for what he has done. Doper or not, LA has done MUCH more good than harm.
My .02
Bryan


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> I dont agree with the comparison with LA. It states Smith was NEVER a top competitor. Where lance was. Sure he wasnt GC factor in the tour, but he won his fair share of races. Only rider to win all 3 philly week races. Second overall in the tour de trump(or was it tour of the americas, dont remember, 92 or 93) Won a stage in the TDF with motorola. Also world champion BEFORE cancer.
> 
> Do I "think" he doped??? YES. I dont think there is a rider from that era that didnt. Look at the podiums from the mid 90's, Mostly convicted or accused dopers. Lance was the BEST GC rider of his era period. If they were all clean, he would have been slower, but still the fastest.
> 
> ...


The single day races are like night and day, compared to the Grand Tours, so much so that everyone makes the very clear distinction between classics riders and Tour riders, it's almost like comparing a sprinter to a distance runner.

Most of your points have previously been rebutted, and I've addressed this giving hope to millions who otherwise would have given up thing.

I just don't believe it for one, and two, what about all of the corrupt reverends, ministers and pedophile Catholic priests. Their stock in trade is *hope*, they shouldn't be exposed?

Lance is akin to the robber barons He engages in philantropy to shield himself, and his ill gotten position and goods. This kind of fraud and exploitation of ill peoples hopes makes it even more important that he is held accountable. It's like robbing a bank and holding a little kid or woman hostage to shield yourself.

Lance himself would *never* derive his hope from a God or an idol, but he has set himself up to be one. He states that explicitly in Chasing Lance, that people should be self reliant.

I'm sorry about your friend. I'm 43 and a friend of mine was diagnosed and successfully treated for leukemia about 10 years ago. I've known him since the second grade, we graduated hs together, and were college roommates. He had a paticularly lethal form of leukemia that usually strikes older people and his chances weren't good. The chemo was horrendous and he had a button he could press to self administer synthetic morphine. He survived and told me that if the leukemia came back he wouldn't go through another round of chemo because it either works or it doesn't. If you don't respond to the first course you're unlikely to respond to the second, something that LA's doctors supposedly told him.

He also received a stem cell transplant..
At any rate he was very matter of fact about his illness and is pretty much the same person afterwards as before.

The truth is unbelievably important, that is why LA has gone to great lengths to keep his truth in the dark..


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

California L33 said:


> I don't know whether Lance doped or not. I'm guessing virtually all top tier athletes from around 1980 on doped, and plenty before as well, but I can't prove it. There seems to be plenty of evidence that LA can be a jerk, but I wish the doping stories weren't all innuendo and character assassination. Sure, in his last TdF he beat Basso and Ulrich, and both of them are out due to doping, so it stands to reason that somebody who beat them hands down is under suspicion, but the question becomes- what if he was just really fast?
> 
> The only way sports can ever get clean is when some type of secure storage protocol is developed. Dopers count on being one or more steps ahead of detectors. When samples are kept for extended periods to allow technology for detection to advance, with mandatory testing of the samples 20 years out, then at least the history books can be accurate.


Lemond never doped!!!!!!!!!


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

lookrider said:


> The single day races are like night and day, compared to the Grand Tours, so much so that everyone makes the very clear distinction between classics riders and Tour riders, it's almost like comparing a sprinter to a distance runner.
> 
> Most of your points have previously been rebutted, and I've addressed this giving hope to millions who otherwise would have given up thing.
> 
> ...


Dude, you are mental.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

lookrider said:


> Most of your points have previously been rebutted, and I've addressed this giving hope to millions who otherwise would have given up thing.
> 
> I just don't believe it for one, and two, what about all of the corrupt reverends, ministers and pedophile Catholic priests. Their stock in trade is *hope*, they shouldn't be exposed?
> 
> ...


So you dont buy that a cyclist who has cancer, can use a pro cyclist who fought cancer, beat it to win the TDF, as motivation???? Lance MAY have doped in a sport that breeds dopers. Your comparing Doping with Molesting kids????

Exploiting sick people??? He is rasing MILLIONS to help them, sure he must be profiting form speaking engagements and things like that, he has to make a living. Dont know how much he is earning, but he is rasing alot for the sick.

I dont think those who look to him for motivation are hoping for a miracle. They look at LA's "dont give up attitude" to help in their fight with cancer. 

I dont post ofter, I lurk daily. 

Lookrider,
I dont know about you, but why do you HATE LA?? Every post I see from you has a 1000 word argument on why LA is Satan. I Dislike many an athlete, but I cant see spending so much time hatin on someone.....its not healthy. 
Bryan


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

wipeout said:


> Dude, you are mental.





wipeout said:


> I did not watch "Borat". A bit too lowbrow for my taste.



Highbrow response!


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

There is some things to like about LA, and there are some traits that make him unsympathetic in my eyes. Then you have the fact that some people associate more with winners than others. 

I don't think doping itself makes a cyclist unsympathetic. As many people have pointed out before, (harlond, I believe?) judging from results, it seems unlikely that you can get anywhere without drugs, and given that spectators rarely have any specific discerning ability, the only thing making sense if you want to make money and be loved, is to dope. 

I think it is hard for me to sit on my amateur bum and claim that I wouldn't have doped if I had a real shot at fame and fortune. There are two reasons not to, one; getting caught and despised in public and two; believing that cheating itself is immoral according to God or whatever. Demanding that a rider with winning chances should throw away his chances for a crusade against human cheating nature is preposterous. This set of thoughts probably is highest developed among those with low intelligence, and too indoctrinated into believing that rule obedience is a law of nature.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> So you dont buy that a cyclist who has cancer, can use a pro cyclist who fought cancer, beat it to win the TDF, as motivation????


He can use any motivation he wants. We all have to suspend disbelief in order to maintain a fraudulent illusion? I honestly think most people are a little more realistic with life than you give them credit for. Maybe one should believe in the truth and doing the right thing rather than in some false idol. Living the right way is accessable to everyone with a conscience, and is it's own reward.



Bry03cobra said:


> Lance MAY have doped in a sport that breeds dopers.


I think most serious people who are paying any attention whatsoever, know that LA doped. Too many people with too much to lose are fighting too much power, going against the flow, and their financial self interests, to be lying about LA, who will try to ruin anyone who goes against him. If he would have tried to make cycling clean I'd have a lot of respect for him.

PED's may have made him sick in the first place. If he was so clean he would have been trumpeting it, rather than doing everything in his power to hide the truth. Why years of secrecy before he was backed into a corner and grudgingly admitted his relationship with Ferrari?



Bry03cobra said:


> Your comparing Doping with Molesting kids????


No, actually I was comparing Armstrong's defenders to the powers in the Church who tried to cover up the molesters. The people who defend Armstrong say that he inspires Hope and is therefore immune to criticism as it would diminish him in the eyes of the believers. I think my point was completely clear and that there wasn't much nuance. Your point is that because people look up to Armstrong and he has raised a lot of money, he has special privileges and is exempt from scrutiny. That is the same thinking that led the Church to cover up for child molesters. Obviously sporting fraud doesn't rise to the level of child molestation. Also the Reverends and Ministers I alluded to often just stole money from their churches. But according to your way of thinking they shouldn't be exposed because people would lose faith? People literally invest their lives in their religious beliefs.



Bry03cobra said:


> Exploiting sick people??? He is rasing MILLIONS to help them, sure he must be profiting form speaking engagements and things like that, he has to make a living. Dont know how much he is earning, but he is rasing alot for the sick.


Yes, by fraudulently misrepresenting himself as the personification of hope. He stole people's trust. And the ironic thing is, *his overriding opinion is that people should be self reliant.*



Bry03cobra said:


> I dont think those who look to him for motivation are hoping for a miracle. They look at LA's "dont give up attitude" to help in their fight with cancer.


Motivation, see I think this is where the nonsense comes in. Who's giving up? When I was very sick, or anyone else I know was very sick, you're kind of just hanging on. You take, your medicine, have surgery, go to the doctor, get your rest, and go to sleep. Maybe you're different than me and go for all this rah rah stuff. I mean what are you doing, lying in bed gritting your teeth? Either you make it or you don't. People die from horrible sh*t every day. *Is it because they gave up?*According to you, they otherwise would have given up if it wasn't for LA? C'mon now..Of course It's terrible, that's life. My uncle, with a wife and three kids had triple bypass at 44, at St Vincents Hospital in Greenwich Village. This was in 1984..He got a bad blood transfusion, contracted AIDS and was dead by 48. I saw him wasted away 2 days before he died and he told me and my father he wanted to live to be 100. 

Anyone who's an endurance athlete should know that it's not about "giving up." Even LA said, "you can have all the heart in the world, but if you don't have the legs, forget about it." I've had armchair quarterbacks tell me a marathon is mind over matter. They've never bonked or hit the wall at 20 or 22 miles though.

Even though I don't like John McCain, when he was asked about who survived in the Hanoi Hilton; was it the positive ones? He said, no, actually the more pessimistic ones did better because they had lower expectations and weren't dissappointed or misled by false hopes. They expected the worst and therefore were not let down.



Bry03cobra said:


> I dont post ofter, I lurk daily.
> 
> Lookrider,
> I dont know about you, but why do you HATE LA??


I don't hate him. Why do you exaggerate? Pointing out the truth is tantamount to hate? Why don't you want to see the truth out? You know LA hates Walsh, but whenever Walsh is asked about LA, he's almost unemotional, and says he doesn't hate him. Why would he? Why do you attack the people who want to bring to light something LA wants hidden? Don't you trust people? How many people has LA threatened? Why doesn't that bother you? 



Bry03cobra said:


> Every post I see from you has a 1000 word argument on why LA is Satan.


Satan? First off stop with the hyperbole. LA's human like everyone else, his problem is that he had to be some kind of superman, and in order to become that, he doped. He was too arrogant to show weakness. Then he passes off this fraud(weakness) as his strength.

He's a fraud, and the kind of argument you're making is that it's ok somehow because of some mitigating factors.



Bry03cobra said:


> I Dislike many an athlete,


I don't, I'm kind of ambivalent to tell you the truth. I am disgusted by LA's manipulations, misrepresentations, and lies. Kinda like the same thing with GWB saying he's a Christian, but mocking Karla Faye Tucker's pleas for her life before she was executed.



Bry03cobra said:


> but I cant see spending so much time hatin on someone


Hatin? that's your interpretation in your black and white world. I can't see spending so much time doing crossword puzzles, playing video games, knitting, playing dominoes, working on cars, whatever, to each his own.




Bry03cobra said:


> .....its not healthy.
> Bryan


It's not healthy to go with the flow, do the easy thing, and kiss up to power either. It's not healthy to have your head in the sand. Tell your friend, to know the truth, LA's a fraud, and that he's strong enough to survive it. Tell him LA would want him to look inside himself for strength.

Here's a question, why do you hate the truth, or at least, why are you afraid of it?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*It's called*



tricycletalent said:


> There is some things to like about LA, and there are some traits that make him unsympathetic in my eyes. Then you have the fact that some people associate more with winners than others.
> 
> I don't think doping itself makes a cyclist unsympathetic. As many people have pointed out before, (harlond, I believe?) judging from results, it seems unlikely that you can get anywhere without drugs, and given that spectators rarely have any specific discerning ability, the only thing making sense if you want to make money and be loved, is to dope.
> 
> I think it is hard for me to sit on my amateur bum and claim that I wouldn't have doped if I had a real shot at fame and fortune. There are two reasons not to, one; getting caught and despised in public and two; believing that cheating itself is immoral according to God or whatever. Demanding that a rider with winning chances should throw away his chances for a crusade against human cheating nature is preposterous. This set of thoughts probably is highest developed among those with low intelligence, and too indoctrinated into believing that rule obedience is a law of nature.


having a backbone. Intestinal fortitude, courage, grace under pressure, are you familiar with those concepts?

See, we're humans and as humans the more noble among us have higher aspirations, like rising above the law of the jungle. 

Nobody is claiming perfection, but most people also aren't putting themselves up on pedastals for others to emulate while simultaneously threatening others and profiting from their misdeeds.

It's reassuring to know that your morals change according to whatever way the wind is blowing...

And I always come back to this, if it's so acceptable in society, why is LA fighting so hard for his reputation? Why would he be so harmed if he just did the rational thing to compete?

Because he knows, as well as all of you defenders of his, that it's a very bad thing to be a fraud...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> I dont agree with the comparison with LA. It states Smith was NEVER a top competitor. Where lance was. Sure he wasnt GC factor in the tour, but he won his fair share of races. Only rider to win all 3 philly week races. Second overall in the tour de trump(or was it tour of the americas, dont remember, 92 or 93) Won a stage in the TDF with motorola. Also world champion BEFORE cancer.
> 
> Do I "think" he doped??? not sure, But he probably did. I dont think there are many riders from that era that didnt. Look at the podiums from the mid 90's, Mostly convicted or accused dopers. Lance was the BEST GC rider of his era period. Doper or not.
> 
> ...


Most people who have followed cycling for longer then a few years are surprised that anyone would think that Lance raced clean. The evidence is overwhelming that he doped.

Your post give all the reasons people ignore this all information to the contrary and continue to believe the Lance myth. The halo provided by his cancer works has allowed Lance to use a strategy that has failed many others....Basso, Tyler, Floyd, Clemens, etc. have all tried the lie, accuse, and misdirect strategy and have fallen on their face, no halo.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Lets see whats more important in the big picture

Bicycle racing or cancer 

Id say cancer. I still dont get why everyone is so hardup to prove LA doped?? He is RETIRED. His proven guilt will do more harm than good at this point. If LA does the Ironman, then he should be tested, and if he fails, punished for it. But right now he is an average Joe. If sticking a needle in his ass gave him the ability to help so many...good for him, good for those he helped. Maybe being a union worker has my views slanted, I look at both sides of the equation. If lance is found guilty of doping, He loses, and his foundation will no longer be helping the fight against cancer. If he is never proven guilty, at this point who loses?? He was never snagged while active, time to let it go....
Bryan


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Lets see whats more important in the big picture
> 
> *Bicycle racing or cancer *
> 
> ...


Why is it an either/or situation?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Maybe being a union worker has my views slanted, I look at both sides of the equation.


You are right, they never should have gone after those Enron guys, they were retired, gave millions to charity. Should have left them alone.

If you fail to see the damage that Lance, and his fellow dopers, have done to our sport then you haven't been paying attention.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Enron and bicycle racing...again no comparison.

First LA to preists molesting kids, G W bush and now Enron 

did LA steal the 181million from unknowing people??? Doper or not that cash was raised for CANCER research and surivoirs. 

How many people have died beacause of ANYTHING lance did. 

Maybe the only people hurt by LA were the fellow racers who were duped out of TDF titles, in 05 Basso....oh wait. Ulrich...sorry. Lets try 04, kloden,sorry. Then basso again. how bout 03, Ulrich, then Vino. Man this is getting tough. 02,Beloki, an OP rider then Ramsas, another doper. 01-00, must be some clean riders on the podium...Ulrich then Beloki both years. 00 Zulle another doper then Fernando Escartín. Escartín looks clean, this is who LA hurt, He should sue LA for all he has!!!!!!

I have been told to WAKE UP about Lance, But During Lances era, 95% of the peleton were doping. Time to move on to the current dopers!!!
Bryan


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Enron and bicycle racing...again no comparison.
> 
> First LA to preists molesting kids, G W bush and now Enron
> 
> ...


You could argue that it is worth examining in case he did increase his chances of cancer by his use of EPO. It would do a world of good to make people reconsider their choices of PEDs.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Enron and bicycle racing...again no comparison.
> 
> First LA to preists molesting kids, G W bush and now Enron
> 
> ...


Pretty clear you do not get it. My analogy works, yours do not. The amount that Lance's foundation has raised does not somehow absolve him of guilt

... cheaters hurt more then just the person finishing second, they debase the entire sport. While many people world wide enjoy riding bikes the professional road sport is suffering greatly. When you have the most famous athlete in the sport able to dodge responsibility for his cheating it emboldens, in fact mandates, others to cheat.

There are many clean riders who were cheated out of careers by dopers like Lance. Christophe Bassons comes to mind. The idea that s was a level playing field because everyone doped is completely incorrect. Not every athlete had access the the same methods, they do they react the same to the same procedures, and many actually felt challenged ethically by the pressures and chose to not go all the way.

Here is an interesting take on the Ethic of doping in sport
http://fora.tv/2008/02/17/Ethics_Doping_and_the_Future_of_Cycling


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Enron and bicycle racing...again no comparison.
> 
> First LA to preists molesting kids, G W bush and now Enron
> 
> ...


The only problem I have with the “move on, he’s retired now” argument is this. The cycling community has recently chastised the likes of Bjarne Riis for past transgressions. Then why not LA? Because he keeps on lying or selling a gullible US media stories of how the “evil” French spiked his 1999 urine samples?

I’d also like to point out that LA is still using his cancer survivor to 7 time TdF champion label to make truckloads of money for himself. I did read a couple of years ago, don’t remember where, that the two highest paid keynote speakers at various conferences were a) former president Bill Clinton and b) retired cyclist Lance Armstrong. Their compensation for a 2 hour appearance at the conference was to the tune of ½ million dollars.

I agree with you that his cancer foundation has raised a lot of money for research. I also agree that he may be an inspiration to many cancer victims out there and I respect that.

But please let’s stop labelling the likes of Ullrich, Basso, Vinokourov, Riis, as dopers while at the same time saying “yeah but Lance was never caught” or “there is no proof that Lance doped”.


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

lookrider said:


> having a backbone. Intestinal fortitude, courage, grace under pressure, are you familiar with those concepts?
> 
> See, we're humans and as humans the more noble among us have higher aspirations, like rising above the law of the jungle.
> 
> ...


I think LA is fighting for his reputation because most people care about what other people think of them, and especially cyclists who are vain, and needing admiration to feed their ego. And the more vain they are, the more they feel the need to put themselves on the pedestal. It might not be sympathetic, but it is understandable.

I think it is definitely more satisfying to say what you mean instead of feeling you have to lie, but even so, lying might be worth it if I had the chance to win TdF. 

I do agree with you that frauds are stirring something up within me. But what provokes me the most isn't the fraud itself, it is the fact that people buy into it. If people said, stop the ****, legalize doping, you wouldn't have cyclists talking about their disgust with dopers whilst juicing their brains out. 

Having a backbone to me means doing exactly what is in your interest, regardless of what others may think of you. It could be following a principle even while being pressured to drop it, or it could be not following any principle you don't believe in, even though people will frown upon you. 

You are right that I don't know anything about grace under pressure and jungle law. I also don't know anything about what is noble or what is not. I do know something about strategy, though. And what strategy different people uses for self-fulfillment. Some need to win cycle races. Others need to be seen as noble. But the motivation is in all cases deeply rooted in something from the jungle, I guess...


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

California L33 said:


> The point is evident- that all cheaters haven't been caught, that doping controls have been woefully inadequate, and may still be. But if we change the criteria for labeling dopers to-
> 
> -you were fast
> 
> ...


Well that is how it is. The better you are, the more likely it is that you are a doper. Although it can't be proved.



> I think it might be time for some outside the box thinking. One way is to put doping control in the lead. Right now they're always fighting the last war. Maybe some of their budget should be spent on researching the best ways to cheat. Assuming their scientists are as good as the doper's scientists, they should come up with at least some of the same ideas. Of course their goal would be to figure out how the next generation will cheat, AND come up with detection methods as soon as the doper's begin a new regimen. It obviously won't always work, but the first time an athlete using something 'brand new' is caught the first time they use it, it will make others think. Then there's also the idea of long term sample storage to allow technology to catch up to current undetected techniques. If all this were implemented then dopers would have to worry about being caught past, present, and future.


I think that would give people who knows how to dope properly an even bigger advantage, drive up doping cost, and catch the small fish. Your suggestion doesn't change the payoff by doping, or change the fact that many people will take the risk nevertheless, and that a winner will come from this group.


----------

