# poll: is Lance a doper?



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

.....


----------



## treebound (Oct 16, 2003)

*define "doper"*

Within the context of your survey are you defining "doper" as one who uses substances and methods that are banned under UCI/USCF guidelines, or are you defining it in a broader sense? Some include coffee and tea and cigarettes and cigars as performance modifiers, some say only natural foods should be allowed with no supplemental vitamins even, just depends on how far you want to push the controls.

I'll respond with my answer according to my definition of:
Doper: illegal or banned substances or methods to artifically enhance athletic performance.
****** would qualify as "dope" within this definition.

May I ask why you are asking the question? Do you think he is? Do you think that the only way someone could achieve what he has and is doing is via artificial performance enhancing methods? Just curious about your motives.


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

I was curious what people felt on this, and thought the anonymity of a poll might provide an interesting response. I'd say his meeting with Ferrari is a bit suspect, but I'll reserve judgment. By doper I mean some form of chemical/medical enhancement that would probably be considered "cheating" by most people, whether it's on the UCI radar at this point or not.


----------



## 633 (Feb 10, 2004)

*I vote no*

But I admit to feeling a little trepidation. My 9yo son has two sports heroes - Lance and David Robinson. Choices a dad can feel pretty good about. But I admit that things like the wierd "needle disposal" incident a couple of years back raise some questions for me, and make me hope that I don't have to explain to him at some point how his hero was cheating. In balance, I root for Lance and don't really think he's doping. But I can't say I feel as sure that Lance _isn't_ a doper as I feel sure that Barry Bonds' HR record should carry a steroid asterisk.


----------



## Frith (Oct 3, 2002)

I was trolling what people felt on this, and thought the anonymity of a troll might provide an interesting response. I'd say his meeting with Ferrari is a bit suspect, but I'll troll judgement. By troll I mean some form of troll/troll enhancement that would probably be considered "trolling" by most trolls, whether it's on the UCI trolldar at this point or not.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

Henry Chinaski said:


> I was curious what people felt on this, and thought the anonymity of a poll might provide an interesting response. I'd say his meeting with Ferrari is a bit suspect, but I'll reserve judgment. By doper I mean some form of chemical/medical enhancement that would probably be considered "cheating" by most people, whether it's on the UCI radar at this point or not.



He, or actually the USPS team, was caught with Activogen, a drug with EPO-like properties., which at the time was not on the banned substance list, but now is.


----------



## Crankist (Feb 3, 2004)

633 said:


> steroid asterisk.


There's a word for this: *asteroid*!

Oh- and I absolutely agree.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

633 said:


> But I admit to feeling a little trepidation. My 9yo son has two sports heroes - Lance and David Robinson. Choices a dad can feel pretty good about. But I admit that things like the wierd "needle disposal" incident a couple of years back raise some questions for me, and make me hope that I don't have to explain to him at some point how his hero was cheating. In balance, I root for Lance and don't really think he's doping. But I can't say I feel as sure that Lance _isn't_ a doper as I feel sure that Barry Bonds' HR record should carry a steroid asterisk.



I'm with you on that idea, except that if you think Barry's HR Record should have an asterisk next to it, then Lance's Tour wins should also have asteriks next to them as well.


----------



## Spyky (Jun 28, 2003)

*That's not a fair comparison*



Ricky2 said:


> I'm with you on that idea, except that if you think Barry's HR Record should have an asterisk next to it, then Lance's Tour wins should also have asteriks next to them as well.


I'm not really sure I fall one way or the other on this poll (I didn't vote). But your statement clearly isn't quite fair.

MLB pays only lip service concerning doping tests. There are numerous performance enhancing substances banned in other sports that MLB basically puts in the category of "don't ask, don't tell". 

On the other hand, Lance has been tested numerous times (during nearly every race) for every known banned substance, and the banned list of professional cycling is quite extensive. He has never failed a test.

He could still be on some substance that doesn't have an effective test, or some other unknown substance, but this is very different from Bonds, who is not subjected to such substance tests. What if they "randomly" tested Bonds every time he hit a homer the way they test Lance when he wins a stage?

-Spyky


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

*lance rules..*

hes no doper and if you %#$% 's keep this up i will personally kick each and every one of your asses. he is immeasurably stronger than your thick little skull could ever imagine. you can't comprehend his ability and so doubt him based off your own limited experiences with racing. stop it.


----------



## owmynads (Sep 9, 2003)

kenyonCycleist said:


> hes no doper and if you %#$% 's keep this up i will personally kick each and every one of your asses. he is immeasurably stronger than your thick little skull could ever imagine. you can't comprehend his ability and so doubt him based off your own limited experiences with racing. stop it.


There's a lotta love in this room.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

Spyky said:


> I'm not really sure I fall one way or the other on this poll (I didn't vote). But your statement clearly isn't quite fair.
> 
> MLB pays only lip service concerning doping tests. There are numerous performance enhancing substances banned in other sports that MLB basically puts in the category of "don't ask, don't tell".
> 
> ...



Even with the Jose Canseco's of the world, Major League Baseball does not have near the blackeye that professional cycling has regarding druggies in the sport and for good reason.


----------



## shokhead1 (Jan 21, 2003)

Spyky said:


> I'm not really sure I fall one way or the other on this poll (I didn't vote). But your statement clearly isn't quite fair.
> 
> MLB pays only lip service concerning doping tests. There are numerous performance enhancing substances banned in other sports that MLB basically puts in the category of "don't ask, don't tell".
> 
> ...



Did'nt i read that LA had been indeed tested more then any other cyclist? If so was that just in the tdf or cycling in general.


----------



## yeah right (Mar 13, 2002)

*who knows*

my two sports passions are baseball and cycling. neither barry nor lance would ever deserve an asterisk for the possibility that they doped. watch mr. bonds swing a bat and you know that it's not the forarms that makes him the game's greatest hitter, it's a talent that no drug can produce. As for lance, i'm sure he does some crazy stuff to his body, none of it doping under current rules. He'd be crucified if he ever was caught, and he knows it, but of course, things like altitude tents and very special diets are within the rules. The question just must be asked what the rules should be.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*holy crap dude*

you're lance fanboy of the month for April 2004. congratulations.


----------



## longhorn (Apr 21, 2003)

As much as I've been suspicious of Barry, steroids don't make you see the ball better. I watched a thing on Baseball Tonight though about how much later he's swinging than anyone else because he can get the bat through the zone that much faster. I'm sure we'll find out one way or another with all this Balco stuff.

As far as Mr. Armstrong is concerned, I think he's just a guy who came out and was a lot more focused on one event than everyone else. The rest of the pack has been catching up each year though.


----------



## zooog (Mar 18, 2002)

How many times must Lance piss in a bottle to show he does not dope.


----------



## 4bykn (Jan 28, 2001)

*'ROID RAGE!!!!!!!!! nm*

nmfdi


----------



## 633 (Feb 10, 2004)

zooog said:


> How many times must Lance piss in a bottle to show he does not dope.


And that's the frustrating thing, isn't it. You can't prove a negative. So because of cycling's historic black eye, and the suspicious stuff like the needle disposal incident a couple of years ago, there are always questions lodged in people's minds. I have to come down believing he's clean, but there's no way to ever completely you're clean. All you can say is "he's never tested positive." If I were him, and I were clean, I'd be frustrated no end by it.

As far as Barry Bonds, sorry, no way he's the game's greatest hitter ever. 'Roids may not make you see the ball better, but they do turn what would be fly outs into HRs. As far as I'm concerned the HR record is now totally meaningless.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

Additionally, there a many known dopers who never tested positive. We could start with Virenque as the poster-child for the fallacy of the "he's never tested positive, therefore he is clean arguement".


----------



## iktome (Aug 29, 2003)

633 said:


> As far as Barry Bonds, sorry, no way he's the game's greatest hitter ever. 'Roids may not make you see the ball better, but they do turn what would be fly outs into HRs. As far as I'm concerned the HR record is now totally meaningless.


You're missing the point. Barry doesn't hit fly balls.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Henry Chinaski said:


> .....


No.


----------



## bimini (Jul 2, 2003)

*If it were not for a little trolling*

the board would be a dull place. I've noticed some of the more interesting folks seem to have left the board. Hopefully it's because the cycling weather is good.

To answer the question. No. I'm not a big fan a Lance's (Just too focused for my taste) but I have a great deal of respect for Lance and what he has done. He is the most tested man in the world. The majority of Europeans refuse to believe he has done it without drugs. They keep testing him and they keep finding nothing. But when they test their own what do they find? Well!

I guess there is a slight possibility USPS has some unheard of chemical outside of the reach of the UPC testing. But most likely he has acheived what he has acheived because he is constantly training, even in his sleep. He lives, eats and sleeps cycling. Nothing else. He has done great things for the sport in the US. Very few people in the US understand cycling as a sport, but everyone know Lance. Let's pray he is drug free. He at least put cycling on the map here in the US.


----------



## aliensporebomb (Jul 2, 2002)

*That's it!*



longhorn said:


> (stuff deleted for brevity)
> As far as Mr. Armstrong is concerned, I think he's just a guy who came out and was a lot more focused on one event than everyone else. The rest of the pack has been catching up each year though.


That's it exactly. Lance was obsessed with bikes and cycling. Like Shawn Lane was
obsessed with guitar or Chuck Yeager with airplanes. If you get that good it's almost*
effortless in a certain way.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

633 said:


> And that's the frustrating thing, isn't it. You can't prove a negative. So because of cycling's historic black eye, and the suspicious stuff like the needle disposal incident a couple of years ago, there are always questions lodged in people's minds. I have to come down believing he's clean, but there's no way to ever completely you're clean. All you can say is "he's never tested positive." If I were him, and I were clean, I'd be frustrated no end by it.
> 
> As far as Barry Bonds, sorry, no way he's the game's greatest hitter ever. 'Roids may not make you see the ball better, but they do turn what would be fly outs into HRs. As far as I'm concerned the HR record is now totally meaningless.



For anyone familiar with the baseball saga, the whole Balco incident is full of accusations and no hard evidence. Its completely hypocritical to call Barry a steroid user and call Lance clean as a whistle when the USPS team's actions have been far more suspicious than the whole Balco incident.

Medical Physicians know drug half-life and clearance times. Just because a person tests negative 30 times in a row in a month does not mean that he didn't juice it up in his preseason preparation. Lance's association with Bruyneel and Dr. Ferrari, who has been suspended from the UCI more times than I can recall, have already been scrutinized all over Europe but never in the US news.


----------



## gala7516 (Mar 29, 2002)

Ricky2 said:


> Just because a person tests negative 30 times in a row in a month does not mean that he didn't juice it up in his preseason preparation.


He is tested in the offseason as well. Your argument does not hold up.


----------



## gav (Apr 5, 2003)

*I would say yes, but..*

I don't think that he's any dirtier than any of the other pro cyclists. The problem with drug testing is that the testers are always a step behind the people making and using the drugs. For example, EPO was a very popular drug that couldn't easily be tested for until recently and is now old news. Nobody would even know to test for TGH if it wasn't for whoever that sent the sample to the testing laboratory. I think that it is very naive to believe that an athlete is clean just because they never tested positive because the drug companies are far ahead of the anti-doping agencies. That being said, I think that it would be unfair to single Lance out as the only athlete using performance enhancing drugs because I'm sure that there are many out there. I'm not sure who does the offseason drug testing for cyclists in the US, but there have been repeated cases of the USOC or whoever that does the testing covering up positive tests for their athletes rather than suspending them or banning them from major games. That being said, here in Canada, we've probably had more high profile drug scandals than any other country.. Just my two cents..

gav


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

gala7516 said:


> He is tested in the offseason as well. Your argument does not hold up.


1) Masking agents.
2) What argument? I never said Lance is a doper. All I said was that to if you want to accuse Barry of juicing based on accusations and suspicions, then why is Lance off limits? Cycling is a far more drug abused sport than Baseball. Just because you don't test positive doesn't mean you didn't do anything. Ever heard of Festina? Virenque? PDM?


----------



## Hawayyan (Feb 26, 2002)

*I feel it al depends...*

on whether the drugs are "legal" or not. I remember something about the drug testing lab comming out and saying X amount of riders tested during the tour tested positive. Then the powers that be blew a gasket and said that was all crap because all the "positive" tests had explanations, such as the drugs were prescribed for a pre existing condition and thus allowed in their Medical Booklets. How many riders do you think would be under suspicion if the Medical Booklets were made available for view?


----------



## moneyman (Jan 30, 2004)

*No. And here's why not.*

Aside from the fact that he is, as others have said, the most tested athlete in the world, the consequences of being caught doping are much greater than any supposed benefit. Lance will likely make upwards of $15 million in endorsements and salary this year. If he were caught doping, that would come to an abrupt halt. In addition to that, he is the namesake and a board member of an internationally known and very successful Foundation. More than just a tax dodge for him, Lance cares very deeply for the work that his Foundation does and for the people who work for, volunteer, and benefit from the programs of the LAF. A "guilty" on his palmares would likely damage his Foundation beyond repair, and I just don't believe he would let that happen. 

The incentive to use forbidden drugs just isn't there. If he places 14th in the TdF in July, the endorsements still come in and the Foundation still raises millions for cancer survivorship programs. If he wins number 6 and is caught with his hands in the cookie jar, it all stops. Combined with the random - and frequent - testing that is done, there is no benefit to be gained by Lance in attempting to bypass the rules.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

moneyman said:


> Aside from the fact that he is, as others have said, the most tested athlete in the world, the consequences of being caught doping are much greater than any supposed benefit. Lance will likely make upwards of $15 million in endorsements and salary this year. If he were caught doping, that would come to an abrupt halt. In addition to that, he is the namesake and a board member of an internationally known and very successful Foundation. More than just a tax dodge for him, Lance cares very deeply for the work that his Foundation does and for the people who work for, volunteer, and benefit from the programs of the LAF. A "guilty" on his palmares would likely damage his Foundation beyond repair, and I just don't believe he would let that happen.
> 
> The incentive to use forbidden drugs just isn't there. If he places 14th in the TdF in July, the endorsements still come in and the Foundation still raises millions for cancer survivorship programs. If he wins number 6 and is caught with his hands in the cookie jar, it all stops. Combined with the random - and frequent - testing that is done, there is no benefit to be gained by Lance in attempting to bypass the rules.



Then, if that is the case, then no professional athlete has ever in their entire life had any incentive at all to bypass the rules, as you say. Especially the ones that are already at the top.


----------



## TypeOne (Dec 28, 2001)

*The biggest disappointment*



Henry Chinaski said:


> .....


Boy, I hope not. I don't think so, but if it turns out that he is or was, it would rank up there with the saddest disappointments of my life. Worse than learning there was no Santa Claus.


----------



## moneyman (Jan 30, 2004)

*Sweeping generalization*



Ricky2 said:


> Then, if that is the case, then no professional athlete has ever in their entire life had any incentive at all to bypass the rules, as you say. Especially the ones that are already at the top.


I am talking about Lance specifically, not athletes in general. I know far less about Barry Bonds and his circumstances, for instance, than I do about Lance and his. Not all athletes value things the same way Lance does, and some would certainly risk all the privileges they have for the sake of fame and glory. The evidence, as I see it, says that Lance would not do that.


----------



## goldsbar (Apr 24, 2002)

I know that these guys are far, far, far more gifted athletes than I am. Lance could probably triple my climbing speed while he was going through chemo. But... I can't believe that they can do those stage races with such limited rest time at the speeds they do without drugs. I realize that's a cynical view. 

Did anyone read the article in Outside Magazine a few months ago? The author experimented on himself with limited doses of 'roids and EPO. The EPO made him faster and reduced his recovery time dramatically.

I can't remember who or any exact quotes, but some former pros have said that your kidding yourself if you think drug use isn't widespread in the peleton.

They have tested bodybuilders. Do you think they're natural? People know how to get around tests. Didn't some football player (Lawrence Taylor?) used to carry around clean urine samples?


----------



## Noel (Mar 7, 2004)

*Can't agree with you more!*



kenyonCycleist said:


> hes no doper and if you %#$% 's keep this up i will personally kick each and every one of your asses. he is immeasurably stronger than your thick little skull could ever imagine. you can't comprehend his ability and so doubt him based off your own limited experiences with racing. stop it.


After reading both of Lance's books, I've realized two things: 1)This guy has more heart than any athlete or person I've ever seen; he trains more than anyone else, he works harder than anyone else and he cares more than anyone else. His life has fallen apart more than once due to his love of cycling, he deserves everything he's won. 2)He would sound like a real ass after dedicating several chapters of his books, and thousands of hours of his time tyring to dispel these rumors. He's clean, I promise...and if it ever turns out he's not, i'll eat my words, gladly.


----------



## coonass (Feb 4, 2004)

*I doubt that Lance would jeopardize*



Henry Chinaski said:


> .....


his opportunity to win the TdF again and gamble to lose it on a drug test. He's making history with these wins and would really be a dope to do so....IMHO

What we don't know is, how many past winners were using whatever to win.....


----------



## wks9326 (Apr 24, 2004)

*Epo*

The French authorities took and frooze a sample of his blood years ago then tested it for EPO a year or two later. If he was doping he would have been using EPO at the time the blood test was taken like everyone else because there was no test for it.
Seems as close to proof as well ever get that he is clean.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

wks9326 said:


> The French authorities took and frooze a sample of his blood years ago then tested it for EPO a year or two later. If he was doping he would have been using EPO at the time the blood test was taken like everyone else because there was no test for it.
> Seems as close to proof as well ever get that he is clean.



According to L'Equippe the French police seized syringes and 250ml bottles of Activogen, a drug with EPO-like properties, from the trash of the USPS team after a stage of the Tour several years ago. It is important to note that even if Armstrong had taken Activogen at the time, which he denies, he wouldn't have broken any rules since the new drug was not on the banned list at the time and there was no test for it. Still an ethical dilemna. Activogen is now on the banned list and is purported to be tested for.

The reports of the police taking frozen samples of Lance's blood are false. Even if they did, to this day there is still no 100% reliable test for metabolites of EPO.


----------



## Matno (Jan 19, 2002)

*Absolutely.*

Sheesh. Doesn't anybody know anything about this guy? He went through chemo-therapy! If that's not drugs, I don't know what is. It just so happens that his "doping" was making his character stronger rather than his muscles. 

Now, as to whether he's a DOPE or not, that's a different question. I'm torn between different thoughts regarding Lance. On the one hand, he's the coolest athlete ever. On the other hand, no sport is worth sacrificing your family. Then again, I think a wife should be supportive of her husband's career and encourage him to be the best. Bottom line, no divorces are completely one-sided (okay, ALMOST none) but it kills me that my cycling hero couldn't hold his family together. Guess maybe I'm old fashioned, but I like my role models to be exemplary in all areas, not just one or two. Then again, I like politicians to be that way too, which is why I haven't respected very many elected officials in my lifetime...


----------



## Utah CragHopper (May 9, 2003)

Dwaynebarry said:


> Additionally, there a many known dopers who never tested positive. We could start with Virenque as the poster-child for the fallacy of the "he's never tested positive, therefore he is clean arguement".


The new poster child is Jesus Manzano. He was using every performance enhancing drug and technique known to man. Number of times he tested positive: ZERO.

Rumsas did the Tour with a load of drugs large enough to stock a hospital. The only reason he got caught was because his wife was found holding his stash. He never tested positive and the authorities then set him up in the next year's Giro.

The simple fact is that testing is ineffective. Not testing positive is a B.S. argument for proof of not juicing.


----------



## shokhead1 (Jan 21, 2003)

A cyclist as a role model? Could'nt hold his family together? It sounds like you know him or have all the inside scoop or is this all based on what you have read which ofcourse is all true.


----------



## tempeteOntheRoad (Dec 21, 2001)

*Star warz and the american dream*

Great kerouakian heros never look back
Tear the rearview mirror and drive on
Man, what a general discussion.

Are forever lost the perspectives of human proportions
Thanking god for futilities.
Crying at the anthem.
Enraged for a thorn flag.

Sorry to say.
Heros I meet every day.

Baseball enriched babies
College basket millionnaires
Shampoo endorsed bowling balls
Prime time golf and one-man show.
Second place's no good for the dough.

Sorry to say I'm no troll
I'll answer short to you poll.

Looking up the star of the biz:
Yes, doped, IMO he is.

UCI and International anti-doping agency should be looking for who is NOT doped, and award them! ha ha ha!


----------



## lemonlime (Sep 24, 2003)

*You, my friend...*



Matno said:


> Sheesh. Doesn't anybody know anything about this guy? He went through chemo-therapy! If that's not drugs, I don't know what is. It just so happens that his "doping" was making his character stronger rather than his muscles.
> 
> Now, as to whether he's a DOPE or not, that's a different question. I'm torn between different thoughts regarding Lance. On the one hand, he's the coolest athlete ever. On the other hand, no sport is worth sacrificing your family. Then again, I think a wife should be supportive of her husband's career and encourage him to be the best. Bottom line, no divorces are completely one-sided (okay, ALMOST none) but it kills me that my cycling hero couldn't hold his family together. Guess maybe I'm old fashioned, but I like my role models to be exemplary in all areas, not just one or two. Then again, I like politicians to be that way too, which is why I haven't respected very many elected officials in my lifetime...


...are in for a long life of disappointment.


----------



## Matno (Jan 19, 2002)

shokhead1 said:


> A cyclist as a role model? Could'nt hold his family together? It sounds like you know him or have all the inside scoop or is this all based on what you have read which ofcourse is all true.


Of course everything I read is true. Otherwise I wouldn't read it...

But seriously, I didn't say it was his fault. It just hurts to see someone I consider a cool role model having trouble in his personal life. For all I know, he may actually be in a situation where he's been gotten hit with circumstances beyond his control and is taking the high road by not saying anything bad about anyone. He's been known to do that with his professional life. I'll still cheer for him. 

And honestly? I don't think he's really a doper. Just a very focused professional who concentrates most of his training on one race. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Ricky2 (Apr 7, 2004)

bimini said:


> the board would be a dull place. I've noticed some of the more interesting folks seem to have left the board. Hopefully it's because the cycling weather is good.
> 
> To answer the question. No. I'm not a big fan a Lance's (Just too focused for my taste) but I have a great deal of respect for Lance and what he has done. He is the most tested man in the world. The majority of Europeans refuse to believe he has done it without drugs. They keep testing him and they keep finding nothing. But when they test their own what do they find? Well!
> 
> I guess there is a slight possibility USPS has some unheard of chemical outside of the reach of the UPC testing. But most likely he has acheived what he has acheived because he is constantly training, even in his sleep. He lives, eats and sleeps cycling. Nothing else. He has done great things for the sport in the US. Very few people in the US understand cycling as a sport, but everyone know Lance. Let's pray he is drug free. He at least put cycling on the map here in the US.



Lance Armstrong did not put cycling on the map here. Greg LeMond did.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Comedy gold!*



kenyonCycleist said:


> hes no doper and if you %#$% 's keep this up i will personally kick each and every one of your asses. he is immeasurably stronger than your thick little skull could ever imagine. you can't comprehend his ability and so doubt him based off your own limited experiences with racing. stop it.





Noel said:


> After reading both of Lance's books, I've realized two things: 1)This guy has more heart than any athlete or person I've ever seen; he trains more than anyone else, he works harder than anyone else and he cares more than anyone else. His life has fallen apart more than once due to his love of cycling, he deserves everything he's won. 2)He would sound like a real ass after dedicating several chapters of his books, and thousands of hours of his time tyring to dispel these rumors. He's clean, I promise...and if it ever turns out he's not, i'll eat my words, gladly.


I stumbled across this silliness.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

There was RBR.com in 2004?!


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Is "who cares" a viable response.

I say this because unless there is a successful criminal prosecution whether he doped or not is a purely intellectual discussion. Well not even discussion because those who say "yes" and those who say "no" are so firmly entrenched for the most part that a divinity coming down from on high and passing judgment one way or the other would be written off as either a paid off divinity by the "yes" camp or a cruel and persecuting one by the "no" camp.


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

zooog said:


> How many times must Lance piss in a bottle to show he does not dope.


There is NO test for autologous blood transfusions. 
There was NO test for EPO for several years. Even today there is NO test for detecting EPO via micro-dosing.

As Victor Conte stated, in-competition testing is not a drug test but an intelligence test.

How many tests did Marion Jones fail? Zero.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

Not EXACTLY true. Is there a test that says "oh look that is a blood cell that was in a fridge?" No. However they can now detect the plasticizers that are in bags red blood cells are typically stored in. Also via the biological passport program they can look at the ratio of older RBCs to reticulocytes and determine the likelyhood of blood doping.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

I wonder if it's even 10% nowadays that believe Armstrong wasn't a doper.


----------



## badge118 (Dec 26, 2002)

You would be surprised. First just look at all the people on these threads that rage about leaving him alone. Then go outside cycling fans. The other day I was teaching a bicycle safety class at an elementary school. They knew two cycling terms. Tour de france and Lance Armstrong and they knew Armstrong was involved with cancer research. Armstrong is on Michelobe Ultra beer commercials because people who pay no attention to cycling know who he is. The fact the criminal case was dropped has likely just made them say Landis and Hamilton are bitter angry and jealous people who got caught cheating because jeez if Lance did too the feds would not have dropped the case right? I would not be surprised if you polled people who just know about Armstrong, not pro cycling in general, if it was the reverse, 10% think he doped. His PR machine has been damn successful with the general public.


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

Funny. I voted, not knowing this was an ancient thread.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I wonder if it's even 10% nowadays that believe Armstrong wasn't a doper.


Or that any Tdf winner prior to 2000 was _remotely_ clean. Of course, the same is true for American Football, Euro Football, Baseball, Track and Field, Swimming ect.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I wonder if it's even 10% nowadays that believe Armstrong wasn't a doper.


Depends on the population sampled. In the general population an overwhelming majority of people believe Armstrong is clean. The population of cyclists obviously knows he's a doper.



Coolhand said:


> Or that any Tdf winner prior to 2000 was _remotely_ clean. Of course, the same is true for American Football, Euro Football, Baseball, Track and Field, Swimming ect.


I believe the poll was: "Is Lance a doper?" You're wandering off topic.


----------

