If Lance Armstrong has passed every drug test how can they find him guilty of doping?

[EricF]

Originally Posted by sloasdaylight

The thing I wonder about this is: Is there anyway that, should he be found to have not taken part in some sort of doping, he will be cleared by his critics? The vitriol surrounding Armstrong seems to be so strong that no matter what a panel finds, even if it be his innocence, (which I doubt the panel will find, regardless of the truth) he will always be guilty in the eyes of many fans/observers of cycling.

It hasn't happened so far after the two previous investigations were unsuccessful in proving anything.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

But in this ever-PC world in which we live in, how is that fair to the people who choose not to shorten their lives?

I guess they'll just have to train harder

[Roscoe East]

Originally Posted by pmchenry

Just read through this thread and I have to say that I'm amazed at the number of people who still assume Lance's innocence. The evidence to the contrary has been mounting for years...

I don't "assume" he's innocent...in fact, at this point I'm pretty darn indifferent to the question of Armstrong's guilt versus innocence.

What bothers me is all the folks passing judgement one way or another based on hearsay.

[JimmyM]

Lance Armstrong DID lose a ball, though. Yes, we were told it was cancer, but do we really know what caused the cancer? Everyone knows that the first thing steroids attack is your sack.

And if you go through pictures of him, you'll see that in some pics he has a normal well-trained physique, and in other pictures he looks like the veins are about to burst out of his arms and the muscular definition is quite exaggerated. Sorry...that's a dead giveaway.

I understand he hasn't been convicted of anything, but I don't know how people can see those pics and not think something was up.

[Mysterion]

I think JimmyM's point about photos of Lance deserves more consideration, in a little greater depth.

I've watched professional cycling for decades. I recall so well the talk about Lance, back before the cancer....I was managing a bike shop at the time, and there was a poster of Lance in the back, the famous shot of him with his arms raised in victory at the Worlds in '93. Everyone was glad to see Lance winning--we all missed Saint Greg. But we all snickered at Lance, and his Clydesdale bike form. He was strong, but graceless.

Fast forward, post cancer. Suddenly, Lance looks like a new rider. Truly, he doesn't even look like the same person. It's not just that he's more ripped, more sculpted. He just doesn't look exactly human. And he certainly doesn't ride the same.

The cornerstone of Lance's current defense is the he hasn't displayed a marked, radical change in performance. "I've always been great," his camp seems to say. Problem is...it's not true. He's playing to his celebrity, and a legion of fans who never followed racing before he started winning Tours. People who watched his career know there was a radical change.

Let's be real here. Nobody is claiming Lance is a nice guy. He isn't. Anyone who has worked around him--and I know plenty of people who have--knows this. The general consensus is "as soon as the camera go off, he's a massive a-hole.." But that's probably true for a lot of sports figures, and it isn't really the point.

The point is, it's all smoke and mirrors. Again, nobody who's really close to pro cycling believes that Lance was clean. But he became a poster boy for the cycling in the US, and worldwide. The consequences for "catching" him would be severe for the sport. So it was swept under the rug, while scores of other riders--including Lance's teammates--fessed up, or were caught.

Lance has failed tests. This has been well documented. But because of technical issues, he has never been brought to the table. He has also dodged testing protocol more than once, going into private to provide specimens that were supposed to be provided under watchful eyes. This is also well documented.

Back to the original point. Really, look at those pics from 92 and 93. Watch some of the footage. Talk to people in the peloton. Then tell me you think Lance was Mr. Clean.

[Gopherbassist]

Originally Posted by darius8

What if it was done on the floor? It would be more serious if it was her foot.

There seems to be some disconnect between the English I'm typing and what you're replying with. What exactly are you trying to say?

[darius8]

Originally Posted by Gopherbassist

There seems to be some disconnect between the English I'm typing and what you're replying with. What exactly are you trying to say?

I was just joking, playing with the words and making light humor. Sorry if it wasn't obvious.

[DerHoggz]

Originally Posted by Mysterion

I think JimmyM's point about photos of Lance deserves more consideration, in a little greater depth.

I've watched professional cycling for decades. I recall so well the talk about Lance, back before the cancer....I was managing a bike shop at the time, and there was a poster of Lance in the back, the famous shot of him with his arms raised in victory at the Worlds in '93. Everyone was glad to see Lance winning--we all missed Saint Greg. But we all snickered at Lance, and his Clydesdale bike form. He was strong, but graceless.

Fast forward, post cancer. Suddenly, Lance looks like a new rider. Truly, he doesn't even look like the same person. It's not just that he's more ripped, more sculpted. He just doesn't look exactly human. And he certainly doesn't ride the same.
While I would tend to disagree with JimmyM's post, since a lot of cyclists have prominent veins and muscles due to their low body fat, your point on his form is a good one. He could have presumably worked on it, but he was already at the top level, so he presumably would have been at the top of his ability.

The cornerstone of Lance's current defense is the he hasn't displayed a marked, radical change in performance. "I've always been great," his camp seems to say. Problem is...it's not true. He's playing to his celebrity, and a legion of fans who never followed racing before he started winning Tours. People who watched his career know there was a radical change.

Let's be real here. Nobody is claiming Lance is a nice guy. He isn't. Anyone who has worked around him--and I know plenty of people who have--knows this. The general consensus is "as soon as the camera go off, he's a massive a-hole.." But that's probably true for a lot of sports figures, and it isn't really the point.

The point is, it's all smoke and mirrors. Again, nobody who's really close to pro cycling believes that Lance was clean. But he became a poster boy for the cycling in the US, and worldwide. The consequences for "catching" him would be severe for the sport. So it was swept under the rug, while scores of other riders--including Lance's teammates--fessed up, or were caught.
I'm sure the UCI had some involvement or at least knowledge as well. Lance made cycling much more recognized, so they wouldn't want to hurt that.

Lance has failed tests. This has been well documented. But because of technical issues, he has never been brought to the table. He has also dodged testing protocol more than once, going into private to provide specimens that were supposed to be provided under watchful eyes. This is also well documented.

Back to the original point. Really, look at those pics from 92 and 93. Watch some of the footage. Talk to people in the peloton. Then tell me you think Lance was Mr. Clean.

These are some of the points I was going to illustrate in response to Pacman, and I'm sure you did a much better job than I would have.

I also dislike the way Lance has made himself out to be this super-duper cancer fighter savior. This is going along with Mysterion's last point. Not to downplay cancer or anything like that, but he has turned himself into a living legend for most Americans and capitalized off of it. He aggressively markets himself over the cancer research (awareness? Frankly I don't know what Livestrong actually does?).

Here is something from LA's Wikipedia concerning Lance's behavior regarding a rider speaking out against doping:

In addition, Armstrong has been criticised for his disagreements with outspoken opponents of doping such as Paul Kimmage[51][52] and Christophe Bassons.[53][54] Bassons wrote a number of articles for a French newspaper during the 1999 Tour de France which made references to doping in the peloton. Subsequently, Armstrong had an altercation with Bassons during the 1999 Tour De France where Bassons said Armstrong rode up alongside on the Alpe d'Huez stage to tell him "it was a mistake to speak out the way I [Bassons] do and he [Armstrong] asked why I was doing it. I told him that I'm thinking of the next generation of riders. Then he said 'Why don't you leave, then?'"[55] Armstrong confirmed the story. On the main evening news on TF1, a national television station, Armstrong said: "His accusations aren't good for cycling, for his team, for me, for anybody. If he thinks cycling works like that, he's wrong and he would be better off going home".[56] Kimmage, a professional cyclist in the 1980s who later became a sports journalist, referred to Armstrong as a "cancer in cycling".[54] He also asked Armstrong questions in relation to his "admiration for dopers" at a press conference at the Tour of California in 2009, provoking a scathing reaction from Armstrong.[54] This spat continued and is exemplified by Kimmage's articles in The Sunday Times.[57]

An interesting read is how Bassons was treated after this.

Most of the peloton was juiced up to the gills during Lance's run.

Here is an article about how EPO can greatly improve abilities. Riis admitted to doping to win this Tour.

Greg Lemond, who won the Tour in 1986, 1989, and 1990, asked another "older" rider in one of the later Tours something along the lines of, "This is really fast, isn't it?". Lemond was by no means someone who should have had a problem, but he was getting shelled to the back. The other rider shared this. (I'm drawing blanks on specifics, but could look it up)

[deeptubes]

... and OJ was framed!

[Frank Tuesday]

Originally Posted by sloasdaylight

The thing I wonder about this is: Is there anyway that, should he be found to have not taken part in some sort of doping, he will be cleared by his critics? The vitriol surrounding Armstrong seems to be so strong that no matter what a panel finds, even if it be his innocence, (which I doubt the panel will find, regardless of the truth) he will always be guilty in the eyes of many fans/observers of cycling.

It is impossible to prove that he didn't dope. Lack of evidence isn't proof of non-existence. A "Not Guilty" verdict is not proof of innocence.

For many, the circumstantial evidence is too great to believe he was clean throughout his career, particularly during his TdF reign. I'm not comfortable saying that he doped, but I am comfortable saying that I would put the probability of him doping at 95%. I won't say he was a doper, but I will say he probably was a doper.

A not-guilty verdict won't change my opinion, because the verdict won't change the evidence, circumstantial or not. All a not-guilty verdict means is that the amount of evidence was not enough for the panel to make the jump from "probably a doper" to "definitely a doper", and that is a pretty big jump to make.

[DerHoggz]

Originally Posted by Frank Tuesday

It is impossible to prove that he didn't dope. Lack of evidence isn't proof of non-existence. A "Not Guilty" verdict is not proof of innocence.

For many, the circumstantial evidence is too great to believe he was clean throughout his career, particularly during his TdF reign. I'm not comfortable saying that he doped, but I am comfortable saying that I would put the probability of him doping at 95%. I won't say he was a doper, but I will say he probably was a doper.

A not-guilty verdict won't change my opinion, because the verdict won't change the evidence, circumstantial or not. All a not-guilty verdict means is that the amount of evidence was not enough for the panel to make the jump from "probably a doper" to "definitely a doper", and that is a pretty big jump to make.

I agree with this, even though I may have come off like I hard-line believe he is a doper. It is more along the lines of all the signs point to yes, so I am like at 98%.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

But in this ever-PC world in which we live in, how is that fair to the people who choose not to shorten their lives?

It's not a matter of PC. If doping becomes accepted, then it becomes effectively mandatory.

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by fdeck

It's not a matter of PC. If doping becomes accepted, then it becomes effectively mandatory.

I forgot the smilie.

[fokof]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/repo...-case-unmasked

[Mysterion]

Originally Posted by fokof

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/repo...-case-unmasked

Yeah, even Big George; what say now, Lance?

(BTW--Nice Rohloff avatar...)

[colcifer]

Lance fights back! This is getting good. opcorn:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...oping-hearing?

[Pacman]

And Lance gets a spanking from the judge....this is interesting, for sure.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/sport/...html?hpt=hp_t2

[fokof]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ferr...us-postal-case


3 person close to the US postal team banned for life

Pass the popcorn over here please!

[Jake Saint]

Originally Posted by P. Aaron

Because some people are still bummed about getting their asses kicked in 'their' alleged national sport.

Extremely relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=476TpWeGkLM

[Big B.]

Originally Posted by Pacman

And Lance gets a spanking from the judge....this is interesting, for sure.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/sport/...html?hpt=hp_t2

Wow. Thats the sound of a seriously unhappy judge.