Pretty overwhelming evidence Lance doped.

[lotus503]

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/the-armstrong-doping-report/

202 page report, what stood out to me was big George's affidavit.

 

[gevorg]

he should write a book called "If I Did It"

 

[bononos]

Hincapie, Hamilton and other very trusted Armstrong friends came out and detailed Armstrong's doping and together with other blood evidence was the reason why Lance Armstrong decided to plead no-contest. Hincapie and some others have no axe to grind with Armstrong and so their testimony is very damning.

 

[silverpig]

I'll chip in with the Armstrong defenders arguments:

1. But but but, there's still not EVIDENCE. Not a single positive test ever!
2. Even if he did, he still beat everyone else when they were doping. That's pretty awesome!

He doped, he lied, he's still lying. That to me outweighs any of his assisted accomplishments.

 

[Slick5150]

I'll chip in with the Armstrong defenders arguments:

1. But but but, there's still not EVIDENCE. Not a single positive test ever!
2. Even if he did, he still beat everyone else when they were doping. That's pretty awesome!

He doped, he lied, he's still lying. That to me outweighs any of his assisted accomplishments.

Yes, I'd actually respect him more if he'd just be honest about it. "Everybody was doing it, I did too. I felt I needed that edge. In hindsight I wish I hadn't."

This continued nonsense about a vast conspiracy out to get him is getting beyond ridiculous.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I heard Malcolm Gladwell talking about Lance on the Bill Simmons podcast the other day. He made the point that cycling (certainly in Lance's era and probably today too) is much like Formula 1 - a sport that emphasizes both the skill, fitness and competitive instincts of the athlete, and the technological acumen of the team. Arguably the sport would be better off simply accepting that and making it part of the competition (albeit at the risk that it would make it effectively impossible for non-dopers to be successful).

It has been readily apparent to any real bike racing enthusiast for many years that Lance must have been doping. There was virtually nobody at the top level of professional cycling in that era who was not, and we are obviously talking about a man with one testicle, and who had suffered ravaging, systemic cancer. I still think Lance was the hardest-working, fittest man in cycling - it's just that he was also the most sophisticated and accomplished doper. Taking away his wins will mean that riders who literally placed 7th-10th will end up "winning" some of his Tours de France, because all the other competitive riders have been shown to have doped. To me that doesn't make much sense.

 

[xj0hnx]

So are those titles going to be given to the second place's, or just revoked with no "winner"? Weren't pretty much ALL those guys doping?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Yes, I'd actually respect him more if he'd just be honest about it. "Everybody was doing it, I did too. I felt I needed that edge. In hindsight I wish I hadn't."

This continued nonsense about a vast conspiracy out to get him is getting beyond ridiculous.

I think he feels that he can't do that because it would irreparably harm his cancer charitable efforts. He has really created a conundrum for himself. He would suffer the loss of all his wins whether he admits guilt or not, but at least this way he can continue to act as though he has been railroaded. I actually agree with Lance that the USADA has been a little excessive in its enthusiasm to get him.

 

[xj0hnx]

I think he feels that he can't do that because it would irreparably harm his cancer charitable efforts. He has really created a conundrum for himself. He would suffer the loss of all his wins whether he admits guilt or not, but at least this way he can continue to act as though he has been railroaded. I actually agree with Lance that the USDA has been a little excessive in its enthusiasm to get him.

lol a "little"? What other athlete have they ever had such a hard on for?

 

[shira]

I'll chip in with the Armstrong defenders arguments:

1. But but but, there's still not EVIDENCE. Not a single positive test ever!
2. Even if he did, he still beat everyone else when they were doping. That's pretty awesome!

He doped, he lied, he's still lying. That to me outweighs any of his assisted accomplishments.

With doping rampant in cycling in those days, who are you going to award the seven Tour de France championships to? To the next highest finisher who, like Lance, passed all his doping tests?

Yeah, those are championships I can believe in.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

lol a "little"? What other athlete have they ever had such a hard on for?

They have already gone after, and "convicted" nearly all of the other competitive cyclists of his era. I don't really buy into the idea that he was wronged through their enthusiasm. Lance has always been kind of an arrogant prick, and frankly I think if he had simply retired (rather than continuing to compete in USADA-regulated sports) and kept his mouth shut, they might have left him alone. Instead, he was defiant and obnoxious, and he paid the price.

As for other athletes, they went just as hard after Roger Clemens. Actually I think the reason the DOJ discontinued the criminal prosecution of Lance was the failure of the Clemens case.

 

[silverpig]

With doping rampant in cycling in those days, who are you going to award the seven Tour de France championships to? To the next highest finisher who, like Lance, passed all his doping tests?

Yeah, those are championships I can believe in.

I don't have a good answer, but that's certainly no justification for letting Lance keep them.

Also:

Doctor Christopher Gore, head of physiology at the Australian Institute of Sport, is cited saying that there was less than a one in a million chance Armstrong’s low level of immature blood cells, which can be caused by blood doping, occurred due to natural causes. And his plasma level rose during the 2009 Tour de France, a normal occurrence after strenuous physical activity, before suddenly dropping one week into the race.

“This would not happen naturally, but would happen if Armstrong engaged in blood transfusion during this period,” the anti-doping agency said.

 

[shira]

I don't have a good answer, but that's certainly no justification for letting Lance keep them.

Also:

I have no doubt that Armstrong doped. But my opinion is that there was indeed a level playing filed during the "Armstrong years" (that is, all leading riders doped); thus Armstrong was the true champion. I realize that Armstrong can't be allowed to keep his TDF championships, but it would be fraudulent to award those championships to anyone else. Better to have an official "No championship awarded this year" for those 7 years than pretend that anyone was clean.

 

[silverpig]

I have no doubt that Armstrong doped. But my opinion is that there was indeed a level playing filed during the "Armstrong years" (that is, all leading riders doped); thus Armstrong was the true champion. I realize that Armstrong can't be allowed to keep his TDF championships, but it would be fraudulent to award those championships to anyone else. Better to have an official "No championship awarded this year" for those 7 years than pretend that anyone was clean.

It doesn't matter if all the top guys doped. If even one guy finished the TdF clean in any given year, then he's the one who deserves the title. I find it hard to believe that EVERY finisher doped.

How you find that first clean person is beyond me though.

Maybe you award it to the guy who finished 12th, put him through the ringer, and if he passes, let him keep it until you have reason to make a change.

 

[EagleKeeper]

All though everyone feels that he doped and stated he doped; there is no evidence itself that he did dope.

Because the system is out to get him on hearsay, he is unable to establish his innocence.
the system can not show a single test that points to it even after all these years of newer technology.

Similar to an oral class test where the teacher did makes up the test on the fly to evaluate the students. The students can not leave the class and have to sit a different desks than normal. In a previous test, students tried to crib on their arms; this one all hands/arms were checked.

Highest grade is a C except for one A. Did the person with the A cheat. The suspicion is there; but unable to be proven. Or did the student who got the A put in extra effort to ensure that they were the best?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

All though everyone feels that he doped and stated he doped; there is no evidence itself that he did dope.

Because the system is out to get him on hearsay, he is unable to establish his innocence.
the system can not show a single test that points to it even after all these years of newer technology.

Similar to an oral class test where the teacher did makes up the test on the fly to evaluate the students. The students can not leave the class and have to sit a different desks than normal. In a previous test, students tried to crib on their arms; this one all hands/arms were checked.

Highest grade is a C except for one A. Did the person with the A cheat. The suspicion is there; but unable to be proven. Or did the student who got the A put in extra effort to ensure that they were the best?

Wow, why am I not surprised at this?

 

[silverpig]

All though everyone feels that he doped and stated he doped; there is no evidence itself that he did dope.

Because the system is out to get him on hearsay, he is unable to establish his innocence.
the system can not show a single test that points to it even after all these years of newer technology.

Similar to an oral class test where the teacher did makes up the test on the fly to evaluate the students. The students can not leave the class and have to sit a different desks than normal. In a previous test, students tried to crib on their arms; this one all hands/arms were checked.

Highest grade is a C except for one A. Did the person with the A cheat. The suspicion is there; but unable to be proven. Or did the student who got the A put in extra effort to ensure that they were the best?

See post #4 and the bottom of post #12

 

[dawp]

I think all this anti-doping mentality is coming from this 'war on drugs' that our government seems to be stuck on.

what I'd like to see is a 2 tier system, one with those that can openly do performance enhancing drugs and one for those that do it without drugs.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I have no doubt that Armstrong doped. But my opinion is that there was indeed a level playing filed during the "Armstrong years" (that is, all leading riders doped); thus Armstrong was the true champion. I realize that Armstrong can't be allowed to keep his TDF championships, but it would be fraudulent to award those championships to anyone else. Better to have an official "No championship awarded this year" for those 7 years than pretend that anyone was clean.

Riis has admitted he doped when he won the Tour, and he has kept his results. Also Zabel admitted doping when he won the points jersey, and got to keep that too.

Hell, even Merckx got caught doping a couple of times.

That whole era showed that everyone in the top spots doped, so it seems crazy to eliminate the winner completely. Put an asterisk by their names and be done with it.

Most people don't realize there a long history or drug use during the Tour, dating back many years when riders did cocaine, amphetamines and other crazy stuff to try and help them, so this isn't really anything new. More scientific and powerful helpful certainly, but not new.

 

[EagleKeeper]

All though everyone feels that he doped and stated he doped; there is no evidence itself that he did dope.

Because the system is out to get him on hearsay, he is unable to establish his innocence.
the system can not show a single test that points to it even after all these years of newer technology.

Similar to an oral class test where the teacher did makes up the test on the fly to evaluate the students. The students can not leave the class and have to sit a different desks than normal. In a previous test, students tried to crib on their arms; this one all hands/arms were checked.

Highest grade is a C except for one A. Did the person with the A cheat. The suspicion is there; but unable to be proven. Or did the student who got the A put in extra effort to ensure that they were the best?

Wow, why am I not surprised at this?

See post #4 and the bottom of post #12

Regretfully, I believe a person is innocent until proven guilty.

I can be suspicious that they are guilty but will not accuse them of such.

I also know that there can be exceptional people in all sports and careers that are heads above the rest of the competition.

Some peoples' systems click in a much more effective manner than others.

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes, I'd actually respect him more if he'd just be honest about it. "Everybody was doing it, I did too. I felt I needed that edge. In hindsight I wish I hadn't."

This continued nonsense about a vast conspiracy out to get him is getting beyond ridiculous.

That's exactly what I think, I'd respect him more if he stopped insulting everyone's intelligence and just admitted to what he did. Considering that all his peers were doping just as much as he was, I don't think his admission would diminish his accomplishments at all.

I think in sports where doping is rampant, they really just need to establish two classes, like "top fuel" versus "dope free". I don't care if people dope themselves up or not, but I do think it's important that people growing up can see that they can be successful without having to cheat.

 

[Mursilis]

I'll chip in with the Armstrong defenders arguments:

1. But but but, there's still not EVIDENCE. Not a single positive test ever!
2. Even if he did, he still beat everyone else when they were doping. That's pretty awesome!

He doped, he lied, he's still lying. That to me outweighs any of his assisted accomplishments.

Affidavits are evidence.

 

[PokerGuy]

Regretfully, I believe a person is innocent until proven guilty.

I can be suspicious that they are guilty but will not accuse them of such.

Nonsense. Innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt is a great standard for a court of law, but that's not the same standard a normal reasonable person uses when deciding for themselves if someone did something or not.

Being able to conclusively prove beyond any reasonable doubt that someone did something is needed to punish or jail them, but the level of proof needed to reasonably believe someone did something is a lot lower.

I also know that there can be exceptional people in all sports and careers that are heads above the rest of the competition.

Some peoples' systems click in a much more effective manner than others.

Everyone else was doping as well, so regardless of his doping there is no doubt he was exceptional in what he was able to accomplish. That's not really in question.

Given the mountain of evidence to indicate doping, including (now) at least 11 witnesses who personally saw him doping, I can't see how any reasonable person could come to the conclusion that he wasn't doping.

The better question is, does that diminish his accomplishments?

 

[Mursilis]

All though everyone feels that he doped and stated he doped; there is no evidence itself that he did dope.

Affidavits are evidence.

As for all those negative test results, plenty of guys who never failed a test (such as Hincapie) have admitted doping. Apparently, those tests aren't hard to beat.

I wonder if Indurain was clean?

 

[PokerGuy]

I wonder if Indurain was clean?

Apparently very unlikely.....

I guess it's just a sport where the performance difference between doping versus not doping is big, so the odds of someone winning consistently without doping is small.