If he didn’t cheat it’d reflect rather poorly on the sport. Someone who doesn’t even care won so many times? Like, just by messing around?
I personally think he probably doped and if his former teammates keep accusing him this will probably become accepted as the truth. The other side of the cookie is that he was never cought, but pretty much all other cyclists passed tens if not hundreds of test before they got cought. In my opinion we should just let it rest, in the worst case he was doing the same as all the other riders. He was/is an exeptional atelete and deserved his titles, but thinking he beat all these cheats on all bran cereal is sticking your head in the sand.
To quote a famous dutch saying, you can’t finish the tour on full grain bread with cheese 
This is a whole lot more evidence than he must of cheated because everyone cheats. Now it is possible that all these people are lying or mistaken, but really that is simplest explanation? You need to really hate a guy to lie to a grand jury about him, or write a book defaming him.
This pretty clearly hasn’t shown to be true in other sports. Being the best player in the game didn’t stop Bonds or Clemens from cheating. As it turns out elite athletes tend to be incredibly competitive people, and incredibly competitive people are willing to whatever it takes to win.
Unless doping really was prevalent in cycling, in which case assuming that he didn’t would be the additional, right?
Could be cheating actually isn’t that advantageous in cycling. Has there actually been a double blind study that it improves bicycling performance? Perhaps its mainly placebo effect, but cyclists became convinced it worked and felt pressured to use it, while LA avoided use and kept winning simply because he would’ve won anyways, and doping made no difference.
(and before everyone yells at me, I don’t follow cycling and don’t care one way or another about LA. The possiblilty that a bunch of people are risking their careers over a placebo just struck me as interesting).
Over the decades of trial and error, I’m pretty sure they’ve figured out what really works. This used to be the excuse that Mcquire and Bonds supporters used. They said while steroids can make you stronger, they can’t make you hit the ball better. It turns out that they could do all that and more, if used correctly.
I completely missed the 60 Minutes segment on Armstrong today. Anything of note?
I dunno. Sports performance seems to be pretty vulnerable to placebo effects and wives tales. And while other theories can be scientifically tested, the effect of performance enhancing drugs seems like it would be difficult (though maybe someone has, I dunno). It does seem pretty clear steroids help baseball players, but that doesn’t really mean the drugs used by cyclists necessarily have a real effect on their performance.
Apparently Lance tested positive for EPO in the Tour de Suisse in early 2000’s. They had the head of the Lab on and he said a meeting was set up afterwards between Lance and Brunyeel to keep the positive under wraps (I read a summary, I was golfing and couldn’t watch).
The rest of the stuff was run of the mill doping program stuff or so I’m told. Interesting if you aren’t familiar, however.
It’s good to see 60 Minutes showing its true colors in a non-political story, where its bias and dishonesty can’t be hand waved away as political bias on the part of the observer. I have loathed this program for decades. 60 Minutes’ standard operating procedure - for as long as I’ve been aware of it - has been to decide how it wants to report a story and and then tailor its reportage to support that position. Most of the time its victims lack the resources and the platform to call 60 Minutes on its bullshit, but in this case Armstrong has both the means and the bully pulpit and is fighting back. To wit:
I didn’t see the 60 Minutes piece on Armstrong tonight, but a few days ago I did see a clip of the interview with Hamilton. I thought his facial expressions and body language indicated he was lying through his teeth and not all that comfortable with it. I’m certain that a reporter as experienced as Scott Pelley (coincidentally CBS’s shiny new evening anchor replacement for Katie Couric) would have seen this too, but, given the apparent fact that CBS wanted to skewer a high-profile figure in order to promote its shiny new network anchor - and that Pelley himself is that shiny new anchor - it appears that he was content to allow Hamilton to say whatever he wanted and then present those allegations as fact.
I would suggest that anyone wanting to know both sides of the story check out Armstrong’s site Facts 4 Lance here, and then try to decide for yourself who’s telling the truth. One thing is for sure though, and that is you can’t count on getting the truth from 60 Minutes.
OK, let’s say he doped, so let’s award his wins to the next finisher in the races who didn’t dope. That would be…
Oh, wait…
I don’t really know Lance Armstrong, but like most Austinites, I’ve always liked him.
If Lance were on trial for PED use, and there were jail time at stake, would I as a juror vote to convict him on the evidence I’ve heard so far? No. But at this point, there’s so much circumstantial evidence and so many people making accusations that I can’t put much stock in his protestations of innocence. Am I really supposed to believe that EVERYBODY is lying but Lance?
This is a sport in which PED use is rampant, in which it’s very nearly true that (as little kids always tell their parents) “Everybody is doing it.” That means I can’t muster much sympathy for a bunch of cheaters whose chief complaint boils down to “Lance cheated better than we did.” But it also means Lance doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt any more.
If Lance used PEDs ,as I believe he did, he isn’t evil. But he isn’t an inspirational hero figure any more, either. Which is a shame.This, precisely.
He’s not guilty to a criminal conviction standard of proof – but he’s not in a criminal court. He’s in the court of public opinion, where insisting that other people prove it is not an adequate defense, and occam’s razor obtains.
But no, “we” will never agree to it. See “birther” and “truther.”
I don’t think I’m allowed to link to another message board, so I won’t, but lets just say that it turned into a very amusing thread when we tried to hand out Lance’s tour wins to non-dopers. The 2005 tour is especially funny. When you eliminate anyone who got busted or was heavily implicated you end up with Cadel Evans winning that one and he placed number 8. That’s only because we don’t really have enough information and he’s never been implicated obviously we don’t know for sure that he was clean. After him you drop past the top 20.
Also, Carlos Sastre becomes a three time tour de france winner. Even he had that awesome climb up Alpe de Huez in 2008 which is suspicious. Especially when you look at the top 27 fastest ascents up Huez (he was 17, Bjarne Riis was 16…we all know about Mr. 60 percent) they are all in prime doping years and the list reads as a who’s who of dopers (depends on your opinion of Indurain, I’m suspicious but have no real knowledge).
I’m done trying to convince people on Lance doping. The information is out there, if you search for it and it was there before Landis or Hamilton. A lot is circumstantial, but there is just so much of it it’s impossible to look past. For most of Lance’s disciples it’ll take an admittance from Lance himself and even then they’ll insist it was coerced. There’s no point.
ETA: RIP Xavier Tondo
All I know is that the guy who was busted after winning the TdF last year is making a mockery of the Giro right now.
So, basically one has to believe that he’s either improbably good at cycling or improbably good at concealing doping.
I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive.
It is no secret that cycling was a dirty sport. Allegations have been tossed around for years. There have been many scandals. Players and whole teams have been caught cheating.
Regardless of whether he doped he is incredibly good at bike racing. No one seems to question his mental toughness, training regimen, or racing tactics. I’d like to believe that was enough to overcome the other cyclists (who are also tough, hard trainers, and great tacticians) and until we get something more I will continue to give him benefit of the doubt.
But I admit that the window of doubt is a bit narrower. It is still, IMO, open.
All professional sports are dirty.
If a cyclist can escape detection, so can an Olympian. Or any other athlete.