One of the general themes of the comments made by those who believe in Lance’s innocence, seems to be something along the lines of, “Excelling remarkably at a sport is not unusual or suspicious, given a high degree of natural talent, intense training, etc., etc.”
While this is clearly true, I think it overlooks a point that has been repeatedly made, by me and others:
It’s not just that Lance has great natural talent and worked very hard. It’s that he consistently defeated everyone else in the world who ALSO had talent, ALSO trained hard (even if not quite as hard as he), and…
…who were caught doping, themselves!.
I just can’t believe that ANYONE’S natural talent and/or training regimen could render such a huge, lopsided advantage as to permit that one athlete to so massively and so consistently defeat all other professional, world-class athletes in the field who were using PEDs.
This is the part of the whole issue that triggers in me the most skepticism. He beat all the cheaters, without cheating? I just don’t think so.
But, since he was tested the most of everyone, why wasn’t he caught? Was he just lucky? Too sneaky? That’s the part that, to me, defies explanation. If everyone else was caught and LA wasn’t even though he was tested more than they were, what’s the explanation?
You also have to factor in that fact that he took a different approach to training than everyone else in the world. He trained harder, and without break, and using new and innovative techniques. You can’t discount that. I’m willing to believe that he doped as soon as someone comes up with a positive test but I don’t think that’s the default without some proof.
Logical circle. You believe that he had to be cheating because it’s impossible for a non-cheater to beat cheaters. You believe that a non-cheater can’t beat a cheater because it’s never happened. And if someone presents an example of a non-cheater who beat cheaters, you dismiss it because he must have been cheating.
As somebody who only knows Lance Armstrong from Dodgeball, and who thinks bikes would be better with two extra wheels and a roof, let me sum up this thread so far:
“I think he cheated”
“But he never once tested positive for anything?”
“I still think he cheated”
“Why?”
“Because, something seems off”
“What?”
“He beat everybody in the world, he must have been cheating”
“Lots of people dominate their sports, that doesnt mean he cheated”
“Yeah, but all the people he beat were busted for doping, so he MUST have been doping too.”
“So the cycling authorities busted every top cyclist for doping. Except the one guy who they probably tested more than any other cyclist, the guy who they probably made special efforts to try and catch doping. They got everybody, except the one guy they tested the most. So he must have been doping right?”
“Yeah, he had to have been”
“Thats just stupid”.
“No, he must have cheated”
“This guy, who never failed a drug test, who had everything to lose by cheating, who never failed a test, who dedicated his life to his sport, who never tested positive, he must have cheated? Why was he never caught?”
“He was probably really good at cheating, so he must have cheated”
“:smack:”
Its strange to see this level of analysis in the SDMB. Outside of a Truther thread anyway.
I was in Paris in 1998, the year of the first mega-doping scandal on the TdF. It was quite the scene, with teams fleeing the country and the remaining riders going on strike. It was a mess and finally exposed the sport as a cesspool of drugs and cheating. Several teams were found to be in possession of large quantities of drugs. Ultimately, as I recall, the remaining riders (fewer than 100 at the end, down from about 200 at the start) struck a deal with the TdF organizers to leave them be or there’d be no finish at all. I was there on the Champs Elysées to see poor Pantini win it. He died several years later, an utterly hopeless drug addict.
This experience made me feel that cycling was thoroughly rotten, utterly doped to the eyeballs. But it also makes me wonder if Lance wasn’t in the right place at the right time. I believe he won the next TdF (and every TdF after that for quite a few years), and I wonder if he did it clean. Did that grotesque mess in 1998 scare the riders out of their drug routine for a while? Did it disrupt their supply in any way? Did they now take less in hope of not getting caught? Did they reduce their intake for a while as they waited for stealthier versions of their favorite drugs to become available? In short, did that 1998 disaster and all of the subsequent investigations and testing open up a somewhat cleaner window for six or seven years that Lance, a spectacular specimen, could take advantage of, especially given the physical transformation of the cancer and the cancer drugs?
Look, I’m not naïve. I generally feel that he used, for the reasons others have given, but I wonder sometimes. I’m not so sure it’s a slam dunk. From summer 1998 to, say, 2005, was there a period where a significant number of riders (maybe even a slim majority) were clean or cleanish? Did it take a while to get the drop back on the testers, after not bothering to even hide it for so many decades? Leading up to 1998, drugs in cycling didn’t have to be stealthy at all. Riders openly used. Post-1998, the cheaters in cycling had to re-group and re-think. The re-grouping and re-thinking didn’t always go so well, as we know that some of Lance’s opponents were nailed during that period. Did Lance sneak in there and win at least a few clean?
Probably not, but as far as I’m concerned, the jury’s still out.
Your summation is a giant straw man. Neither my position nor, as far as I can tell, the positions of the other Lance-skeptical Dopers who have weighed in here is actually close to the way your portray them.
But I haven’t the interest in turning this into a Great Debate, so I won’t bother offering a point-by-point correction of your caricature. I was just expressing my view, and if others find it foolish, oh well.
Having said that, though, I will say this (and it’s somewhat parenthetical to the main topic, at best):
As usual, in discussing a controversial topic on SDMB, I find that opinions that I hold strongly, interpretations that I think are pretty cut-and-dried and “obvious”, are not nearly so airtight or unassailable as I tend to think them.
For example, as a result of reading through your comments and replies, I can see how a person could reasonably believe LA’s claim to a clean pro cycling history. When I started this thread, I wouldn’t have granted that as a reasonable position.
So even though my mind isn’t changed, it’s been moved a good deal.
That’s a really positive aspect about these Boards, which I really appreciate.
I don’t think it is on him to prove he didn’t dope. Nobody has shown any evidence that he has therefore i see absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.
My opinion is that, if you can’t provide at least some evidence, then I have no reason to assume he did anything. And being good at his sport is not evidence, as we have no data indicating the highest possible performance in his sport without drugs.
That said, I have no problem with him doing anything that is not against the rules. It’s what I’d expect in any competition. If he’s found some substance that makes him better, but is not against the rules, then he is not cheating.
But, then again, I don’t really care much about this sport (or most others) at all. So I’m not emotionally invested. If I found out that Armstrong was cheating, I would only care in that my friends might be upset.
I’m of the “gee, I really hope he didn’t” camp, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some bits of dirt sticks to Lance in the future.
I’m curious, how he could *prove *his innocence? What kind of evidence could he come up with that would convince people that he did it on the up and up?
Just wanted to thank Marley23 for linking the 2007 TdF discussion, which by necessity also went into great detail about doping in cycling. Really informative stuff and well worth your time to read through all 4 pages, IMHO.
FWIW, I subscribe to Occam’s Razor too—especially after reading the linked thread—and find it improbable that Armstrong was able to beat so many world-class cyclists that were blood doping/using PEDs, without doing that himself. Doesn’t change my admiration for his skill and work ethic, in the same way that I am also a fan of Barry Bonds.
See, I’m far more likely to apply Occam’s Razor to the testing process: every other rider was caught doping, but not the one guy they wanted to catch most of all, and who was surprise-tested so frequently that it became an international scandal. Yet, no positive results. Occam’s Razor therefore tells me that the conclusion with the fewest assumptions is that he simply didn’t cheat.
Again, no evidence, no crime. Ever. I’ll change my opinion 180 degrees on the day that 1) Lance himself admits to cheating, or 2) evidence is presented that proves he cheated.