Tour de France - Having doubts (not meant to start a flame war)

Wow, a great "monster post" from Koffee...

One more supporting point: economics.

I read an article today that noted there are still riders in the peloton that are paid $20K a year base salary. In "Every Second Counts," it was noted that Landis started on Postal at $60k. If Lance wins tomorrow, the $400k Euro will be shared with the team, and Lance will personally write bonus checks to every team member. In the book, it was noted that he doubled the tour winnings for every rider after a previous tour win. Therefore, the team riders may take home around $140,000 or more a year.

In the days of the past, the earnings of cyclists were worse. As part of their apprentice years, previous champions raced as many races as possible to make ends meet. Especially the dope-riddled post Tour local crits, according to Paul Kimmage. Today, especially on Postal, the pay makes that need mute, and the riders can focus more than in the past. In part, because they are respected more in terms of pay.

Also noted in the book, Lance personally took on Landis and "beat him" into a professional, as Lance defined it. The "old ways" had to go, even if the Tour Director feels that's taking all the romance out of the tour and making it too American.

So, we may criticize Armstrong for not riding more races, as past champions did, but I still feel that modern riders are better off with the program that LeMond and then Armstrong defined. In part, they are given more time to fully develop their gifts, and not to race to survive. It's no wonder that Lance may break the "age barrier" that previous champions hit.

Maybe this view is too American, but the results are impressive, and the writing may be on the wall.

You can't prove a negative.

You cannot prove that Lance Armstrong is not doping.

Lance has been tested probably more than any other human being in recorded history. The tests have all come back negative. This does not prove that Lance is not doping. Lance's critics take it only as evidence that he can beat the tests.

Lance has issued repeated (and rather vehement) denials of doping. His statements are taken by his critics to be evidence that he is either prevaricating or equivocating.

I can't say for sure that Lance is not doping. A negative cannot be proven. The evidence both for and against his doping is circumstantial.

As Koffee pointed out, Lance Armstrong is a smart and supremely gifted athlete who has devoted himself to winning a single event. He has a team that is as good as any and better than most. That team devotes itself entirely to helping him win Le Tour. To say that "he must be doping else he couldn't win" is an unprovable assertion.

If I were to learn, beyond any doubt or question, that Lance Armstrong was using performance-enhancing drugs, whether they were banned by the UCI or not, I would not be surprised, but I would be disappointed. Proof that Lance dopes would make a sham of all his accomplishments. The good things he stands for...his cancer charity...would all seem fraudulent.

I hope that Lance does not dope. Until I am given proof beyond suspicion and innuendo, I will continue to think the best of him, because you cannot prove a negative.

Thats the bottom line,proof. Doesnt matter who said what or who saw whatever,until the proof shows he's a doper, the only proof we have is he kicks everbodys *****. He's the man,like it or not and bye the way,who's to say,before testing they were not doping?