Originally Posted by OrionKhan

Actually, the doping techniques generally are advancing faster than the testing can keep up. Often, there is a whistleblower (someone who gets caught and then cooperates) who assist in leading the governing bodies in the right direction. Balco started off as a tax case. So you're assumption isn't necessarily correct.

I understand where you're coming from. I think what really irritates most of the "Lance doped" crowd is the blind belief by some, that there is no way he did. I think he doped. Do I think he should be stripped of his victories? No. Who would you give it to, another doper?

When you look at Lance objectively, there's a lot of smoke. Landis isn't the first to bring up an allegation. Lance's wins over other known dopers were astounding. At some point, you have to look at it objectively and wonder how likely is it that this guy just trounced all of these other known dopers? It becomes more and more difficult to reasonably believe that Lance wasn't doping as well. Do you ever wonder why some of former teammates (guys like Hamilton and Landis) who were on a team that won the TdF, left the team and then suddenly decided to start doping. Or is it reasonable to believe that maybe they've been doping all along.

The argument of they're not being any positive tests holds little water. Anybody who follows sports for knows that a negative test result does not necessarily mean a person didn't take a PED. Sure it keeps that person in the competition from a legal standpoint. But we've seen, on more than one occasion, athletes passing tests later to find out they were taking PEDs. Often positive test results were errors or miscalculation in schedule that by the doper that gets them caught. Doping isn't an exact science.

When you objectively look at the totality of the circumstances, its not a reach to believe that Lance doped. This is what really irritates people. Those that suspend objective, rational thought and cling to the "he never tested positive" thus he could never have doped argument. We know that's not necessarily the case. The crowd that throws around the "Lance survived cancer. He would never do something as dangerous to his body as take PEDs." That's just BS. None of us really know Lance Armstrong. We've seen it time and time again with celebrity. Public and private persona aren't necessarily the same thing.

If your personal view is, "I don't consider anyone a doper until I see a positive test", fine. Just don't do it because you don't think he would do it. People thought the same about Marion Jones.

There are a lot of people who knew Floyd failed a test yet still were in disbelief. Had to be a conspiracy. The lab messed up. He said he didn't do it. Well, now Floyd is singing a different tune. Is he lying now? Possibly. But one thing is for sure. He had to learn how to dope somewhere. And its highly unlikely that the first time he took something was before that stage in the TdF. That means he was tested and passed before. So you see the whole positive test argument isn't the be all end all. Is Floyd a crazy dirt bag? Yes. Unfortunately, even crazy dirt bags tell the truth on occasion.

Originally Posted by *****3nin.vend3t

Do you believe Armstrong would be foolish enough to dope with drugs post-cancer?.

Considering some substantial evidence to its side effects such as strokes, heart attacks & deaths linked to dope usage of some professional cyclists?.