Az B

Lance who?

Az

barndoor

He's obviously juiced.....

marin1

As long as you think all drugs are the same. Different drugs, provide different results.
sudafed and EPO are both cheating but I think one might improve your results more than the other.
I don't think LA is the only cyclist who trained like a mofo, lots of pros train hard and have determination, they just don't have Trek and Nike making commercials about them to convince the masses they are special.

sagginwagin

No. I was a fan until his association with Dr. Ferrari surfaced and Lance remained a supporter
all the way to the point where Ferrari's conviction would've further tainted Lance's rep had he continued his
public support. I really cut him loose when he chased down Filippe Simeoni in the tour forcing him to
relinquish his position in a break and return to the peleton. Everyone being aware of Simeoni's testimony against Ferrari and his own doping admission
made me question the validity of Lance's claims of being "clean".
It all stinked to high heaven and at that
point I was done with him.

His meticulousness in every facet to me is the reason he was never caught. He gave up racing right at the
point where the testing was being amped up and advancing to detect the more advanced methods of
doping. He's never taken a stand on doping in the sport which is contradictory to his strong support
for cancer research. It would seem that this "humanitarian" would be concerned for the sport that he
obviously loves and its participants and never strongly give an opinion or take strong stand against
doping just doesn't support him being squeeky clean.

merlinextraligh

Armstrong never tested positive. The statute of limitations has already run on his first win, and will run its course on the remainder.

It's over. He never tested positive, and that's the end of the story. Anything else is both irrelevant and speculative.

Keith99

What statute of limitations? They asked Riis for his winners Jersey back within the last year!

A lot depends what story one is talking about. If you mean who won and what the record books will continue to show I tend to agree. If you mean the story that some of Lance's worshipers keep trying to paint, the one where he is not Lance Armstrong, but Jack Armstrong all American boy, cleaner than clean and head and shoulders above anyone else in the peleton, then no that story is not over and never will be bought by anyone who knows squat about cycling or even sport.

My bet it you don't believe either end of the spectrum and don't think he is either God or Satan.

cycle17

Honestly...I don't think any of us will ever have the answer to this question. But is it possible that Lance was simply a great athlete that trained harder, had a great team and had more will to win than anyone else after a brush with death, thus resulting in his seven tour wins? The answer to that is yes. Along with the fact that he never tested positive in a properly conducted drug test...I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

merlinextraligh

The statute of Limitations for the UCI to impose sanctions is 8 years. Of course the Tour can do what they want with their own records.

Personally, I think Armstrong competed on a level playing field, just not the clean level playing field we'd like to believe.

I also believe Armstrong is now past history.

wagathon

In this entitlement era, it may not be as readily admitted anymore that much can be accomplished with enough work and dedication and little can be accomplished without it. Hasn't it become a little too easy to belittle the accomplishments of others?

Are some perhaps too easily comforted with the notion that Lance may have excelled by taking drugs? Is such a belief merely an excuse for not putting out the effort necessary to achieve what we wish to accomplish in life ... to make ourselves feel better about not having the gumption to commit?

If we believe Lance did drugs, are we perhaps just looking for an excuse for our own failures? Perhaps we might hear someday, e.g., "I would have gotten a doctorate and become a heart surgeon--if I'd been willing to drink coffee so that I would be able to stay up late enough to complete my studies--however, caffeine is a performance-enhancing drug that I was unwilling to put into my body (which is why I wash cars for a living today)."

I could'a been'a contenda!

merlinextraligh

Wake up and smell the 21st century.

The point is that they all dope. It's not to diminish Armstrong, or excuse your own failures. But it's recognizing the fact that the chance that Armstrong dominated his competition that was proven to be doped to the gills without any help of his own, is truly deminimis.


I don't think anyone is saying that if they had access to EPO, HGH, etc, they could have won the TDF.

However a lot of people are saying it's difficult to believe that Armstrong could have dominated a peloton made up of people who also were genetically gifted, highly motivated, and trained as much as humanly possible, without some pharamcuetical help, when it is a proven fact his competition wasusing PED's.

Sorry to wake you up from your fairy tale. I'll let you go back to dreaming now.

limeylew

Yes --- and if we could get John Wilcockson - (Velonews Editorial Director) to do a write-up on him, such as he has about several other famous racers, then perhaps more people would believe in him.

Lance was really 'blazing a trail', here in TX, when he was just a lad and I think that if more people knew how good he was then, it wouldn't stretch the imagination to much to be on his side now.

Murrays

Was Michael Jordan on drugs when he crushed the competition? Wayne Gretzky? Tiger Woods? Maybe, I don't know, but I think it's possible for an athlete to come along every so often that puts it all together and dominates.

IOW, I don't think you can say he was on drugs simply because he was better than others who were (perhaps) on drugs. All the drugs in the world wouldn't make me into a tour rider.

-murray

wagathon

The people that know Lance did drugs, without any proof--their own prejudices is their only truth--are the real losers. Others that have had the good fortune to excel, without drugs ... they would never believe that or they would never have been the kind of people that lucked into excellence.

BostonRoadee

I think he probably doped.

I don't want to, but I do.

With that said, two caveats:

1) Would I stand up in front of people who don't have the level of interest to form their own opinions about this (as most of us here do) and claim that he doped? No. I have no evidence that he did, and probably no one ever will.

2) Was he one of the most talented, dedicated, passionate competitors the sport's ever known -- perhaps *the* most? Absolutely. It's just a crying shame that we'll never know if he was clean. I have no reason to believe he *was,* and there is a mountain of incriminating (though completely circumstantial) evidence.

Savagewolf

I'd like to believe he was clean, and will continue to do so. On the chance that he wasn't, he was still competing against top riders who WERE doping and he still beat them. He either was clean and beat dopers, or he doped and beat dopers. Either way, he won.

acoldspoon

Oh hell no. Guilty as sin. And a bit of an assh*le too. I'm 100% on the side of Greg when it comes to Lance and Floyd.

oldspark

If you think with your heart-no, if you think with your head-yes.

wagathon

I hear a lot of seemingly earnest folks that are saying, e.g., "yeah: I don't know but I'm pretty sure he was guilty." Since this is the view from what seems to be many serious-thinking folks, who harbor no particular grudges, and perhaps would even love to know they were wrong about thinking the worst, I just cannot believe that all of those that doubt are, e.g., somehow bad because they feel as they do (it's not like they're on a jury and have taken an oath to be fair and impartial). Rather, I blame the age we live in (since the trashing of Clarence Thomas and the fair and balanced reporting of Dan Rather): the seriousness of the allegations is all that really matters anymore. Too bad; so sad. Anyone with an agenda that has any kind of reach into society can start the trash mobile rolling--and, they always will do just that.

marin1

I don't believe in Santa or the tooth fairy either. Lance is not the only athlete to have cancer and live through it, not the only pro cyclist that trains in adverse weather, and is not the only one motivated to win. Lance is beating guys (by large amounts) who trained their ass off and took every drug that could help, yet some people just seem to think he wants it more. He must be clean if you can't show a positive result for a drug test. I don't recall skeletor, Basso, Ullrich, or Diluca testing positive, maybe you think they're innocent as well. Nahh, they're euro's, therefore guilty.

Hartmann

I won't speculate on whether Lance used dope or not. But according to this story he has been acting like a dope.

https://austinist.com/2008/02/04/lance_throws_hi.php

BTW if you follow the link to the "rest of the story" , Lance does own up to being an ***** and apologizes

drmarthacastro

Yes, I believe him 100%! He didn't dope, he couldn't, he had cancer, it would have been like playing suicide if he would have doped, if he would have used testosterone he would have had the cancer back and he would be dead. People who don't believe in Lance Armstrong are jealous of his power and his greatness. So there, eat my words, and believe in him........or else!

Keith99

Lance has always been a lot more reasonable than many of his supporters. A hothead, but at least he can admit it.

jens5

Yes!

drmarthacastro

Thank you, thank you.....

A_THOR

I think that it is not only redundant but counteractive to the sport of cycling and any sport for that matter to call into question every athlete that does something great. I think that it is for the officials and governing bodies to explore whether or not someone cheated and it is for the spectators to enjoy the moments.

Ignorance is bliss....