roadCruiser76

The "guilt by performance" argument is still weak. Lance was the best - therefore he doped. That still doesn't wash. For one thing, not all of his victories were by huge margins. In several cases he won by a couple of minutes. I think in one of the Tours he beat Urlich by less than two minutes. As a percentage of the total amount of time spent riding the Tour de France, this is pretty darn small. So you're not looking at an enormous percentage difference in terms of performance. So it is completely fallacious to say that the only way he could have won seven Tours is by doping.

The fact is, there are an enormous number of variables that affect the way an athlete performs. The human body is incredibly complex. And it is far from unprecedented to see one particular athlete be dominant in a particular sport. Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods come to mind, as well as many others. Not to mention the fact that Lance focused all of his training on the Tour de France. He didn't take part in other tours like many of his competitors. This may have enabled him to perform better on the Tour. When he took part in some of the Olympic cycling events, he did not win.

We've all become pretty cynical if success in a sport, or in any arena of life, is considered evidence of wrongdoing. That's a kind of a very socialist way of viewing the world and smacks of envy more than anything else. Again, show me the proof that he doped. There is none.

Oh, and as to this comment that riders didn't fail the drug tests but were caught by police work - for one thing many riders did fail the drug tests. And for the others that were caught by police work, they must also have been much dumber than Lance since he wasn't caught doping that way either. This is despite having more attention paid to him than all other cyclists precisely due to his success. Not only is there no proof that he doped - there's probably more evidence that Lance didn't dope than there is evidence that any other pro cyclist didn't dope.

Campag4life

Because of the potential big dollar windfall, Lance's manager recently investigated a comeback. To determine if Lance was still competitive most of the name brand riders except Chipcom were asked to participate in a mock race. Everything was in place and ready for the race to begin, but it was ultimately determined that the race would be meaningless because all the name cyclists Lance competed against had been suspended for drug use.

roadCruiser76

I'm still not sure I recall any members of Lance's team saying he doped - never mind offering proof of his doping. And I still find it odd to say one is delusional for not believing in something for which there isn't a shred of evidence. Logically speaking, in order to show that his performance proved he doped, you must rule out every other possible explanation for his performance, for which there are an infinite number.

roadCruiser76

I forget the genius who scoffed when I said that it was in dispute whether or not Lance's 1999 sample tested positive for EPO.

Here's one of my sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/sp...rssnyt&emc=rss

There are others I could look up as well. And he accused ME of not doing my homework! Actually I think it was just some French paper, L'Equipe, which accused him of failing this test to begin with. Not exactly an unbiased source.

marin1

I did my homework.
https://www.theonion.com/content/news...cent_of_people

rog

That is such a bad analogy, you might as well call it a non-sequitor.


I'm solely addressing this statement here, not whether or not Lance doped. But I think this statement is, at best, a generalization that doesn't account for the all-time exceptional athletes. Was Wayne Gretzky 1 to 2 percent better than everyone else? Michael Jordan? Whether or not Lance doped, I have no problem believing he was more than 1 to 2 percent better than everyone else.

ElJamoquio

No, he was negative ten percent better than Mario.

rog

I'm a big Mario fan, much more so than The Wayne One. But Gretz is the best forward to ever play the game.

BTW - Lemieux is another anomaly, just like Gretz, Lance, Jordan....Crosby looks like he'll be another one. Chippy little f'er though - he tried to take on Cam Janssen this season. Lucky for him, Cam laughed and skated away.

ElJamoquio

Obviously Gretzky had a much better career by any statistical analysis.

But when Lemieux was at his peak, I'd say he was better than Gretzky at his. One overlooked fact (ok, opinion) - Lemieux was also the best defenseman the Pens had at the time.

Perhaps I'm biased. No, wait, everyone else is wrong.

rog

I think Lemieux was the most physically skilled forward to ever play the game. I think Gretzky was a better hockey player, know what I mean? Of course, he also had a way, way better team than Lemieux. But you can't overlook the 92 goals, 120 assists. That's a pretty solid season...

Weeks

I cannot begin to fathom the amount of drugs that went into making this post.

Viceroy

If Lemieux had stayed healthy and motivated for all the years he could have been playing, I think he would have better overall stats then Gretzky.
The Great One vs. The Magnificent One.

dekindy

Of course, everybody else is going to be suspended for doping violations.

Vinokurtov

No it's not. Sports history is full of Olympic and professional level incidents where "prepared" athletes have beaten formerly dominate "unprepared" athletes, setting records in the process. It's been the same in cycling. The LA Olympics were a great example.

The only way to return to the status quo is to either get one party off the dope, or do the dope yourself. The top 21 riders in the year Riis won all were later implicated in doping scandals. The best doper won. Just like from 99 on. And if everybody had been racing clean, he still probably would have won, but had more than 2 "bad" days in 7 tours.

Using Woods or Jordan as comparisons...you might want to examine how putting a ball in a hole is comparable to racing a bike 4-8 hours a day for three weeks, and check into the doping allegations surrounding everyone they were playing against.

Then explain how you believe testing negative is relevant in light of the fact that the majority of riders who have been busted never tested positive in their careers, even when they were systematically doping with their entire teams. You want the list? Let's start with Basso. Then Ulrich. Musseuw. Millar. Zabel. The list is around 40-50 riders long, about 3 times the number of people of people who tested positive.

Suspend disbelief. You're right. Lance can walk on water. He beat all those Olympic Medalist and Grand Tour winning dopers on good old American know how, clean living, and good training all while producing less testosterone than the average male off the street. Yet another factor that he overcame while not doping.

And Santa's not just your drunk uncle in a rented suit.

patentcad

Ice hockey friggin blows. Please keep it off BF you pathetic skatoids. It's JUNE. Give us a break.

bikejack

Regardless of age that's still the best name ever for a MTB'er.

xerocoma

... at least it would get Bob out of the commentator's chair.....

spearce

The Lance fan boy "what if" threads make me wonder what some of you guys are on...

marin1

+1

NotAsFat

Could he do it? Possibly. But why would he want to? It's not like he has anything left to prove as far as the TdF is concerned. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose, if one of his tests should have the sort of questionable result that Landis' test did.

Regarding what he'd do for a team, if memory serves me correctly, he's a part owner of Discovery. I have no doubt he could get them shaped up or shipped out.

If he were to try again, it would convince me he was on drugs. Not EPO, LSD.

FIVE ONE SIX

hey, that's not a rental!

Hopetoditchcar

I imagine that he would have more of a chance of winning if he ditched shimano and went with soley campy equipment