Probably so.

Well ... that's a bit like pointing out that a mafia boss and leader of a massive corrupt crime cartel can't be such a bad guy because he also supported an orphanage. I'd have my doubts whether someone who was obviously capable of immense cynicism, and ruthlessly pursued his personal goals in his sport, really was driven by pure altruism when founding a charity organization. But yes, some of the hundreds of millions of dollars that he fraudulently acquired were probably used for a good cause. But that doesn't really change anything.

I strongly doubt that. Armstrong was a pretty average cyclist early in his career. I think he even mentioned thoughts of giving up in his biography, but I'm not entirely sure, it's been a while since I read it. And technically he never was a good rider. He never rode economically. His superiority was based on the fact that he could pound the pedals with an insane frequency for a very long time, even when going uphill. To make this style work, he had to dope, and he had to dope more than others.

To put it differently: To compensate for his obvious limitations in technique, he had to be physically superior in a way that was attainable only through massive, systematic doping.

Note also that Armstrong practically forced doping onto his teammates. Granted, some of them probably didn't _need_ forcing, but the fact remains that US Postal (and later RadioShack) were teams where non-dopers weren't tolerated. This contributed to the superiority of Armstrong's teams (they regularly won the team-against-the-clock stages in Armstrong's best time, and he could always count on 3-4 riders to support him when things got rough), and thereby to Armstrong's perceived superiority as a driver.

Finally, you shouldn't believe that training on the actual stage courses makes that much of a difference. This was a publicity thing more than anything else, or perhaps Armstrong tried to give people ways to explain his superiority without becoming suspicious. But really, _every_ major player in the Tour de France knows these routes by heart. And they are talked about for hours in the team conferences, when the strategy for the next stage is discussed. These are professionals, after all.

In short: I'm pretty certain that without doping, Armstrong would have remained the thoroughly average rider that he was at the beginning of his career.

That's true though.

Edit: Ah, dang. I wrote "RadioShack" above when I meant "Discovery". Sorry for that. Please bear with me when I don't edit this monster of a post while the forum's linebreaks are still broken.

No, in Europe you had a lot of snotty elitists that never believed that an American could be that dominant and you had a French newspaper working to frame him. He never tested positive during his years racing it was only after they managed to find a sample without the other confirmation sample that they were able to frame him properly.

At this point he's admitted that they won't stop hounding him until they get the result their looking for. They still have precisely zero actual evidence that he doped, all they have are the allegations of team mates who themselves were already under investigation.

But, IMHO given how many times he's tested clean over the years, it really does make the cycling world look dirty. As if they're using him as a martyr to show that they really do take doping seriously, even though he has yet to fail a drug test and has already retired.
You do realize that there still isn't any evidence to back that claim, right? He's tested clean on every single test he's taken and the only exception was a B sample where there was no A to verify that it wasn't a testing error.

Suggesting that he was a massive cheat despite a complete lack of any actual evidence that he was shooting up is just plain ignorant.

I realize that he threatens the European image of owning the Tour, but facts are facts and I have yet to see a convincing explanation as to how he could be such a massive cheat and yet pass every single drug test he's been required to take.

Doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't cheating, but if the tests keep coming out clean, then there is something far more troubling than a potential 7 time winner cheating. The testing regime is horribly broken.
Right, that's the thing. The tests he was required to take all came back clean. If he's a massive cheat that's really more of an indictment of the sport than of Armstrong. He's been one of the most scrutinized athletes in a long time and they didn't manage to find anything on him until they started to cut deals with his team mates to snitch on him.

Doesn't necessarily mean that their testimony is invalid, but there is a pretty massive elephant in the room as far as conflict of interests in that whole thing.

I'm a bit surprised how some of the folks here that are usually all about innocent until proven guilty seem to advocating a lynch mob mentality in the absence of any clear and compelling evidence that Lance cheated.

And there's certainly no reason to think that he was cheating more than anybody else. Assuming of course that all those random screenings missed whatever he might have used to dope.

Many of these folks are already genetic freaks in a way that makes them way "more" apt than even an gifted human. Whether it's doping or genetic engineering (oh you know this is nearly possible, if not so already with limited success), given what we'll be able to do soon, this may become a non-issue.

I only find the Olympic gushing funny when it's clear that many of those folks are almost guaranteed to be doping as well.

Just for the record, I don't follow the sport but unless I see an article with hard proof that he did dope up I don't believe it either. Rumors and gossip tend to find a way of becoming "fact." Does anyone have an article covering this and not from a tabloid?

It's slightly stronger than that, now there are some team mates that got pinched doping are alleging that he was in on it, but it's still just rumors and innuendo. It's certainly possible that he was doping, but it still requires some explanation as to how he was able to test clean on all those tests and why he even felt the need to cheat when he was so obviously capable of competing without doping.

I can't blame him for giving up, it says a lot about the situation that he's just giving up even when nobody has been able to produce any substantive evidence that he cheated. This is obviously a very determined individual who didn't give up when he had a particularly serious cancer case and who kept pushing to go back to cycling afterwards.

That being said, if they do find evidence that he was doping, that would make him the biggest cheater ever. Doping the first time is relatively normal for the sport, but to keep doping after 4 or 5 wins would be remarkable.

hedwards, athletes cycle off illegal drugs and pass tests all the time. there are ways to test negative and still be doped up.

I haven't been paying a lot of attention to the news, but damn 0.o http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/22/us-cycling-armstrong-idUSBRE89L0HC20121022
I usually don't take forum posts seriously unless there's a link backing the accusation otherwise I tend to dismiss things. Especially in regards to something serious like this.

However: "The UCI also said it had dope tested Armstrong 218 times and the fact he never tested positive and "beat the system" means that other organizations such as the World Anti-Doping Agency should share the responsibility of accepting the results."

I understand why he said enough is enough.

He's guilty but he's also a victim. What SapienChavez said in this thread, as harsh as it sounds, reflects a reality.

Yes, athletes can do that, but the fact of the matter is that he passed the tests that were required of him. If the anti-doping agency doesn't know that they can cycle off and set up the testing regiment to handle it, then I'm not really sure how seriously we can take those negative results.

The point is that he was tested hundreds of times and now they're retroactively trying to change the standards so that they can kick him out of the sport. The whole thing is a which hunt.

He may well be guilty, but with the kind of incompetence we've seen by the anti doping body, I don't think we can ever conclude that he cheated.

You call 29 written affidavits of people who are willing top testify under oath (or have done so already), a 200-page long detailed analysis of Armstrong's practices, and 800 pages of even more detailed appendices, "rumor and innuendo"?

Have you read the report? The explanations are given on pages 129-139. Hiding, inefficient testing methods, inside knowledge of the testing schedules, warnings, use of not yet detectable substances and methods, use of masking substances, micro-doping. How much more do you need?

Well, that's simple. He wasn't.

Look, you've raised some points here that sound like you're buying into Armstrong's defense spiel, which is pretty poor this time, imho. He attacks the USADA analysis on a very general level. I really suggest to not just read Armstrong's very superficial defense, but to actually read the USADA report. It's public (click on the tabs to get to the report and the appendices). It's very detailed. It's very disconcerting.

If you want to believe that this is just a European conspiracy against a great American cyclist, feel free. But please be aware then that you are ignoring a _mountain_ of evidence.

Personally, I couldn't care less if the dominant athlete in a sport was American or European. Especially not in cycling, which is a team sport performed by teams of mixed nationality. But I do think that massive, organized doping, fraud, drug dealing, and intimidation of critics should not be rewarded with titles, fame, and millions of prize money.

Well, you might want to make note of the fact that the team mates that fingered him were given reduced sanctions in exchange for their testimony. And that the sample you're referencing was the B sample from years earlier and was didn't have the A sample to go with it, making it impossible to say if it had been contaminated after the fact.

What's more, Lance is retired, banned or not he wasn't going to do any more racing, this was more likely a face saving measure for the UCI because of the incompetent anti-doping regiment they've had in place.

No. You are again repeating Armstrong's rhetorics. They have not changed the standards. I suppose you are referring to the infamous Vrijman report? Have you read Appendix P of the USADA paper, where the World Anti-Doping Agency explains in detail why the Vrijman report is worthless?

There is no doubt that 6 samples from 1999 contained EPO. There is no doubt that these samples can be linked to Armstrong. There is no doubt that EPO doping was illegal in 1999. The whole (and, frankly, rather strange) position of the Vrijman report is that _the testing procedure_ used to find the EPO was different than the one used before - which actually doesn't pose a problem at all, and why should it?

The bottom line Psyringe is that the party doing the investigation has a significant motive to find him guilty. They weren't able to catch him doping in over 200 tests during his career.

Doesn't ultimately matter whether or not Lance did it, if they are that incompetent when it comes to administering the tests, then the sport is a complete loss and everybody in it ought to be booted. If negative tests don't count for anything ultimately, then why bother to test in the first place? Just catch the obvious cheats?

And yes, I do buy into his defense, because quite honestly, UCI isn't trustworthy and they could easily have found somebody independent to handle the claims. Taking affidavits from people that are receiving special treatment for fingering their team mate isn't something which screams honesty to me.