Lance Armstrong ... doping

[MashTun]

Fact of the matter is; he won all the time, he did so without breaking any laws, (as proven many times over by his repeated negative results) and people simply need to accept it.

so i assume that if this investigation is done and they conclude he was cheating and strips him of his titles...you'll change your stance and accept it? i just have always believed he was cheating and i probably always will. just like i'll always believe oj did it....even though he was deemed not guilty and i should probably just accept that. but i can't.

If Armstrong is found to have cheated and to have broken cycling laws that were in place at the time during his racing career, I would accept it and change my opinion of him.

Until that happens, and the investigators actually PROVE that he was doping illegally, Armstrong is by all accounts innocent.

Agreed.

It is interesting to me that those who believe in his guilt, tend to gloss over the evidence it his favor. Clinging blindly to their opinion, apparently ignoring arguments against it. Repeatedly I have pointed out different aspects of testing in cycling, and the main response I get is that in short, "Armstrong is a doping savant". As if his passing all those tests means nothing, earning him not even the smallest benefit of doubt. Why? Because he's was not good, but AWESOME which somehow makes him automatically quilty.

ILTC was right serveral posts ago observing, "we will believe what we want to believe". I prefer to give the guy a chance before ASSUMING guilt. To date NOTHING has been confirmed despite repeated tests/investigations. If new information comes to light, then we'll see.

[SonomaCat]

Until that happens, and the investigators actually PROVE that he was doping illegally, Armstrong is by all accounts innocent.

So applying that logic, you apparently believe that OJ was "innocent?"

A rather specious argument BAC, nice try though.

As if some 500 negative results of Armstrong's tests mean nothing.

The test results that the public knows about certainly don't prove he's "innocent," which was the point I was making.

So for anybody to say he is "by all accounts" innocent is a logically flawed argument ... especially when we consider that there are many highly-publicized accounts that claim him to be guilty.

[SonomaCat]

The letter says that blood samples collected from Armstrong in 2009 and 2010 are “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”

This part of the original article also seems to provide new evidence to support an argument that he did do something.

So really, the only "account" by which he is "innocent" is his own ... while most everyone else directly involved (competitors, teammates, government, enforcement bodies) seems to believe that he's not innocent.

I don't claim to know one way or another ... but if I had to place a bet on it, I'd bet against him.

[MashTun]

The letter says that blood samples collected from Armstrong in 2009 and 2010 are “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”

This part of the original article also seems to provide new evidence to support an argument that he did do something.

So really, the only "account" by which he is "innocent" is his own ... while most everyone else directly involved (competitors, teammates, government, enforcement bodies) seems to believe that he's not innocent.

I don't claim to know one way or another ... but if I had to place a bet on it, I'd bet against him.

FWIW I've see this before, and yet the testing result was negative as far as I understand.Open to new info.

Competitors...whom?
Teammates? (Other than convicted/admitted dopers themselves). One would think SOMEONE other than these guys would come forward, but to date no.
Government enforcement bodies? Dropped the investigation months back with no change in his status.

[TIrwin24]

So for anybody to say he is "by all accounts" innocent is a logically flawed argument ... especially when we consider that there are many highly-publicized accounts that claim him to be guilty.

This really doesn't mean anything at all. All the crap that is being said in the media is either by riders with no supporting proof, or "experts" that are somehow trying to spin his blood chemical content into something illegal.

By the way, your OJ Simpson comparison was stupid BAC.

[MashTun]

Until that happens, and the investigators actually PROVE that he was doping illegally, Armstrong is by all accounts innocent.

So applying that logic, you apparently believe that OJ was "innocent?"

A rather specious argument BAC, nice try though.

As if some 500 negative results of Armstrong's tests mean nothing.

The test results that the public knows about certainly don't prove he's "innocent," which was the point I was making.

So for anybody to say he is "by all accounts" innocent is a logically flawed argument ... especially when we consider that there are many highly-publicized accounts that claim him to be guilty.

I guess it boils down to whom or what a person chooses to believe.

I tend think that confirmed doper testimony is suspect. A sensational story about Armstrong will be highly-publicized by virtue of his stature, doesn't really speak to the veracity of the account.

If we hear from guys who didn't dope and having something to say, then I'll listen to that. I'll side for now with the scientific results.

[SonomaCat]

The letter says that blood samples collected from Armstrong in 2009 and 2010 are “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”

Aren't these "scientific results?"

[SonomaCat]

A related story.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

[John K]

Until that happens, and the investigators actually PROVE that he was doping illegally, Armstrong is by all accounts innocent.

So applying that logic, you apparently believe that OJ was "innocent?"

A rather specious argument BAC, nice try though.

As if some 500 negative results of Armstrong's tests mean nothing.

If Armstrong had perfected the art of beating the testing, then they could have tested him a million times, and it wouldn't necessarily mean he never used PED.

[MashTun]

The letter says that blood samples collected from Armstrong in 2009 and 2010 are “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”

Aren't these "scientific results?"

If this is a scientific result, did it result in a "positive" and then suspension? This should be a clear answer. It sounds like that is the excuse for conducting an investigation, not a result. If it were a result, publish the information/numbers and be done with it.

Keep in mind every investigation is using the same testing info. So far those have resulted in nothing except bad PR(this is the 3rd go around). If there is new testimony that will come out, then that's a different thing.

You'll believe what you want, like I said I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt until it's proven.

[MashTun]

Until that happens, and the investigators actually PROVE that he was doping illegally, Armstrong is by all accounts innocent.

So applying that logic, you apparently believe that OJ was "innocent?"

A rather specious argument BAC, nice try though.

As if some 500 negative results of Armstrong's tests mean nothing.

If Armstrong had perfected the art of beating the testing, then they could have tested him a million times, and it wouldn't necessarily mean he never used PED.

He'd also be clean a million times if he didn't use a PED.

[John K]

Until that happens, and the investigators actually PROVE that he was doping illegally, Armstrong is by all accounts innocent.

So applying that logic, you apparently believe that OJ was "innocent?"

A rather specious argument BAC, nice try though.

As if some 500 negative results of Armstrong's tests mean nothing.

If Armstrong had perfected the art of beating the testing, then they could have tested him a million times, and it wouldn't necessarily mean he never used PED.

He'd also be clean a million times if he didn't use a PED.

True, but if he really had developed a "foolproof" method for beating the system, as has been alleged, saying that he tested clean 500 times does not really disprove that hypothesis.

[allcat]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? I saw you using drugs. UFO's are going to abduct and probe you. How do you prove any of these things wrong?

[ilovethecats]

i admit that i haven't been paying much attention to the armstrong stuff. it just seems to me that there are probably people out there with far more info on the subjet than what is in the media. some of these people seem to think they have a case, and several seem to believe he'll lose his titles. should be interesting but i don't really care one way or another to be honest.

[John K]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? I saw you using drugs. UFO's are going to abduct and probe you. How do you prove any of these things wrong?

I don't know if he can prove the allegations wrong in the court of public opinion, regardless of the outcome of any formal investigations. I'm not 100% convinced that he used PED, but it would seem to defy all logic that in a sport where doping was rampant, the guy who dominated that sport was the one guy who was clean. Would you have believed that Barry Bonds was one of the very few power hitters who wasn't juiced, during the time when he was hitting more home runs than anyone else in MLB? I'm sure there were lots of other riders during that era that also tested clean numerous times, even though they were also using PED. Roger Clemens was exonerated yesterday, but do you really believe he was clean? I know a guy who regularly smokes weed, although for many years he's been subject to regular UA for his job, and somehow he's learned how to beat the system so as to avoid any positive tests. And I have to believe that officials must truly believe there'e something there, or else they would have dropped it a long time ago.

[allcat]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? I saw you using drugs. UFO's are going to abduct and probe you. How do you prove any of these things wrong?

I don't know if he can prove the allegations wrong in the court of public opinion, regardless of the outcome of any formal investigations. I'm not 100% convinced that he used PED, but it would seem to defy all logic that in a sport where doping was rampant, the guy who dominated that sport was the one guy who was clean. Would you have believed that Barry Bonds was one of the very few power hitters who wasn't juiced, during the time when he was hitting more home runs than anyone else in MLB? I'm sure there were lots of other riders during that era that also tested clean numerous times, even though they were also using PED. Roger Clemens was exonerated yesterday, but do you really believe he was clean? I know a guy who regularly smokes weed, although for many years he's been subject to regular UA for his job, and somehow he's learned how to beat the system so as to avoid any positive tests. And I have to believe that officials must truly believe there'e something there, or else they would have dropped it a long time ago.

OJ looked guilty, jury said otherwise. Casey Anthony looked guilty, jury said no. My point is that you are spoonfed stuff by the media, where they want to lead you. Look at Msnbc and the way they edit. Looks are one thing, proof another.

[John K]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? I saw you using drugs. UFO's are going to abduct and probe you. How do you prove any of these things wrong?

I don't know if he can prove the allegations wrong in the court of public opinion, regardless of the outcome of any formal investigations. I'm not 100% convinced that he used PED, but it would seem to defy all logic that in a sport where doping was rampant, the guy who dominated that sport was the one guy who was clean. Would you have believed that Barry Bonds was one of the very few power hitters who wasn't juiced, during the time when he was hitting more home runs than anyone else in MLB? I'm sure there were lots of other riders during that era that also tested clean numerous times, even though they were also using PED. Roger Clemens was exonerated yesterday, but do you really believe he was clean? I know a guy who regularly smokes weed, although for many years he's been subject to regular UA for his job, and somehow he's learned how to beat the system so as to avoid any positive tests. And I have to believe that officials must truly believe there'e something there, or else they would have dropped it a long time ago.

OJ looked guilty, jury said otherwise. Casey Anthony looked guilty, jury said no. My point is that you are spoonfed stuff by the media, where they want to lead you. Look at Msnbc and the way they edit. Looks are one thing, proof another.

So what exactly is your point? Do you really believe that neither OJ nor Casey Anthony were actually guilty, just because they were both acquitted? That 99% of the population believes they were both guilty, only because the media was "spoonfeeding" crap to us?

[allcat]

My point is that I don't think that I know better than the twelvepeople that heard all of the evidence. To get an aquital you need 12 votes, 11-1 is a hung jury. And I'm glad that you quit beating your wife.

[MashTun]

My point is that I don't think that I know better than the twelvepeople that heard all of the evidence. To get an aquital you need 12 votes, 11-1 is a hung jury. And I'm glad that you quit beating your wife.

That..... is good stuff.

[SonomaCat]

Well, if nothing else, we've finally found one person who believes that OJ was innocent. That's something.

He's also good at lifting recent rhetorical arguments from David Stern.

It seems a little strange to blame the public's view on Lance Armstrong on the "media" argument ... isn't this the same Lance Armstrong that was just about the biggest American hero ever? The same guy that the press was fawning over for years?

I don't think the media, collectively, had any motivation to unjustly take down Lance Armstrong. I think the media has only reported on the story because there has been a whole lot of smoke surrounding this story.