Lance Armstrong Rant

[MongoTheGeek]

Okay this is pissing me off but good. I haven't been reading posting recently RL has just been too much, but when I read about Armstrong's supposed doping I had to say a few things.

Where I am coming from. I am about the same age and had the same type of cancer. I didn't have the brain tumor but had larger metastasis than Lance did. I know a bit about cancer, treatment and drugs. That was for a while the only information stuck in my head. I still have large holes in my knowledge of other things.

EPO is a drug used primarily to treat cancer patients. They run ads for it. It goes by the trade name ProCrit. Think old people not being able to get around with no energy.

EPO is a naturally occurring substance in the body. Its production is triggered by low blood counts.

Chemotherapy plays hell with all sorts of endocrine system.

The most popular drug for testicular cancer (Cis-platin (just replaced in the last year by Carbo-platin) both platinum derivatives, in addition to causing nerve damage play hell on the kidneys (which by the way is where EPO is made)

Since EPO is naturally occurring they can only compare to baseline normals. When they were doing the test they were actually *CALIBRATING THE SYSTEM*

In summary.
1) The sample is 7 years old and may have been contaminated (intentionally or not)
2) The test is only in beta right now
3) Even if the test was a true positive there are lots of non doping explanations.
4) Even if it was doping there are legitimate medical reasons (Which are allowed by sanctioning bodies, especially if there is no other treatment (which there is none for EPO(transfusions actually lower EPO levels))

The hell with the researchers who insinuated this. (Never actually said it out right)
The hell with the reporters who won't let this drop. Like something that might have happened 7 years ago matters. Its not like they will put a star next to the 7 in the record books.

[CompUser]

Who the heck saves the urine?

[clayj]

Who the heck saves the urine?Those testing agencies do.

And I think the head of the Tour de France should be ashamed for dragging this out NOW, when the man has retired. It smacks of a total smear job, to make allegations against a guy who has RETIRED. What's to be gained from this?

[Doctor Q]

MongoTheGeek is right about ProCrit. Plenty of patients who are anemic after chemotherapy (or anemic for other reasons) are given ProCrit to boost their red count back to less life-threatening levels. In other words, it's a life saving drug for those who need it. But I haven't seen Lance Armstrong bringing up his cancer treatments in response to the L'Equipe story. Has he?

The quotes I did read from Lance, referring to L'Equipe:

"Obviously, this is great business for them. Unfortunately, I'm caught in the cross-hairs. I think they've been planning it for a while. I think they much would have preferred to have done this at start of the Tour, or the middle, but for some reason, it was delayed. At the end of day, I think that's what it's all about... selling newspapers. And it sells."

[sambo.]

:mad: i'm a bit peeved here too :mad: .
anybody who has taken much more than a passing interest in Lance's career KNEW this was the case. He has DENIED, consistently and over a loooong period of time, taking performance enhancing drugs, and he hasn't.
he HAS, however, been treated for cancer (successfully too i hope). why this is being dredged up now is beyond belief and nothing more than a pathetic attempt at discrediting a sporting icon.
Lance Armstrong is the greatest cyclist in history.
until the frogs can breed themselves a winner for their own national sporting event, could they lay off being so rude about other nations sports heros.

as for keeping the piss from events SEVEN YEARS AGO?? :confused: , it explains some of the wine i paid top-dollar for in Paris a few years ago. :eek:

[aricher]

I'm a big fan of Armstrong - which is why seeing him riding bikes with George W. Bush in Texas this week truly disturbed me. Almost as much as finding out the president has a $3,000 bike. :eek:
Armstrong and Bush's Tour De Crawford (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050820/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_armstrong)

Top 11 awkward moments during Dubya's bicycle ride with Lance Armstrong.

11. Armstrong arrived with his buddy John Kerry.

10. Everyone had to wait while the President finished shaving his legs.

9. Armstrong's frequent coasting prompted demand from Dubya to switch bikes.

8. Bush singing "All I Want to Do Is Have Some Fun," interrupted by Armstrong humming, "You're My Favorite Mistake."

7. Crawford neighbor Larry Mattlage's penchant for firing his shotgun gave Lance a Greg LeMond moment.

6. The first time Dubya fell, Lance didn't know about the "when the President falls, everybody falls" protocol and kept on riding.

5. Bush's assurance to Armstrong that he would put the "war on cancer" on the list right after Iran and Syria.

4. Skipped Presidential Daily Briefing from CIA to take another loop.

3. When the going got tough, Dubya refused to lead, preferring to draft.

2. Armstrong passed his drug test.

1. Lance stopped to talk to Cindy Sheehan for an hour and finished the ride with a four minute lead.

[outlaw6]

An American is a winner, let's bash. The French are the biggest losers it the history of mankind. Can we try to discredit the most prolific winner in the history of the "Tour". We need to try to build up our prestige and make us seem like a world power again. Never happen.

[zami]

An American is a winner, let's bash. The French are the biggest losers it the history of mankind. Can we try to discredit the most prolific winner in the history of the "Tour". We need to try to build up our prestige and make us seem like a world power again. Never happen.


Unlike the US we are not obsessed with power, oil and invading places.

Sure we were defeated by the Fascists 65 years ago but then so were the Iraqis and Palestinians.

As for cycling the biggest anti-drug militant was Charly Mottet, French. FFS Greg Lemond couldn't even cycle in a straight line and was famous in the peleton for it. LA is not worth talking about, what has he won in the other 50 weeks of the last few years?

Coppi, Merckx, Anquetil they were great cyclists. Even Stephen Roche won the Giro, the Tour and the world championship in a single year. Armstrong is not and never has been at that level.

[AmigoMac]

How fast can a thread go to politics! :)

Lance is a hero for the sport world.

[OnceUGoMac]

I'm a big fan of Armstrong - which is why seeing him riding bikes with George W. Bush in Texas this week truly disturbed me. Almost as much as finding out the president has a $3,000 bike.

You do realize that a good bike costs around $1500, right? So what if W. paid for the best bike he could get. Would you be complaining if Kerry had been riding around on a Heinz-funded $3000 bike?

[OnceUGoMac]

Unlike the US we are not obsessed with power, oil and invading places.

So France didn't invade Europe under Napoleon, drag the U.S. into Vietnam, and invade Mexico?

[Peterkro]

Its a bit wierd how people are dividing this up as US v France.I have no idea if Armstrong used EPO as a performance enhancer.Given the number of cyclists who have its not really relevant.The fact of the matter is that Armstrong is not well liked by a lot of people in the cycling world,respected yes liked no.The US/France thing is disproved by the genuine affection that Greg LeMond is held in by most in France.

[stubeeef]

some have to belittle others so that they can seem big.

[OnceUGoMac]

some have to belittle others so that they can seem big.

Why did you change your avatar? I loved the old one. :D

[CorvusCamenarum]

An American is a winner, let's bash. The French are the biggest losers it the history of mankind. Can we try to discredit the most prolific winner in the history of the "Tour". We need to try to build up our prestige and make us seem like a world power again. Never happen.

Now, now, let's remember our history. The French, as it turned out, have actually won two wars.


They were both civil. ;)

[AmigoMac]

Why did you change your avatar? I loved the old one. :D

That's the old one :p

[JW8725]

I have admiration for Lance! He's awesome! People (especially the French) are just jealous of his feat thats all. There is no one on earth like him. Vote Lance for your Presidency I say!

[alex_ant]

You do realize that a good bike costs around $1500, right? So what if W. paid for the best bike he could get. Would you be complaining if Kerry had been riding around on a Heinz-funded $3000 bike?
Just FYI, not to try to attack him for it, but John Kerry owns a $6,000 Serotta in addition to several other racing bikes and is an avid cyclist.

[gwuMACaddict]

MongotheGeek - excellent post! there haven't been enough people pointing out the facts that you've listed. i've heard it discussed on a few cycling boards, but thats about it.

this is also the same magazine that has tried repeatadly in the past to pin accusations on armstrong, they're hardly an unbiased source.

and as i understand it, they have yet to show original documents, only scanned copies. :rolleyes:

[gwuMACaddict]

I'm a big fan of Armstrong - which is why seeing him riding bikes with George W. Bush in Texas this week truly disturbed me. Almost as much as finding out the president has a $3,000 bike. :eek:

:confused: you should be happy that someone you're a fan of is a nice enough guy to hang out with people that he doesn't neccessarily agree with- lance has said in the past that he doesn't agree with some of the president's policies- like the war.

:rolleyes: and about the $3k bike... so what? my racing rig has a higher resale value than my car at the moment, if he wants to ride a $3,000 bike, more power to him, he can afford it.

[AmigoMac]

Yeah, let the man ride 3000 bucks if he can afford it.
I would ride $1000, sell my iBook , get a PB and accessories. ;)

[Roger1]

You do realize that a good bike costs around $1500, right? So what if W. paid for the best bike he could get. Would you be complaining if Kerry had been riding around on a Heinz-funded $3000 bike?


No. If it was Heinz-funded, then it would be their own money. If Bush is riding around on a $3000 bike paid for by my taxes then yes, I'm going to complain.

[gwuMACaddict]

No. If it was Heinz-funded, then it would be their own money. If Bush is riding around on a $3000 bike paid for by my taxes then yes, I'm going to complain.

why is everything so political here? HE WAS INDEPENDANTLY WEALTHY BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE- HE CAN BUY AND RIDE WHATEVER BIKE HE WANTS!

can we get back to the topic at hand??

[lopresmb]

even if lance did do something, which there probably is not conclusive way to prove at this point, it ticks me off that they would go public with this information before they have anythign conclusive or before they really have something to report.

stinks for armstrong, because he has not way to defend himself in this situation.

[Sox]

The whole situation sickens me. Is our society such that we must always kill our heroes to feel better about ourselves? Has Jealousy finally won out over Inspiration?

Lance Armstrong is the best to ever clip into the pedals. Period. In response to zami's post, riders like Coppi and Merckx certainly won more races and had more victories than Lance in events other than the Tour. But none of them ever won the Tour seven times, let alone in a row. You sound as if you believe Lance Armstrong incapable of winning any event other than the Tour, as if he'd be "outclassed" unless he's in the Alps. That's complete bollocks. You don't think he could win other events if he wanted to?

After beating cancer, Lance focused his training and career trajectory around one thing, and one thing only - winning the Tour de France. Not the Giro d'Italia, not the Olympic time trial, not the Tour de Flanders. The Tour de France. Much like Tiger Woods grades himself on his major victories, rather than the Buick Open. To believe that Lance Armstrong could not win, and win consistently, in events other than the Tour is patently absurd. The line to bet against this guy isn't exactly wrapping around the corner.


For all the medical reasons other posters have mentioned, it's more than likely that these recent doping allegations are false, just like all that Lance has faced before. Jealousy over Inspiration. I remember the end of a Nike commercial he did a few years ago, which summed up all of this perfectly:


"People are always asking me what I'm on. What am I on? I'm on my bike, busting my ass, six hours a day.

"What are you on?"

[applekid]

How fast can a thread go to politics! :)

Exactly! :)

I was waiting for someone to bash the US or France. Not surprising.

Anyways, Lance is a frickin' monster! He was built for the Tour de France. Didn't any of you see that documentary on him? Man is a beast! I mean all of that in a good way. :cool:

And, Lance is not exactly a Bush supporter. He's on Bush's committee on cancer and that's about all the support Bush gets. If any of you saw This Week on ABC, Lance did make a reluctant statement saying it would be better to spend that money used for war for cancer treatment instead. Doesn't sound like he's very affiliated with Bush.

Carry on...

[dejo]

The US/France thing is disproved by the genuine affection that Greg LeMond is held in by most in France.

Yeah, because, "Le Mond" is not even close to being a French name, eh? ;)

[wordmunger]

I think Armstrong probably has done some doping ... just like all the cyclists out there. The testing is going to make sure that the doping doesn't go to extreme levels, but it's never going to catch everyone. In that sense, even if he has done doping, it doesn't seem to me that Armstrong has had an unfair advantage.

[mactastic]

Yeah, why is everything political? If you wanna gripe about politics, get 100 posts under your belt and come join us in the MacRumors sewer. :p

This is about Lance and the allegations against him, not his politics. From what I hear, this test was conducted on a single sample, which by definition is unrepeatable. Thus unless Lance happens to have some 7-year old pee around there is no possible way for him to defend himself against these allegations. Even if it is a credible positive on the test, it's nothing that can be proven beyond a your-word-against-mine kind of thing.

[stcanard]

In summary.
1) The sample is 7 years old and may have been contaminated (intentionally or not)
2) The test is only in beta right now
3) Even if the test was a true positive there are lots of non doping explanations.
4) Even if it was doping there are legitimate medical reasons (Which are allowed by sanctioning bodies, especially if there is no other treatment (which there is none for EPO(transfusions actually lower EPO levels))

5) The only evidence we have that this sample is even his if the fact that the newspaper claims to have matched the numbers. Even the laboratory and WADA aren't able to do this...

6) Lance is currenly suing the paper (our at least one of their reporters) about allegations made in their book last year. Convenient that they found unverifiable proof of his doping.

[stcanard]

I think Armstrong probably has done some doping ... just like all the cyclists out there. The testing is going to make sure that the doping doesn't go to extreme levels, but it's never going to catch everyone. In that sense, even if he has done doping, it doesn't seem to me that Armstrong has had an unfair advantage.

I have come to the conlusion that in pretty much every sport the athletes are using stuff that there is no test for yet. It's just an arms race. When a test iis created they stop and move onto the next stuff.

As for unfair advantage, nope there isn't one, because everybody's doing it.

[gwuMACaddict]

I have come to the conlusion that in pretty much every sport the athletes are using stuff that there is no test for yet. It's just an arms race. When a test iis created they stop and move onto the next stuff.

As for unfair advantage, nope there isn't one, because everybody's doing it.

just because you think that, doesnt make it true... i think most athletes are honest and concerned with their body, they know that taking suplements arent healthy, long term

[stcanard]

just because you think that, doesnt make it true... i think most athletes are honest and concerned with their body, they know that taking suplements arent healthy, long term

Oh, I know, and I won't debate that.

As recently as last year I was on the other side, but there's been enough recent issues that I've swung to the other extreme. Unfortunately I also don't trust the testing, as there is too much politics there

I look at Tyler Hamilton's problem with failing a test that has never had a false positive study done on it, and a result that although initially negative was changed to positive by the test's creator because "he knows a positive when he sees it". Useful, because Hamilton's was the first positive with this test, thus validating the test itself. Is he actually guilty of doping? I have absolutely no idea.

Then look at Dario Frigo, who's wife's car was found stuffed full of stuff this year, yet he didn't fail a single test...

So I guess what it comes down to is I don't trust either side, and just try to ignore the whole thing as much as possible while watching my favourite sports.

Give me a year to get over the cynicism and I'll probably be back into the "most are clean" camp.

As it is, I am firmly convinced the current claims from L'Equipe mean nothing. There are so many unanswered questions and vested interests that those who believe LA is clean still believe it, and those who believe he's been doping all along still believe that.

FWIW I'm in the former camp.

[mactastic]

just because you think that, doesnt make it true... i think most athletes are honest and concerned with their body, they know that taking suplements arent healthy, long term
I dunno... I don't think we're talking about most athletes here. I used to think like that too but those baseball cheaters changed my mind. I mean, all the casual (even to the point of obsession) athletes I know are very much into their health and fitness but they aren't making a dime from it, and in fact have to work to support their habit. The equation is much different when your success at your sport IS your (sometimes extremely lucrative) livelihood and/or you are among the best in the world at your sport. Add in the pressure that as time goes by it seems that more and more athletes are seeking out ways to skirt the system, putting a non-user at a distinct disadvantage.

I think the super-elite athletes are subject to pressures to perform that most athletes aren't. I know this doesn't mean that everyone cheats... there are still lots of honest players you can cite. But these days I wonder if they aren't the exception rather than the rule...

[erova]

You do realize that a good bike costs around $1500, right? So what if W. paid for the best bike he could get. Would you be complaining if Kerry had been riding around on a Heinz-funded $3000 bike?
sho nuff.

i have a $3000 computer (I'm sure a ton of other mac geeks do too). I'm sure a few guys here have TV's worth twice that. My wife's engagement ring was more than 3k....should i go on?

and people are aware that the president (just like all presidents) does have some cash in the bank, right?

[gwuMACaddict]

to reference my previous post about trusting athletes, maybe i'm being naive- but i'm going to take someone at their word until there is conclusive proof that they've been lying to me.

i still believe lance

growing up in baltimore, it hurts to say, but i hate rafael palmeiro now... :(

i do wish sports were cleaner

will be interesting to see what happens with this article

[aricher]

Would you be complaining if Kerry had been riding around on a Heinz-funded $3000 bike?

Um, YES. Nobody who goes riding solely for photo-ops needs a $3,000 bike - that;s just a vulgar waste of money.

At least Bush can ride a bike without falling over - or was Lance just there for W's first day without training wheels?

http://www.nomorebush.premiumfinder.com/bush-gallery/segway.jpg

[stcanard]

to reference my previous post about trusting athletes, maybe i'm being naive- but i'm going to take someone at their word until there is conclusive proof that they've been lying to me.

i still believe lance

Just in case I wasn't clear so do I. Right now L'Equipe has far more shady issues in its claims than Lance does in his. And let's not forget that he was legally taking EPO in 1998 -- after all it was developed as part of the cancer treatment regimen.

I think this article does a good job of summing up the problems with the claims:

http://velonews.com/news/fea/8749.0.html

It really casts more doubt on the claims than it does on the denials.

[gwuMACaddict]

Um, YES. Nobody who goes riding solely for photo-ops needs a $3,000 bike - that;s just a vulgar waste of money.

At least Bush can ride a bike without falling over - or was Lance just there for W's first day without training wheels?

:confused: :confused: where are you getting this garbage? bush actively trains on a bike because he can't run due to bad knees. secret service agents have said he is an excellent rider with very good stamina and endurance. it's a known fact that he's one of our most fit presidents. regardless of how you feel about his policies...

save your garbage for the political forums... :mad: :mad:

[RugoseCone]

Here's an interesting article on the potential legal issues involved in all of this.

Legal (http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=reu-armstrongdc&prov=reuters&type=lgns)

I'd like to believe Lance has won his Tours without help and for now, I do. This whole thing seems like a smear campaign. In another article I read today, Lance does admit to being administered EPO while undergoing cancer treatments and credits it with saving his life.

Perhaps those more familiar with the drug could answer, could traces of the drugs stay in your system for an unusual length of time? So treatments Lance received for cancer therapy, turn up in urine samples months later?

[Doctor Q]

Further posts about U.S. politics will be removed. Please stay on topic.


Did anybody else find it suspicious that Lance was the "random" athlete picked by the tour for a drug test on one of the last days of this year's tour? Add "standing tall against biases and relentless charges thrown at him" to his list of accomplishments.

[stcanard]

Perhaps those more familiar with the drug could answer, could traces of the drugs stay in your system for an unusual length of time? So treatments Lance received for cancer therapy, turn up in urine samples months later?

From what I've read, no. The traces of the drug disappear after a few days, which raises an interesting problem -- the effects last longer than the ability to test for it.

But that goes back to the other problem -- give how quickly the traces deteriorate a number of labs have questioned whether it is even possible to test for it so many years after the fact, even it the sample was frozen.

Another possibility that bypasses the need for fraud in this case is given this was an experiment to validate the test, there is always the possibility that the lab intentionally doped the sample to verify the test could then detect it, knowing that these tests were not going to be released (remember this was a "test" but a validation of the test). A couple of leaks, and a newspaper with an axe to grind later...

The upshot of this is that there are no legal ramifications for Lance. There is no way of validating this result, and thus no way a sanction could be placed against him. This is purely a trial by media, and L'Equipe knew that when they published the results.

Now, why haven't they bothered to identify the other riders that supposedly failed during this validation? I notice Christophe Moreau finished very highly in the '99 tour.

<Somewhat non-sequitor>

With the Vuelta about to start, can anybody tell me what time the stages are supposed to end? Preferably in PDT, but I can convert from other timezones. I want to try and follow the eurosport coverage (at least some of the end of the stages), and am having trouble finding the answer.

[gwuMACaddict]

From what I've read, no. The traces of the drug disappear after a few days, which raises an interesting problem -- the effects last longer than the ability to test for it.

this is why they need a control sample, to test for blood cell count differences between the two. at least, thats how it was explained to me when my father was taking ProCrit during his cancer treatment. i was curious at the time and asked one of his doctors.

as for the 'trial by media'... don't see how the french paper can possibly win this...

[Don't panic]

to answer a previous poster, it couldn't be a lasting effect of previous treatment.
It would be possible that it was a maintenance treatment, and it would make sense, but lance denied that.
I personally think that in those years (and possibly today) pretty much every high-end athlete was taking EPO, GH and/or other stuff, including Lance.
If they could run serious tests on 1999 samples, they would probably have to disqualify half the peloton.
I do think that lance has used drugs in the past, and that he has done it in a smarter way than other people and mostly in training. I don't think that his achievements are much diminished by this, although I find the hypocrisy irritating.

there are many different issues in doping, and some are non so crystal clear.
for example if I find a miracle pill that is not illegal (yet) and I become unbeatable, I am doping but not technically cheating (only morally). if the drug then becomes illegal, do I become a (technical) cheater? Are my successes invalidated?
On the other hand if I cheated and nobody found out for twenty years, is the act any less despicable?

There would be a simple way to address doping:
If you want to be a professional athlete, you'd have to submit urine and blood samples twice a month, ALL YEAR AROUND, in addition to the event related controls.
If an athlete is "successful" (measured by whatever means), then at the end of the year all his/her sample are analyzed. If any of them is positive, than the ENTIRE season is thrown and sanctions applied depending on the extent.
part of the samples are kept and re-analyzed 3 and 6 yrs later with the updated technology. If any are postive then, retroactive sanctions (which should include stiff monetary penalties based on that and the next year's earnings) are enforced.

i guarantee that with this kind of rules you'd see an instant decrease in performance by professional athletes of 10-20% in any sport.

[CorvusCamenarum]

as for the 'trial by media'... don't see how the french paper can possibly win this...

In a manner of speaking, they already have to some extent. How many people do you think believe Armstrong is a doper, just based on that published article alone? [Some] people have the idea that "if it's written down, it must be true" and nothing to the contrary will sway them once they see something in print. This is especially true if the source of the writing is the high and mighty altar of science; I mean come on, no scientist in the history of humankind has ever made a mistake, honest or otherwise, right?

Conversely, what do you think those same easily-swayed people would be saying if the article in question had said that Armstrong had never ever ever done any drug in his entire life?

[macartistkel]

I watched the Larry King Live interview last night too..honestly I don't think some people are ever going to get it or lay off no matter what. Its ridiculous and I am glad Lance can finally rest easy after all of this bull*****. He doesn't give a damn anymore and it doesn't matter how much the French papers try to run his name in the ground--LANCE will always come out looking better! :)

[Doctor Q]

;) How 'bout this solution? They hold two versions of every sporting event: one for clean athletes and one "come as you are". Then those who care more about winning than staying clean (and perhaps their health) can compete with their peers in the drugged category, while those who go it alone have a level playing field in the clean category. If anyone is caught cheating in the clean category, they are put in prison for life, their mom is sold into slavery, and they have to watch while their car is keyed, so there are strong incentives for athletes to pick the correct category.

[m-dogg]

;) How 'bout this solution? They hold two versions of every sporting event: one for clean athletes and one "come as you are". Then those who care more about winning than staying clean (and perhaps their health) can compete with their peers in the drugged category, while those who go it alone have a level playing field in the clean category. If anyone is caught cheating in the clean category, they are put in prison for life, their mom is sold into slavery, and they have to watch while their car is keyed, so there are strong incentives for athletes to pick the correct category.


I like it Doctor Q.

Although having to watch their car get keyed may be a little harsh, don't you think? :D The prison & slavery ideas I'm fine with though... :D

[ham_man]

This is nothing but a low down dirty attempt by the French media to smear one of the greatest cyclists in history. They should be ashamed of themselves...

[takao]

Lance Armstrong is the best to ever clip into the pedals. Period. In response to zami's post, riders like Coppi and Merckx certainly won more races and had more victories than Lance in events other than the Tour. But none of them ever won the Tour seven times, let alone in a row.

what's next ? calling Bode Miller the best skiier of all time ? :rolleyes:

[jimN]

;) How 'bout this solution? They hold two versions of every sporting event: one for clean athletes and one "come as you are". Then those who care more about winning than staying clean (and perhaps their health) can compete with their peers in the drugged category, while those who go it alone have a level playing field in the clean category. If anyone is caught cheating in the clean category, they are put in prison for life, their mom is sold into slavery, and they have to watch while their car is keyed, so there are strong incentives for athletes to pick the correct category.

Here, here. Regardless of how you get there it is still flesh and blood that achieves teh results and it isn't as if these people can train less and just take drugs to pick up the difference. I believe drug use is rife in competetive sports, especially in fields like athletics where the real race is between the testers and the dopers. Wasn't it wonderfully suspicious that the same white guy who came from nowhere to win the sprint one year, crashed his bike and couldn't attend a drug test when the olympics next came round. Innocent until proven guilty you might say, but that guy had cheater written all over him. Afraid that i don't believe any of the top sprinters in the world today is doing it witnout some form of chemical augmentation or other.

[mactastic]

to reference my previous post about trusting athletes, maybe i'm being naive- but i'm going to take someone at their word until there is conclusive proof that they've been lying to me.
FWIW, I believe Lance too. Isn't he like the most tested athlete around or something?

I just wonder if Lance is more the exception than the rule among the super-elite athletes. You don't want to believe it, but it gets harder and harder not to. And for each athlete that does it and gets caught, it makes it that much harder for the next clean person to both make it in the sport, and be believed to be clean by the public.
save your garbage for the political forums...
Shhhhh don't send him there! We don't want it either! ;)