Armstrong gives up?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19365234

Very interesting story this. I can see his point about being one-sided and unfair, but is he jumping the gun, in case something did come out?

Clearly there is something fishy going on. I don't see how he can claim 10 people are lying. For me it seems like there is enough proof to carry out the course of action that the USADA are stripping him of his titles.

I could understand 1 or 2 people possibly putting such allegations out there through jealousy, but 10?

If you can clear your name and your certain your clean, why give up the fight?

legendkillarV2 wrote:Clearly there is something fishy going on. I don't see how he can claim 10 people are lying. For me it seems like there is enough proof to carry out the course of action that the USADA are stripping him of his titles.

I could understand 1 or 2 people possibly putting such allegations out there through jealousy, but 10?

If you can clear your name and your certain your clean, why give up the fight?

Exactly what I am thinking. He has been through so much in his career and life, I don't understand why he would give up now, unless he has something to hide. Very very strange decision, really does make me think he was afraid of being found guilty, and obviously this shatters his career reputation and what he has done in the TDF and other races.

It does comes across as an admission of guilt to me. I know if it were me and I vehemently knew I was innocent of the charges I'd fight them all the way to court. True he may just be fatigued of it all but he fought off cancer which is far more wearisome and huge battle so that doesn't really hold up.

Has Armstrong actually said he never used performance enhancing drugs, or has he just said he never failed a doping test?

Olly wrote:Has Armstrong actually said he never used performance enhancing drugs, or has he just said he never failed a doping test?

I am not sure. However, I think he is holding out hope in that the USADA do not have the authority to strip him of his titles as that is up to International Cycling Union and they were sceptical of these charges some time ago but I imagine their stance may have changed now in light of these new developements.

What a mess. The implications for the credibility of the Tour are huge. The titles will presumably be awarded to those that finished second, but some of those are questionable athletes so where does this ever end?

Marion Jones was competing around the same time as Lance, was arguably the most successful female Olympian ever with 5 Golds at one Games (Sydney 2000) and was never caught doping despite passing over 160 tests.

She was only found guilty after admitting it following revelations from her supplier - Victor Conte of BALCO.

With mud like this around to be slung it's very hard for none of it to stick to Lance.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Olly wrote:Has Armstrong actually said he never used performance enhancing drugs, or has he just said he never failed a doping test?

I am not sure. However, I think he is holding out hope in that the USADA do not have the authority to strip him of his titles as that is up to International Cycling Union and they were sceptical of these charges some time ago but I imagine their stance may have changed now in light of these new developements.

Given that EPO is used in chemotherapy treatment for cancer, it would seem really the temptation was there. It is sad if it is true, but to me he owes it to the sport and the competitors to come clean whether he was or wasn't doping during his career.

I do think the first drug allegations aimed at him are before he began his fight against cancer. I may be wrong though.

legendkillarV2 wrote:If you can clear your name and your certain your clean, why give up the fight?

But how can he clear his name? What could he do that would prove he's never taken drugs? The only thing anyone can do to prove they're clean is pass every drugs test they're submitted to. Equally, how can he prove that the other 10 people are lying? The only way to conclusively do so is to prove that their allegations are false. To do that he has to prove he's never taken drugs...

legendkillarV2 wrote:It is sad if it is true, but to me he owes it to the sport and the competitors to come clean whether he was or wasn't doping during his career.

I agree with your point, but it seems to me that what you're really saying is that you'll only be happy if he says he was doping. He already has said he didn't take drugs, so clearly you don't accept that as him 'coming clean' that he wasn't doping.

Olly wrote:Has Armstrong actually said he never used performance enhancing drugs, or has he just said he never failed a doping test?

He's said it on numerous occasions.


For my own part, I really hope Armstrong never doped, because his story is so inspirational. In all probability, however, I suspect he may well have done. Unless Armstrong suddenly comes out with a confession, we will never know conclusively either way. Some part of me almost hopes that he has taken drugs, simply because it would be so sad that his achievements should be so sullied if he was clean.

Surely, though he would have a case to argue with. If he were to take the fight to court (as he should if he is 100% clean and determined to clear his name) then his claim is strong. He is basically arguing that the ten 'witnesses' have been paid incentives to testify against him all of which are of questionable character as have been found guilty of doping. Surely, if that were the case a good enough lawyer could pick that case to pieces? So back to the question why not go to court if the evidence gathered is no more than ten witnesses with an axe to grind with Armstrong?

But how can he clear his name? What could he do that would prove he's never taken drugs? The only thing anyone can do to prove they're clean is pass every drugs test they're submitted to. Equally, how can he prove that the other 10 people are lying? The only way to conclusively do so is to prove that their allegations are false. To do that he has to prove he's never taken drugs...

You are generically saying drugs when in fact we are talking of just EPO. Like I said it is used in chemotherapy and given that he was having chemotherapy for his cancer treatment and being an athlete would make him even more aware of it's ban in the world of sports. The fact his 3 doctors were banned from sport doesn't help his cause. Like I said he can prove he has never taken part in doping. Who bar the UCI has actually came out supported his claims in not doping?

I agree with your point, but it seems to me that what you're really saying is that you'll only be happy if he says he was doping. He already has said he didn't take drugs, so clearly you don't accept that as him 'coming clean' that he wasn't doping.

This is a lazy quote. Where have I said I would only be happy with him being found guilty? I hope that the allegations are not true. PLease don't be so retarded in mis-reading quotes and putting words into people's mouths. To me he has a duty to answer the allegations with proof. Not that hard if your clean. Diane Modine springs to mind.

I think you could interpret this both ways. Armstrong could be being entirely truthful - he has spent so much time (and let's not forget money) fighting these charges. It is useless of people to say "if it were me in that position" because I'm pretty sure none of us have been in this position (taking the Armstrong is innocent PoV) so we don't actually know how we'd react. But you can understand Armstrong feeling weary IMO.

On the other hand, it could be that having tried through various means of stopping this get so far, Armstrong (guilty) has burned all his bridges, and has nothing to fight the charges with and knows he would lose should he try, so this is a last face-saving exercise.

Either sounds plausible.

I have to say my personal belief is it is very likely Armstrong was doping, based on his contempories and his association with mode than a few dodgy characters, but also based on how since Cycling's clean-up (other spots should take note BTW) we are no longer seeing the kind of performances he and his team produced.

Depending on which camp you are in, you can interpret this as confirmation of what you've always known.

Mike Selig wrote:I have to say my personal belief is it is very likely Armstrong was doping, based on his contempories and his association with mode than a few dodgy characters, but also based on how since Cycling's clean-up (other spots should take note BTW) we are no longer seeing the kind of performances he and his team produced.

.

Spot on with this which I find interesting in a wider context. A lot of people branded the last Tour as boring as it was lacking the attacks of previous years. To me the question should be, were those exciting attacks even humanly possible? The fact we didn't see them this year to me is a good thing and anything but boring.

VTR wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:I have to say my personal belief is it is very likely Armstrong was doping, based on his contempories and his association with mode than a few dodgy characters, but also based on how since Cycling's clean-up (other spots should take note BTW) we are no longer seeing the kind of performances he and his team produced.

.

Spot on with this which I find interesting in a wider context. A lot of people branded the last Tour as boring as it was lacking the attacks of previous years. To me the question should be, were those exciting attacks even humanly possible? The fact we didn't see them this year to me is a good thing and anything but boring.

Quite. Since the Armstrong days the only riders to really produce that kind of accelerations are Rasmussen and Contador... erm....

I have an opinion of Armstrong's guilt / innocence but am not going to share it on here, because it is irrelevant to what I am going to write.

CaledonianCraig wrote:It does comes across as an admission of guilt to me. I know if it were me and I vehemently knew I was innocent of the charges I'd fight them all the way to court. True he may just be fatigued of it all but he fought off cancer which is far more wearisome and huge battle so that doesn't really hold up.

The difficulty of fighting this sort of thing is that you are fighting a bureaucracy. That sort of fight can be quite soul destroying. Every time you make a little progress they, the faceless suits, find something else to hit back at you with. It can be a bit like eating jelly with chopsticks. You can find yourself in a position of having to make a choice - lose the will to live or walk away from it.

Fighting cancer (and yes I know Armstrong's had spread considerably) is a far more positive fight to undertake and the chances of you winning are considerably greater.*

We know that the drug / performance enhancer products are at least one step ahead of the testers. Before this year's Olympics they announced that the B samples would be kept for 8 years to allow the testing science to catch up. Fans often ask about deterrents. At least one Olympic medal winner has already lost their medal. Will Armstrong's case prove to be any deterrent? Here the authorities were apparently prepared to continue the fight, on and on, until the man in their sights gave up because he lost the energy to fight on?

The UCI wanted to have jurisdiction in the case and may appeal against WADA over Armstrong. If they don't appeal, Armstrong will lose his seven TdF titles and Olympic Bronze medal and his other various titles. But, realistrically, will he be forgotten by cycling fans? Look at the TdF site and Floyd Landis, stripped of his 2006 title, is still "visible":

PODIUM

Floyd LANDIS (PHONAK HEARING SYSTEMS) - Déclassé
1erOscar PEREIRO SIO (CAISSE D’EPARGNE-ILLES BALEARS)
2eAndréas KLÖDEN (T-MOBILE TEAM)
3eCarlos SASTRE (TEAM CSC)

I understand why Armstrong has given up the fight. As a previous poster says whatever you believed about him before this, this is unlikely to change your mind.


*done both, have a very personal opinion on which fight was easier and which I would prefer to face again!

legendkillarV2 wrote:

But how can he clear his name? What could he do that would prove he's never taken drugs? The only thing anyone can do to prove they're clean is pass every drugs test they're submitted to. Equally, how can he prove that the other 10 people are lying? The only way to conclusively do so is to prove that their allegations are false. To do that he has to prove he's never taken drugs...

You are generically saying drugs when in fact we are talking of just EPO. Like I said it is used in chemotherapy and given that he was having chemotherapy for his cancer treatment and being an athlete would make him even more aware of it's ban in the world of sports. The fact his 3 doctors were banned from sport doesn't help his cause. Like I said he can prove he has never taken part in doping. Who bar the UCI has actually came out supported his claims in not doping?

I agree with your point, but it seems to me that what you're really saying is that you'll only be happy if he says he was doping. He already has said he didn't take drugs, so clearly you don't accept that as him 'coming clean' that he wasn't doping.

This is a lazy quote. Where have I said I would only be happy with him being found guilty? I hope that the allegations are not true. PLease don't be so retarded in mis-reading quotes and putting words into people's mouths. To me he has a duty to answer the allegations with proof. Not that hard if your clean. Diane Modine springs to mind.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, so please don't throw around words like 'retarded'. That's just rude. Armstrong has said on numerous occasions that he wasn't doping. Yet, you say that Armstrong has a duty to fans and athletes to come clean as to whether he was or wasn't doping. How should that be interpreted other than as not accepting his protestations of innocence?

You say that it is not that hard to answer allegations with proof if you are clean. How so? What proof can you have, other than passed tests? I'm afraid your reference to Diane Modine means nothing to me, and a quick google told me nothing either.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

But how can he clear his name? What could he do that would prove he's never taken drugs? The only thing anyone can do to prove they're clean is pass every drugs test they're submitted to. Equally, how can he prove that the other 10 people are lying? The only way to conclusively do so is to prove that their allegations are false. To do that he has to prove he's never taken drugs...

You are generically saying drugs when in fact we are talking of just EPO. Like I said it is used in chemotherapy and given that he was having chemotherapy for his cancer treatment and being an athlete would make him even more aware of it's ban in the world of sports. The fact his 3 doctors were banned from sport doesn't help his cause. Like I said he can prove he has never taken part in doping. Who bar the UCI has actually came out supported his claims in not doping?

I agree with your point, but it seems to me that what you're really saying is that you'll only be happy if he says he was doping. He already has said he didn't take drugs, so clearly you don't accept that as him 'coming clean' that he wasn't doping.

This is a lazy quote. Where have I said I would only be happy with him being found guilty? I hope that the allegations are not true. PLease don't be so retarded in mis-reading quotes and putting words into people's mouths. To me he has a duty to answer the allegations with proof. Not that hard if your clean. Diane Modine springs to mind.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, so please don't throw around words like 'retarded'. That's just rude. Armstrong has said on numerous occasions that he wasn't doping. Yet, you say that Armstrong has a duty to fans and athletes to come clean as to whether he was or wasn't doping. How should that be interpreted other than as not accepting his protestations of innocence?

You say that it is not that hard to answer allegations with proof if you are clean. How so? What proof can you have, other than passed tests? I'm afraid your reference to Diane Modine means nothing to me, and a quick google told me nothing either.

It was Diane Modahl.

You say don't throw insults around, well don't throw assumptions around of what people are saying and then adding spin on it.

Let me get this straight, he has been charged by the USADA for doping? Which is more serious than 'allegations' and he has decline to fight because of his 'beliefs' that the USADA charges are 'corrupt' so why is he not fighting these charges that he believes to be 'corrupt'?

He was found with EPO in his blood samples in 2009/2010. Members from his team have come out to accuse him. Why on earth would they do that to discredit themselves entirely?

If he doesn't answer these charges, for me is slap in the face of the sport and his followers who would like to see him prove his innocence.

In light of this any many many other doping cases, is there any value to the argument that athletes should be allowed take what they like and not be tested?

The sport of strongman already operates such a policy, and it seems to be working okay for them.

I bet the best athletes would still win if this was the case so why not?

3 reasons:

1) At what age do you suggest people start taking PEDs? I suggest that as with any kind of drug-taking you restrict it to over 18s (the age at which people are deemed to be able to make decisions, except for criminal responsibility, but don't get me started on that). Given that in a lot of sports (gymnastics in particular, but diving, swimming, etc. also) quite a few athletes are under that age, how do you legislate for that?

2) Carrying on the moral argument PEDs are very very harmful in the middle-to-long term, can we really condone athletes harming themselves for our entertainment?

3) your statement "I bet the best athletes would still win" is almost certainly false. What would happen would be the team with the best doping program would win, and even if several teams had the same level of technology available it is well known that different bodies react differently to the substances involved. Not a case of the best athletes, but the athletes whose bodies react to PEDs best. In the same way that swimming became a farce as the best athletes no longer won, but it was those whose technique was best suited to the body-suits.

Good points Mike. Just putting it out there as a suggestion, although it will never happen in reality.

So does the fact that Armstrong has ended it here mean we will not have the chance to hear the evidence/testimony against him?

I tend to agree with Kia Rose. It seems that he's tired of those bureaucrats.

Let's see what the "evidence" is.

Legend Killar-this is quite a good, reasoned, courteous debate; please don't spoil it. There are other forums out there at possibly a more suitable level for you...

TopHat24/7 wrote:Marion Jones was competing around the same time as Lance, was arguably the most successful female Olympian ever with 5 Golds at one Games (Sydney 2000) and was never caught doping despite passing over 160 tests.

She was only found guilty after admitting it following revelations from her supplier - Victor Conte of BALCO.

With mud like this around to be slung it's very hard for none of it to stick to Lance.

Firstly it was three golds and two bronzes. Honestly, you're like the BBC sports section!

Marion Jones admitted to it which I can't see the point in doing if you've gone so far denying it. She got chucked in the clink for eventually telling the truth! Take her then boyfriend and common criminal Tim Montgomery who juiced althrough his career yet kept his Olympic gold medal and the women's 4x400m squad who got to keep their golds despite having a cheat running in their team then there's a lot to be said for lying through your teeth forever more. Can't understand why Armstrong would want to give up now even if he is guilty.

[quote="Azabache"]I tend to agree with Kia Rose. It seems that he's tired of those bureaucrats.

Let's see what the "evidence" is.

Legend Killar-this is quite a good, reasoned, courteous debate; please don't spoil it. There are other forums out there at possibly a more suitable level for you...[/quote]

I haven't spoiled anything. Again don't make such inaccurate comments. You can join the Sun newspaper if that suits your 'level'

Boys lets not try and keep the personal comments out of this please

Azabache wrote:I tend to agree with Kia Rose. It seems that he's tired of those bureaucrats.

Let's see what the "evidence" is.

Legend Killar-this is quite a good, reasoned, courteous debate; please don't spoil it. There are other forums out there at possibly a more suitable level for you...

We're not going to see what the 'evidence' is because Armstrong is essentially admitting guilt by not carrying on the fight.

He (and his vast lawyer army) clearly feel that the jig is up and that by going through is (and probably being found guilty at the end anyway) is more damaging than stopping it now, and using his also vast PR machine to concoct other reasons for not contesting.

This way, his incredibily large and deluded fanbase can carry on believing in him and that this whole thing was a fabricated witch-hunt. Everyone else sees it for exactly what it is though, but most of them were fully aware years ago.

I do not profess to know whether or not Armstrong used drugs. I also do not see any possible way in which Armstrong can "prove" that he didn't.
Surely the real issue here is whether his accusers can prove that he did , as opposed to simply asserting that his failure to continue fighting the charges means they must win by default , as it were ...

I am not sure that USADA has the authority to take any titles away from Armstrong anyway...as someone said above they would probably have to convince UCI to take their own action. CAS also looms as an option perhaps ?
In any case , in the absence of any positive tests , I cannot see how anything could actually be done unless and until a formal hearing is conducted , at which the alleged evidence is put forward , whether or not Armstrong chooses to defend himself.

So far all I am hearing is a prosecutor saying "this fellow is guilty". I think we need a bit more than that.

Bearing in mind they would practically have to hire a double decker to bus in all his ex-teammates who were going to testify against him.

It gets to a point when it's not just bitter, jealous rivals anymore.

Or past urine tests that he has refused to have re-tested?

Is this simply just that george hincapie and all armstrongs ex-teammates/friends have been pressured into testifying, so that they all receive leniant sentences of 6 months instead of life time bans. Armstrong has given up because the evidence by more than 10 riders is such that he cannot win. Anybody can see that these riders have just made this stuff up in their testimony's, why wait till now and let this rumble on for so many years. ridiculous. the sport will lose so much after this and how can you just 'obliterate' that era of the sport out the window? So funny that you remove armstrong out the picture and all the runners up are riders like basso & ulrich ex convicted drug cheats. embarrasing

John wrote:Is this simply just that george hincapie and all armstrongs ex-teammates/friends have been pressured into testifying.

So a bunch of retired or soon to be retired cyclists are going to perjure themselves in order to get a shorter ban, which doesn't matter anyway as they're all retired or soon to be retired?

This is why Lance pays so much money to keep that PR machine rolling - some people just can't stop believing the tripe it spews out. Pressuring (harrassing?) witnesses has been Lance's MO over the last few years, but I suppose you could spin it the other way.

incontinentia wrote:In light of this any many many other doping cases, is there any value to the argument that athletes should be allowed take what they like and not be tested?

Not for me, because you are basically punishing the athletes who want to run clean and do not want to pump their bodies full of stuff that could be ruinous to their long term health as these guys will have little to no chance of winning against a bunch of guys with carte blanche to take what they want.

John wrote:Is this simply just that george hincapie and all armstrongs ex-teammates/friends have been pressured into testifying, so that they all receive leniant sentences of 6 months instead of life time bans. Armstrong has given up because the evidence by more than 10 riders is such that he cannot win. Anybody can see that these riders have just made this stuff up in their testimony's, why wait till now and let this rumble on for so many years. ridiculous. the sport will lose so much after this and how can you just 'obliterate' that era of the sport out the window? So funny that you remove armstrong out the picture and all the runners up are riders like basso & ulrich ex convicted drug cheats. embarrasing

Explain to me please the logic of why the USADA would go after one of America's most popular athletes ever?

rowley wrote:

incontinentia wrote:In light of this any many many other doping cases, is there any value to the argument that athletes should be allowed take what they like and not be tested?

Not for me, because you are basically punishing the athletes who want to run clean and do not want to pump their bodies full of stuff that could be ruinous to their long term health as these guys will have little to no chance of winning against a bunch of guys with carte blanche to take what they want.

Think I am one of the few who thinks drug use/abuse is rife in all sports at all levels. The ones who get caught are those who are on the less sophisticated programmes.

Growth/EPO/Test/Tren... you name it and an athlete has taken it.

Why would an ex-rider care how long their ban was? So an ex-rider will risk going to prison for lying rather than an extended ban in a sport they no longer compete in?

Lance thinks he'll lost whatever action he takes because he knows he's guilty. If he was innocent, he could go to court and tell the truth.

Because he'll have to go to court and tell porkies, there's a chance that he could end up doing time.

It's better for him to fight the battle in the court of public opinion. He has enough mindless followers for that, and he can use his Livestrong millions to pay for lawyers/PR to help attempt to ruin anyone's life who dares stand up to him, without actually having to go to court. (as he's always done.)

Okay thanks. Not every rider that would of testified is retired as of yet though. Also lifelong bans for these riders may mean not only can they not compete in professional cycling at any level but also they cannot teach cycling or be involved in programmes associated with the sport. I think for a ex rider that could be important for them as many ex riders do tend to end up having a career in the sport after competing for example becoming team leaders or becoming advisors. Could that not swing somone to testify and risk a 6month ban instead of denying them a future career in the sport they love? just thoughts.

So what you're saying is that you think that it's possible that just like back in the day when Armstrong was the only clean rider, during this case, it'll be Armstrong that's the only one telling the truth?

I dont give a s""" about LA. I don't know if he's lying or not, however he's never failed a test and therefore I wanted to know, why this decision has happened today. Was it the fact that his ex-teammates testified against him in attempt to clear their names and therefore LA knew that he would lose because of the amount of evidence stacking up. Why these so called friends and ex teammates didnt testify earlier is puzzling and the fact it coincides with them being given leniant sentences themselves if they testified just seems fishy. Look i'm not a massive cycling fan, im an outsider looking but can you just tell me if what ive said is along the right lines.

John wrote:I dont give a s""" about LA. I don't know if he's lying or not, however he's never failed a test and therefore I wanted to know, why this decision has happened today. Was it the fact that his ex-teammates testified against him in attempt to clear their names and therefore LA knew that he would lose because of the amount of evidence stacking up. Why these so called friends and ex teammates didnt testify earlier is puzzling and the fact it coincides with them being given leniant sentences themselves if they testified just seems fishy. Look i'm not a massive cycling fan, im an outsider looking but can you just tell me if what ive said is along the right lines.

Like someone said earlier, if Armstrong was gonna prove these guys wrong, he could have taken it to court and a lawyer could have taken the 10 guys to the cleaners, if Armstrong was innocent

Funny how people on here seem to know the legal system, all trained lawyers are we?

I actually agree he should take the matter to court, especially if he is innocent but lets not pretend we understand the complex legal process involved.

Anyway, drug abuse is rife in all sports, Armstrong is no mre guilty than 90% of athletes.

Sorry but I struggle to believe that Armstrong is giving up the fight purely because he believes he can't win. He can afford the best lawyers money can buy and I am sure if those ten witnesses are of such questionable character them surely those top brass lawyers would rip their lies do shreds. I personally think he knows USADA hold more damning proof than he can fight in court as in perhaps some form of video evidence or evidence from respected sources. If that is not the case then I cannot fathom out why he is giving up. After all he fought off cancer so a court case can't be such a big challenge.

What I don't get is why the USADA is being so mean to one of their legends? PED use is rife and American athletes seem to be the culprits so often. However, internal US anti-doping systems often protect their own. Carl Lewis failed three drug tests but was still allowed to compete internationally. Did Lance cheese these guys off in some bad way?

Possibly new evidence.

Just as likely to be a case of outsize egos.

From what I've read about Armstrong he seems to have been accused a million and one times by former riders many of whom were caught to be cheating themselves so a lot of it could be plain old fashioned jealousy. And could be a bucnh of guys paid to tell lies. Whatever, Armstrong never failed a test so what is this "new evidence" I wonder?

I'm not sure why he's giving in, in the same way I don't know why Marion Jones finally admitted to doping.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

rowley wrote:

incontinentia wrote:In light of this any many many other doping cases, is there any value to the argument that athletes should be allowed take what they like and not be tested?

Not for me, because you are basically punishing the athletes who want to run clean and do not want to pump their bodies full of stuff that could be ruinous to their long term health as these guys will have little to no chance of winning against a bunch of guys with carte blanche to take what they want.

Think I am one of the few who thinks drug use/abuse is rife in all sports at all levels. The ones who get caught are those who are on the less sophisticated programmes.

Growth/EPO/Test/Tren... you name it and an athlete has taken it.

Its a little different in cycling for the era in question when we know for sure pretty much everyone was doing something illegal if not the full range some teams were. It was institutionally the norm, theres little or no evidence this is the case for most other sports .....although you can add sprinting from the 80's onwards and more recently middle distance running, most East Germans from the 80's onwards, Chinese swim team of the 90's. That its institutionally the norm for all participants in all sports is based purely on spurious assumptions and Id argue the lack of evidence and "outings" like Armstrongs argues against it really being the case.
So Id sit a middle line, we know some sports in some eras certain practises have been endemic, and cycling in the late 90's/2000's it was the norm and in some cases team led. Its obvious far more people do illegal things than get caught in all sports, but that doesnt mean that there are no successful clean elite athletes out there, and nor does that invalidate the efforts of the anti doping bodies.

I want Lance to be clean but Occam's razor suggests that if the possibilities appear to be one man with a lot of incentive to lie and to dope and cheat lying about doping and cheating, or 10 people and some documents/officials lying with less obvious incentive, or an entire govermental organisation being spiteful and corrupt enough to forge evidence and blackmail 10 men into lying, then we have to assume the one man is lying until something evidentially changes the probability towards another option . This isn't prison break

During Armstrongs era, the majority of the riders were doping.It was a given, it's been proven.Am sure everyone would agree ?

If that's the case, are we then to believe Armstrong beat the others by riding clean, winning the Tour 7 times ?

Anyone who thinks he's innocent needs a reality check, imo.

A very interesting/ difficult argument.

I would be very surprised if Lance didn't dope at some point. He may have felt it was OK to do so - after all most cyclists did at the time and it was probably the only way to enjoy any success.

He may also feel that he has been victimised somewhat. He has never failed a doping test, and probably wasn't involved in the type of hard-core doping that some others have.

Should he have some guilt I think a worry in admitting the guilt would be that it would undermine the genuinely excellent work him and him Livestrong charity are doing.

Postie wrote:During Armstrongs era, the majority of the riders were doping.It was a given, it's been proven.Am sure everyone would agree ?

If that's the case, are we then to believe Armstrong beat the others by riding clean, winning the Tour 7 times ?

Anyone who thinks he's innocent needs a reality check, imo.

When you put it like that it's hard to think he's innocent. He was beating clear cheats like Ulrich/Basso time and time again, so I would probably think some kind of secretive doping was going on.