Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France (Page 3)

Ok, this discussion could go on (and sadly will) forever and the unfortunate thing is that it is impossible to prove a negative.  I could go on forever giving evidence that supports his innocence as there's plenty more that has not been discussed in this thread so far but I think the man himself said it best on the top step of the podium in Paris in 2005:

One of the reasons I have always given Lance the benefit of the doubt was the fact that he was so close to death from cancer, and why would he literally risk his life afterwards by doping?  He has regular follow-up testing for his cancer.  I would assume that his ocologists would pick up on it if he were doing something to put himself at risk.  I find it hard to believe they would just sit back and ignore it. 

The argument that someone who dominates their sport must be doping is just absurd. 

Mark

Off topic but Kobe can't even be compared to MJ. I personally hate MJ and Kobe but Kobe isn't in the same league as MJ (especially after the Championship series. Blow a 20 point lead? MJ would have let that happen over his corpse).

I thought that it was common knowledge that Lance's heart is 1/3 bigger than a normal person of his hight (5'10".  He had a report VO2max of 85 and a max HR that was around 200bpm.

The following article explains some points of why he was so good:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0722_050722_armstrong.html

I don't believe that he dopped, but we will never know that for sure?  How do we know that Schleck, or Valverde, Kohl, Vandervelde, Menchov etc... aren't dopping at the moment?

I believe that they have all taken something at some stage that contained some form of banned sustance: however, it's almost impossible to know whether they did it actively to get ahead or just to get over a flu or similar virus whilst training through the winter.

I was once at a tri training camp in Italy and was given some medication by my then coach to help with a flu that I was fighting.  It was on the list of banned substances and I can tell you that I didn't know until after we went riding as I asked him what was in it as I felt so super strong that day.  It's not an excuse if you are a pro, then it's your job to know, but it's also easily done by mistake.

Which is why it is really only fair on the other athletes that an athlete caught doping should be banned for life IMO.

I am getting into this conversation late, but I beleive there is no way he did not dope. He was so dominant during his time and all of his closest competitors have come out and admitted to dopeing. He was lucky and never got caught just like ulrich never got caught.

That being said I dont take anything away from his victories, I dont condon dopeing , but everyone else was doing it so how else could he win

Uh, maybe it's because he never failed a drug test...

Mark

Because it's illegal and dangerous.

It's the obsessing over mm that gave him that edge over his competition.  You'd never have caught Jan weighing his food and thats the difference between being good and dominant.

My dad has been such an inspiration to me, that I hope he is never shown to have robbed a bank, and I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, the thing that will always bother me is this: My Dad is so obsessive about every aspect of financial preparation (stocks, mutual funds, doing late-night research, etc.), it's hard for me to see how he could have avoided utilizing something like robbing a bank that can make such a huge difference in one's financial standing. I saw one study showing that robbing banks can increase one's net worth by 54% - now, this was a small study, and not in professional bank robbers, so an amateur like my dad probably wouldn't get that degree of benefit, but still, it would make a significant difference. But if you're obsessing over the daily price of a stock, or five basis points, how can you ignore something that many others are doing that increases net worth 20-50%?

Please don't shoot me - save your bullets for when you rob the bank, I love my Dad and he's changed my life in such a positive way, that I hope it's shown that he has never robbed a bank.

I edited it because it was irrelevant.  The fact still is that LA never failed a drug test.    You're implying guilt by association or circumstance.  You have absolutely no facts, i.e., a positive drug test by LA, to support your statement.  Pure speculation on your part.

Is it possible that he doped?  Anything is possible.  But he's consistently denied it and there are no positive test results to prove otherwise.   

As I stated in an earlier post, after being so close to dying, I find it hard to believe that LA would do something stupid to literally risk his life again.  Surviving cancer patients have routine follow-up testing.  It's hard to believe that his oncologists either wouldn't pick up on it if he were doping, or would just stand by and let him do it.

I tend to agree with the view that the physiological changes to his body as a result of the cancer (reduced upper body muscle mass) probably had a significant effect on his cycling performance.

Mark