Lance Armstrong: Court of public opinion

Doesn't matter to me...

1.  He either doped and was the fastest of all the dopers (as they all dope).

2.  He didn't dope and he's the fastest of all the dopers... see above...

Other than that, I really don't care.  He says he didn't dope and I'll take him at his word until he test positive... but either way won't change my life one bit nor will it take away from what he did...

I go with the Innocent until proven guilty. He says he did not do it and they have no proof he did anything so I believe him. If they find proof it means he lied and will loose a lot of credibility with a lot of people and probably some sponsorships.

I would rather keep him as an idol of sorts than believe he did something no one else was capable of doing simply because he was on PED.

This. I think everyone was doping and while he is obviously an incredible physical speciman, I don't think he could beat everyone without doping as well.

A cyclist I have always admired was Jaques Anquetil, the first cyclist to win 5 Tours de France.

A journalist accused Anquetil of doping. He openly admitted it. A famous quote of his was, "A cyclist cannot race on mineral water alone".

Late in his career Anquetil was faced with the first of the drug tests in cycling. He refused the test, saying it was "not professional". He was subsequently sanctioned.

Anquetil, Merckx and even Hinault made few pretensions about doping. -Didn't say they did... Didn't say they didn't. They simply didn't say. That was the norm of the era, the paradigm.

This is a new area, and the previous decades have been a transitional time. Now, doping is popularly construed as wrong. Prior to the very recent era, it was technically illegal, but treated like marijuana use or paying sales tax on mail order goods on your state tax return at the end of the year. People acknowledge violating those rules is illegal, but conduct themselves differently on a common basis through some process of rationalization. It might be wrong, technically, but they may rationalize it isn't hurting anyone so...

Things have changed in cycling. The money is good now, the stakes are high. People are paying attention. Armstrong and his inspiring recovery from cancer is a huge part of that. The questions surrounding his conduct are another.

I view it as nothing new. I do think we are in the midst of a difficult transition from a sport where performance enhancing drugs were openly sanctioned, and privately rationalized to a new era where the sanctions are more literal- the rules are becoming the rules. Armstrong has one foot on either side of the line that seperate those two eras.

He's one of the most tested athletes in sports.   Either:

1.  He doped, and got lucky they never tested at the right time. (although I understand they test the yellow jersey wearer daily in TdF)

2. He doped with something nobody's ever heard of and they don't test for.

3. He didn't dope. 

1 is pretty unlikely.   2 and 3 are probably equally likely.  He was a hoss long before he became famous or had the incentive to dope.   I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he confesses or they get something that has a shred of believability.

I could care less, ket em' dope and see who's the fastest of the dopers as previously posted.

It is interesting though to compare Lance's case with Barry Bond's case.  Few people like Bonds, and most believe he doped.

Lot's of people like Lance and his story, I think the popular opinion is that he didn't dope..

I've also thought about all of the Cancer drugs he must have been on at some point, could any of those have acted like a steroid?  Probably a dumb question...

Here's my ramble.  Just how did he beat the admitted dopers year after year?  Is it because he really only trained for the Tour in July ??

I know it is difficult to believe that he didn't, especially when you consider the number of people that he has owned that have doped, admitted it, and/or tested positive. 

However, the engineer (and their by scientific nature) in me says prove it.  He has been tested literally hundreds of times, by various different regulatory bodies and has never once tested positive.  As someone else said he is either the smartest doper in all history, the luckiest guy in the world, or (gasp) not a doper.

Well put!  Could not have said it better.  At this point, who cares?   Everyone was doing it and obviously Lance would have been caught by now if there was any real evidence regardless of if he did or not?

I'm going a different route than most of you.  I'm not certain if he did or didn't, but I actually do care.  Here's a guy whose legacy extends far beyond what he did on the bike.  He's helped raise millions for cancer research, based in large part on his own come-back story.  That story is far less appealing, in my mind, if he benifitted from PEDs and subsequently lied about it.  I'm quite a Lance fan, so I certainly hope that's not the case.

Just my opinion.

I was actually shocked by all of the posts here.  They were the opposite of what I expected.

For me, I would "bet the farm" that he used PED's. 

Also, I have no respect for the man for several personal reasons. 

I try to be positive but there is not about LA that I can be positive about.  

I always defended him... now I don't really know. Here is what I know...

He won seven tours because he simply outworked his competitors year round. Period. Nobody trained like him, nor devoted him self to one single purpose like Lance did.

What makes any streak amazing is that there is some luck involved.... to put together a string like that year after year with no mishaps is quite amazing. Granted work creates a lot of luck.

For him not to test positive in his entire professional career, with all the hounds hot after him... I think is another amazing streak equal to any others out there in sports. I mean come on... not ONCE in all those years did he slip up or have a bad day or mental lapse..... crazy. I mean seriously... the volume of riders linked to peds, and he beat them all? Heck... he might deserve some sort of medal if he ever admits it.

The only bad thing about it is... the LIE. I mean when sports organizations look the other way, players look the other way... they all want to clean it up but don't, everyone knows what's going on..... we keep cheering as the records fall...Who cares? .... But when the guy looks square in the camera, square in the eye, and lies... well that's different. For some it's a felony.

I'm sure he is no Saint. Most driven people are not. I don't respect a man that cheats on his wife... although lots do... I don't.

So say he used peds..... as an athlete you can't find any appreciation in what a human body can accomplish like what he made his accomplish??? And even though he is a jerk... you find nothing redeeming in his work and effort he puts into Cancer???

yes.. without a doubt, I think he did.    too many people (riders/track athletes) have admitted to doping yet have passed just as many test's as he did.

too many ex team mates, and team workers claiming it was going on to believe he wasn't.

regarding the lastest team mate to claim Lance used.   I really doubt a person is going to say one thing for years, then go before a federal grand jury and change their story to a lie, with the threat of jail time for lying. 

My occupation is working with cancer patients, two of my immediate family are battling this disease, One is not going to make it. I think what he is doing now with his foundation is great, but I don't let that cloud my judgement.

snarky response test