Lance Armstrong: Court of public opinion (Page 6)

Fair enough, although this is the "court of public opinion".  Bonds, Mcgwire, Sosa, et.al. are 'innocent' by your standards too.  OJ, as well, I suppose.

My only point, again, is that the "never tested positive" does not say much to me one way or the other given its inability to detect many dopers in a sport where it is almost universally accepted that many people doped (if you doubt this, then my opinion would be that you are kidding yourself, but I would see why you could then weight more heavily the "never tested positive" defense).  I simply don't see it as a strong support given the known flaws of the process (and I'm not basing that on a 'cover-up' of the type alleged by Hamilton--whose 'word' I give little value to). 

Seems like there are two main types of conversations going on here.

Type 1: "In your heart of hearts, based on what you currently have heard, if you had to honestly guess whether Lance ever did blood doping or EPO (outside the context of cancer treatment), would you guess yes or no?"

Type 2: "If you were on a jury right now and forced to vote guilty/not guilty based on what you have currently heard, which way would you vote?"

Those are two very different types of questions.  Both seem valid to me.  I see no problem with having different answers to the two questions.  But for some reason the conversation feels something like this to me:

A: "I'd have to say yes to Type 1."

B: "But there's no way you could say yes to Type 2!"

A: "But it seems like they were asking about Type 1, and I feel like I'd have to say yes to that question."

B: "If you say yes to Type 2 then you are a big stupid head."

As long as "Person B" continues to mis-interpret Person A's answer, then explain why their answer is stupid, we're not really going to get anywhere.

Now if Person B wants to explain why Type 1 question is a morally wrong question to ask, well, that's a whole different type of conversation, but one which is equally valid.  (Though to me it seems that  if you believe that, and apply it consistently to your normal life, then you might have a really tough time with chit chat on a day to day basis.)

What exactly is incontrovertable evidence to you? This isn't a court of law and we do not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to form an idea or opinion as has been said.

There can be a mountain of evidence... some say there is to them... Lance can deny.. that is controvertable. Lance wins every time.

It will always come down to possible and probable.  I defended Lance for a long time. Still not enough evidence for me to say for certain... it is "possible" he won 7 in a row against a field of dopers durring the most rampant drug use in the sport...... but even to me it has turned to he "probably" did dope.

Exactly where is it do you think we are going to "get to" debating opinions on the web and the only evidence any of us have is presented to us in the media? We will just forget the jury thing since none of us are on one.

Wasn't comparing any of them to LA, just what RC said he'd need to believe someone was 'guilty'--incontrovertible evidence.

That said, despite what you feel was the "strictest and most invasive controls of any sport out there", they were unable to turn up many dopers despite a plethora of candidates.  Sure, that makes baseball or some other sports' testing totally laughable.  But it doesn't tell me that a rider was likely clean either.  So I choose to look to other facts to form my opinions on the matter.  As stated up front, that's all they are and I don't pretend that I hold incontrovertible evidence on the matter.

Last year Mcgwire came out and admitted he used steroids for over a decade of his career, including HGH.  And while steriods were not tested in the MLB during that time, they were an illegal drug that was against the law to use without a prescription.  As far as "rules" are concerned in regard to the state/federal law and MLB rules...it's no different than if he smoked pot or snorted coke.  The problem lies with the "ethical" use of these drugs to gain a competitive advantage and how MLB views it in regards to his stats/records and if they will vote him into the HoF.

Nowhere.  Not advocating anything.  Don't care about the topic.  Was interested more in the logical underpinning of the conversation: Some folks seemed to try to answer the question as asked, and others seem to follow along behind bashing them for answering the wrong question.

I admire all of the work L.A. has done but I have no respect for anyone who cheats.  I have no respect for body builders who took steroids, baseball players, football players and others that cheat the system. 

Steroids are not banned in Body Building,

"Alan ""just frowned upon. like masturbating in an airplane

Stu: I'm pretty sure sure that's illegal too.

Alan: Sure, ever since 911. Thanks a lot Bin Laden."

The Hangover

Still cheating in my book.  Never took the easy path to anything.

Body building is not the same.... and it is only cheating if you are the only one doing it. Everybody juices in body building. They have never claimed otherwise.

also..... PEDS give you nothing for free. Steroids do not build muscle.... lifting weights build muscle. Every single body builder is the way they are by hours and hours of lifting. What steroids do for them is enable them to train more, and build more mass that what their natural body would build.... but they are still the size they are from work, plain and simple.

Even endurance athlete.... EPO does not win races unless you are the only one on EPO. But even I can't win a race on EPO.... I can win a race if I trained for 40 hours a week the same all the pros do. If all the pros are using EPO, then the only thing that seperates them is their training and natural abilities.

Like I asked earlier.... if all athletes are tested, if they all dope to the legal limit... is that not a level playing field??? Is it not then true that the only thing that seperates winners from loosers is training and natural ability???

Not all athletes receive the same benefits from doping.  And not every athlete dopes.  Some that didn't might even have never made it to the starting lines.

So, no, I don't think it 'evens' things out and training (influenced by the doping, BTW) and natural ability are the only things at play.  Of course, there are arguments that that's almost never the case anyway and doping is just one of the 'tools' to be used.  I don't think I could accept that, but some do.

You have your opinion and I have my opinion.  Again, drugs to gain advantage in any sport is for losers. 

Why? Is spending more money than your competitor to gain advantage only for loosers? Every elite athlete uses every waking moment to gain advantage... medical treatment, what they eat, where they get it from, how much money they spend, who they train with, what equipment they use.... equipment has been a huge factor in advantage.... why don't we supply all tour riders with generic 20 lbs bikes supplied by one company issued by drawing?

So then sports medicine is for loosers? Cortizone shots, muscle relaxants, pain killers, anti inflamitories.... Anything that heals the body faster than nature, and allows the athlete to train harder than he/she could other wise, or perform better though an injury provides an advantage... that is all gaining advantage through drugs.

Not really arguing for drug use, but PROFFESIONAL sports is not as black and white as most like to belive. Anything done for money is far from pure and ethical.

We are not talking about appropriate medical care or buying good cycling shoes and a nice set of wheels.  If someone makes a rule or bans a medication, you have the choice to break the rule or cheat.  It is that simple.  If everyone cheats it is a level playing field of cheaters, nothing more. 

Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking.  There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught.  ~J.C. Watts

Those are the kinds of arguments made to support the case that doping is just a 'tool', available to whomever wants to use it to improve their performance.  IMO, at some point you start to cross a gray line and end up on the other side where it's the PEDs more than the 'athlete'.  But some don't see it that way and I agree that there is not an easy way to determine how that line should be set anyway.

However, as long as there are rules laid out, then there is a clear black/white line for athletes who want to compete in those sports.  You can argue whether the rules make sense, but if they are there then you either follow them or you break them (and take any consequences that entails).  And the rules aren't 'as long as you test below x level of something you are OK'.  The rules are, you can't use x, y or z.  If you break the rules, you have cheated (by terms of the sport) and don't deserve the 'benefits' that come from participation (records, medals, money, whatever).

Me too. And this is among endurance athletes ...

How so? 

Sorry, LA paid me $20k to vote no.