Is Lance Doping?

Interesting idea for a poll for sure. However, I definitely think you need to include an "unsure" or "undecided" option.

seems to me if he's really trying/going to keep this paladin image up for cancer awareness and body health there's no way he would risk doping. The impact of being caught would be phenominal.....
Jeremy

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by meehs
Interesting idea for a poll for sure. However, I definitely think you need to include an "unsure" or "undecided" option.

Good point Meehs, I have always been a black or white kind of guy but I do see the need for a "MAYBE".

If there is a moderator out there that could modify that would be great!

I honestly think it is rediculous to talk about this book. It's a sports writer trying to make a buck and I for one, don't to give it any attention.

JMHO

Jdawg

I have to say that I would be astounded if Walsh was making allegations which cannot be verified.
I have dealt with Walsh in the past and I can tell you that he is extremely thorough individual when it comes to either writing or speaking about cycling and sport – and he is
doubly careful when speaking on the drug abuse issue in sport and within cycling in particular.
He cannot afford to make malicious or incorrect allegations, given his reputation and his longitude in the sport.

David Walsh, who is from Waterford, here in Ireland started his journalistic career in the early 80’s when he wrote for the Sunday Tribune.
He has subsequently moved on to the Sunday Times.
He has also written several biographies such as Sean Kelly’s.
He also contributes to news and television and he had a famous discussion here on
Irish television with Stephen Roche in 2002 when he openly quoted transcripts of the charges pertaining to Dr.Conconi in Italy, which implicated Roche.

So it would be truly shocking that he would simply “make up” allegations against Lance Armstrong.
Walsh is a highly respect journalist – so we’re not talking about the some tabloid journalist trying to make a name for himself.

I am not an apologist for David Walsh.
I am simply explaining my experiences having dealt with him here (he wrote extensively about our domestic competition in his earlier career).

That is where I draw the line in this discussion.

I await to see the full content of his book before deciding if his allegations have credibility.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
I have to say that I would be astounded if Walsh was making allegations which cannot be verified.
I have dealt with Walsh in the past and I can tell you that he is extremely thorough individual when it comes to either writing or speaking about cycling and sport – and he is
doubly careful when speaking on the drug abuse issue in sport and within cycling in particular.
He cannot afford to make malicious or incorrect allegations, given his reputation and his longitude in the sport.

David Walsh, who is from Waterford, here in Ireland started his journalistic career in the early 80’s when he wrote for the Sunday Tribune.
He has subsequently moved on to the Sunday Times.
He has also written several biographies such as Sean Kelly’s.
He also contributes to news and television and he had a famous discussion here on
Irish television with Stephen Roche in 2002 when he openly quoted transcripts of the charges pertaining to Dr.Conconi in Italy, which implicated Roche.

So it would be truly shocking that he would simply “make up” allegations against Lance Armstrong.
Walsh is a highly respect journalist – so we’re not talking about the some tabloid journalist trying to make a name for himself.

I am not an apologist for David Walsh.
I am simply explaining my experiences having dealt with him here (he wrote extensively about our domestic competition in his earlier career).

That is where I draw the line in this discussion.

I await to see the full content of his book before deciding if his allegations have credibility.

That all may be well and true, but from what I understand the book is all non-proveable hear say from other individuals. The writters themselves may not be making any specific allegations, just reporting what the other individuals have said. The crux is whether these other individuals are credible or not. I for one find it very suspicious that they would hold on to this knowledge for so much time and then now come forward. That usually indicates that there are other forces at work, like money.

David

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by davidbod
That all may be well and true, but from what I understand the book is all non-proveable hear say from other individuals. The writters themselves may not be making any specific allegations, just reporting what the other individuals have said. The crux is whether these other individuals are credible or not. I for one find it very suspicious that they would hold on to this knowledge for so much time and then now come forward. That usually indicates that there are other forces at work, like money.

David

"Hearsay" evidence is second or third hand and generally not admissable as evidence in a court of law.

There are exceptions, like death bed testimony, but you cannot get up in court and relate as evidence what another person saw, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, etc. The first hand witness is required to give the evidence and be subjected to cross-examination.

One of the authors have stated that the evidence is circumstantial. The word "hearsay" has never been used to my knowledge.

Fingerprints on a gun are circumstantial. It does not prove that the person fired the lethal shot. But it is compelling circumstantial evidence when accumulated with other circumstantial evidence.

Most crimes are committed without eyewitness evidence. The felon is then convicted on circumstantial evidence.

I will wait for LA to have his day in court, if that occurs.

If you don't test positive, you haven't doped.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ed073
If you don't test positive, you haven't doped.

You are a doper if you admit to being a doper under anti doping guidelines without having tested positive.

The US track sprinter, Kelli White, admitted to taking undetectable drugs from Balco and was given a two year suspension on this admission.

USADA in the Balco investigation (they were providing athletes with the undetectable TGH steroid) are looking to ban athletes involved with Balco on circumstantial evidence of emails, notes and money exchange.

The 2003 junior world sprint champion (cycling), Mark French, was banned for 2 years without a test. Empty phials of equine growth hormone and syringes were found in his room after he vacated and this was considered an infraction to have a suspension imposed.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by VeloFlash
You are a doper if you admit to being a doper under anti doping guidelines without having tested positive.

The US track sprinter, Kelli White, admitted to taking undetectable drugs from Balco and was given a two year suspension on this admission.

USADA in the Balco investigation (they were providing athletes with the undetectable TGH steroid) are looking to ban athletes involved with Balco on circumstantial evidence of emails, notes and money exchange.

The 2003 junior world sprint champion (cycling), Mark French, was banned for 2 years without a test. Empty phials of equine growth hormone and syringes were found in his room after he vacated and this was considered an infraction to have a suspension imposed.

All true....but ask a professional how they interpret it when struggling on 40 000 euros a year. 😉

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by davidbod
That all may be well and true, but from what I understand the book is all non-proveable hear say from other individuals. The writters themselves may not be making any specific allegations, just reporting what the other individuals have said. The crux is whether these other individuals are credible or not. I for one find it very suspicious that they would hold on to this knowledge for so much time and then now come forward. That usually indicates that there are other forces at work, like money.

David

I also question the timing of the release of the book, less than a month before the start of the TDF. Last night on the news (Sports Center on ESPN2), they reported that the book was also in "the French language" which leads me to wonder if this isn't just a French media attempt to play with Lance's head before the start of the race. If I remember correctly the French Media has never been too fond of an "American" succeeding so much at a "French" classic.

I cant answer this poll because we're missing a couple other options. You know, most if not all riders at the top level take what they can get away with, whatever currently is not banned, and some will go into the shady area as well. They all have to in order to keep a level field. This is simply a truth of high level sports. The book doesnt do the sport any good if it calls this into question. Its an issue the UCI has to deal with pretty regularly. This will always be an issue. To level it at Lance at this particular point in time however, is a real shame. Whatever the author's credibility, its a shameful thing to do. Had the author wished to try and effect a change, it should have been taken to the UCI.

I find I have to agree with ed073, not specifically as a defense of Lance, but as the nature of the beast. Its a game behind the scenes to remain as competitive as one can physically, and measured risks to do so. This is just my opinion, but I bet this book could have been written by any trainer on any pro team.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by VeloFlash
"Hearsay" evidence is second or third hand and generally not admissable as evidence in a court of law.

There are exceptions, like death bed testimony, but you cannot get up in court and relate as evidence what another person saw, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, etc. The first hand witness is required to give the evidence and be subjected to cross-examination.

One of the authors have stated that the evidence is circumstantial. The word "hearsay" has never been used to my knowledge.

Fingerprints on a gun are circumstantial. It does not prove that the person fired the lethal shot. But it is compelling circumstantial evidence when accumulated with other circumstantial evidence.

Most crimes are committed without eyewitness evidence. The felon is then convicted on circumstantial evidence.

I will wait for LA to have his day in court, if that occurs.

The term would be direct knowledge. The author of the book has no direct knowledge of Armstrong doping or not.
However I think the timing is great. Lance seems to go very well when he is [censored].

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jhuskey
The term would be direct knowledge. The author of the book has no direct knowledge of Armstrong doping or not.
However I think the timing is great. Lance seems to go very well when he is [censored].

One of the authors, Walsh, has admitted the evidence is only circumstantial. This would mean that he has not produced a witness who actually was present when drugs were being administered, if they were being administered.

As I have said previously, a lot of criminal and civil cases have resulted in convictions/settlements/orders without an eyewitness account of the deed. Reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence. Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence.

The author also claims not to make a judgment, but leaves that to readers. Obviously a legal inspired move.

Just to contextualise, if I may, David Walsh.
Because in reading some of the comments here, I think a bit of balance needs to be brought to the discussion.

Walsh is a highly respected journalist.
His books and articles have won him awards for many years.
Walsh's speciality is cycling - but he also writes authoratively on
rugby, athletics, boxing, golf.
This man needs to have access to the top sports people in order
to do his job.

It would be professionally suicidal for him to invent allegations against Lance Armstrong.
Walsh has stated that the sport of cycling in this era is rotten to it's very core.
He has stated that what he sees in this modern era is not simply explainable by better technology, better nitrition, better training.
He has requested interviews with Lance Armstrong on numerous occasions.
Armstrong has refused to speak with Walsh since 2000.
In 2000. Walsh raised some questions concerning LA's perforamces since 1998.
Armstrong immediately went on the counter offence by stating that Walsh was trying to a job on him.
Walsh has publicly written - in open letters - to Lance requesting an interview - he even said that he would do the interview
should LA need to have his lawyer present.

Like a lot of us, Walsh wants to know LA's secret.
Walsh contends (rightly) that many cyclists train as hard as LA.
Walsh contends (rightly) that improvements in nutrition, training and technology are valid when comparing this era to the 1970's.
However, Walsh (rightly) points out that these improvements do not stand up to comparison when comparing this era to the
drug fuelled 1990's peloton.

So this is the issue here - LA has refused to speak with Walsh
since 2000.
Walsh has gathered a series of serious accusations against LA.

Walsh's integrity is beyond question here folks.
Beyond question - his track record of over 20 years serious
sports journalism qualifies him to ask what a lot of us have asked
about Lance Armstrong.

In mitigation, Walsh has pointed the finger at the whole peloton since 2000.
Obviously because LA is the pre-eminent cyclist in this era, he
has, in this instance, concentrated on LA.

Walsh's central contention is that since 1998, after the Festina
affair, cycling times and speeds should have reduced because
clean cyclists could not be capable of riding faster that their drug
fuelled predecessors.
It is a valid point.
The peloton should be slower if they are clean.
But since 1998, times and speeds have gotten faster.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by VeloFlash
One of the authors, Walsh, has admitted the evidence is only circumstantial. This would mean that he has not produced a witness who actually was present when drugs were being administered, if they were being administered.

As I have said previously, a lot of criminal and civil cases have resulted in convictions/settlements/orders without an eyewitness account of the deed. Reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence. Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence.

The author also claims not to make a judgment, but leaves that to readers. Obviously a legal inspired move.

The author could be held accountable if he were proven to have caused damage to Armstrong that would have been forseeable.
If he were shown to be negligent in not using reasonable care to confirm his published information.
Of course if his information source were so clever as to be able to compeltely mislead him in such a fashion that such a learned journalist would be taken in,then maybe he could be held unaccountable.

My hope is that this pontential scandal doesn't overshadow the Tour . Of course it could be just a clever ploy by the Tour sponsors to get more viewers.
When Tonya Harding had the guy use the bat on Carrigan ice skating hit and all time high in viewers.
Most people love a Soap Opera.
I just want to watch the race in July.

I answered yes to this poll, but if you change the words "Lance Armstrong" to that of any top performing sportsman I would have answered the same.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Fixey
I answered yes to this poll, but if you change the words "Lance Armstrong" to that of any top performing sportsman I would have answered the same.

Exactly!! They all do whatever they can get away with. If he's not testing positive, he's most likely not doing anything everyone else isn't doing. It does seem pretty amazing - but then there are freaks in the world! Look at Reinhold Messner - he can climb Everest from top to bottom in a day without oxygen (usually takes about 6weeks to 3months!!) and then back it up with another 8000m mountain a day later!! 😄

Here is a proven winner -
spend years building up a fairly heavy sports physique geared to swimming, running and cycling.

convert to cycling but with a physique that is not ideal (too top heavy)

get cancer and lose ALL of your conditioning with the possible exception of genetic stuff like VO2 max and max heartrate.

then spend a couple of years building up on your strengths. specifically cardio/vascular system and VO2max. which were less affected by the treatment.

It probably is a sure fire winner but who would do it out of choice? would someone who is performing reasonably well take the risk of losing all conditioning, or would they just try to build on what they had already achieved.

Armstrong is a unique athlete who has been dealt a fairly unique set of cards if you take into account his background, mental approach, level of maturity, physical attributes and cancer.

I find it quite irritating that the stock answer is always "drugs"

Here is a scenario, some take illegal drugs some don't, the peleton travels at a certain speed, some drug cheats are thrown out, the peleton will go at the same speed because 'some' DID NOT TAKE THE DRUGS they can STILL ride at the same speed.

There will be more riders coming through but hopefully fewer on drugs only those that can compete will get to the top, there may be fewer or they may be different to the ones that got through prior to the drugs crackdown. BUT they will come through.

I also find the "European's hate Armstrong cos he's American" diatribe irritating, the French may not like him but then the one thing about the French is, that they are not not prejudiced - they hate everyone.

Please don't believe what you read in the press, the vast majority of my cycling mates are pro Armstrong, as am I and I am looking forward to a good tour this year - with Armstrong in yellow!

Regards

Steve D

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by janeshad
snip> Look at Reinhold Messner - he can climb Everest from top to bottom in a day without oxygen (usually takes about 6weeks to 3months!!) and then back it up with another 8000m mountain a day later!! 😄