Tiger, Michael or Lance?

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, a lot of google results, that totally proves your point!

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, haha, but my point was, you might as well be a Holocaust denier asking me to cite some facts about the Holocaust. It's been discussed ad nauseum in books, newspapers, on TV, even on ESPN a little bit, as much as they try to protect him...they must have gotten a little nervous, considering that he was scheduled to host the ESPY's in less than a month, when the news came out about the testimony given in a Texas court that Armstrong admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs when he was recovering from cancer, so they had Bob Ley interview him for Outside the Lines, which went about like this:

Bob Ley: Lance, how do you respond to the recent testimony about your use of performance-enhancing drugs given under oath in a Texas court?

Lance: Those are bitter people who have an axe to grind against me, although I have no idea why. By the way I beat cancer and am a hero and inspiration to all those afflicted with this terrible disease and I'm also hosting the ESPY's.

Ley: *briskly brushing off previous accusation* OK, Lance, how do you respond to the accusations you used performance-enhancing drugs made by (insert former friend/teammate/co-worker here)...

Lance: He/She is a bitter person who has an axe to grind, although I have no idea why. By the way I beat cancer and am a hero and inspiration to all those afflicted with this terrible disease and I'm also hosting the ESPY's.

Ley: *briskly brushing off previous accusation*...rinse, repeat...

Ley: OK, Lance, looks like you're clean! Good thing none of this is true since you're hosting the ESPY's and all! Thanks for coming on.



It was high comedy.

[Dids]

Bill,

I've heard the same stories as you. None of it struck me as the proof that you seem to think it is. None of those stories have had any legs, in part because they always have come from somebody with an axe to grind.

I'm not saying he didn't use, 'cause I don't know. I am saying that you running around and acting like it's been proven and accepted as fact is pretty retarded.

Keeping living the dream homey!

[junglewarfare]

You guys who don't think lance used are in total denial. You can walk around saying "ohhhhhh but you can't PROVE it" all you want, technically that's true, but the reality is that its pretty safe to say he did.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys who don't think lance used are in total denial. You can walk around saying "ohhhhhh but you can't PROVE it" all you want, technically that's true, but the reality is that its pretty safe to say he did.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there any evidence from drug tests or anything that isn't third party claims?

I don't know whether he did or not and I don't really care. It makes a lot of sense since coming back from cancer to win a really hard athletic competition 800 times in a row is pretty damn hard. All I'm saying is that I don't know of any reasonable proof. Why is it safe to say he did? If it's just because other people say he did I'm not sure that's so safe.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying he didn't use, 'cause I don't know. I am saying that you running around and acting like it's been proven and accepted as fact is pretty retarded.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that was basically my point, only the other way around, when I saw that we'd gone 4 pages into a thread comparing him to Tiger and MJ and not one mention of performance-enhancing drugs.

I can't prove it of course, but, it is pretty difficult to explain the preponderence of the evidence against him under any scenario other than him actually using...of course in many circumstances they are basically his word against someone else's, but when there are so many you have to wonder...why would everyone be out to get him? What successful, even heroic figure like him makes this many enemies along the way? Even if some ARE out to get him, it doesn't mean they've reached the wrong conclusion...

There is the issue of the positive test too, although who knows about that, somewhat dubious I suppose, and also the circumstantial evidence of so many other top cyclers using.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any evidence from drug tests or anything that isn't third party claims?


[/ QUOTE ]

There is at least one positive test, although, who knows about its validity. Basically, my understanding is, it was from a second sample he gave at an event, with the primary sample testing negative at the time, but for whatever reason the second sample was tested years later and came up positive. Of course his position was basically that someone rigged it, it was from years earlier, etc. etc., and since then I think whatever cycling governing body has rejected the validity of the test, but who knows, that's just my recollection of it. A Google search should turn something up on it. There's more than enough against him even if this never happened.

Pretty much no matter what happens, he can always use the defense that everyone is out to get him and that they rigged the drug test/tape/photo in question, so who knows. My position that he used is more of an Occam's Razor position. It's at least as reasonable as the widely accepted assumption that Bonds has used (and that's not a defense of Bonds). The only people speaking out against Bonds, who isn't exactly a loveable guy, are his disgruntled ex-girlfriend and former business partner, both of whom have an axe to grind for other reasons whether they're correct or not. With Lance, it is this times about 1000, with plenty of circumstantial evidence, articles, books, and a possible positive drug test to boot.

[junglewarfare]

If you google "lance armstrong steroid allegations" you'll find a long list of what he allegedly did. And yes, most of those sources are going to be French and Euro newspapers that most people think weren't too happy with a yankee whipping them at cycling, but on the other hand they were the only ones doing investigative journalism into the story so it's natural that they were the only ones to come up with it. I don't think SI was really interested in searching around to find Lance guilty.

The other side of the argument is the common sense that cycling is a sport which is completely full of steroid use, and Lance dominated for a pretty ridiculous period of time. The guys he beat, like Ulrich and Basso, were recently kicked out of the 06 tour for testing positive. You don't go from being a promising but unaccomplished rider like Lance was in 95 to being the best at a sport ever, let alone one that is famous for drug use, without using drugs. If you ask most French people what they think of him, they will say "Yeah he definitely used drugs and I am sick of Americans acting like he didn't and being so naive." But they won't act like the best French riders didn't use, because they realize that everyone at the top does. And to go from being an average guy like Armstrong was pre cancer to beating a group of 50 advanced drug users, especially for 6 years in a row... I know what I am betting on.

I am a huge Lance and Landis fan and loved watching them win. I don't necessarily think that this takes away from what Lance did either, he is one of the best and hardest working athletes ever and his story of recovering from cancer will never be matched. It's just silly to think that he didn't use steroids, and the attitude that most Americans have toward it is pretty silly and naive.

[SBR]

[ QUOTE ]

Has Jordan really been out of the spot light long enough to make you guys forget that he was the greatest athelete of all time?


[/ QUOTE ]

Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time, he is not the greatest athlete of all time.

[junglewarfare]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any evidence from drug tests or anything that isn't third party claims?


[/ QUOTE ]

There is at least one positive test, although, who knows about its validity. Basically, my understanding is, it was from a second sample he gave at an event, with the primary sample testing negative at the time, but for whatever reason the second sample was tested years later and came up positive. Of course his position was basically that someone rigged it, it was from years earlier, etc. etc., and since then I think whatever cycling governing body has rejected the validity of the test, but who knows, that's just my recollection of it. A Google search should turn something up on it. There's more than enough against him even if this never happened.

Pretty much no matter what happens, he can always use the defense that everyone is out to get him and that they rigged the drug test/tape/photo in question, so who knows.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the reason that particular sample didn't turn into a a conviction was that it was done under unscientific guidelines. Maybe that isn't the best way to word it, but the test didn't follow all the stringent protocols that are required since the burden of proof is on the testing agency to prove officially that it is positive. They waited several years to use a second sample that could likely have been doctored in the time that passed, it's easy to see why it was not considered official.

[Dids]

I just really dislike the argument that says "Lance must have been using drugs because he won and everybody knows you can't win without drugs".

There still hasn't been proof, and treating this argument like it's the Lance supporters who need to prove he wasn't is silly.