Irish, yup! Why can't folk just admit that this man is an incredible athlete that works hard to accomplish what he does. When are they finally going to just give it a rest?!

Anyone who knows the history of competitive bicycling, knows.

There is too much stuff like that going on in sport today, more test should be done to prevent it.

irishshamrock.... I agree with you 100%. No way Lance used any kind of Performance enhancing drug, period. He did it with hard work, and that's final!

XFringeDivisionX, irishshamrock, pjw-708550 Yeah we were all saying the same thing about Marion Jones when she just won her medals in 2000. I wonder what is the update on her? If any of you knew about the sport you will see something was immensly inconsistent with Lance's performance before and after cancer and proof that the UCI isn't doing enough to properly drug test cyclists.

The point I'm trying to make is do some research on what is truly going on here between the UCI, Lance and LeMond before you blindly follow the herd like the sheep you all are or you can keep grazing, it's easier.

That "before" you're trying to claim is more likely "with" cancer, since it didn't just enter his body and spread in a few weeks. 1993 Oslo ring a bell? No proof=no truth.

Fred, the reason there is no proof is because the UCI has a flawed drug testing system. LeMond and other ex-professional cyclists have been pleading with the UCI to improve their testing methods for years to clean up the sport and bring its credibility back but they don't want to listen. People that back Armstrong say that he's the most tested athlete, but with the system as flawed as it is, does 10 flawed testings a month make any difference than 100 flawed testings a month? I don't think so

Yeah, he won the 1993 championship, and???

Really? And all those tests that caught all the other cheaters were incorrect? How can you claim that the system is flawed?

Bobnoxious of Bastok, ex-professional cyclists have been pleading with the UCI to improve their drug testing methods for years but they don't want to listen. Research that and you will see. Which should make all of us question the veracity of all the drug test results. If you did drugs and knew that the drug testing method was crap and you would never get caught, what difference will it make if they make you pee in a cup everday versus twice a year? As far as cyclists being caught, there is an underworld to professional cycling just like all the other sports that most people will never understand.

No proof=no truth.

Yes (and Lance will whoop him on a bike too). Why don't you try and get a urine specimen from the bear and see how that works out??

Fred, Joe can collect the bear's urine sample but then you should try getting a bear on a bike to see if he can beat lance.

Who cares? Baseball is BORING until the playoffs (unless the Padres are good).

Couldn't have said it better, myself, 81.

Does the sun set in the west? Does a bear sh*t in the woods?

Does Joe hate Lance?

You can doubt him all you want, but the longer he goes without a positive test result the bigger the conspiracy required to conceal his doping gets. Think about it. If we use the point of view of most Americans, cycling is of no consequence and this could slide under the radar without a care. But in Europe? It's an obsession not unlike baseball in America and hugely popular. Plus they don't care much about rights when it comes to this subject. Remember the 1998 Festina scandal? He came along right after that to win his first. Dopers will be judged guilty first until proven innocent. The media goes through the trash looking for anything, it goes on and on.

Point is, if he is a doper it would somehow have been revealed by now with concrete proof. Think of Ockham's razor. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If you believe he dopes, then you believe there is a massive conspiracy to cover it up.

You can't have one without the other.

Biker4life, you must not know a lot about the sport. Two things:

1)A good cyclist is born good, it's not like other sports. If you are a mediocore professional cyclist, you will always be that and that's what Lance was, just medicore, he was lucky enough to win a few stages before he got cancer, not even mountain stage wins were possible. Training can only do so much because genes plays a big role.

2)The UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) is behind the reason why he hasn't tested positive for drugs. Ever since the early 90s, cyclists have been doping up with UCI's permission or with them looking the other way. Did you notice that after LeMond won his last tour, a bunch of cyclists retired and a bunch of mediocore cyclists were sweeping away the competition? Before you would see the "100 mile" stare in each cyclist's eyes after a grueling mountain race, now they act like they just took a 1 mile power walk.

The UCI needed a poster boy for cycling and they saw that in Lance Armstrong because of his charm and him being a cancer survivor, what better way to increase the sport's popularity?? If you still don't believe me that the UCI is behind this, research what Greg LeMond has said about them and how the UCI is trying to screw him over for exposing the truth. I met LeMond on several occasions and it sucks that they are putting him through this.

Well if genes play a big role you are just making my point for me.

There was that Oslo World Championship.

In 1993, 3 years before cancer. Everybody seems to forget about that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_UCI_Road_World_Championships

True a one day race not a Grand Tour, but he is certainly not the first to transform from one day racer to tour winner.

If great cyclist are born, why does it usually take a rider until his late 20s early 30s before he can win the tour? When is the last time a U23 rider won the tour? Why do they even have a U23 program if the best riders just get on their bike and ride?

The best Grand Tour riders are developed. Everybody who knows anything about cycling knows that.

You also state that you can tell a rider dopes by the look on his face...??? I guess we can get rid of that useless testing program now that we have you.

The rest of what you wrote states that you believe there is a massive 12 year plus conspiracy that rises to the level of the UCI itself to keep Lance from getting caught.

I think that speaks for itself.

You don't have to be condescending to me

biker4life, I'm just saying that before you would see the exhaustion in all the cyclist faces and not so much anymore. Which indicates that something is not right, smartass. Riders do peak in their late 20s but that is usually reserved for sprinters when their strength has peaked, thank YOU for making my point. As far as tour winners, many of them won their first tours when in their early to mid 20s. Have you heard of Laurent Fignon, Eddy Mercx, Jaques Anquetil, Greg Lemond?

Yes, I remember he won the mostly flat 1993 world championship, but he also abandoned the tour that year and wasn't even considered a contender until he won in 1999. You can't be a mediocore cyclist and then come back and smoke the best cyclists like he did with just training. Add to that, his VO2 max is not even close to the top cyclists, that should be another indicator. Reply if you want but you don't have to be a smartass.

You can call me a smart ass if you want, but you are the one implying there is a meaningful distinction to be made regarding doping by looking at the rider's face. Don't you see how ridiculous that sounds?

You can't call a World Champion a 'mediocre cyclist'. That is my point and you're insistence on doing so is ridiculous. Strike two.

A lot of people have suggested that cancer and his comeback training transformed his body and his suitability for the grand tours. There are an endless number of reasons put forth by an endless number of people as to how he went from quitter to winner at the TdF. Your doping theory is one, but I have heard many, many others.

Sure, there are exceptions (Andy Schleck comes to mind, although he hasn't won one yet and as much as I would like him to beat Contador I don't think he will this year) but historically it USUALLY takes until late 20s early 30s to win the tour.

Lance has lots of physiological factors in his favor, a few not but he is a cycling machine. Most people agree with that regardless.

Lance hates anyone who is his competitor. Have you not noticed that? I think people tend to underestimate just how much of a factor RAGE is when attacking on the big climbs. And I mean in training. That DOES make a difference.

My point is you are not presenting any real evidence AND the point you are making is that there is a vast 12 year conspiracy all the way to the top of the UCI to keep Lance's doping secret.

I'll say it again: Do you not hear how ridiculous that sounds???

That should be enough ONLY if you know nothing about Lance Armstrong, what. I'm sorry that you are so cynical, but the man is just pure and simple a really great athlete who works hard to do what he does, no matter what he is doing. Read his books, read something other than the somewhat slanted press (that needs to create news) about him.

Lance Armstrong would be purely insane to do drugs after a cancer battle that would have killed a lesser person, and he is anything but insane.

Purely circumstantial. Get real proof and you may have a case. Just b/c you can't win the local crit doesn't mean that everyone else is doping

bigdude, oh yeah this is all about jealousy. Let me reply with a question. Just because you can't make a sound argument do you have to resort to mockery?

Biker4life, you did not address the issue of his VO2 max being less than the top cyclists of the modern era (at least 10%). I don't care to read anything in the press about lance concerning doping allegations, nor do i know any dates or names but I've known of him since 93' and since 99' I've been suspicious.

Let me elaborate, you can't be a mediocore cyclist and then come back to win 7 consecutive tours. His wins would have been a lot more believeable to me if he had been a real contender since the mid 90s, but he wasn't. Other than his championship there was really no promise in him, nobody could predict he would ever finish better than 25th place in the tour. In cycling, no training exists that can turn a cyclist (like pre-cancer lance) to a 7-9 consecutive tour winner (If he would have not retired, no doubt he would have won 06' and maybe 07'). At least try to understand that.

As far as conspiracies, they are everywhere and have always existed, are you telling me the UCI is perfect and honest?? It doesn't take much to see that this conspiracy is not perfect and is crumbling, with people trying to come forward and the shady people (Ferrari)that have been found associating themselves with lance after his comeback. Say what you want about Lance but the truth will come out.

You aren't reading my posts very thoroughly and now you are just repeating yourself. I have a feeling you are just going to descend into angry insults and name calling in your next comment, so go ahead and prove me wrong will ya?

You still insist on calling a World Champion (and a prior TdF stage winner, you forgot that too) a 'mediocre cyclist'.

You still insist there is a 12 year conspiracy within the UCI and WADA to cover up Lance's supposed positive results, or to prevent him from being tested or whatever.

You refer to comments from myself and bigdude (I think he is on to something) as 'condescending' and 'mockery' but you continue with theories and assumptions that, to put it mildly, strain the limits of believability.

Your credibility has left the building.

biker4life, the only credibility that has left the building is the UCI's ability to do a better job drug testing their cyclists. Even while LeMond was racing professionally he was pleading for them to improve their testing methods but they didn't listen to him. Shouldn't that earn a couple points for LeMond and earn him a little more respect than all the LeMond bashing on here? LeMond wanted to save the sport back then and for it to keep it's credibilty. Do you think the UCI wouldn't pass on the opportunity to find a poster boy for the sport to make a lot of money off of like Lance? They don't care about tarnishing the sport and they proved it.

He can be the most tested athlete in history but that won't mean anything to me and others who know about all the loopholes that exist in their drug testing methods. Athletes have tested negative many times to later admit using performance enhancing substances(Laurent Fignon and Bjarne Riis to name a few). When it comes to drug testing, I think Quality should count more than quantity, for those that don't believe in that live in denial and are fooled by all the hype, sorry.

You might believe he could have won all those tours if he'd been a real contender since the mid '90's but he wasn't so he couldn't have,how STUPID a comment is that?? There's a real good chance Lance already had the cancer on his last tour in '96 and you're gonna make a stupid statement like that?? Sorry but unless someone PROVES the doping ALLEGATIONS,they're just that,allegations.

Fred, if you weren't so close to Lance's ball you would have been able to understand what I was trying to say. In cycling, you are born good, you just don't all of a sudden smoke the best cyclists in your late 20s with just training after 7 years racing professionally. It's not like other sports that with training and practice you can go from a mediocore athlete to a championship contender. You need to have been born with the body and the cardiovascular system to be a top cyclist. His VO2 max was noticeably less than Indurain's and LeMond's and much less than Marco Pantani's. Nobody will ever convince me that he wasn't a mediocore cyclist until he got cancer. He has always been a good strategist and an aggressive rider though, I'll give him that. Yes, he won the 1993 championship but he also dropped out of the tour that year and his name wasn't even mentioned in the same sentence as the cycling greats until he came back in 1999. Answer me this, why would he meet Michele Ferrari who is a notorious dope dealer in the sport? I never said he did drugs, only that the people he has associated with and how quickly he turned from a mediocore cyclist to making pantani, ullrich and beloki look like toddlers on tricycles makes me question the validity of him being able to win 7 consecutive tours clean.

What the 81- you sound as crazy as Lemond.

Wait- is that you Greg?

You seem to have it all figured out. Why didn't you win more Tours de France? Please tell us the mathematical physiological equation that explains that.

You used to be my hero. What happened to you? Are you mad because coming back and winning the TdF after cancer trumps coming back and winning the TdF after taking a load of buckshot? We used to think you were pretty awesome. Even after you retired. Your bikes were really nice. Then you started harping like a shrill monkey after Lance's win tally surpassed yours (yeah, we all noticed it at the same time) and you slowly turned in to a sad pathetic little man, obviously jealous of Lance. I'm certain the Grand Jury will come to the same conclusion and find your 'testimony' worthless.

Remember that guy Eddie Merckx? He came and visited Lance when he was ill with cancer. Before he was a famous TdF champion. Pretty amazing, huh? Can you say 'gracious'? Where were you?

It's really sad to see what you've become. I wish there was something I could do to help. You need to hire a P.R. firm to get you to shut your mouth until something intelligent can come out. If the evidence is so overwhelming, show it to us all.

We're waiting.

Is that you Lance?

biker4life, it shows now that you have nothing else to say about this topic other than the "12 year conspiracy" and that you're backed against the corner and now have descended to attacking LeMond personally. LeMond has confronted Lance about doping since back in early 2001 when he was associating with shady people. This has got nothing to do with him not visiting Lance in the hospital or with his LeMond bikes. Ask people who are knowledgeable about the sport and have not fallen for the hype like you. They will tell you that there is no way a cyclist like the Lance before cancer can come back after 3 years to win 7 tours like he did with just training. Those wins required a physiology and a cardiovascular system he was no way capable of attaining before 1999. Before Lance got cancer his VO2 max was nowhere near Pantani's yet he made Pantani look like a joke when he did his comeback, how is that possible?? Still you have not addressed any of the points I made:

1.Why did Lance have to see Ferrari? 2.What about the testimony by Frankie Andreu and Vaughters? 3.Athletes have tested negative many times but later admitting doping, so are you saying there is 0% chance he doped and that we have to trust all the results knowing full well that the UCI doesn't want to improve their drug testing methods? Until you at least can provide an explanation to those then you have an argument against me. Say whatever personal things you want about LeMond, I really don't care.

Actually it just shows that I'm not going to waste my time posting in response to nonsense.

There are many intelligent points you could make about bike racers not being tested thoroughly enough, etc. (btw- why do I have to help you make your point?) that would not having anything to do with UFOs, JFK and vast conspiracies.

I've been riding and racing in the peloton for over 30 years. I know many more people and much more info then I would dare divulge on a public forum such as this. I choose to believe in the success of clean athletes not through some obtuse naiveté but because I have seen enough first hand to have an informed opinion on whether or not I feel a particular athlete is clean.

You can bait me all you want but I'm moving on to other things and I won't be available to continue our 'dialogue' any further.

Here's one I hope we can agree on:

I hope ALL dopers are caught. Not who I (or you) think is or isn't, but the athlete who is guilty. The rest should be thoroughly tested and left alone otherwise.

Happy trails!

Oh ok, you know a lot more than me from riding in a peloton for 30 years but don't want to divuldge. Yes, and those that disagree with you like myself speak nonsense, yet you don't want to address those 3 issues. Someone with all the experience that you claim to have would have something to say about those points at least. Yeah this was done ever since you started attacking LeMond personally.

so lance is the only one with a freakish physiology? they are all freakish. lance wasn't even the strongest at his team..

Yes, I really think Lance Armstrong is different! Go Lance!!!

Believe it or not, maybe he is different. More motivated. A harder worker. Naturally gifted.

You probably also think everyone lies on their resume and cheats on their taxes too.

I'm truly taken aback by the way most of Armstrong's "fans" repeat the marketing slogans and spin tactics created by Armstrong and his strategists. "Most tested athlete"- where is the data? Where is the quantifiable proof that he is, in fact, this most tested athlete? He raced far fewer races than anyone on his team- probably only 1/3 of the races an average domestique would race in a season. From February through October, after every inconsequential, non-grand tour or classic 1-3 day races- the winner, a group of the top riders, and a random selection- are tested. They are also subject to out of competition testing and don't live in Texas or hideout in Girona or the Canary Islands.

Armstrong would show up for the Dauphine, the Tour, and ???. Moreover, his natural abilities don't place him in the upper echelon of the peloton and the inconsistencies from pre-cancer to post-cancer are undeniable. Also, Landis' statements don't just call into question the cleanliness of Armstrong and other top pros in the peloton- it points a very definite finger at the governing body and the people in charge of airing positive drug tests. If the system was flawed and/or bought, no consideration should be given to Armstrong's test results.

But then again, the Livestrong-ers have selective memories. The corticosteroid positive in '99 had him- and Nike- sweating. Thank god for backdated prescriptions. But too bad the molecular structure of the script doesn't match the positive. Also, the 7 positives aired by l'equipe when they were re-testing for EPO? What about that? It's more than likely he was never actually tested after 1999.

And, how about an explanation for the postal service car that drove 3 hours off-course, during the tour, to dump multiple garbage bags full of syringes, IV bags and other doping materials- caught on camera by French television nonetheless! And then the false affidavit signed by Armstrongs Mechanic, Julian DeVries. No. He's not guilty.

Caught on camera? Then they must have retrieved the garbage bags, no? This would constitute usable evidence. Where is it? The investigation? Do you think the French authorities would stop until they had him? After Festina?

Did the grand conspiracy find a way to make it disappear? By now it is obvious I'm a Lance fan, but I'm not blinded by his 'brilliance' and if you show some evidence I'll be paying attention. Until then it's just gossip.

'It's more than likely he was never actually tested after 1999.' This statement indicates you believe there has been a vast 12 year conspiracy. By EVERYONE.

Sounds to me like you're the one on dope.

almost as tested as marion jones

"Most tested athlete"- where is the data?

top level athletes are not only tested in races, they are tested _constantly— - at home, in their hotel, in training trips, when on vacation... year-round. Officials show up at his door anywhere in the world (he, just like all other such racers, has to keep them informed of his whereabouts at all time, so they can show up, unannounced, at any time, anywhere he is.) I followed his twitter stream for a while, there were times when he had a couple random tests a week while he was on vacation in Colorado, in the middle of winter.

so, yeah, he's been tested quite thoroughly.

biker4life, you keep on bringing up how it's impossible for a 12 year conspiracy to exist in cycling. Are you telling me that there aren't conspiracies out there longer than 12 years? how long and far reaching is the ufo conspiracy? the JFK conspiracy? and countless others. Cyclists have been drugging themselves while the UCI looked the other way for at least 30 years or more, Lance is just another name in the net. Did Bjarne Riis or Laurent Fignon ever get caught doping while they raced? No, they did not. They admitted doping later on. I doubt Lance will do the same. Stop repeating the same argument.

Man you are awesome! You just keep playing the 'crazy nut' card. It is not a winning hand.

The UFO conspiracy???? JFK???? Stop reading The Enquirer.

You keep repeating the same crazy. With that, I don't need to make another point!

But those are conspiracies, whether I believe in them or not doesn't matter here. You really must be living in a bubble to think conspiracies don't exist.

Haha! You have been duped by the hoax of the year!

What does this (or BIG PHARMA) have to do with leaving your opinion on whether or not Armstrong doped?

By the way- Specialized will be selling these Roubaix 'specials' through dealers for the 2011 model year. You need to know the secret handshake and the password to get one though. Should help me in the local crits, I'll wave as I go by!

Innocent until proven guilty!

Ahh, The cowardice of anonymity. If you've been complicit in the lie, you're the last person to be calling Lance out.

If you've got the goods, Stand up and be accountable in name and deed.

Otherwise you're nothing more than one more coward and slanderer, free to spew whatever you like without having to prove anything, which makes your input worthless, however titilating!

biker...we've shared elevator rides, car rides, plane rides and a few women...as to showing you evidence, i think i've made myself quite clear that a grand jury, federal investigation where perjury is a criminal offence and jail time, well, it's not the same as having reporters call or UCI where you can just stick to the story. That won't happen this time. And if you know JP as well as you say, you'll know that there are a few that will go to the ashes for him, but more that won't. You agree with me that he's a jerk and in fact disagree with me very little on the balance of my comments, so knowing him as well as you do, you may in fact recognise what I'm saying..he's in for a real long few years.

I agree, unless the Grand Jury immediately dismisses the charges he will be sweating for quite a while whether he is guilty or not. The potential perjury charge is just the half of it; defrauding the federal government since he was paid by USPS will probably be the big one.

Time will tell...

biker4life, from #15, what does him being a jerk have anything to with this??? Also, are you saying his rage and hatred were a major factor that helped him win 7 tours? Do you know how crazy that sounds? I'm asking the wrong person.

whatthe81,

I'm glad to hear you don't have the kind of rage and anger burning inside to be able to relate to that. I can remember a time in my life when I did, and I've learned to recognize it in others. Lance has it in spades, and I've recognized it in him as a major factor in his motivation.

Emotions, whatever they may be, (joy, anger, fear, etc.) play a huge role in a person's ability to achieve, and I believe they are usually the deciding factor that cancels out the math (or more like tips the scales) of physiological test results.

There is another unique factor with Lance Armstrong. He had the opportunity, at a very young age, to really face death and the possible end of his existence. He was given a lot of time to think about what that might mean and what he really wanted to achieve before he dies.

Having a look over that precipice and coming back to have a second chance to achieve his goals might have more to do with his success than any of us have considered. Or can even comprehend.

biker4life, what a joke. voting for every comment you make isn't going to make your arguments more believable. You don't realize how sad that makes you look.

Voting for your own comment? I didn't even know you could do that. How did you? I see you have very few votes at all so I guess that means you 'don't cheat' (??).

I haven't been checking this thread for quite sometime, but I see you have been running roughshod posting hateful, empty comments repeating this assumption. I'll just respond to all of them by saying you seem like an angry, sad individual who has given up believing in anyone or anything. I wish you well and hope life gets better for you.

I see you're really good on assumptions. We debate about armstrong a few times and you think you know what kind of person I am. And even if I needed help, why would I want any help from you? I just choose a life free from denial.

My understanding is that what you're talking about is called "blood doping"--but the term "doping" can refer to any outlawed substance.

actor212 - I have to agree with you, why bring up something that have happend years ago, its a wast of our tax payers money and waste of the governments time, again people keep saying yes he did it, but show the proof, they can talk all they want but i see no proof.

Wasn't John Kerry (democrat) having secret get togethers with him while he was in the 2005 tour?

If you are that inside or even just follow cycling closely you know how the French authorities are about this. The police raided hotel rooms over a search for PEDs and doping equipment during the Festina scandal and that was 12 years ago. They are even more aggressive now. This will never happen in the US and is an example of how aggressive they are in France over this subject.

Earlier you posted that 'It's more than likely he was never actually tested after 1999.' Do you really believe that? Do you really expect the rest of the world to believe that? That assertion does more to hurt your credibility than it does Lance's.

Can your sources provide evidence? Read my posts. I've never said that he didn't, there is no way, etc. Show me the evidence. As I've said Lance is no saint and not a particularly likeable guy. There is no such thing as evidence to prove he didn't, hasn't or never doped. The only way to settle this issue is evidence to prove he has.

You say it could have been used as evidence. Why wasn't it? Why wasn't Julian Devries (your screen name is noted) affidavit dismissed as lies when his story was followed up? The French standard of probable cause, search and seizure, etc. is obviously a bit lower than in the US. Not to mention a TdF champion using PEDs is like Pete Rose betting on baseball here in the US. And an American doing the cheating? Pure GOLD. Is all of France, AFLD, WADA, the UCI, USADA, etc. afraid of Lance? Lance can't intimidate everyone (although he might try).

The spotlight on Lance is blinding. The person who brings forth evidence will be famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view). Is Lance too big to fail for cycling? Could they all be covering this up?

Your last post is just a link to an old article that is more talk. Old news that everyone familiar with the issue is aware of.

Why has there been no prosecution, much less a conviction? Show me the evidence. Without evidence it is just a bunch of talk.