No, but how 'bout that USA Pro Challenge?  Huh?

I only post this link (and if I am in violation of policy I apologize & please remove, but it is just to a news item) only because of the large number of cyclists who apparently are on the forum, and I thought they might find this early release story pertinent if they hadn't seen it already:

http://www.outsideonline.com/o...e-Closed.html?page=1

No endorsement or refuting of the content is either express or implied - strictly informational.

Lance Armstrong: Case Closed

yeah right, information only...

Good article. I'll be reading Tyler's book when it comes out.

OK - I'll break it down a little more "Barney the Dinosaur" style just for you;

1.) The linked article is about a book that draws certain conclusion regarding LA's alleged doping activities.

2.) I thought many here who are cyclists (I myself am not) might be interested in reading about it since it pertains to their sport; e.g., were you to post an article about ice hockey, regardless of whether I agreed or disagreed with its premise, I would want to read it, and be thankful for the provision of said link, since it is my sport of choice.

3.) The "information only" aspect is the provision of a link to an article about said book -whether they agree with its conclusions or not.  I haven't read it, but I remembered this forum topic and thought it might be of interest to my fellow "Naimees".  So shoot me.

4.) Information does not only consist of confirmation bias...therefore, this constitutes information.

I am sorry if I stepped on your messiah's toes - I was just providing an information source for people out here who might express an interest.  Not having read the book, I cannot comment on its veracity.  Apparently you have read the book already, since you have such a strong opinion about it - I apologize, I didn't know you had obtained an advance copy, and as such, my article link was redundant.

Also for the record, it seems pretty obvious that the sport is replete with this sort of activity; as a pharmacist and former competitive weightlifter & bodybuilder, I am pretty familiar with the drug culture in sports, and as a result, I tend to believe that LA was "juicing" in one form or another...but that is just an opinion, and I present it as nothing more than that. 

If guys do it in bodybuilding and powerlifting, where the potential financial reward is almost nonexistent, then it is not hard to believe the use where the financial gain is as lucrative as it is in other sports (such as baseball, football, cycling) would be rampant, especially since there is essentially no way to compete in any sport "clean" if the majority are not.

I believe most people are of the opinion Lance has backed out of the argument - so it is up to the court of public opinion to make up its own mind.

He has made his money from the sport and defending allegations are really not in his interest anymore.

His reputation, though, is destroyed. My children hold Bradley Wiggins as a role model. They think he is brilliant at what he does, humorous and someone to look up to.

Lance Armstrong: They see as a hypocrite, a cheat and a media dolly.

That's my children's opinion.

Lance is perfectly at liberty to sue them for their opinion as he has done with a number of people who have questioned his "achievements".

Jon, don't you think your comment 'his reputation is destroyed' is, perhaps, debatable?

He just made an appearance in Montreal, and the turnout and support for him was phenomenal. Many came to run with him and show support. Many were cancer survivors. It just seems in many ways, whether he cheated or not, many aspects of his reputation appear to be teflon coated and remain intact. It appears for now that corporate sponsorship has not wavered. Public opinion as expressed in comments sections for newspaper articles seems to be quite divided. A lot of the doctors, lawyers, mothers, kids, etc that jogged with him in Montreal didn't seem to care whether or not he did or didn't cheat, and many said that he was still an inspiration in regards to his survival of cancer. I guess time will tell. 

Dave

Can recommend this a good primer on doping, irrespective of your point of view.

For me, it's irrelevant if LA doped or not - it was still him on the bike, it was his motor and his pain - you can't tell me that someone burns up L'Alpe d'Huez for fun. Personally, I always found him a bit of a c*ck but his achievements with Livestrong will outlive me by some considerable margin, so what does my opinion matter?

Mark

You may think the article is of interest or relevant, but this is due to the fact you don't have an in depth knowledge of cycling, as you said it's not your sport. Anybody who follows cycling would probably dismiss the article as disingenuous by the second paragraph.

I feel there is a strange agenda here.

Lance has made a load of enemies in the past and in some eyes is a bit of a prat as a person.

Loads of people have been out to get him over the years, especially the French who hated the fact that the TdF was won 7 times by a Yank. Also. team-mates who have not been 'defended' from their own misdemeanors by Lance. Room for suspicion here.

So, did Lance dope ? I dunno, and the rest of the world don't. He hasn't failed a test and you can't hang the man just on other peoples heresay.

And regarding his step down from defending his name, why should he have to defend himself ? .... it's up to his accusers to prove the case. Something that they have yet to do.

As said before by posters here, Lance is innocent until proven guilty. Ignore the bitching.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/...lthy-business-indeed

This is a good read.

Oh man, yes they do. Hundreds of riders do so every day in the summer. I've not ridden L'Alpe d'Huez, but have ridden he Tourmalet, Aubisque, Peyresourde, Port de Bales, Aspin, Col de Mente etc etc... all just for fun .

No you can't. That's why he should defend himself and legally demolish the "heresay" for what it is. But wait, the USADA case isn't actually based on heresay at all, but numerous eyewitness accounts and on scientific analysis.

Winky, I know what you mean but not at the wattage of the pro-Peloton. It's one thing getting over the hill, and that's why we ride but man, just look at Tommy V's face as he mashes that big ring...

You're right. Those guys hurt a lot more than we do. But we hurt for a lot longer!

Anyone who thinks taking drugs makes it easy just doesn't understand sport or the drugs - what the drugs do is allow you to train and recover beyond your normal physiology. You can train harder, and more frequently.

According to the article, Hamilton even makes this point, and it is true.  Just taking the drugs without the increased physical punishment they permit is a waste of money.  It potentiates your ability by allowing you to train even more, thus permitting muscular development (in the case of HGH/steroids) or increased endurance (in the case of hematocrit increasing strategies/drugs.)

But isn't it interesting that the year Hamilton was clean, he dropped to 94th - when the year before & after he was vying for a top spot?

I would bet that nobody in the top 25+ or so was totally clean.  Too much moolah at stake.  And having been involved in steroid influenced sports, the one thing I noticed is that all the top guys take 'em, and they all lie about taking 'em.  I think the NHL is loaded with it, because hockey is such an explosive sport with only having 45 second shifts, but not enough people care about hockey that much (as opposed to say baseball in the USA) they get a "free pass". 

And I am convinced the NFL sweeps it all under the carpet, because having 150 kg people who can run a 40 yard sprint in under 5 seconds and bench press 250 kg is good for the entertainment value of their sport.

I doubt that cyclists are any more ethically inclined than any other athlete... as has been said, "Winning isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing."

I love all of this. LA is still larger than life. The Peloton has always been suspect. Tom Simpson dropping dead on Ventoux. And on and on. In the end, all one can say is: maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Don't you just love the human condition? What a drama this has become. Everyone with their vested interests. The commentators, the federations, and the athletes themselves. So many books to sell. So many yarns to spin.

Dave

My personal opinion is that he is a cheat, a fraud and a bully. As much as I enjoyed watching him dominate through his tour "wins" and accept that most others were (are?) also cheating, it is the way he seems to bully and intimidate those that would seek to challenge him that really has turned off. Just my opinion.

A Filthy Business Indeed

The burden of proof is with the accuser, Winky.

With all these so called friends, Lance must be feeling a bit like Kenneth Williams.....

"Infamy, Infamy !!! They've all got it in for me !!!

Yes. And they would have to prove their case in the arbitration. Would you rather they do it in the press? 

The notion that USADA is acting without sound basis and has some sort of  nefarious un-stated motive seems preposterous. Why would they do that? Personal vendetta? Really? Why do some seem to assume that USADA is evil?

Yep. The point of the arbitration hearing would have been to decide whether the evidence constitutes adequate proof of guilt. (No such thing as absolute truth). Strictly speaking, the burden of proof is much higher for a true "hanging". We're only talking about disqualification here (with some significant financial implications, admittedly).

Yes the burden of proof is with the accuser, but in normal legal proceedings the defendant doesn't have the right to say  'I don't want to participate in these proceedings', although they do have a right to silence.  Perhaps Lance should be forced to fight it that way the truth will come out?

Yes I am of the belief that this was a carefully calculated decision by a man who was backed into a corner.  Hopefully one day the 'truth' will out but I suggest Lance's decision was an attempt to avert that happening.

1. Surely this is what Lance has done.It's then up to the accusers to prove guilt. We don't know if they have as we are in the dark regarding this 'evidence'.

2. Why can't the 'truth'  come out anyway? Let's see the evidence !!!! And I don't mean comments from cyclists who have  been drug-cheats themselves - their reputation is already destroyed and their evidence would be thrown out in a court of law (easy job for a competant defence lawyer)