Lance goes for Seven

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:16:10 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc,
wrote:

I certainly
would like to see the cloud over his success be cleared.

what cloud? a bunch of unproved accusations from questionable in
a book that the publisher won't distribute in countries where
lance could sue for libel?

good genetics and a chance to rebuild and retrain a body after a
disastrous illness, coupled with maximum motivation.

amazing how all the losers are so jealous of the winner.

If Lance was/is being cagey about the subject of substance use I would
imagine it's him being cautious about giving his detractors something to
come after him with. (wow, bad sentence structure!) I'm sure that he, more
than anyone, realizes that his TDF performances have made him a lightening
rod for the pouting, sour grapes brigade who would like nothing better than
to smear Armstrong's record.

Plus, considering the fact that he is or was taking medications as a result
of his cancer and the rather arbitrary manner in which the rules are
created, changed and enforced, I'm not sure I'd admit to ingesting anything
stronger than a Power Bar.

As for the cloud over his head, there is nothing he can say or do that will
change that. If the fact that he managed to win six TDF's without once
failing a drug screening is pretty strong evidence that he won clean. (And
how many tests must one go through during a tour? Probably quite a few and
multiply that times six and it stands to reason that if LA were doping he
would have been found out).

And unlike baseball, football and the other big tickets sports programs,
cycling seems to do more than pay lip service to the subject of atheletes
and performance enhancing drugs.


wrote in message
...
Donn Deniston writes:

He needs another new drug to win another Tour de France. His
previous drug dopping was now revealed in the laboratory. He could
be caught if he tried the dopping. So Lance needs other dopping
method to win another Tour De France. Good luck drug addict.

The biggest dope I see here is you.

You must mean "dopp" because who else would be dopping (sic).

Although the writer jumps to the conclusion that Lance is doping with
a more than justified manner with no evidence other than Lance's
extraordinary performance. I felt uneasy when Lance was interviewed
on US TV about claims often made in the European press that it could
not be possible without drugs. Lance answered in a cagey manner and
ill at ease as I saw it. He said "I don't use BANNED substances."
with emphasis on the "banned". I was disappointed that the
interviewer did not pursue that claim further or clarify what was
meant by that qualification. It seemed apparent to me that Lance was
not saying that he used no performance enhancing chemistry but only
that it had not been banned. I don't know that Lance allowed such
interviews in Europe where I suspect that he would not get off as easy
because over there it is widely claimed that he is using something
that may not yet have come under drug test scrutiny.

Time will probably reveal what if anything is involved. I certainly
would like to see the cloud over his success be cleared.

Dennis P. Harris wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:16:10 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc,
wrote:

I certainly
would like to see the cloud over his success be cleared.

what cloud? a bunch of unproved accusations from questionable in
a book that the publisher won't distribute in countries where
lance could sue for libel?

good genetics and a chance to rebuild and retrain a body after a
disastrous illness, coupled with maximum motivation.

amazing how all the losers are so jealous of the winner.

I agree. I think the Euro press and promoters hate that their premier sporting
event being dominated by an American. Also, the tall poppy must be lopped off,
the proud nail pounded down, etc.

Matt O.
..

Jobst wrote -

Lance answered in a cagey manner and
ill at ease as I saw it. He said "I don't use BANNED substances."
with emphasis on the "banned". I was disappointed that the
interviewer did not pursue that claim further or clarify what was
meant by that qualification.

By the way in which we frame our laws, so we regulate human conduct.

My understanding is that the punishable wrongdoing is to test positively for
a prescribed substance (or to refuse a required test, which results in a
deemed positive).

The public perception is that all performance enhancing substances are
banned and anyone using any of them is a drug cheat - this is not the case;
Gatorade and its competitors claim to increase athletic performance but are
not prescribed substances.

The gap between what is defined as illegal and the perceived need to
eliminate drugs from sport is where I suspect the uneasiness that Jobst
mentions comes from.

It has become a contest of "my pharmacist can beat your pharmacist", in that
if it isn't prescribed yet then your conduct is legal, but may not fit the
media or the public's conception of what is ethical.

But we don't have an ethical test for performance enhancing substances, we
have a legal test and if your on the right side of that legal test, then you
cannot be punished but you may not be greeted with universal acclaim either.

So, if you have not tested positively to a prescribed substance (and to my
knowledge Lance never has) you are competing legally and clearly on that
basis the sponsor that refused to pay him the bonus he earned recently was
in the wrong.

On the way the law is currently framed, Lance is entitled to all the honours
that his extraordinary achievements may bring him.

I think perhaps we need to better define what is the improper behaviour, and
create an objective test for the conduct we seek to prescribe - we seem to
be unable to do that at present.

best, Andrew

Andrew Price wrote:

I think perhaps we need to better define what is the improper
behaviour, and create an objective test for the conduct we seek to
prescribe - we seem to be unable to do that at present.

I don't see what else we can do but test for drugs as we're doing now.

Matt O.

Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:13:26 -0500, ,
"Matt O'Toole" wrote:

I don't see what else we can do but test for drugs as we're doing now.

That's the gap through which cheats enter. The hackers are, always
have been and always will be one step ahead. Drug testing is just a
matter of locking up after the horses have fled the barn.

Dick Pound was talking about the future and testing for "gene doping"
so I expect that's already on the bleeding edge in some circles but
still without a method for testing and proving same.

Remember Carl Lewis.
--
zk