Lance Armstrong

[Don]

I don't follow cycling very much besides reading on what's going on in the Tour de France, but I find it pretty odd all these people are sure Lance Armstrong doped even though he has never tested positive in a sports that has a pretty rigorous testing system (unlike say, baseball). So let's just say a guy managed to fool all these tests all along while taking them almost daily really did it, how would you possibly prove that he did it if he was able to evade every test he's ever taken? Is someone going to show some photos or a video tape of Lance injecting himself with drugs? You'd think if someone has that hidden somewhere they'd have already revealed it.

I keep on hear people say 'no way he can win this if he didn't cheat because everyone else did'. Well in that case maybe they need to prosecute everyone else too since just because you didn't win doesn't mean cheating is okay. After all there is just as much evidence here that everyone else cheated (minus the ones who did get caught) compared to Lance Armstrong so it's like people are convicting him just due to conviction. Again this isn't like baseball where they never had very good tests so you can get around it. The testing in cycling is pretty thorough and if it can be beaten, then they sure aren't going to find any better evidence that he cheated.

[Kupek]

My understanding is that the testing is not good in cycling.

[Don]

Well if the tests aren't very good what can they possibly hope to find now? It's not like they just made some breakthrough in technology that lets you find stuff from old samples? You're basically saying a guy cheated in a way that nobody can tell. Well you can say anybody did this and there would be no way to prove it.

[Zeus]

My understanding is that the testing is not good in cycling.

Don't they use WADA like every other international body?

[Kupek]

We've very quickly ventured out of what I actually know into hearsay and preconception, so I have no idea what standards any of the racing organizations use. But my understanding is that it's an asymmetric arms race. Successful athletes have more means and incentive than the people trying to catch them, so they have the edge.

Also, Don, I didn't actually say much. Your assumption was that the testing in cycling is good. I was questioning that assumption, but I wasn't necessarily promoting the opposite conclusion.

[Don]

Well I know in cycling they actually test you regularly unlike some sports that didn't even start testing until now. It's clearly not foolproof but I'm pretty sure it's one of the more rigorous standards professional sports is subjected to.

Now it's perfectly fair to say even the best testing can be beaten. In that case in the absence of new development in testing methodology it'd be meaningless to assume anyone who tested negative just had some fancy methods, because you cannot prove it even if it was true. I know Bonds never tested positive either but I think people saw him in the BALCO labs and stuff taking developmental drugs. If people saw Armstrong putting drugs in his body that is at least enough evidence to consider. But most stuff I read seems to go the lines of:

1. Everyone cheated in Cycling.
2. Lance Armstrong won against all the cheaters.
3. The only way to beat a cheater is by cheating.
4. So he must be a cheater too.

By this logic anyone who has ever won the Tour de France (or any major race) must have cheated.

[Don]

Actually I wonder if the assumption 'since everyone cheated to beat them you got to be cheating' was a result from the baseball steroid use. If you take such a view on life then clearly there's no such thing as a clean athlete, and entire sports genre should just be banned. It's almost like people were burned on McGuire/Sosa/Bonds as heroes so now they can't possibly accept the fact that there might be a guy at the top of his game that is clean.