Do you think Lance Armstrong will ever admit to doping?

Yes.

I think he will come out with a book at some point.

It may be written hypothetically like OJ's book "If I Did It"

He wasn't tested every day of the tour. He also was allowed to go shower for a while, while the testers sat and drank coffee and waited for him. He did test positive. He beat all of the top riders who all cheated.

But okay, he did it all clean in a dirty sport as the team leader of a dirty team, time trialing with a dirty Ulrich, making secret payments to the UCI for fun.

I read the links that were posted previously. I've changed my mind, amazingly. How could he not have cheated? He was dirty, no doubt.

The likes of Pantani and Ulrich (et al) doped for entirety of their long and successful careers before getting caught. Surely this proves that regular testing does not guarantee a cyclist is clean?

Following this logic further, if you believe LA was clean you must also believe that cycling is clean.

RunningHigh wrote:

The likes of Pantani and Ulrich (et al) doped for entirety of their long and successful careers before getting caught. Surely this proves that regular testing does not guarantee a cyclist is clean?

Following this logic further, if you believe LA was clean you must also believe that cycling is clean.

Pantani was doing coke and Ulrich was doing ectasy, not the ideal performance enhancing drugs.

funster wrote:

RunningHigh wrote:

The likes of Pantani and Ulrich (et al) doped for entirety of their long and successful careers before getting caught. Surely this proves that regular testing does not guarantee a cyclist is clean?

Following this logic further, if you believe LA was clean you must also believe that cycling is clean.

Pantani was doing coke and Ulrich was doing ectasy, not the ideal performance enhancing drugs.

Yep, along with a whole lot of other stuff. For those interested "The Death of Marco Pantani" is a pretty decent read and provides great detail on how dopers beat testing during that period whilst having high haemocrit levels for training etc.

GUH wrote:

Darnell wrote:

No.

Lance is of the same mold as Roger Clemens. They will deny deny deny deny and then deny. Their strategy is that the best defense is a good offense.

Do you expect someone to admit to something they've never done? What if he was not doping? The man possesses superior physiology, not to mention drive, intelligence, and courage- heck, he could compete with professional triathletes at the age of 15!

.

All this proves is that he had access tp PEDs even earlier than we previously thought--by age 15!!

who fcking cares?

He seems to have done well in a cesspit.

If he doped it was a level playing field.

Why aren't you complaining about Eddie Mercks?

Why don't you head up to the Tom Simpson monument?

Cycling is what it is. It was what it was.

Get over it. It's trying to change. But nothing will change from the old days.

There are enough question marks all other sports to keep you occupied. Jealous hater, who's probably never wathced a full bike race before.

Any normal human would suffocate from all the questionable, controversial circumstantial and real evidence and events that surrounded Lance's whole career. I see two possible realities:

1) Either Lance was and always has been completely clean, beating nearly a decades worth of the world's best "dirty" riders, and he is just an innocent victim of jealous haters.

or

2) Lance was the grand master of the omerta, and a world class pioneer on concealed doping techniques, with the charisma, and manipulative skills to keep the secret secret, fully deserving the scorn and contempt launched at Landis.

Either way, you can bet your family fortune that Lance will deny doping to his grave.

Richard Virenque, never once TESTED postive, even after he was banned for two years, came back and continued to dominate the polka-dot jersey So I guess that means he's clean to, and all those drugs they found really were just for Voet's personal use.

Anyone who thinks that testing means sh*t in that sport, has their head in the sand.

We already know Lance Armstrong is a doper. His fellow 2-wheel bicyclists already told us. What's the big deal about ?

Lets just put it this way. Doping is banned because it boostes a riders endurance significantly, correct? Otherwise why bann it? Many of the riders on the tour have been caught using and sunsequently suspended from participating due to the huge advantage it creates. Yet Lance somehow beat all of these riders on other teams and was paced by these riders on his own team who eventually had to drop off because they could not hang with him up those grueling mountains. He is just that good that he doesnt need this huge advantage and just destroys everyone?Is that the claim you are trying to make? The year after lance quit the tour all of the top riders (whom lance beat the year before) were all implicated in a doping ring and banned. His old teammate Floyd ended up winning the tour in their absense, only to test positive and have his win taking away. Aside from all of the other evidence pointed at Lance cheating just this basic logic has to tell you that there is no way that he is that superior to these world class riders who are all cheating. He used to always say " I have never tested positive" he doesnt say I dont dope. This is a sneaky way of saying that "unless you can prove it then just assume I'm clean" I feel bad for Lance because he is trapped in his own lie and it has now gone to far and it would ruin his life to admit it. He would be a black sheep in the athletic world and forfit millions in advertising money. Bottom line is Lance is stuck between a rock and a hard place and everyone with a brain knows there is no way he won 7 times clean. think about it..dont be a sheep

Do you ever think Obama will admit to lying?

Pantani crashed badly (about 1995, in the Giro??) and lost a lot of blood and a test of the blood showed a HC level of about 60 (vs 50 is too high to race) if I recall correctly. He was also booted at the penultimate stage of the Giro while leading for too-high an HC level. I think he was seen as a doper all along in a manner that Lance was not. Lance was very good as a high school kid beating top-level pros in the triathlon, and within a couple of years won the World's (road race) solo (i.e., he had essentially no team to support him, although that can 'help' in that he is not marked) at a record young age of 21.

I do not know if he has been doping or if he has been for most of his career, but if he has it has help his career rather than it being the only thing in his career and he would have been a mediocre domestique without it.

Did everyone read the question?

The question here is not about what he did or did not do, but speculation about what he will admit in the future.

There are 4 combinations:

1) He did not dope, and he will never admit that he did dope

2) He did not dope, but will admit that he did dope

3) He did dope, and will not admit it

4) He did dope, and he will admit it

Most people believe either 1), or 3).

2) is unlikely unless he is forced to by some kind of plea bargain, or family member held hostage, or blackmail, or insanity

4) also seems unlikely to happen on its own, from within, even if incontrovertible evidence surfaces.

ccrunner609 wrote:

...he is the most tested ahtlete of all time.

Any proof? Just because Lance has repeatedly made this claim it doesn't make it true. WADA, UCI, etc. keep records of tests and it appears obvious that Lance isn't even the most tested cyclist of all time (by a long shot).

I agree with V O, Lance has put himself between a rock and a hard place. He's a fraud who has made millions pushing "cancer awareness" even though it is likely PED use led/contributed to his getting cancer.

He doesn't have the balls. Low blow, low blow.

Illogical wrote:

Do you ever think Obama will admit to lying?

He's a politician. All politicians lie. Their job is to lie to you and make you believe it. Duh.

I can't believe people with the ability to turn on a computer and post messages on this site still think he was clean.