Does Hamilton's positive change your thinking...

i am praying at this point that Lance will NEVER test positive for anything.

IF that day comes it will all be over - i will be totally destroyed as will a lot of people.

kinda like how all the serious runners on this board would feel if El Gourouge(spelling) tested positive.

or Haile

say it could never be so

Easy to cast the stones...........

If you had an understanding of physiology you would be able to grasp the concept of a blood transfusion. The transfused cells could become part of Tyler's makeup forever. Any transfusion he ever had will be present in his blood. Tyler will be cleared despite your court of public opinion.

Please think before you go off on emotional "rants"

Thanks.

I think the blood found in Tyler originally was from Lance!

Halberg wrote:

Easy to cast the stones...........

If you had an understanding of physiology you would be able to grasp the concept of a blood transfusion. The transfused cells could become part of Tyler's makeup forever. Any transfusion he ever had will be present in his blood. Tyler will be cleared despite your court of public opinion.

Please think before you go off on emotional "rants"

Thanks.

i don't think so. old red blood cells are continually removed from the circulatory system; otherwise, we woudln't get new ones, would we, and therefore EPO wouldn't work, would it?

part of his makeup forever?

With all due respect, I think it's completely unfair to label Lance guilty because "another top American" got busted. To be perfectly honest, I fail to understand your logic. Does that mean that if a top American distance runner (not Meb) got busted, it would indicate that Meb was guilty? Are you asscciating guilt by nationality?

And do you really think that Hamilton was tested more than Lance, so that his guilty test was more likely to occur? I'd think it'd be the other way around, with Lance being tested more often ... meaning that Hamilton's positive test actually lends credibility to Lance's assertion of innocence. If the tests work, then Lance isn't doped.

Doping is a horrible problem in sport right now--but no more so than the wild accusations that accompany any measure of success.

Halberg wrote:

Tyler will be cleared despite your court of public opinion.

Please think before you go off on emotional "rants"

Thanks.

Gee, who's the one with the obvious "emotional" investment in this? That would be you, smart guy. I don't really care either way whether he did or didn't dope (which I'm sure he did) or whether or not he's cleared (which he won't be).

Also, when the results of someone's positive test are reported in the media, discussing it is not holding a "court of public opinion," as it would be in the absence of such a test. Even then you shouldn't be crying about people discussing your heroes. Fucker!

More to it than that Pete. their association goes beyond the mere fact that they are both Americans.

The rumors and accusations about US Postal began when Tyler was with the team, and those accusations were that the WHOLE team was dirty. Now that Tyler has tested positive for doping its just another piece of circumstancial evidence against Lance.

Each time a tour rider tests positive people look at Lance and scratch their head...how the hell can he be beating all these dopers without doping himself?

tyler hamilton went to cu boulder. therefore he is beyond reproach. no one who ever lived in boulder ever EVER took drugs. believe me.

I'll explain how...and I wish lance would just explain too

But theres 2 things, 1 which I already stated.

So many of these people have been tested and caught, yet Lance has not. He is tested more then anyone and yet never a test comes back positive. You know as well as I know that people want him to test positive, so much so that I am shocked some of the nutty frenchmen havent tried to swap samples or do something. But after each of his stage victories and each Tour victories we know they are testing is blood and retesting and retesting because like you alot of people want him to test positive.

2. You realize if this were a regular year for LA he would already be training for next year's Tour? He trains on the exact course that the Tour will take them through...he rides 8hrs a day in all conditions in all altitudes. Thus when you take is training regime and add with that his MASSIVE HEART, his body's ability to produce less lactic acid then most people and some other features that LA has, he can train at a higher level then almost anyone and after training at that level over and over and also racing with his perfectionist methods...its not unbelievable that he is unstoppable in the Tour...Lets remember he has been beaten...he trains for the Tour specifically.

Stater of the Obvious wrote:

More to it than that Pete. their association goes beyond the mere fact that they are both Americans.

The rumors and accusations about US Postal began when Tyler was with the team, and those accusations were that the WHOLE team was dirty. Now that Tyler has tested positive for doping its just another piece of circumstancial evidence against Lance.

Each time a tour rider tests positive people look at Lance and scratch their head...how the hell can he be beating all these dopers without doping himself?

Or possibly Tyler left the team with the sole intention of beating Lance, then did whatever possible to achieve that goal ... and got caught.

Look, you might be right.

The consistently superb (outrageous?) performances of the past decade in all endurance events certainly raises one's eyebrows--I remember as a young runner thinking that Moorcroft's 13 flat 5000 was the most amazing record of all time--but I can't yet accept that everyone who excels is doping.

And I'll be the first to admit this attitude might be more for my own psychological comfort than as a result of serious rational inquisition. I love endurance sports--so I want the top guys to be clean.

That said, I love science, too--and am rooting equally hard for advanced doping tests that clean up these sports for good!

Finally, let me say (and I'm sure you agree) that rumors and accusations are not the same as actual doping and positive tests. Only a couple weeks ago, someone accused me (and a few other masters runners) of doping on this very message board. That's how crazy this drug thing has made everyone. A bunch of over-40 guys who can still run what would be good high school times are accused of being dopers.

Ah well, enough from me on this.

or, how about this: how do you think that lance armstrong, the most tested athlete in the world, continually passes drug tests if his peers (who, incidentally, are tested FAR LESS) can't do the same? if cyclists keep testing positive for epo or blood doping, then lance OBVIOUSLY should have tested postivie long ago if he was doping.

thats nice Mile fan....if you want to believe that Lance Armstrong is a superhuman freak with a heart that can pump more blood and a physiology that can process more lactic acid than anyone else on the planet go for it.

I'm going to take the more logical approach. He's a great athlete and he's using drugs.

Phaedrus,

Eddy H passed drug tests for years and he doesn't have a fraction of the medical support system that Lance does.

Regina Jacobs passed drug tests for years.

Marion Jones has passed drug tests for years.

Only the dumb or really unlucky dopers get caught; Lance is not dumb and so far his luck has held out.

Passing tests is not definitve proof that an athlete is clean. It means they MAY be clean or that they are juicing on something that isn't being tested for like THg, or that they are clean at the time of the test..knowing that it was coming.

Pulling a statement out of my ass I'd say that the majority of athletes who pass tests are not clean. Read Paul Kimmage's book about pro cycling and drug use. Even when he rode 15 years ago the whole peleton was using...mostly amphetamines and stimulants.

I havent finished reading the artcile but you might find it intereting...

And yes he is kinda freakish, but a lot of it is due to his quality of training and the fact that hes been doing it for over 20years.

forgot the link

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020715fa_fact1

You can put the statement back into your ass, now. Amphetamines and stimulants won't do crap for your endurance; if your muscles are not prepared to do the work, stimulants aren't going to help. I seriously doubt that Paul Kimmage could (or would) state unequivically that the entire peleton was on drugs. He might have implied it, or that is just your interpretation of the book.

Passing a drug test IS definitive proof that an athlete is clean; at least as defined by the sports governing body. When "passing" a test while being "suspected" of using drugs is the same as a positive, then your statements can come back out of your ass.

I don't think getting caught has anything to do with being dumb or unlucky. An athlete taking banned performance enhancing drugs knows the odds of getting caught, and when they are caught, they just finally lost the numbers game. Dumb is taking steroids the day before or the same day of a competition; luck is finding a $20 dollar bill while on your daily run.

These athletes are gamblers, and seasoned gamblers are very aware of the odds and risks involved, making them smart, and they lay it on the line based upon the statistical chance of not getting caught. I wouldn't call it unlucky as much as I would say that their luck ran out. Unlucky is the person who used it the one time and gets caught. Tim, Regina and Eddy had really great runs at the craps table; when they finally rolled a seven, Marion took her money and left the table.

[quote]Holland Nass wrote:

Passing a drug test IS definitive proof that an athlete is clean; at least as defined by the sports governing body. When "passing" a test while being "suspected" of using drugs is the same as a positive, then your statements can come back out of your ass.

END QUOTE

I would have to disagree that "passing" the test makes one automatically clean. Several athletes have come forward and admitted to using rhEPO for instance and never tested positive. Their admission is valid and shows that the test merely is not sensitive enough to catch some doping.

Marion Jones never tested and we do not really know for sure that she was doping either. That case is circumstantial at best.

luv2run wrote:

I would have to disagree that "passing" the test makes one automatically clean. Several athletes have come forward and admitted to using rhEPO for instance and never tested positive. Their admission is valid and shows that the test merely is not sensitive enough to catch some doping.

Marion Jones never tested and we do not really know for sure that she was doping either. That case is circumstantial at best.

Semantics, my friend, semantics. The rules state that an unclean athlete is one who tests positive for banned substances; therefore, one who tests positive is clean. We're splitting hairs. Trust me, I agree with you in regards to negative tests automatically inferring a clean athlete. But rules are rules, and a negative test result is the same as clean.

There was one point I wanted to make regarding one of the earlier posts. Someone stated that since Tyler tested dirty, Lance Armstrong must also be dirty. Using that twisted logic, every football player that was ever on the same team as O.J. Simpson must also be guilty of murder (Civil case, not criminal).

Holland go read some reasoning books and while your at it take a class in jurisprudence.

Passing a drug test means precisely that, that the athlete passed a test for whatever they were testing for at that precise moment in time. It means that on that day the drug that the tester was looking for was not detected.

Does that mean that the athlete has never taken drugs, never taken masking agents, never cheated? No it doesn't.

You can never definitively prove that an athlete has never cheated. You can point to negative test results as evidence but that is not proof.

If you have 100lbs of cannabis hidden under your floor and the cops arrive with a cocaine sniffing dog and find nothing, is that definitive proof that you are not a drug dealer? If you shipped your coke out the day before is that definitive proof that you are not a drug dealer? if you poured 25lbs of coffee grinds on top of your stash and the dog misses it, is that definitive proof that you are not a drug dealer?