[hasker]

I take issue with how this article represents Lance Armstrong's doping as a fact. He never tested positive. From what I understand, someone just testified that they saw him shooting up with something. Who knows what Lance and his team really did or did not do. The US Anti-Doping Agency was out to get him, and from what I understand, the burden of proof is so low that they can get anyone they want.

I also do not understand how the affordability of top doping experts is any different than affordability of top coaches and nutritionists. The author claims that only the top 25% can actually compete legitimately since top doping specialists cost a lot. Top coaches likely do also.

I think these two points weaken the authors points tremendously, when I somewhat agree with is point. He just needs better examples.

[davidjohnstone]

Actually, he has tested positive. On multiple occasions. There was a urine test he failed in 1999 that he got out of with a backdated prescription. More controversially, it has been alleged that he failed an EPO test in 2001 that Hein Verbrugghen (then head of the UCI) made disappear. Coincidentally, Armstrong donated $125,000 to the UCI at this time. Also, 1999 TdF samples of his have recently tested positive to EPO (they didn't have an EPO test back then), but those positives didn't count because the testing was done for research purposes.

It's rather cynical, but http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-... is worth a look.

[yread]

If anyone has any doubts about doping in cycling I recommend reading about Christoper Bassons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassons a professional cyclists who was bullied out of cycling for speaking against doping (also by Armstrong).

[james1071]

Perhaps you mean well, but you have not got a clue what you are talking about.

Armstrong has not tested positive for EPO, HGH or anything similar. The allegation about the prescription drug incident is completely irrelevant.

Whether he has in fact taken PEDs is another question.

[james1071]

The article is very poor.

The facts are that from the early 1990s the use of EPO was widespread in professional cycling.The evidence for this is overwhelming (will clarify this but assume needs no explanation) but very few riders failed dope tests.

The way that most were discovered was from the fallout from various scandals, when certain teams were caught with blood, drugs and the like.

Confessions and allegations followed from certain riders, who no doubt were cooperating with a view to being treated more leniently.

Where Lance fits in is that his team had many dopers, who have cooperated with the authorities and named names.

What is unsatisfactory is that no the only evidence against Armstrong appears to be the word of these people. No samples have been retested, no bags of Armstrong's blood have been found etc.

It is undoubtedly the case that Armstrong's performances, where he convincingly beat known dopers and delivered power outputs that are thought implausibly high, deserve serious scrutiny.

So too, do the performances of many other sportsmen. What is needed is proper investigations with real evidence.