How excited are you about the Olympics?

[Meriwether]

Name one test he's failed, and then give me actual proof that he was doping.

[Bombot]

There were allegations listed in my first link, particularly the '99 Tour failure that he subsequently cleared by obtaining a pre-dated authorised use exemption. But anyway I ask you to consider the more likely scenario:

1) A good cyclist develops cancer then, having defeated it, decides to capitalise on his good fortune by setting up a cancer awareness charity and use this to boost his support while using drugs to boost his performance. He knows that the odds against being caught are not too high if you are careful (see Marion Jones only having one sample fail a test for EPO - her 'B' sample turned up negative and she was cleared for a while). So he wins the Tour de France seven times and only fails one drugs test (at the time), but he gets away with that because his corrupt team has a friendly doctor available to give him an exemption. However, after rumours persist that he has been banned substances, US Anti-Doping Agency gathers enough witnesses prepared to testify that he was not racing clean, including a masseuse who casts doubt on the validly of the exemption that cleared him of the test he did fail and says she was asked to dispose of used syringes for him and pick up "strange parcels" for his team (*). Realising that he faces going before a hearing and being denounced in the glare of the world's media, he opts for damage limitation and volunteers to hand back his achievements whilst refraining from admitting he doped. In doing this he knows he will he can rely on the support of fans who believe his story that there is a witch-hunt against him and who will point to the lack of failed tests (except for the one he had an excuse for - an excuse that would have been debunked at the hearing he has dodged).

or

2) A good cyclist develops cancer then, having had the good fortune to defeat it, also returns to the sport so much faster than he was before that he able to win the Tour de France seven times against a number of cyclists who definitely were using banned substances. All the witnesses prepared to testify against him at the USADA's hearing are motivated to do so purely out of jealousy, including someone who was not racing against him. He has enough endurance and willpower to beat a field of many cheating cyclists on the road, and goes so far as to extol the virtues of 'not quitting' in a Hollywood movie, but he subsequently quits his fight against USADA allegations that will remove his historic achievements from the record books.

* - see here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...?newsfeed=true

[RevEv]

This is now going off topic.

My intent in opening this thread was to get some light hearted feedback on what was possibly one of the greatest events many of us will see in the UK during our lifetime. Thank you to those who realised this and joined in.

If you wish to pillory a great cyclist and philanthropist who has done so much for cancer sufferers over allegations that have not been proven but seem to be based on accusations from people with alterior motives, whether it be jealous rivals he beat fairly, journalists with books to sell, or masseuse wannabes then please take your bigotry elsewhere. I believe fully in the basis of British Law that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Nothing has been proven against Lance Armstrong, and the many authorities that regulate his sport have recognised this.

This just another case of American authorities throwing their weight around and trying to bully the rest of the world.

Thread closed!