williamric

You're right, there seems to be lots of accidental doping in professional cycling

lol, I was being more tongue in cheek not touchy I did check on that doping and technically he was acquited (and the substance was taken off the banned list) because it was accidental.

Okay so sue me for one rider... He still didn't test positive from 1999 onwards and he admitted taking drugs then.

This line of argument doesn't hold water because his only line of recourse was to oppose the charges. If he had chosen to contest the charges then the case would have gone to an independent adribrator (that is the official process). So the assertion that he was going to be proven guilty no matter what is, at best, a guess / assumption. I am a Lance Armstrong fan (or I was) when he used to race. I have no doubt of his guilt (or rather I am 99.99% sure he is guilty). To me this had nothing to do with being a LA fan. Just about accepting reality.

Great comment, although the denials will still come...

That is incorrect Hincapie, Zabriski, Leipheimer, Andreu etc never ever tested positive for drugs. These are just a few of the names of cyclists who have admitted taking drugs but have never been caught. And guess whose team they were all on?

Yeah that would be such a simple and accurate solution. But I think people would still contest the results either way... someone would claim contamination or something I don't think this can ever be 100% confirmed until Lance just owns up... although I think the USADA report definitely proves it's case beyond a reasonable doubt

Yeah, I think my point was more along the lines that the Feds pulling out didn't really prove anything because their motives were most likely nothing to do with the case (i.e. motives were probably formed by Barry Bonds debacle, and consensus the most juries didn't care about doping in sport). Obviously alot of the evidence would overlap almost completely...

Yeah that would be ideal, but it requires consent (Which I highly doubt is going to come)...

Because you cannot re test samples without the riders consent... They have not officially re tested Lance's samples to test whether or not he doped. All they have done is test old sample for two reasons: 1. To assist with the development of an EPO test 2. To test the effectiveness of the EPO test on previous samples and what % of riders would test positive. This was anonymous (although it has been claimed that Lance's samples were almost entirely postive)

I'm still waiting for evidence of the re tests that were clear. You claim they exist, please substantiate your claim or retract it?

ummm... the attached says that his re-tested samples were positive, not clear? And it doesn't cite any other re-tests its just speculation. Please provide a report on the FBI re test samples?

Great, so please cite any scientific report where it states that Lance Armstrong's blood from 1999-2005 tests has been retested and found to be clear? This is going to be interesting...

Yeah and have they re-tested his blood and released the results? Again the misinformation is staggering, has anyone on this site actually read the USADA report? He only had like 200 tests not "thousands". The UCI was never part of the FBI case, and the FBI case was dropped for uncited reasons. If you read my previous posts you will see that the federal case was vastly different to the USADA case.

And some people refuse to accept the obvious... How many times do I have to reiterate that LOTS of people never tested positive but have later admitted doping? What about that do you not understand? "His performance never suddenly peaked or changed" ??? You joking right? Tour De France Results: 1993: Withdrew 1994: Withdrew 1995: 36th 1996: Withdrew Near death Cancer 1999-2005: First! Yeah, no major improvement...