Several years ago, Sports Illustrated ran a story about athletes who contribute money to charities. Lance was #1 on the list. Of the top 100 - there were zero basketball players - perhaps the highest paid athletes in major sports - certainly more than Lance.

You may not want him for a "best buddie" - but you certainly should respect what he has done.

Stu Dudley

Lance NPR said is apparently a personal friend of French Pres Sarkozy and he apparently will appeal to Sarko's influence to try to get his new team taken off the banned in France list because of their banning for doping in the last Tear day Franz

His new team, Astana, have been the worst offenders (particularly under their previous sponsorship as Liberty Seguros-Würth)in doping problems over the years. I truly hope that he avoids any scandals during his return.

Yes joining such a team with such a doping history is perplexing to say the least. Maybe this type of exposure and daily online reported drug tests is what that team needs right now?

Lance Armstrong's return to the Tour de France will definitely spur interest, especially for people like me with only a passing interest in cycling.

However, I agree with willit that Armstrong really has nothing to prove at this point. I'm sure his comeback decision is because of his innate competiveness and drive, but it sure would be sad if his comeback was less than stellar.

JQ,, I should have read entire link for that I apoligize, but don't worry about my generoisity, I have nothing to prove, it is better to quietly give then scream from the rooftops and expect an "atta boy" ..

I am wondering why there's still someone out there in the whole world who cares. Cycling is deeply infected with doping. I turned away with disgust and so did most of the German media. I didn't see much of covering the TdF in the media except for some positive doping tests. And I skipped reading even those.

>>it is better to quietly give then scream from the rooftops and expect an "atta boy" .<<

When celebrities shout from a rooftop, others seem to listen & follow.

Stu Dudley.

Yes, there are still those of us out here who continue to be interested in cycling. I imagine there are still fans of baseball, track, and other sports that have doping problems as well.

The Astana team under Johann Bruyneel is not the old Astana team.

No professional sport has done more to eliminate doping than cycling.

And no sport seems to be immune from such strident doping tests as even after such scrutiny there are always new cases of doping - like in last year's Tour and this leads many to suspect that all are doping somehow - staying ahead of the testing. And only when say blood doping they miscalculate and go over the limit they get caught.

<i>No professional sport has done more to eliminate doping than cycling.</i>

Then cycling hasn't done enough. Honestly, almost every major contender was suspended from the last Tour. And you expect me to believe that the ones left are clean? I'm not that naive.

And, to be honest, I think cycling gets a bad rap and that any sport with money involved is likely rife with drug use. I only fault the cyclists for being so awful at covering it up.

I think cycling is rife with doping because no one can win without it

the sport is so physically demanding - riding at top energy for hours sometimes

most sports are not so constantly physically demanding and doping in those sports may be more for bulk, etc. than endurance.

I guess i would just let them take anything they want as they seem to do now.

Cynicism is the price for the past problems, but so much more is on the line now. True zero tolerance means one positive result and the rider is out on his ass (possibly banned for life, possibly arrested) and the rest of his team can be bounced without further testing. Some sponsors have demanded more testing of their teams than the Tour performs.

<i>most sports are not so constantly physically demanding and doping in those sports may be more for bulk, etc. than endurance.</i>

I'm not going to go that far. I think that, at the top end, most major sports have become so serious that the physical demands may be different, but no more difficult than in another sport. I mean, there have been recent doping scandals in the paralympics! If the stakes are high enough (and they don't need to be that high for a competitive person), then any edge is worth it.

But, I do agree that we should just turn it over to science and let them take what they want. It would make for better TV.

that even with sports' strictest drug testing - allegedly as has been claimed here and i do not doubt that - that even with such scrutiny nearly every major contender for last year's tour tested positive - some before the race

this leads me to believe that cyclists think they can beat the tests and that many more are doping than are caught

I read on MSNBC news online that Lance has to be invited by the French to participate.

I don't think he personally has to be &quot;invited&quot; by the Tour, but whatever team he is riding for has to be invited to compete. The Tour is an invitation-only event.

PalenQ, you might find this article and comments interesting:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008...rd-doping.html

1st of all Lance says he will enter the TDF next year with his team(Astana) if it is invited to the TDF. He met his exwife one month after his last chemo treatment at a publicity thing for his foundation which she was a ad exec for an ad house that handled the Publicity for The Lance Armstrong Foundation.Also, yes Lance was for about 8 yrs. the most tested ath. in the world. He also says that he has contacted the French President to see if he can do anything to make sure his team (whatever one that one is) will get and invite to the TDF. Astana had cleaned up it's team from the ground up &amp; should have been allowed to ride in the TDF, especially since the defending champion had signed with them plus the 3rd place finisher(Contador&amp; Leipheimer) Another team had been banned from the TDF also for the same reason with another rider that was a contender. None of these riders have ever tested positve for anything but all had a good chance of winning. Also the Company that owns the TDF also owns the Lab that does all the testing up until this year(this year some was done in Italy)they also own the newspaper &amp; magazine that wrote all the bad press against Lance over the years, as well as all of the others that came under the microscope. When any other lab wanted to do another testing of any samples of the contested sample they were not allowed to. The lab that did all the test over the years has not had the best record of being flawless in their % of not making mistakes. In several cases it either lost or destroyed the samples before they could be verified to be positive for sure. Also the B sample would be mis-handled &amp; then would not be thrown out but put in as 100% proof of quilt. A unnamed Lab which is one of the best labs in the world has tried but not allowed to do some test on some of these so called positive samples of the riders that have been banned in the last few years. I root for good riders I do not care where they are from. There are many good young riders comming up now &amp; I hope that they are given a chance to ride without bias.

Jean wrote: &quot;No professional sport has done more to eliminate doping than cycling.&quot;

I believe that some authorities in cycling are truly keen to address the doping problem. I also believe that many are not interested. And I believe that few, if any, riders who are successful in the major events manage without drugs. Of course, I cannot prove that, but neither was I born yesterday.

For a time, I followed the tour with some interest, even taking an interest in the exploits of Jacky Durand. Then I stopped fooling myself, and have no interest in it. The last time I was anywhere near it, it was no more to me than a traffic issue.

I don't care if Armstrong competes again. The whole thing is a sham, a charade, a waste of talent.