Lance Armstrong doped ok, but the rest?

Question

If Lance really used banned substances, what about those on overall classification who were just under 1min away from him during his reign?can somebody who is fueled by water be as close as that on a race that counts 3600km?those who at the end of stages would win over him putting distance in between? What he did was considered to be demanding superhuman strength but today, very common guys equal Lance records..Contador and Rasmussen beat all his references and records in climbs, pushing him 2 mins away.. The Shleck did it too, Evans,Vinokurov... The same for time trials... They are as good as he was but no one speaks against them?Lance was never tested positive to any illegal drug, he won 7 times and failed no tests, he was the most tested cyclist, today he is telling the world he doped, but there are no scientific evidence. Doctors talk amoung themselves, what if the same techniques he used that was undetectable are still being use in the peloton making them just what Lance was, failing no tests but doped.some like Bradley wiggins, last winner of le tour de france criticizing and condemning Lance when he did just as good as someone who never did anything clean. What do you think about the world of Cycling guys??

Answer 1

The issue with Lance Armstrong is not just that he doped - and let's face facts - he doped. He did test positive for drugs, but the results were conveniently ignored after the Lance Armstrong clean-up machine went into action.



The issue is one of a guy who forced others to dope or be fired - a guy who saw a widespread amateur culture of corruption in the sport and, instead of fighting against it, accepted it and then turned it into a professional system and his personal mafia empire. This is a man who used intimidation, legal and otherwise, to force others to dope, pretended to be disgusted when others were caught doing what he was doing, who lied repeatedly about doping, sometimes under oath, who paid off organizations tasked with policing the sport, who silenced critics and whistleblowers with lawsuits and who ruined the lives of people who tried to speak the truth. How on Earth anyone can continue to defend this sort of abuse is well beyond my capacity to understand.



While I'm sure some cyclists still break the rules, some still don't, and the clean athletes need to be supported. We don't do that by defending Lance Armstrong. To be frank, people who defend him disgust me!

Answer 2

He did not pass every test. He did in fact test positive for corticosteroids during the 1999 Tour dr France, but later presented a back dated prescription for a cream used to treat saddle sores. Some of his samples have been re tested using current techniques and found positive for illegal substances. Others have been caught partly because their teams didn't have as big a budget and inferior methods of masking drug use.

Answer 3

Actually there is scientific evidence and he failed quite a few tests. Read the report, is public record, only 160 pages for the summary. Labs know now how to test for things they didn't how to test before. He is not the only being tested, you know? Everybody else that has been caught has paid penalties and suspensions. For instance Contador, two year suspension and lost a title of TdF and a Gyro. He is squeaky clean now and doing just as good or almost.

Answer 4

This is why there is talk about cutting cycling from the Olympics. All the top guys are doing something to enhance performance. If you know other guys that you are racing are doing it, then you sort of dont really have the option not to do it if you want to be able to compete with them. And Lance still beat all those guys 7 times, so he is still a legend in my book, whether he doped or not.

Answer 5

Lance Armstrong doping is not proof everyone is doping. As for how he passed them tests. Supposedly he paid off officials. That's not definitive though. We will have to wait until he tells us. If he wants back in the sport he will have to.

Answer 6

yeah