gut wrote:
Well, with the added scrutiny, it will be interesting to see how Armstrong performs in this year's TdF.
My theory has always been Lance may have doped in his first few wins, but once he became bigger than life maybe he just super-doped his super-domestiques. On the other hand, why would you stop if you knew the tests couldn't catch you? But then he performed quite well last year after 3 years away at the age of 38. It's just inconceivable to me that he would risk everything to come back and dope again, but it's easy to underestimate the arrogance and entitlement of star athletes.
But right or wrong, Armstrong made a good point: Landis simply has no credibility. Plus, Landis claimed the same program was funded by his new team, and he got caught. I guess we're just supposed to assume that once Armstrong retired and they turned their attention to all the other cyclists that it's coincidence they started dropping like flies. I guess the tests caught up shortly after Lance retired.
I've seen some of the scientific data and it jumps out at you the way Bonds production and physique did in his mid-30s. Safe to assume the PEDs are rampant in cycling and it's tough to think Armstrong didn't cheat on at least a few of those titles. Of course, level playing field but Armstrong hasn't merely denied it, he's defended himself in the courts. If they ever proved Armstrong cheated it would be one of the biggest scandals in the history of pro sports (because of who he is and the denials). The millions of cancer survivors who have drawn inspiration from Armstrong's story would justifiably feel betrayed, and that's what I can't believe he risked to come back and start doping again. Maybe Armstrong is able to find some perverse justification, but if he was able to do what he did at 38 clean, then it's possible he was clean when he was winning.
So, in other words: blah, blah, blah.