View Single Post
01-15-2013, 07:42 AM
Epsilon's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 35,995
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by kov View Post

Isn't it funny how all those people who gave you such **** have absolutely no interest in this discussion now?
There are some absolutely hilarious threads from the mid-2000s if one is interested in digging around for them. Although my favorite one is not about Armstrong, but about Floyd Landis. After he won in 2006, someone posted a sarcastic comment about "the French will probably accuse him of doping", then he got busted for testosterone within the week.

Having already gone through Denial and Anger, I predict that the Armstrong brigade will now move onto the next phase of grief: Bargaining.

"Well everybody was doping and it all evens out; so Lance was still the best!"

"Lance was doping but the bigwigs *let* him; it's their fault!"
As a cycling cynic, this has basically been my view all along. Anyone who believed Armstrong was clean throughout his entire career was being exceptionally naive. But at the same time, the bigger issue here is not whether any particular riders doped, but rather the doping culture of the sport that the UCI (most specifically Verbruggen and McQuaid) has allowed to fester (throughout the 2000s, tops teams were being managed by guys like Bryneel, Riis, Saiz, etc. all linked to doping in the 1990s). And as far as who was the best and who wasn't, it's pretty telling that most of the guys who competed directly against Armstrong are not in favor of awarding titles retroactively to other riders. They all know what they were all doing, and who won.

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote