View Single Post
01-15-2013, 09:17 AM
Frolov 6'3
Unregistered User
Frolov 6'3's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 9,526
vCash: 500
As former amateur cyclist, cycling hooligan, and blog writer.

The argument "Well everybody was doping and it all evens out; so Lance was still the best." is a ridiculous argument.

Lance Armstrong was a good cyclist but not 7x TDF winner. Pioneer of blooddoping and excessive use of epo, made him one. The man was not a climber and not a time trial specialist. Good for the European classics but that was about it.

Of course everyone was on the juice, fact, but he (his whole team) took it to another level. Some of his main competitors became his teammate, clever already. When other riders became really good, he called his 'friend' Hein Verbruggen (UCI) to keep on eye on these riders. One example: Iban Mayo. The poor guy didnt do squat anymore because he got scared. Lance intimidated and threatened. The combi Dr.Ferrari-Armstrong was a golden one as well. Lance always had first access to everything doping related. When others finally find out, he (Lance) was experimenting with other stuff already. There's much and much more to say about this matter but I want to make it short.

Like someone said, he was the best cheater. Jan Ullrich was twice as talented. I laugh at the argument he trained harder. Its a feel good story. Of course he was a training animal compared to Ullrich but who wasnt. Others certainly trained close to or just as hard. Its the nonsense Armstrong and his peer Johan Bruyneel constantly talked about and media picked it up. All those books can be trown into the dumpster. He was certainly mentally tougher than most (an American gift) but that's a moot point when both would have been clean because Ullrich would have destroyed the man based on talent alone. Richard Virenque, not a fan of him, was a natural climber. Lance Armstrong wasnt.

Last edited by Frolov 6'3: 01-15-2013 at 09:23 AM.
Frolov 6'3 is offline   Reply With Quote