henny young man wrote:
PresMustache
You appear to be emotionally invested in Lance Armstrong and the notion that he either did not use performance enhancing drugs, or, if he did use them, it is of no matter, since everybody did. Your adamant defense of him is symptomatic of one who will no longer think lucidly on the subject due to having a horse in the race. Think twice before your next post.
for the doping experts!: which riders were clean?
who won a race in all of cycling that was clean from '99 to '10?
are floyd and hamilton credible witnesses?
remember after all the assumption lance was doping during his wins, and after all the busted dopers, Lance returned to the tour in '09 AFTER relentless scrutiny and finished THIRD at THIRTY SEVEN F-ING years old??. AND Contador won and is a caught doper.
Now do you think Lance was still doping and risking getting caught even in '09 when he really had NOTHING to prove(other than he was not a doper, really) and still finished third(at 37)??
it's really crazy to me to think if he WAS doping when he won SEVEN tours, he would come back after all the scrutiny and DOPE to a third. BEHIND a first place doper....why in the world would he come back from retirement after getting away with doping for so long and dope AGAIN. Assuming you can't finish top 3 without doping...
Is it possible that Lance is a superior athlete?? i think it is possible. also possible he is insane enough to keep doping for so long after 7 wins and being a mulit millionaire., but seems a little off to me. he didn't need the tour in '09 to get back in the spotlight. he never left. he won't ever leave. he came to prove a point: at 37 he could ride clean and beat all but 2 dopers.