Lance Armstrong on BBC: I'd do it again.

I don't blame him. People act like he's hitler. It was THAT common in cycling. He made the most $$$ so everyone jumps on him and attacks him in the media.

Fan for life wrote:

I don't blame him. People act like he's hitler. It was THAT common in cycling. He made the most $$$ so everyone jumps on him and attacks him in the media.

Doping is one thing.

Going after people in court is another.

Tommy2Nuttz wrote:

Banned cyclist Lance Armstrong says he would not have needed to resort to doping in the sport's current era and what happened 10 years ago should be seen in the context of the times.

"If I was racing in 2015, no, I wouldn't do it again because I don't think you have to," the Texan told BBC in an interview on Monday.

"If you take me back to 1995, when doping was completely pervasive, I would probably do it again."

Yea, no shit. I'm not sure what is so surprising in this article. Of course he would do it again, the 100's of riders he raced every summer who were doped would do it again too. Good to see an elite athlete be honest about the situation the sport was in and give a real answer for once.

This blanket statement is growing old. If you had an entire SPORT up your ass, you'd do the same.

reader of the forums wrote:

Fan for life wrote:

I don't blame him. People act like he's hitler. It was THAT common in cycling. He made the most $$$ so everyone jumps on him and attacks him in the media.

Doping is one thing.

Going after people in court is another.

Ask any baseball player who made millions during the "steroid era" and they would do it again in a heart beat.

And you're telling me guys in the NFL aren't on something...20 years from now you might be having this debate about players in that league who just had a "more sophisticated" system of doping and "bullied" others to get to the top.

I've never condoned what he's done, but I understand his situation.

dddddddddddddddd wrote:

This blanket statement

What does this even mean? Blanket statement?

Going after people in court when you know they're telling the truth was wrong.

Criticizing him for this is fair game.

dddddddddddddddd wrote:

is growing old.

I couldn't care less.

dddddddddddddddd wrote:

If you had an entire SPORT up your ass, you'd do the same.

Nope.

Any other arguments?

Fan for life wrote:

I don't blame him. People act like he's hitler. It was THAT common in cycling. He made the most $$$ so everyone jumps on him and attacks him in the media.

That is most definitely NOT why people attack him.

Let's be clear about a couple of things:

- it wasn't a level playing field, even if just about everyone doped

- if Armstrong was a young pro today, and he didn't dope, he wouldn't win squat

- the reason most people can't stand Armstrong is not for the mere fact he doped, but because he was a butthole of epic proportions

Lance's Missing Testicle wrote:

Let's be clear about a couple of things:

- it wasn't a level playing field, even if just about everyone doped

- if Armstrong was a young pro today, and he didn't dope, he wouldn't win squat

- the reason most people can't stand Armstrong is not for the mere fact he doped, but because he was a butthole of epic proportions

Ignorant post.

As an above poster said: It's not that he doped in a field of dopers, it's the lying and defamation and the way he drastically effected individuals lives who were telling the truth in a negative way.

Oh, give it a rest. There wasn't a virgin in the bunch. The only reason they wanted to out Lance is that they got shitcannned. All of cycling was dirty.

Dial it up wrote:

Lance's Missing Testicle wrote:

Let's be clear about a couple of things:

- it wasn't a level playing field, even if just about everyone doped

- if Armstrong was a young pro today, and he didn't dope, he wouldn't win squat

- the reason most people can't stand Armstrong is not for the mere fact he doped, but because he was a butthole of epic proportions

Ignorant post.

Yes, indeed yours is.

Good one.

How can you still use the "some people respond better to dope" argument?You realize the entire sport of running is based on people responding differently to training / stimulus, right? If everyone dopes in a group, it's equal / level. Period.

Dial it up wrote:

Lance's Missing Testicle wrote:

Let's be clear about a couple of things:

- it wasn't a level playing field, even if just about everyone doped

- if Armstrong was a young pro today, and he didn't dope, he wouldn't win squat

- the reason most people can't stand Armstrong is not for the mere fact he doped, but because he was a butthole of epic proportions

Ignorant post.

I love when people who've never raced a bike weigh in Lance and the entire peloton with such certainty. You're triathletes, aren't you?

Lance could also go back to LeMond's purity years. He could be as "squeaky clean" as LeMond was.

llort_vbo wrote:

Oh, give it a rest. There wasn't a virgin in the bunch. The only reason they wanted to out Lance is that they got shitcannned. All of cycling was dirty.

How about Christophe Bassons? A young, talented, and just about unquestionably clean cyclist, chased out of cycling, with Armstrong leading the mob, because he dared to speak up about the obvious filthiness in the peleton?

How about Simeoni, who testified in a court case about how he had doped under Ferrari, and was later humiliated by being chased down by Armstrong, against all cycling protocol, during a meaningless TdF breakaway, with Armstrong then doing the "zip the lips" gesture while mugging for the camera?

So you really think everyone was equally guilty? There were no bad guys, because everybody was equally guilty? Sort of like how Thomas Jefferson was a bad guy, because he was a slaveowner, and therefore just as evil and depraved and a blight on humanity as the cruelest Southern bigot slaveowner?

Lance's Missing Testicle wrote:

Let's be clear about a couple of things:

- it wasn't a level playing field, even if just about everyone doped

- if Armstrong was a young pro today, and he didn't dope, he wouldn't win squat

- the reason most people can't stand Armstrong is not for the mere fact he doped, but because he was a butthole of epic proportions

Exactly right. Before Verbruggen at the UCI was protecting him, USA Cycling was protecting his doping. First under Carmichael, then Thom Wiesel. Dredge up the Sports Illustrated article where they have records of a clearly positive T/E ratio from his domestic racing days and no positive.

He was a royal a-hole when he was doping with Carmichael as a teenager. No rules applied to him. Ever and the cycling federation made sure everyone knew it.

I've only met a couple of people like him since and all of them very well known, all of them unbearable to be around unless they are the center of attention. If they weren't powerful/rich, they'd be homeless and called "mentally ill."

BTW, Thom Wiesel still runs the American federation. Nothing changing there. Nothing changing at the UCI either.

[quote]sick of jellies wrote:

How can you still use the "some people respond better to dope" argument?

You realize the entire sport of running is based on people responding differently to training / stimulus, right?

If everyone dopes in a group, it's equal / level. Period.

[quote]

Uh, no. Every body is different. Every body responds to PED's differently.

If an athlete has a naturally low haematocrit level and responds well to EPO, then the gains will be tremendous compared to an athlete with a naturally high haematocrit level taking EPO.

In cycling, the amount you can dope is based on how protected you are by the federation. It's a relatively simple sport, so the UCI guaranteed Armstrong would produce the most power by never testing positive. Meanwhile, others got sanctioned when they got too close to Armstrong's power output.

BTW, Armstrong still hasn't tested positive for anything. Yet, we have evidence of an entire career of doping, including positive tests. The sport make WWE wrestling look like a legitimate sport.