|reply to AB |
Re: Armstrong getting caught up in lies
I don't dispute the very dirty history of pro cycling. Armstrong was a very exceptional athlete for quite some time before he turned pro and before getting cancer. He was beating pro triathletes before he was a pro and he was pretty young. Was he cheating way back then? Perhaps. If he was not cheating back then, that gives him some history on which to base his future success. While the exact data is not available, many parameters by which endurance athletes are measured have always put Armstrong well above the pack. Have those measurements been taken while he was on a performance enhancing substance? Perhaps. The argument has been brought forth that he won time and time again and that seems implausible. I find it implausible for him to win time and time again while cheating and not get caught with a positive test.
I also submit that no other cyclist during Armstrong's time had better resources at their disposal regarding training, equipment, tactics, wind tunnel testing. Attention to the smallest detail in the wind tunnel gave Armstrong seconds and perhaps minutes advantage over other cyclists in a time trial. A Tour de France is sometimes won by less than a minute.
I don't worship the guy. I dislike some of his personal behavior. If I see the evidence, I'll call him a cheater.
Save water...drink beer!
Obama...it's junior high school all over again!
Democrats don't mind raising taxes because democrats don't pay taxes.
|reply to drslash |
said by drslash:Pro cycling has a reputation of being to modern steroids what the East German "ladies" swim team was to late 60s/early 70s steriod use. Everybody's on 'em.
I am only taking sides with Armstrong because he won his Tours during the testing era of cycling. If testing came in to cycling in the post Armstrong era then I might be in your camp.
Of course, that common impression doesn't count for anything as regards the legalities, testing methods, and results when a cyclist passes clean.
On the other hand, many don't come up clean when tested. And there seems to be plenty of evidence, both real and anecdotal, that steroid use is in fact common within that sport.
That a 'clean' Armstrong could not only compete with the steroid users, but beat them time and again-- even after coming back from battling cancer-- does strain credulity maybe more than just a little.
I'm not specifically pre-supposing him guilty as charged, btw-- just sayin' . . . .