said by drslash:
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.
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.
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' . . . .