[quote]JACKED71 wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]ericcartman wrote:
Sure, Lance quite possibly used PEDs. Barry Bonds too. But guess what? They both regularly outperformed tons of other top athletes who were also using PEDs.[/quote]
Simple as that.[/quote]
This why I disagree with this line of thinking. We know that Armstrong has only one testicle, and can survive just fine with one producing testosterone depending on the physiological circumstances.
Under “medical supervision” a recovering cancer patient like him would be allowed to take up to a ratio of 7:1 in synthetic testosterone to make up for any deficiencies in testosterone production. How much of an actual advantage testosterone provides an endurance athlete is up for discussion. Let’s just assume in this case, it did provide Lance with a clear advanatage over his competitors who were supposedly doped to the gills as well.
From what I understand Armstrong took advantage of this particular loophole. Armstrong allegedly raced at levels that exceeded this amount. To be allowed to take so much of it explains a lot. It explains Armstrong’s relationship between him and the Tour organizers and the UCI. It explains that even amongst dopers, there wasn’t a level playing field. This really rips a hole in the argument that “they all doped, so the best rider still won”.
My two cents.
[/quote]
You arguing about a level playing field in the world of cheating?
Talk to any pro cyclist (I happen to live with a former one) and they will be quick to tell you that everyone is doping, everyone is using PED’s. It’s simply a matter of who has access to better stuff, or whose team can provide better “assistance” in that area.
The bottom line though is that these athletes, and athletes in any sport, still have to put in countless hours of blood and sweat into their training and competition. PED’s alone don’t win you anything.