Don't want to get into this. Armstrong is dirt in his treatment of people;this much is obvious. Those wielding the shopworn "sociopath" argument might reflect on the "socio" in their paths. (That won't happen of course.)Mrs John Murphy said:Maybe, but I can't see Zulle as the kind of ruthless at dope at all costs patron. Dirty - without a doubt. Maybe Saiz would have led the peloton into a new dark age instead.
But we'll never know, just like we'll never know what a Romney, Gore or Kerry presidency would have looked.
Needless to say, the environment that was created within cycling did contribute to the deaths of a number of riders and Armstrong was instrumental in creating that environment and for that he has blood on his hands.
Saying that cocaine killed Pantani is a bit like saying that it wasn't EPO that killed the other riders it was heart attacks. It is a bit of a sophist argument.
That said, I still have a great distaste for a molar focus on him as a causal force or agent for that decade of cycling.
Pantani and the world killed Pantani; regardless of discrete circumstances. Maybe it's fluke physiology, maybe psychological, maybe any number of things. I've seen friends go in similar ways.
Who are you going to blame for Belushi's death?