You're increasingly reminding me of the dear, departed sniper,
@86TDFWinner, with your twisted logic ("if he coulda done it then he did") which was once used to prove that LeMond himself was a demon doper. Add to that the lack of substance in your comments and I do wonder if maybe you haven't been possessed by his spirit, or had your account hacked by him.
Let's try and play the ball here for a bit, 'kay?
That Lance Armstrong was the biggest, baddest doper in the whole history of doping, how about we start showing some evidence to support this. Putting aside a century and a half of history, let's focus for now solely on the Gen-EPO era, how does Armstrong's doping compare to Indurain, for instance? The Texan, he had Ferrari, the Spaniard, he had Padilla. Now I do seem to recall that Ferrari was allowed to freelance with riders on other teams even while he was Armstrong's go-to guy, but you know I don't recall Banesto ever letting Padilla go work with anyone other than their riders. So, when it comes to an unlevel playing field, Ferrari's a bit of a divot while Padilla's a whole ha-ha, wouldn't you agree?
Or how about we compare Armstrong's doping to
Basso, Beloki, Escartin, Klöden, Mayo, Rumšas, Vinokourov, Zülle? I think most of us would agree there's some demon doping in that list, but who should we demonise the most?
Or, you know, maybe we're wrong to be looking just at Gen-EPO. O2-vector doping didn't begin with Amgen, we know it'd been a thing in the 1980s, we have more than enough testimony from riders at this stage to tell us that the peloton of that golden decade was banging in bags of blood. How come they're getting a hall pass and we're still fixating on a guy who's been firmly knocked off his pedestal?