MarkvW said:
Whatever. You have no idea.
The evidence against Armstrong isn't conclusive because we are not privy to the testimony that's been collected so far, nor the evidence the various international law enforcement agencies across the US and Western Europe have collected.
It is foolish to consider that after all of this, Armstrong will come out on the other side clean as whistle.
It is high time you and your ilk get it through your skulls that excuses and obfuscation will no longer suit your purposes of defending the indefensible.
MarkvW said:
This is a strawman argument.
All you are doing is engaging in a most insincere and hypocritical type of pseudo-intellectual dogma that lacks critical thinking and the free intellectual will that would allow you the freedom to question that which not true.
Again, you are inducting magical thinking as an intellectual premise. Not only is it a bad starting point, it will only lead you to the type of empty rhetoric you are engaging in right now.
This isn't hate. This is logic versus the rhetoric of idolatry. You pidgeonhole yourself with this line of reasoning.
It only allows you to question the posters who point these contradictions out to you and not the sheer physiological improbabilities of the victories of your hero.
For all his faults and limitations, Armstrong's genius lies in his cynicism. He knew if he built a brand name around cancer survivorship he will have a built-in army of worshipers that will support him in the court of public opinion when things got tight.
Discrediting Landis, Walsh, Kimmage, and humiliating the likes of Simeoni (made more dispicalbe by the fact that it was watched by millions of viewers worldwide) was never going to knock the halo off his head and he knew it.
He could lie to his flock about his comeback (Dr. Catlin's drug testing protocols, the whole "this one's for you" campaign) his appearance fee money, the team-wide doping, and you guys bought it all.
When Lemond questioned his association with Dr. Ferrari, the comments he received were so repulsive it made me think "Why would people go to such lengths to discredit anyone who dares doubt him?" I receive my answer every day when I read what posters like you write.
You are so desperate for a hero to believe in you're willing to swallow anything but the truth.
Armstrong's one mistake was not taking care of Landis. All he had to do was land him a job and this investigation may never have happened.
But he calculated, cynically and wrongly, that Landis had done enough to discredit himself in the court of public opinion that he would be viewed as nothing more than a crackpot with an axe to grind.
That was one reckless gamble that didn't pay off for him, and one that will cost him dearly.