I'll start. Two classic comments here. Good humour some of these:
The allegations by Floyd Landis do not bear up to scrutiny. He alleges the whole team used to sit around in Armstong's apartment with drips in their arms for hours. All other team members deny this.
In fact, virtually ALL of L.Armstongs team mates said they never heard or saw anyone else doping.
It was only when guys got busted in OTHER teams that they pointed the finger at lance.
One of his accusers owes Lance several million dollars in a business venture that went wrong.
This is the same evidence that was recently rejected as not fit to be admitted in a court of law by the US justice department.
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycl...in-the-room-20120614-20bg4.html#ixzz1z3D95nmU
Not knowing everything, however Lance Armstrong probably is innocent.
In years he won Tour de France, there were some undeniable facts: his team usually won the team category, his team usually won the team time trials, his team members finished in the top 20% in individual time trials which he also usually won, many of his team members finished in top 20 in GC, he also used his team much much more judiciously than others. His wins did not just reflect his own abilities but that of his team members. He also usually only focused on the tour de france giving him that added advantages too.
Secondly, Lance Armstrong also changed his pedaling motions after his cancer treatments- lower gear in effect. Using lower gears have been scientifically-engineeringly proven to be more efficient-powerful for not just cycling but for all mechanical devices such as car motors. In long races over many days, he would have gained that additional benefits from such over others mainly using higher gears.
Thirdly, it seem incredibly unlikely that after so much focus on him, he would not have been detected for cheating well by now. The claim of the 'consistency with doping' by the US agency is not the same as evidence of doping. Such 'consistency' could probably only mean that there is a yard stick to compare. What is the yard stick? Is the yard stick itself 'fair' or reflective of the range of possibilities, including a uniqueness in some people?
Regardless, Armstrong's success is not just his own but of his team. He was superb, so was his team and how he used his team effective. That alone make him a great cycling legend he deserves to be in my book.
The allegations by Floyd Landis do not bear up to scrutiny. He alleges the whole team used to sit around in Armstong's apartment with drips in their arms for hours. All other team members deny this.
In fact, virtually ALL of L.Armstongs team mates said they never heard or saw anyone else doping.
It was only when guys got busted in OTHER teams that they pointed the finger at lance.
One of his accusers owes Lance several million dollars in a business venture that went wrong.
This is the same evidence that was recently rejected as not fit to be admitted in a court of law by the US justice department.
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycl...in-the-room-20120614-20bg4.html#ixzz1z3D95nmU
Not knowing everything, however Lance Armstrong probably is innocent.
In years he won Tour de France, there were some undeniable facts: his team usually won the team category, his team usually won the team time trials, his team members finished in the top 20% in individual time trials which he also usually won, many of his team members finished in top 20 in GC, he also used his team much much more judiciously than others. His wins did not just reflect his own abilities but that of his team members. He also usually only focused on the tour de france giving him that added advantages too.
Secondly, Lance Armstrong also changed his pedaling motions after his cancer treatments- lower gear in effect. Using lower gears have been scientifically-engineeringly proven to be more efficient-powerful for not just cycling but for all mechanical devices such as car motors. In long races over many days, he would have gained that additional benefits from such over others mainly using higher gears.
Thirdly, it seem incredibly unlikely that after so much focus on him, he would not have been detected for cheating well by now. The claim of the 'consistency with doping' by the US agency is not the same as evidence of doping. Such 'consistency' could probably only mean that there is a yard stick to compare. What is the yard stick? Is the yard stick itself 'fair' or reflective of the range of possibilities, including a uniqueness in some people?
Regardless, Armstrong's success is not just his own but of his team. He was superb, so was his team and how he used his team effective. That alone make him a great cycling legend he deserves to be in my book.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram