Quote:
Originally Posted by carogers86
Sophisticated in the sense of evading detection. Not certain if the doping "formula" was far superior to everyone else. And if it was, was it the difference? I would imagine all the postal boys would have access to the magical dope that makes you a tour winner. Thus, the 9 person postal team should have taken spots 1-9 every year, and Lance should not have won all 7.
Then again, this "michelli Ferrari" doping dr. guy had several pro cyclist clients. Why wouldn't he have sold them the tour winning dope product?
It's disappointing to see what has unfolded and for Lance to lose his titles. I feel he deserves the punishment dealt (losing titles), but I feel he really did have the legs to win the tour.
I mean, it's not like I could just give myself a shot of epo & a blood transfusion before the start of the 2013 Tour de France and smash everyone.
|
It's not about you,think about the guy who placed second or third. They were consistently within 100ths of a second of Lance at various stages.
That's when a blood transfusion for example can make a difference .Your other assumption the guy who placed second was also doping at the same level as lance.
Most here are saying all the cyclists did it but Lance Armstrong under oath categorically denied talking any banned enhanced performance drugs.
I really applaud the US gov on this, they forced the UCI a recipient of Armstrong and his sponsors donations to stop covering up LA's past doping.