Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post



While I'm not disputing anything you've said, you should consider the following:

a) Corticosteroids, not to be confused with anabolic steroids, are commonly prescribed to reduce inflammation, and are commonly prescribed to reduce pain related to cancer. Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 1996. So it's not far-fetched that he would have a legitimate prescription for the stuff.

Didn't know that it was often prescribed in cancer patients. That's fair enough

b) Testing frozen 1999 samples in 2005, for something that... as you said... wasn't even tested for at the time (EPO), sounds completely "witch-hunt"-ly to me. Maybe it's just me... but it sounds they were working awful hard to try and discredit one of the greatest athletes of our time.

I think that would be the case had they gone and tested Armstrong's samples specifically. I believe the French lab that conducted the tests used many samples from the '99 tour, and they didn't know which athlete they were testing as the samples only had a reference number and not the name. It wasn't until a journalist got his hands on the results and matched the code on the sample to the code on Armstrong's registration forms that this got out.

c) Testimony from old teammates can sometimes come across as "sour grapes". I'd have to read something from a more credible source before taking it as gospel.

It's possible. I know a number of the witnesses have been implicated in doping themselves and have been offered reduced sentences if they testify against Lance, which doesn't sit too well with me. A number also fell out with him so could have an axe to grind. Hincapie would be the most compelling witness imo, as they are, or were, close friends throughout Armstrong's career. I don't see what he'd stand to gain by lying


d) And yes..... doping in cycling WAS rampant during that time. Doesn't it strike you as a bit unfair that they've decided to single out Lance Armstrong and make him the target of this crusade?


I'm not saying there's absolutely no possibility that Lance may have doped. But why now, after 7 years removed from his last title.... does the USADA remain so bent on ruining this man's record? Again, I'm not an advocate of cheating in sports... and there's been plenty of that to go around. But I'm also against witch hunts... and it seems a lot of people see it that way also.
I do see where you're coming from. They're going after Armstrong, they're going after him hard and he has had to deal with these questions for over a decade. I can see why some people feel he's been singled out given how dirty the field was back then, and you do kind of feel they won't rest until they get their man.

What I will say is I don't like how USADA and other people/organisations have come out and said his decision not to contest the charges is an indication of guilt. It isn't, or at least it shouldn't be. Personally I have plenty of doubts given what I've read, but I still want to see the evidence before I draw a definite conclusion one way or the other.

There's also the issue of stripping the titles from him. Again, he hasn't been found guilty yet going by the punishment you'd think he had been. Who do the titles go to now? Good luck finding the next clean cyclist, iirc the rest of the top 5 in nearly every year Armstrong won has either tested positive or admitted to doping.

Here's an article I read the other day about this anyway, it's a decent read.

Lance Armstrong: the end | Cycle Sport