>1. For the same reason I defended Barry Bonds: people could
>talk as much shit as they wanted about what they "knew" or
>believed, but he never tested positive. And he was tested more
>than most. And despite lots of allegations, his detractors
>hadn't been to prove anything.

That's dumb for Bonds and even dumber for Armstrong. You are my dude and everything but anyone who thought that way was in denial and/or incredibly naive. You cannot catch someone red-handed with drugs, especially in this kind of industry. Anyone who does get nabbed it's practically dumb luck by the governing body or a mistake on their part. It was obvious so many guys were getting away with it in these two sports in particular (also track and the NFL), why would the two most obvious cases around be bogus? They were both guilty all along, anyone who claimed differently just wanted to believe something.

>2. Honestly, the people who lined up against him just sounded
>mad. What, I'm going to side with the French, who were mad
>that an American was dominating "their" race? I'm supposed to
>side with the sour grapes former champions that were mad that
>someone won the race more times than they did in a fashion
>more dominating than they ever did? I'm supposed to side with
>guys on other teams who were mad that he was kicking their ass
>every year (and probably were just as dirty as he was)? I'm
>supposed to side with former teammates with an ax to grind for
>various reasons? Nah, man, they all just sounded mad as fuck.

How about his teammates that witnessed it first hand? I can remember reporting on the Tour in 2007 and people were already spilling their guts about his doping blood and all that shit. Notice how anyone that opposed him got fucking BURIED and smeared, too. Again, this was you wanting to side with him. There were reasons to suspect the motivations of the French and some others, but the sheer volume of enemies and the number of disinterested parties among them should have told you it was Armstrong that deserved your ire and suspicion.

>3. Might sound goofy, I always liked the way dude beat cancer.
>Maybe because I've got close relatives that are cancer
>survivors, but it always make me smile when someone kicks
>cancer's ass. I also like the way he dealt with his religious
>"critics." They complained that he wasn't thanking God enough
>for his recovery, and he countered that he didn't beat cancer
>because of God, but because of his doctors hard work and his
>own efforts. That also made me smile.

It's all pretty cool but I think he pimped the fuck out of his cancer, too, worse than McCain has pimped his POW experience maybe. He got a big ass pile of money and protected his rep as long as he could because it kept coming in. It only took a decade or so of overt bullshit denials for people to come around. "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be."

>4. Finally, I can never get worked up after performance
>enhancing drugs in sports. True for baseball, football,
>basketball, cycling, whatever. All sanctimonious crap about
>the "purity of the sport" has always made me want to puke.
>It's ten tons of horseshit spouted by assholes who pine for
>the time of "purity" in athletes that never actually existed.
>So the "Oh, he cheated!!!!" warbling never has and never will
>move me. I'm honestly more offended by Armstrong's shady
>charity practices than I ever could or would be by him
>admitting to doping.

Today's athletes have so many other advantages outside of steroids and in a lot of ways they still can't surpass some of the old greats. That just tells me how great some of those guys were back in the day and that athletics is more than just science or eugenics or whatever. But I don't like the idea of giving in to something just because it's prevalent. Yes, in baseball and track and cycling and football there is a lot of doping. It's something that will have to be considered when weighting the era's numbers just like the dead ball era or the raised mound or whatever. But it doesn't mean we have to accept it permanently. There are sports with good, strict, consistent doping policies. I do think it's possible to eliminate it from the game and there has to be a two-front war, not only testing but attacking the culture of it.