>of someone whose usage of perfromance enhancing drugs crossed
>a line to destroying other people's lives..
>
>without it..... all you'd have was "Barry is getting treated
>extra because he's Black"...
>
>now you got "Barry is getting treated extra, but the the white
>dude that did this shit had people declaring backruptcy"
>
>
>now the racism with Barry will have a very tangible
>manifestaion regarding how they are treated.

I can still see "but he beat CANCER" and "HE RAISED MONEY (even though in large part he didn't)" overshadowing his grime shit in the eyes of too many.


Here's an email exchange I had with this cat I worked with in 2005 about it. This dude was pretty into cycling so there was some discussion of Lance, and I wasn't calling him dirty at that point but dude was saying "he's tested more than anyone and keeps testing clean"
Let me know if you see the plea copping in already...maybe it's just me.
---------------
Him: I met Armstrong at a race when he was 19. He was a douche then and is still a douche now but he is strong on the bike with or without drugs.

Me: You're not trying to tell me those 7 TDF wins aren't tainted are you?

Him: Top 100 finishers in each of those tours were doping so its a level field.

Me: LOL did you test each one of their piss?

Him: Don't need to. I follow pro cycling and many riders have admitted using drugs. For European cyclists it starts when they are amateurs hoping to make it into the pro ranks.

Me: that's not the song you were singing. you were defending that dude mightily when we were on temp train..."tested so much" "he only raises money for cancer" dude is a cheat AND a fraud

Him: Cheating put him on a level playing field. Drugs themselves cannot enable one to win the Tour - you have to have innate genetic talent, which he certainly has. I met the guy when he was 19 -- he was an arrogant douche and I'm sure he has always been an arrogant douche, but in terms of being a physiological specimen, he has every reason to be one. He is that good.

You should read these; they're fascinating. Basically, articles by Matt Decanio that were copied and pasted into a cycling forum. I road with Decanio when he was 16 years old -- it was obvious that he would become a pro level rider, which he did become. In the articles he discusses drug use in the peloton. Sounds like eh, whatever, but it's fascinating. Excuse the poor grammar...
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/matt-decanio-doping-8143.html

Me: nobody ever says that an athlete who uses PEDs doesn't have innate physical gifts to start with. it's the unfair advantage that the drugs give them. i call bullshit on you minimizing their impact since he didn't win a tour UNTIL he started using them and never lost again.

greg lemond better, sorry.