I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say here Jack, the message seems somewhat ambiguous.;-)
It seems Lance Armstrong has been found guilty by allegations from other cyclists, many who are established dopers and liars themselves and media alone, not a proper investigation. He passed literally hundreds of dope tests, and I question the validity of accusation levelled against him by the cycling authorities who 1) failed to detect any illegal drugs in him over a period of more than 10 years and 2) in one case, openly accepted money from him. And let’s not discount in all of this the inluence of jealousy many other cyclist held towards him. On numerous occasions he demonstrated great cycling skills which could not be assisted by drugs (such as after he was knocked from his bike by a spectator’s bag, or when he negotiated crash pile-ups around him during races. He continues to deny the accusations against him, and has returned his attentions to his charity campaign against cancer, which unfortunately has been damaged by this scandal. Is it right to deem someone guilty without trial?
I admire your loyalty and defence of accused, but now do you see how desperate it appears? Either he was an innocent surrounded by complete and disloyal assholes (unlikley) or he was an asshole who fostered this disloyalty from others once they tired of his bullshit and were no longer in fear of retribution.
Armstrong created his problems, and his self-destruction is tragic.
Imagine if he were admired as a person but had not become a champion?
Would he like that more? Perhaps not.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *