Lance Armstrong and the Doping Scandel.

I’ve been reading and listening to all sorts of tripe about Lance and all the others who have been done for doping, particularly from Marc Watson last night on Newstalkzb.

He was of the opinion that you could never trust Armstrong again, that his livestrong organisation is just a sham to make him look like an angel.

Honestly, what a load of tripe. Firstly, Armstrongs fit with cancer and subsequent creation of livestrong would have happened regardless of his cycling career. Anyone who doesnt think Armstrong is the kind of guy who is motivated to win, and would not have been in a place to do what he did does not understand people like him.

Secondly, Armstrong still had to win 7 tour de france’s to get where he was. Bradly Wiggins pointed out today that if you wanted to award the victories to the next person down, you would have to go downt he list A LONG WAY before you found someone who was not doping. To win, Lance still had to ride for 20 days, up mountains, at huge speeds, to the point of exhaustion. Sure he was “supercharged” but so was the guy behind him, and the guy behind that, and the guy behind that..

It is not the same as, say, Valerie Adams in the olympics, where there was just her and someone on steroids who won. EVERYONE was on dope, and so the playing field amongst the top 10 or 20 was even.


Steven Swart, the New Zealander who rode with Armstrong, and admitted doping, himself, said that even if Armstrong had not been doping, he would still have been an amazing athlete (and he still is as his triathlon performances show – right up there with the world champs), and that everyone was doping and there was no way to compete if you were not.


I dont condone doping, for sure. I’d prefer that it never happened, and yeah, its sad that they needed to do it. However, some how negating the performance itself because he was on dope is just stupid. He still had to perform to a level beyond that of a mere mortal regardless of dope. Ok, yes, he did it. Slap his hand, change the sport, make it clean.. all good.. but dont ever say that he still didnt have to earn those wins. Never. 

You Might Also Like

3 Replies to “Lance Armstrong and the Doping Scandel.”

  1. Your argument fails because when everyone’s doping, victory goes to the best doper not the best athlete. All that Armstrong’s victories prove is that he was the best doper, not that he was the best athlete.

    1. Well.. firstly my arguments never fail, even when I am wrong 😛
      Secondly, yes, it is sort of true. However, the drugs didnt turn them into supermen or anything.. just gave them the ability to make high levels of power (kilowatts) for longer than normal.

      These days, if someone can make more than 1100 or 1200 VOM for more than 40 minutes they assume doping, and test. However, we also know that some people who have been tested (like Eddy Merckx and Armstrong) are able to do these high levels for longer than normal. So.. yeah, the best doper, but they have to still be able to overcome their minds and bodies like a non-doper.. and they still have to beat the other guy.. I dont know know if you cycle at all competitively, but I do.. (well, I dont race in official races..) And I know how hard it is even if you are somehow enhanced.. (cuz I am uber..)

  2. Just Saying’,
    I won’t take sides on the doping allegations but I will comment on your theory that he won because he was the best doper. If you meant he was best because he apparently passed all his doping tests I can’t disagree but if you mean that he won because he was more doped up than his competition, the facts are that his competitors may have been more doped since many got caught by the tests. I suspect that there will be more details and more arguments to come for years. I do wish other major sports would be more vigilant, especially with regard to young athletes.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.