You know I've been thinking about all of this calling Armstrong a cheat.
Exactly what did he accomplish?
EPO and blood transfusions were to increase his hematocrit. But the average athlete in good shape has a hematocrit between 45 and 50 percent. Most are right at the line.
Very early on because of the discovery of EPO and the unexpected Tour wins of Greg LeMond after his "iron" shots to allowed his body to manufacture more blood (I am making no accusation only the odd case of him riding at or near the back of the pack and then suddenly riding on the front) the UCI set a limit on hematocrit of 50%.
You might remember that one year Marco Pantani was ejected from the Tour de France for having a hematocrit above 50% even though there are medical explanations of how that could be so without him using illegal drugs.
So Armstrong says that he was using drugs. But since he couldn't put his body in any better shape than a well trained athlete exactly how was this "cheating" except according to the rules?
Mind you I believe in enforcing the rules but the bitter hatred I've seen on this subject as if Armstrong took some sort of advantage of the other athletes simply isn't true.
Professional cyclists start early and usually quite young. In order to obtain and retain a position many of them go along with what everyone else is doing. Do you hate them for that?
Today we have the biological passport for professional racers and this should prevent the vast majority of cheating in the sport. But to pretend that the past masters were not masters of their sport for their time is ridiculous.
Exactly what did he accomplish?
EPO and blood transfusions were to increase his hematocrit. But the average athlete in good shape has a hematocrit between 45 and 50 percent. Most are right at the line.
Very early on because of the discovery of EPO and the unexpected Tour wins of Greg LeMond after his "iron" shots to allowed his body to manufacture more blood (I am making no accusation only the odd case of him riding at or near the back of the pack and then suddenly riding on the front) the UCI set a limit on hematocrit of 50%.
You might remember that one year Marco Pantani was ejected from the Tour de France for having a hematocrit above 50% even though there are medical explanations of how that could be so without him using illegal drugs.
So Armstrong says that he was using drugs. But since he couldn't put his body in any better shape than a well trained athlete exactly how was this "cheating" except according to the rules?
Mind you I believe in enforcing the rules but the bitter hatred I've seen on this subject as if Armstrong took some sort of advantage of the other athletes simply isn't true.
Professional cyclists start early and usually quite young. In order to obtain and retain a position many of them go along with what everyone else is doing. Do you hate them for that?
Today we have the biological passport for professional racers and this should prevent the vast majority of cheating in the sport. But to pretend that the past masters were not masters of their sport for their time is ridiculous.