You just lost your argument with that statement! You, like a lot of people today take things out of context. The French do hate him, and that's why they went out of their way to find dope in his system and they FAILED EVERY TIME!
Why would it matter if the lab is corrupt? The lab is run by the French, therefore if the French wanted to skew the results to find Lance guilty of doping they would have done it, but they didn't because they couldn't.
Lie to protect himself...name one person, besides Jesus, that never lied to protect themselves. Just because a person lies doesn't mean they lie about everything, if that's true you and I would lie all time about anything and everything. But Lance may lie but he's not lying about the dope(?)
He may be lying...but all tests have proven him innocent, and if he hid some way then why did they find Landis who claims Lance taught him, but couldn't find it in Lance? Why would Lance voluntarily allow the lab to keep frozen samples of his blood to be tested at any time in the future should technology improve to find hidden doping? Why is Lance not a better rider if he's doping, he's only famous for the tour all the other races he never wins; Merckx won all the prestigious titles and he admitted to doping, thus Lance if he were doping would be winning all those too.
Merckx didn't admit to doping. He was caught doping on several occaisons. Anquetil openly said he doped. It has been strongly inferred than Indurains less than stellar start to his career, which was atypical for a multi time Tour champion, pointed to a career which was chemically enhanced....
I never denied that. The question seems to be though that others here think Lance is the best, but he could have only won those tours by doping. I laugh at that because if he "was" the best and he "was" doping then he would be the best in more races then just the tour.
That sounds logical but Armstrong didn't really compete in other major races such as the Vuelta or the Giro. He always targeted the Tour de France. Of course no one has really done this since Merckx.
That sounds logical but Armstrong didn't really compete in other major races such as the Vuelta or the Giro. He always targeted the Tour de France. Of course no one has really done this since Merckx.
And many of the races Armstrong entered were used as preperation for the Tour. It seemed like he didn't have a strong ambition to win races other than the big one in July. Although, in preperation, he did win the Dauphine Libere twice and the Tour de Suisse once, but nothing like Merckx who would win nearly half the races he entered during his prime.
And many of the races Armstrong entered were used as preperation for the Tour. It seemed like he didn't have a strong ambition to win races other than the big one in July. Although, in preperation, he did win the Dauphine Libere twice and the Tour de Suisse once, but nothing like Merckx who would win nearly half the races he entered during his prime.
That has been typical of most of the top contenders, Ullrich (Tour De Suisse) Basso(Giro)etc. but peaking at the right time has been of paramount importance to win that targeted race.
Merckx didn't admit to doping. He was caught doping on several occaisons. Anquetil openly said he doped. It has been strongly inferred than Indurains less than stellar start to his career, which was atypical for a multi time Tour champion, pointed to a career which was chemically enhanced....
Indurain led the Vuelta for 3 or 4 days as a 20 year old and won the Tour d'Avenir as a 21 year old.
That has been typical of most of the top contenders, Ullrich (Tour De Suisse) Basso(Giro)etc. but peaking at the right time has been of paramount importance to win that targeted race.
True. Contador would be an exception. Seems like he can win other races early in the season while still holding his form or rebuilding his form come July.
