Was Lance Armstrong legtimate?

Question

I'm not an expert on cycling, but I am amazed at Lance Armstrong - he is a legend to me because of 7 (count them 7) tour de france wins, after battling testicular cancer. But there are so many cynics of his, and of cycling as a sport that say that measures like blood tampering and doping mean that results can't be trusted becasue half the competitors are drugged. Do you think Armstrong was legitimate- a freak with naturally high levels of endurance or just another drug cheat?

Answer 1

yes he did't cheat don't hate him because he is better than you look up to him and try to do as good as him

Answer 2

There's no way lightning could strike twice in the same place... except for the many people that have been struck more than once and lived.

There's no way that anyone could win the lottery with such small odds...  but many people still win every week in every state.

And there is no way that evolution just might make a human being with all the right physiological traits to win the Tour de France without drugs... but Lance Armstrong did it seven times.

I'm half convinced that the same traits that let him push harder and heal quicker were also responsible for his cancer spreading so quickly.  Why do people that don't even cycle believe all the media hype around doping?  That if some riders do it that lance MUST have done so as well?

Does the idea of riding a bicycle for 120 miles in one day with over 10,000' of climbing and elevations ranging from 7,000' to almost 12,000' above sea level sound impossible?  How about for an asthmatic with 78% of normal lung capacity?

I've done it before, and I'll be doing it again in a couple weeks. Why? Because I can!  No drugs, no team, no excuses, just honest training and hard work.  Believe what you all like, but I KNOW that proper training is all anyone needs to beat even the dopers.

Answer 3

People hate because he is an American and did the unthinkable, win THE tour 7x. Of course they are gonna hate. However, Lance did have questionable prescriptions from doctors, none were controversial enough be a huge huge deal. He is definately a legit rider. Compared to some of the sheisty scum to have won the tour before him

Answer 4

In a recent interview Armstrong said "there is no proof" !!!

So you can make what you want of that.

Cycling is not the only sport which has had drug taking problems, but it is the one sport which has been tackling the problem with greater energy than any other. Athletics, football and tennis among others, also have great problems but because of the vast amounts of money involved in those sports, the controlling bodies don't seem to want to 'rock the boat', so Cinderella cycling gets all of the publicity.

Answer 5

Anyone can say anything on the Internet. The one thing that's been said that rings true is that Lance is the most tested athlete in cycling history. He's always tested clean.

HTH

Answer 6

Both Lance Armstrong and Greg LeMond share one thing: they both went through extremely painful experiences and came back.  And if there is one thing you have to be able to do to win in cycling, it is to endure pain.

Nobody questions LeMond.  Many question Armstrong.

The only thing we will ever know is that Armstrong never tested positive.  One can only infer from that.

Answer 7

i really don't know anymore.  his accomplishments are amazing.  but it has been proven that some of the guys he beat were cheating.  he didn't barely beat them (except in 2003) but destroyed them.  i'm no expert either but how do you explain that?  also, some of his ex teammates were found out to be cheats after leaving his team (landis,heras,hamilton).  the way things are in sports you can never tell.

Answer 8

Lance stood atop the podium 7 times, each time joined by the 2nd and 3rd place riders. Of those men, ALL, with one exception, have since tested positive or been caught in other drug operations.

FWIW, Abraham Olano is the one exception.

Answer 9

He's totally legit.

Answer 10

Armstrong probably was clean but his illness reduced him to the point where he could rebuild himself to the perfect frame for a cyclist - something other riders cannot do.  

He nearly wasted away on the chemo' .He lost his upper body strength he had developed through years of swimming & triathlete competetion as a youngster & then recovered & developed it in his legs & heart by use of steriods that were allowed by the UCI due to his illness - other riders would be banned.

Having said that, he was naturally gifted.  Big heart, massive lungs & an inbuilt ability to cope with lactic acid.  His natural Vo2 would have put him up there with the best, but not the elite.

In my view he's the best Tour rider of all time but not THE best rider of all time - he specialised in the Tour, focusing his training towards it alone, Mercx & others on the other hand have won 5 Tours + countless one day classics & other stage races.

Answer 11

I think he was just a great cyclist

Answer 12

For the 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 time....Yes ! Lance was tested more than any other rider in history. They tested him when-ever, where-ever, over and over again. The French are sore losers...They cheated Landis as well.