How/Why was Lance so good? (Page 2)

"The moment you assume that your competitors are on drugs is the moment you stop improving.  If you limit yourself to thinking that people who run fast are doing it because
they’re on drugs, then you’re shooting yourself in the foot."

Terrence Mahon - Coach of Ryan Hall

From this article.

Not saying he did or didn't.  But as to why he might 'need' to:

Because those he was competing against were.
Because he wanted to win--badly.

Simple, but compelling, reasons.

To state the obvious, not everybody that uses drugs can win the TDF (even once).  Lance had natural talent, an excellent work ethic and the ability to bring a laser-like focus to racing at the TDF (both with regards to himself and his team).  Nobody can debate those qualities.  But they can debate the 'drug' issue until the cows come home because, rightly or wrongly, most athletes have lost 'innocent until proven guilty' in the realm of public opinion as a result of all that we have learned over the years about masking, beating tests, etc.

Are you reading the same thread I am?  If anything, there may be some Lance 'worship' going on.  I haven't seen any 'hate' directed at Lance even from those who think he doped.

Just that it's some people's opinion that he used them.  Sorry if it upsets you to hear those opinions.

It's difficult to ignore the innuendo when you consider all of the athletes across sports (including cycling) who later admitted to doping despite never failing a drug test. It doesn't mean Lance doped, but it also doesn't mean he didn't just because he never failed a test.

I've followed LA's career since most of you didn't even know he existed ......... all the way back to his pre-professional days when he was riding under Motorola colors training for the '92 Olympics.  I was rooting for him big time to get a medal in '92, and was disappointed when he didn't.

I'm not a LA hater, but I've also been around the sport for more than long enough to know what is "possible" and what isn't.  That's all I'm gonna say about it ......

But there were so many "clean" athletes with plenty of tests to back them up, who later admitted doping. That's my point.

I'm not saying that he did, just that I get the skepticism.

I think others have already covered it, but:

I can see the 'other' side.  But I never asked you to believe what I do.  Simply stated that's what I believe.  Based on the available information.  It would never hold up in court and I'm not trying to convict Lance here.

But the same way you can throw out arguments like "he never tested positive", others can also rightly say "neither did Marion Jones or Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens or...".  As I noted, fair or not, most athletes have lost 'innocent until prove guilty' in the forum of public opinion.  Lance's word obviously still carries some currency with people.  But not everybody.  Again, fair or not.