OK first and foremost, this isn't meant as a trolling thread, i will admit from the word go that i AM a Lance Armstrong fan boy - so lets make that quite clear from the offset.
However, despite what he 'may' or 'may not' have done, and not condoling the use of drugs at all, and i myself have NEVER taken any type of recreational drugs throughout my life, and never felt the need to and i'm quite proud to be able to look back throughout my life and know i've got to this stage with the strength of not being tempted to try drugs.
But - looking at what Lance Armstrong has achieved throughout his career, the amount of wins he's had, the way hes battled cancer, the work he's done for the Cancer community etc., does it really change any of these victories now that he's been 'officially' stripped of the Tour wins?
If, as Wiggo mentions on a You Tube video, that to find a winner to take the title now that Lance has been stripped of the wins, you will have to go back further than 5th place, then obviously all the greatest were on drugs, and therefore Lance was still the best despite his doping as they were all playing on a level playing field and he was winning!
So, if he WAS doping, it doesn't change anything, he was still the best throughout that period as they were all on it but he was the winner, so whats the big deal
I can understand if you have a Porsche and you're racing the rest of the guys in Minis, then yeah not fair, but if you've all got a Porsche and you're the winner, they you're quite clearly the best and deserve the title regardless.
The place for more serious off topic questions, light hearted banter and friendly chat.
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest