Quote:
Originally Posted by hpv
Well I look at it two ways,he is totaly innocent or totally guilty
all the negative testimoney clouds one clear fact he won races !
Another clear fact is his physical condition is phenominal.
Another fact if indeed he took drugs,why is his condition so good ?
All friends that testified are also in great physical condition so one asks
if that's the case why are drugs illegal and what damage do they do ?
Once were past that why not have 2 classes 1 for non dopers & 1 for dopers
and leave it like that ?
 |
The way I understand it, doping (or some forms of doping) do not involve drugs.
A person will excercise in high altitudes where the red blood cells become larger in order to carry more oxygen through the body. After excercising in high altitudes, this blood is draw from the body, and before a race, it is injected back into a person's body, increasing the red blood cell count as well as having larger cells at the person's disposal. This allows the competitor to perform better due to the greater ability to absorb oxygen into the body. Thus, the muscles become less fatigued and therefore, endurance is greater.
Armstrong's wins are based on doping in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage over others in the race. So in my view, his accomplishments are moot. He may be a great athlete, but his physical abilities were augmented by doping, which is cheating. Heck - I could win the Tour if I were on a motorcycle instead of a bicycle -- does that make me great? Sadly, I suspect Armstrong could have won some of his Tour races without doping, given his physical conditioning. But he got greedy and now has lost all.
-Z-man.