Posted 01/19/2011 at 05:11 PM
I don't like cycling -- never have, never will! I could care less about the sport, although I know that baseball's steroid era has nothing on this sport over the last two decades.
In other words, just about every cycler that's had any sustained success has done so with the help of performance enhancers.
In my opinion, Lance Armstrong is no exception to that rule. However, there are other circumstances to consider in Armstrong's case.
The dude had cancer -- the bad stuff. He was dying and then a medical miracle happened and Armstrong suddenly was cancer free.
At that point, he was ready to get back on his bike. And at that point, just about everyone in cycling was using PEDs.
Armstrong went on to win seven straight Tour De France's amid accusations that he was doping. In the process of winning those Tours, he inspired MILLIONS of cancer patients and MILLIONS more cancer survivors.
Armstrong has arguably done more for those impacted by cancer than anyone in the entire world. And when you've done that much good for such an important cause, you get a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Long story short: If Armstrong doesn't dope, he doesn't win seven straight Tours and therefore, doesn't inspire millions impacted by cancer.
What's most important? I say inspiring millions of cancer patients is WAY more important.
In other words, yes, he probably did dope. Armstrong has probably told hundreds (if not thousands) of lies to cover up that fact.
Is that fair to those (that could probably have been counted on one hand) who didn't dope in those Tours? Of course not! But I'd rather those cyclers get screwed in that regard as long as cancer patients are inspired and given hope to not only live, but to thrive as well.
Lance Armstrong isn't Roger Clemens. He's done too much good to be compared to that scumbag. It's just time to Leave Lance Alone.