Quote:
You know, the Tour de France has existed long before Lance Armstrong first entered the race and will continue to exist long after he's gone. Americans might have been paying a bit more attention to it in recent years because of Armstrong's astonishing winning streak but - sorry to break it to you - it's a worldwide event watched by millions and the Tour (and cyclism in general) certainly has never needed him to give it "new life".
Personally I don't give a rat's behind whether Lance Armstrong took performance enhancing drugs or not but it's obvious that cyclism is plagued by doping. Tons of participants have been tested positive in recent years and I think it's pretty much a given that you need a little extra help to keep up with the others (the other cheaters).
|
1) The Tour HAS been around longer than Lance but by virtue of his record setting wins, he has single handedly compelled a much larger viewing audience than previous. Face it: cycling doesnt have the huge numbers of fans that other sports have, and France benefitted mightily from all the many Americans who came over specifically to watch him and root him on.
2) why pick samples from so far back? why not more recent? in fact, why not ALL years he's competed? the test has been around now for what? 4 years? and they choose a sample from 1999?????? something doesnt seem right here. This is the same outfit that has dogged him every year (btw: why publish the results NOW? why not in 2001 when the samples would only have been two years old and not subject to the level of corruption that 6 year old samples could be? Again, something isnt right.
3) how did my original article get pushed to page two when it was before the poll (wondering out loud???)