Alvin Tostig wrote:
Jctriguy wrote:
AJHull wrote:
Makes the "level playing field" argument laughable. Yet Lance keeps referring to it and gullible people lap it up.Why? You don't think the other GC contenders had the same resources?
Not every GC contender had the same financial resources. Not to mention the guys who might have been "GC contenders" if they had been able to spend that much money on drugs and doctors.
Regardless, I don't know of any other cyclist, GC contender or otherwise, who was making six-figure "donations" to the UCI.
It was not a level playing field.
Doesn't anyone find it strange to be debating how level the playing field was among the dopers? I'm sure everyone agrees that it wasn't level when you consider the people who refused to dope. But, among the dopers, why is one better or worse because of how aggressively they tackled doping? They all willfully cheated. There is never a level playing field in the sense of everyone being the same. But, with doping, they all had access to the resources if they were willing to go after them. Lance didn't have a secret research lab with a billion dollar budget. He started out as a young pro with access to the same doping info as everyone else. All the other riders have been given a free pass in the doping fight. Lance's teammates got off by testifying to the minimal amount of doping that would get them off and get Lance convicted. I don't believe for a second that any of them really told the full story.