Seriously? Wow. Well, as far as doping is concerned, hopefully you feel the same way about pretty much every pro athlete in the world.

"there was a significant minority of people who believed he was a doper despite all his passed tests."....

No shit sherlock, anyone who didn't know this, knew nothing about the entire history of pro cycling.

Lance was guilty of one thing - being an a-hole to people who opposed him.

Nonsense.

Quote:

Lance was guilty of one thing - being an a-hole to people who opposed him.

Also doping. Definitely guilty of doping heavily.

Also committing a hit-and-run, likely whilst intoxicate, and getting his girlfriend to lie to the cops about it. There is a police conviction and legal admission of guilt for the accident including driving after an evening of partying so the only part that's supposition is whether he was drunk or not from the party.

I am not trying to pile on LA here but at the end of the day professional athletes are people and people are complex and imperfect. So I don't think it is fair to generalised feelings about 'every pro athlete in the world' even as far as doping goes. I do not condone doping under any circumstances but that doesn't mean I have to have the same feeling about every convicted doping case.

OK.....EVERY pro.....yes, exaggeration. But -very- fair to say its rampant in all sports, and has been for decades. I don't think it is fair to pile all the blame onto one person. There is a good reason why they had no one else to give his yellow jerseys to....

The term "all" is a bit much......"All" Americans don't even know who Lance Armstrong is.

That's fair enough. There are probably a fair few that don't even know where America is!

People don't want to pay for the cost of drug development. What makes you think they want to pay for extra cost in preventing diversion of product?

People don't want to pay for the cost of drug development. What makes you think they want to pay for extra cost in preventing diversion of product? //

How about a coherent question?? What people, who is they?? And what cost are you referring to?

Are you suggesting that the manufacturers modify their existing drugs by adding a long lived marker that is detectable but has zero side effects to the patients using the drug for legitimate purposes? Perhaps it’s not as simple as you suggest to get the new drug approved by FDA and whatever other agencies need to approve it. Seems like it could be potentially quite expensive with zero return to the drug manufacturer. Maybe if they included it at the beginning but altering an existing drug seems like a tough sell to a manufacturer.