The only difference between Lance and the other guys is that not only did he have more talent and prepare better, as well as have the most ridiculously good luck for seven years, is that he was smarter than the rest at managing his doping and dealing with the innuendo. Had he not doped he wouldn't have won and nobody would give a rat's a$$ about him, and someone else who was doping would have won. Because of the near-impossibility of catching a smart person who is doping, those that believe in the ethical, undoped, grand tour winner are living in a complete dream world that doesn't exist. Making Lance out to be the boogeyman of doping is simply denying the overwhelming reality of doping in endurance sports. Oh, and it's not just cycling, either.

I will say that it's become clear to me a LOT of people are 100% convinced he doped. That's fine. I think there's plenty of evidence out there, circumstantial and otherwise, to support the claim.

However, the accusers are also the loudest, most obnoxious and close-minded participants in the discussion. As soon as someone disagrees with them, they're f-ing jerks, idiots, fanboys and should just STFU!!! I mean.....it's so clear that people either need to be on the bandwagon that LA is the world's biggest doper and a-hole, or they must be insanely stupid and not worthy of engaging with in reasoned discussion. Of course, the accusers think it's unreasonable not to see how obvious his guilt is. But that's the way the world is, you have to demonstrate the claims of your argument, and if you can't do it sufficiently well, disagreements remain. At this point, making ad hominem attacks only undermines your position.

I'd love to sit down and have a few beers with someone who was convinced he has doped and someone convinced he hasn't, but it seems like one side (and this is just my anecdotal evidence) would start screaming at the other that they were fkn idiots LA-saddle-sniffers, and the night would be ruined. I'm sure there are plenty of loud and obnoxious supporters......but trolling through the forums and discussions on cycling sites simply doesn't turn up many of them.

So I remain unconvinced, even after Betsy's statements above. Again, I'm not convinced he DIDN'T dope, far from it. However, I would like to find out more and get to the bottom of this, if possible. But it appears that there's no room on the side of the accusers for anything other than total conviction. Sorry, I'd rather drink beer with people who don't come across like zealots.

Until that becomes possible.......I'll just duck and try to keep reading.

Brave of you to post

I heard your 1hr interview on that radio show, you're a credit to the country/ what your country once was (free and brave)

Wish I could find the link. Your clear honesty really opened. Yeyes and I had to wake up. I still love cycling but I am under no illusion anymore

It all stems from the first lie. So sad for so many , especially the wives/ partners

I believe that Betsy would only be guilty of liable or slander if she knew what she was alledging to be false.

Being that the truth is an absolute defense to defamation in the US, Betsy has very little to fear and would probably welcome a suit from Pharmstrong and then countersue the philandering bastard. Anyway, Pharmstrong will never take action against Betsy because he knows it will only prove his guilt. So much $hit would be dredged up about Pharmstrong in order to ascertain the reasonableness of Betsy's beliefs that it would be a pyrrhic victory at best for PHARMSTRONG! In Bill Stapleton's words, "it would blow the whole sport."

BTW jerkoff, Frankie has Stapleton's above quote on tape.

Greggie, in conclusion, why don't you educate yourself on the Pharmstrong doping issues? Then STFU!

and you keep saying what "we" do "in the US" to back up your condescending phony moralist crap. well, greg, i know we in the US don't use "behaviour"! so take your pompous heinie across the pond or north of the border, for crissakes!

but thanks for Playing the Feud™!