Lance Armstrong on the argument that the 2025 Tour de France route doesn't favor Tadej Pogacar: "It's the Tour and 99 times out of 100 the best one wins"

His doping caused his cancer! Do the research LA fanboy !

he was a systematic cheater, that was the problem. No athlete is free from making a mistake (for example taking prohibited medicines in some moment) but Armstrong cheating was not a punctual error, IT WAS A SYSTEM.

The argument that they "all were dopers" is the classic defense for a doper. Armstrong was and still is a despicable human. I saw him up close and personal at Hincapie's (yes another doper) Grand Fondo. You literally could feel the smarminess from 10 feet away.

one of the first dopers? dude, are you NUTS? i’m not ever going to defend armstrong for being just an awful human being, but brother, you should have SOME idea of the history of this sport before you say things like “lance was one of the first,” because that’s just WILDLY ILL INFORMED.

THIS is the genuine reason to dislike armstrong. start hating dopers and you gotta hate about 70 years worth of champions and legends. but lance stands out as one of the cruelest, meanest megalomaniacs in the history of sports.

You seriously still believe he had cancer? Why do you think he fought so hard to avoid having his cancer records subpoenaed? There were a number of obvious reasons to suspect his cancer story aside from his well earned reputation as a liar.

Look at his iconic poster in the hospital ward. Notice how bald he is and then look at the list of side effects for the miracle cancer drug he supposedly used.

Funny how hair loss isn't one. In fact, it's listed as not being a side effect!

What's up with that? He didn't undergo 30 rounds of radiation treatment that would leave him bald as he presented himself to the media. Quite the opposite, his treatment was hailed because it spared him of the radiation hell that is cancer treatment.

His treatment is well documented to have consisted of surgery to remove a cancerous testicle and four rounds of cisplatin, according to the oft told story of the LA miracle.

Another red flag is his admitted frequent use of HGH in his 'come back'.

Consider that as it's name implies, HGH promotes growth of everything in a human, including dormant or lingering cancer cells which most people have, particularly cancer survivors. It's unlikely he'd take let alone survive the risk an actual cancer survivor would face with regular injections off such a drug.

Cancer didn't change his ability, cancer drugs did. Especially EPO. The popularity and demand for the drug that Lance fueled resulted in countless cancer and kidney patients unable to fill prescriptions and were left facing the fate of single digit rbc and dropping with out the hope this drug promised.

Legitimately sick people died because Lance and his crew were partying it up like frat boys in Ibeza high on the medicine intended for dying patients just to win a bicycle race. That's absolutely unconscionable.

Wake up. A hero and champion of cancer patients don't kill cancer patients with such greed. They also don't dishonor cancer charities or research which he did much to the level he brought to the tour.



https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/cisplatin-intravenous-route/description/drg-20062953

Yep, even the future president of Mars is a less horrible person (for the moment) ;-) as for the other guy, well, he’s not got much longer to live, regardless of how highly he regards himself so let’s not mention him at all

Mind you Musk appeared to be less horrible twenty years ago, too.
Difficult to compare the two, but I find it difficult to trust the gut instincts of a guy who needs ozembic to fit in his jeans. He clearly isn't listening to his gut. It is especially horrible to consider when there are type-1 diabetic patients who actually need the life saving drug and aren't able to get it because of the drug's demand for cosmetic purposes. I kinda see a pattern here.

Ironic to think that at one time Lance could have had a political career. He had a rare opportunity in his ability to reach both sides of the aisle with his fables of being a cancer survivor and athletic miracle. He could spin tales and work a room better than George Santos.

Imagine if Lance hadn't been a lie, what he could have achieved as a Democrat and supporter of healthcare reform who was also a welcomed guest with George W. Bush. Republicans and Democrats lined up to ride with him.

But his greed got the better of him. He threw it all away in his final comeback attempt at the Giro, a race he did not understand and that underscored his fumbling bike skills and filled in the dots with better testing handing enough evidence for his takedown.

At one point, there was serious talk about his running for governor of Texas on a healthcare platform. No doubt motivating some political opponents.

He could have won and might very likely continued to Washington either as senator like Santos, or who knows... this election could have been Lance seeking a second term.

It's important to mention him. He needs to remain an iconic example of not just how destructive cheaters are, but how easily we can be fooled by emotional tales into complacency and complicity -- he is an important figure to remember in order to better see subsequent grifters and as a reminder of our duty to remain vigilant against the little lies we tell ourselves to fall for our craven impulses such as "oh, everybody cheats". No, they don't.

It's alarming reading the comments here and elsewhere how many people are still lying to themselves to defend Lance with such emotional and flawed arguments. The lack of critical reflection is astounding. But looking at America's waistband and ozembic asses, we need to talk more about Lance, not less.

I think, if you’re ever able to find it, you will enjoy learning about the gullibility of the average American. It is not a new thing, nothing to do with contemporary (lack of) education, demographics or any other phenomena although obviously internet and sm have made the spread of such ideas far easier.

Look for a book from the 50s called Fads &Fallacies which summarises the history of the most followed cults and gurus and lists the astounding number of members each managed to attract.

Obviously scientology and flat earth are amongst them but the list gets weirder and longer. Some 300.000 people believed there was a hole at the north pole you could fall into and end up somewhere south. Once you’ve read it, nothing will surprise you about beliefs and choices in the US anymore but you will understand how easily led naïve young people must be if not given access to more than what their immediate entourage dictates or imposes on them.

Is this maybe wanted by those at the higher ends of « the system », to keep the masses ignorant and observable?