Originally Posted by Mutaman
For what its worth, not necessarily true: Armstrong was a brilliant tactician and ran a team that always seemed to work better than the other teams, something that's a huge advantage ion the Tour. Armstrong also was a "climber" which is a necessary skill to win the Tour but unlike most climbers, Armstrong could really sprint as well.
I'm not sure where you're going- on one hand you say Armstong was so dominant that he must have doped, but on the other hand,you agree that everybody doped. So where's the advantage?
Bottom line, he passed the tests, its a long time ago, its all based on "he said she said" evidence. It has all the earmarks of a witch hunt. Who cares anymore?
Isn't it that same team you're bragging on that is all saying he was indeed, doping?