It's seems unfair even to continue to entertain the notion that Lance Armstrong might be doping. But in addition to the total lack of evidence, it seems not even plausible that he has been winning, all these years, with the help of performance-enhancing drugs. A couple of thought experiments make this clear.
First, imagine he did win his first one or two Tours by using undetectable drugs. Even a single win, after coming back from near-fatal cancer, would have sealed his place in history, and made him famous and modestly rich. It would be crazy, if he got away with it once or twice, to continue to let his bet ride.
It would have been easy enough to explain: "I've achieved everything I dreamed of in cycling. After cancer, I realize life is short and precious. The cycling life is simply to all-consuming, I want to devote myself to other interests now". Nobody would have had trouble swallowing that.
Second thought experiment: imagine his early victories were drug-free. But to keep it up, at some point he resorted to doping. This is a truly unbelievable scenario, because of course if he doped for the first time on his fourth victory, he would destroy everything: nobody would believe he hadn't doped on the previous ones as well.
Conclusion: the evidence--concrete and speculative--is overwhelming that Armstrong is clean.
10:20:53 PM 
|
