the lance armstrong complex

perhaps i've got unique perspective on this issue, perhaps not. i'm an avid watcher of the tour de france, have been since about 1997. i remember riders like marco pantani, jan ullrich's heyday, and bjarne riis when he was a tdf winner and not a team director. that was when i was a kid, now i'm an adult and i get off on triathlons. i compete (not very well!) and i watch kona ironman with a glint in my eye and an itch in crotch that maybe i can do that. 

first, and most importantly, i think la will be remembered MORE for his fight against cancer and livestrong foundation than what he did as an endurance athlete (bicyclist, marathons, tris). that doesn't necessarily absolve him of past transgressions. it's difficult to reconcile the two la's: the athlete who continues to accomplish staggering feats with a prickly personality and the dude behind livestrong.

look, i thought la's comeback was stupid and not meant to attract attention to the livestrong foundation as he claimed.  that's bullshit, to me, it was one last gasp for cycling glory. don't believe me? he tried to unseat the reigning greatest grand tour rider simply because lance armstrong wanted to. thank goodness the accountant decided to ride away from him, but i digress.

so a cycling fan in the late 90's early 00's was similar to a baseball fan in the time. willful ignorance to what was going on. journo did a shitty unless they wanted to make a name for themselves, and many of them went on the attack of la. guys like david millar have pretty much said that if you weren't doping during that time, you couldn't EVEN KEEP UP with the peloton.

so, what do i think la did? doped. just all the other leaders of the peloton including ullrich, pantani, riis, alex vinokourov, ivan basso. some lesser ones such as those lobbing accusations at la including tyler hamilton and floyd landis. shit, i'll throw in rasmussen, too, since he got chucked from the tour. and i don't begrudge any of the riders for doing it.

i'm not saying he should simply be let off. it's a witch hunt on the biggest name.  they need to after all the cyclists, presumably including whoever will inherit each of the 7 wins. the point of going after la no longer has anything to do with whether or not he did it. preventing him from continuing to compete strikes me as odd. if he was still on a bike only, sure. but doing tris? where's the connection? i just very confused on the thinking and equating the two.