Originally Posted by
EVPlus
Do you have proof that he did NOT respond more favorably?
Also, I never stated that EVERYone in the peloton doped. There are lowly domestiques who may not have. I did state that the argument that if everyone doped, Lance is still the best is an incorrect application of logic.
And it's clear that you're emotionally involved in this subject. That explains why you fail to entertain the possibility that there are great responders, mediocre responders, and poor responders to anabolic steroids. And you also fail to consider that teams Lance was in were simply better at the logistics of cheating and passing the tests.
And you're statement that Lance is the "King of cycling" shows how little you know about the sport.
Before Lance's era, the Giro d'Italia was held in equal regard. There was an Italian rider who won it 5 consecutive times. The race organizers actually paid to NOT compete because they thought having the same winner over and over again would be boring to the sponsors. Had this fellow continued to win - WHEN THE GIRO WAS HELD IS JUST AS HIGH ESTEEM AS THE TOUR - who know how many he could have won...?
Another great Italian cyclist, Fausto Coppi, could have just as many Tours. Like many cyclists of his era, however, the Tour simply wasn't the most important race on the calendar. Furthermore, his racing career was interrupted by World War II. And let's not forget that, being an Italian, winning the Giro had greater allure for him.
Eddie Merkx - whom cycling historians consider to be the greatest cyclist who ever lived (just check every record in the sport and you'll most likely see his name) won the Tour de France 5 times. He could have won more but he was stabbed in the middle of a climb one year. And he did not focus all his efforts into the Tour. During his time, the Tour was considered important but NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT race in the world. The mark of a great cyclist, during his time was to win or do well in all the Grand Tours (Giro, Tour de France, Vuelta) as well as the Spring Classics.
Speaking of Spring Classics, there is a one-day race called the Paris Roubaix. The terrain is rather flat (no major hills or mountains) and only 260km. Yet this race is so brutal that it's commonly called The Hell of the North. Bernarnd Hinault, himself a 5-time Tour de France winner, called it a "freakshow." This race, among the Classics Specialists, is held in higher regard than the Tour. Yet only two men have won it 4 times. That's right - only 4 times each. Whereas in a race like the Tour de France, we have multiple 5-time winners (Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, Anquetil).
By the way, Anquetil (full name Jacques Anquetil) could have easily won more than the five Tour de France. He actually took several years away from the race to pursue other things. It simply wasn't that important to him. And, like Merckx, the Tour de France wasn't the ONLY race to win like it appears in the modern era.
When Lance won all those Tours, he didn't focus on the other big races. Had he done so, like his predecessors, he certainly would not have those 7 victories.
I have no doubt anything that I wrote is going to convince you otherwise; zealots are like that. However, an objective individual who chooses to read and comprehend ALL the relevant facts won't be as biased as you. For your sake, I hope you don't wager serious money. The lack of objectivity, the lack of research, the inability to emtionally detach yourself from a false belief are all things that bury sports bettors.