That’s my point. If they were all doing it, then either Armstrong was doing it much better than the rest or he was just the better athlete overall, would have still been better if none including Armstrong were “doping”. That doesn’t make what Armstrong or the other cyclist did “right” but it puts it into some perspective IMO.
- EPO is not only legal, it is something our bodies produce naturally. That is why it is so difficult to figure out who is using it and at what level. They do things like test current versus past levels and try to test blood counts, but all of those things can be managed. It’s ability to up rbc counts makes it almost the perfect drug for competitive cyclists.
My understanding is that “doping” is evident as an increase of red blood cells, something that can be also achieved through diet and extreme physical training and as well as from pharmaceutically produced EPO. Is that correct?
- Interestingly, I did some research on EPO in a former career (working at a radiation oncology department) and was published on a paper about its effects on patients receiving cancer treatments. This was early on in its adoption for that purpose and it worked splendidly.
Good point. If Armstrong was taking EPO because of his cancer treatments, would that still be “illegal”?
In Armstrong's case it was both and he was given the benefit of the doubt by testers anytime the tests were close because of his cancer treatment. His rbc count and testosterone always tested high but within limits and excusable for someone recovering from cancer.
It's not that he was just another doper in the sport but that he was leading the charge and compelling his teammates to do so if they wanted to be on the team. And anyone competing against him had to resort to it as well.
And look at today. In light of all the evidence against him, his quiver is still full of deluded true believers. Think about how full his quiver was when he was still competing and winning and thus able to intimidate and threaten to the max.