reformedhack said:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/112091831/Lance-The-Lies-and-Me
The most damning part about Armstrong and the possibility of what he achieved in the whole story:
I would follow his results in the next three Tours and it wasn’t hard to tell what kind of rider he was; strong on flat roads, decent on the shorter climbs, but average in solo races against the clock and physiologically unable to climb with the best in the high mountains. In four shots at the Tour— before being diagnosed with testicular cancer in late 1996 — his best finish was 36th.
The most damning part about journalists and their role in the "flawed fairy tale" in the whole story:
The good thing about investigating Armstrong was that there weren’t many rivals trying to beat you to the story. More than that, journalist friends would hear things, but rather than run withthem, they passed them on.
Apparently, this was something that everybody knew, or certainly something everyone suspected and wondered about -- even me, somebody who never covered the Tour de France but who can remember being distinctly skeptical about Armstrong's results, especially once they kept happening, year after year after year.
Because, let's face it, people who beat life-threatening cancer have much to celebrate. Oftentimes, they go on to accomplish amazing things and achieve many personal and professional triumphs as they realize and strive to appreciate and make the most of their perceived second chances at life.
But, I'm sorry, they just don't win seven Tour de France races after doing it.
All of that said, Armstrong's truly lasting legacy really
will be all the money raised for the fight against cancer, and the spotlight shined on that opponent.
And that goes even if he does ever become a politician, something at which I'm sure he'd excel.