-Lance Armstrong's 'cleanness’ is hotly debated
By now most people have made up in their minds everything they need in regards to Lance Armstrong. Some find him an inspirational figure who has battled the odds and French anti-doping officials to be the best cyclist ever−all without the help of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). Others find him a creep who has lied to the world about never using PEDS. I still just cannot decide where I fall in the matter.
On the one hand it would seem completely foolish−if not outright suicidal for Armstrong to even consider using any PEDs. As almost everyone knows in 1996 at age 25 Armstrong was diagnosed with nonseminomatous testicular cancer, which had spread to his lungs, abdomen and brain. Even after having successful surgery to remove the cancerous testicle he had less than a 50 percent survival chance by his doctor. Through years of hard work Armstrong was able to beat the disease and become one of the most physically fit people on the planet.
Would someone who had looked death in the face like Armstrong did take chances with his health by taking PEDs? Especially after having cancer that spread throughout his body would some use PEDs which no one really knows the long-term effects on the body are? It seems very unlikely that someone in that situation would take those kinds of risks with their body.
Then again there is the nature of the Tour de France where Armstrong has shined the brightest. The Tour de France is regarded as the most prestigious race in cycling (it’s the only race I can even name), and Armstrong has one the event seven straight years from 1999-2005. No one before Armstrong had won more five total Tour de France titles. By any measure he has been the most dominate cyclist in Tour de France history.
But cycling is also seen by many as one of the ‘dirtiest’ athletic activities today because of the number of cyclist caught using PEDs. Many cyclists have been caught using erythropoietin or its alternative erythropoetin (commonly called EPO) to increase the amount of red blood cells someone has to increase the oxygen their body can use. Cyclists also use steroids to increase their strength and endurance as well. 2006 Tour de France winner Floyd Landis was stripped of his title after testing positive for elevated levels of testosterone which could only have been caused by taking synthetic testosterone of some kind.
The point being was and is Armstrong so much better than ever other cyclist in the world that he can beat them without using any PEDs? Could he be so good and cycling that everyone else could be cheating and still not be able to beat him? That seems very farfetched. Just about as farfetched as someone surviving cancer only to go out and use PEDs.
As of today (July 10, 2009) Armstrong is 37-years-old and is in third place in the Tour de France through stage 7. He is only eight seconds behind leader Rinaldo Nocentini of Italy. This time Armstrong has agreed to be tested after every stage of the race. If he wins this year maybe I will finally believe he is clean, but then again that would prove that he is not clean. He may be using the newest PEDs that cannot be detected yet. Basically I have no idea what I think of Armstrong as a cyclist. Unfortunately for Armstrong the only thing that would dramatically change my mind would be if he did test positive for something or was caught with some kind of PED. I don’t know what else he has to do to convince me that he is clean. He has not done anything wrong as far as I know and I still am not convinced.
-Source news.com.au
I think he actually probably took what would be considered a PED when recovering from cancer. To recover they give you steroids. The question is whether he was able to stop once he realized how powerful PEDs can be.