Lion belt wrote:
Salvatore Stitchmo wrote:
oops and didn't see you here!
So your logic is that it was all about the insane workouts and "beating the pants" off people when he was 18. Yeah that's good - because people who dope definitely don't bother to dope during training and simply just use the "magic elixir" on race day. Right.
l'm going to guess your type. The defender of athletic excellence zealot. For example you loved Lance when he was dominating the Tour clean and destroying everyone else who was clearly doping and would chastise those who questioned how this was possible - using the tried and tested "what are your sources, where is your proof" - which of course you know nobody has before you even ask the question. Of course nobody with half a brain needed proof with Lance, just like they don't with Bekele who is so far ahead of the curve - especially over 10000m , it is on the same plausibility level as LA.
But stick to your guns on this one, some of us need a good laugh in times like these.
Lance was a good but nothing exceptional rider turned into an invincible beast by american doping technology programs and labd.
Like Mo Farah turned from a journeyman to a beast winning everything after agoing to the US.
Bekele was great from a young age, never trained in the US and is still rocking at 37 in the marathon.
Are you sure about this? I suggest you watch the Lance 30 for 30 documentary but more specifically the "inside the 30 for 30" which is the conversation with Bobby Julich, Tyler Hamilton and George Hincapie where Julich and Hincapie talk about Lance at a young age when he joined the national training camp and specifically how Lance tested in the lab as a teenager vs themselves. Lance won the world road race prior to messing with drugs.
What is my point, you can still be insanely good at a young age, cheat and become superhuman. In fact it would make sense that if the best natural talents also took the same sh$t as everyone else that would remain substantially ahead of the curve.
@Rhodium Nights - this makes a lot of sense. The quixotic millennial social justice libertarian who can't see the wood for the trees. Of course you would throw him under the bus if it ever happened - because that situation would make you seen like a complete idiot for such vehement support in the face of reasonable sense and anecdotal evidence. I'll leave it here - good day to you to buddy!