Dalai wrote:Can't believe this is such a big deal to everyone.
Reality in that era most riders were on the tackle - Lance was still the better of the chemically enhanced riders. Never really been a Lance fan due to the way he dominated Le Tour making for less interesting watching, but this has been a bit of a witch hunt...
Sure. There are riders who admit to having doped in the era before it became 'unacceptable'. Big names who people continue to revere.
Like you, I've never been a fan. Or a hater, for that matter. Haven't been following it religiously; however, I have a general interest in the story in relation to cycling... and moreso in the human aspect of it, you might say.
This guy probably sums up some of that human side of it, related to what Lance did to others in the name of protecting his own reputation - http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/the-small-petty-fraudulent-vendettas-of-lance-armstrong/267184/
This is beyond cycling and doping. It is fascinating to watch the 2005 footage of him denying doping and addressing what others said; would like to compare with his upcoming version.
edit: sorry - above link should include where he got the quote from (it is linked in the article, but in case you don't click and click again...)questions oprah should have asked lance armstrong