So he cheated like everyone else that wins Tour De France, big deal?

Hate the level playing field argument, due to Armstrong's physiology and the monitoring system in place at the time which meant it was ok to dose up until hematocrit levels reached 50% he was able to take more drugs than many other riders so gained more benefit.

So I don't buy the whole if they'd all be clean, he'd still have won thing.

That said, there's no denying his sheer determination, willpower and the fact that he was clearly a talented bike rider, but I can't stand the man. Even without the drugs he always struck me as obnoxious and super arrogant which I believe is what caused so many people to keep investigating his cheating and ultimately led to his downfall...

Lance was probably very good, but unfortunately we will never really know how good he was. That's his own fault. He is still celebrated by some people and he is a multimillionaire.

The really sad part is that in a sport with so much cheating, we may never get to know how good "the best cyclist" is either. The best cyclist will remain nameless. He probably finished the tour outside the top 20 every year.

"My kids never had the advantage I had. I was born poor."
- Issur Danielovitch Demsky

Given the title, I was disappointed by how softly this film trod.

One of the more glaring examples was the filmmaker's failure call BS to Armstrong's face over his many rationalizations about his 'real' wins. I kept waiting for a single direct question. As in, how would you answer people who argue, given the extreme sophistication and expense of your doping program, that those yellow jerseys just proved you were the best cheater?

That's one of the many arguments against cheating: you lose the right to ever talk smack about how good you really were. Because you weren't real.

I understand the argument for a documentarian allowing a dishonest, dissembling subject to hang himself with his own words. But as the film wore on, I was itching to wipe the smug off his face every time he elaborated on the 'level playing field' in cycling...

Probably close to all riders in the Tour doped when Armstrong won his titles. He was targeted because he was the biggest name in the sport. I understand the hate with all his constant denials and win at any cost attitude. Would he won if it was a level playing field, we'll never know. However you would be naive to think that the other teams behind weren't doing the same thing. I don't consider EPO a PED. It is merely your own blood be injected into your body with more red blood cells.
Lance used more than that including HGH and Testosterone. I still think he was one of the fittest men on the planet. His training methods were better than what the other teams used. I never seen a sport like cycling where the edge is razor thin.
Barry Bonds without drugs was still one of the best players in MLB. With PED's he became one of the greatest players of all time. I understand why he used. He was sick of other players using and becoming almost as talented as him. He was being pitched against by players who used. I still don't think people know what PED's do. They allow you to recover quicker and in turn work out harder. They really can't turn a stiff into a ballplayer. You have to be able to see the ball and pick up on what a pitcher is doing. In football if an offensive lineman uses PED's and still doesn't grasp the technique on how to keep a defender off the the QB he still will fail. He will end up getting a bunch of holding calls because the defender knows how to get around him.

I don't even understand the sport of cycling. If I designed the competition it would be a series of stages and every man for himself. No team managers following with replacement bikes, food or water. Everyone starts each stage with same amount of water and energy bars. If you wreck too bad you lose the stage. If you have to quit because you ran out of water or bars, same deal. Whoever wins the most stages wins the tour. Everyone is tested for dope at the beginning and end of each stage.

[deleted]