Quote:
Originally Posted by PR_Glen
multiple first hand witnesses witnessing what exactly? Was he saying "here is my steroids! I'm going to be injecting them now!" or did they see him take some b12 shots and assume the worst?
circumstantial evidence is exactly that.. look it up..
|
how do you know the evidence is only circumstantial? and enough circumstancial evidence can be enough for a guilty verdict.
nobody is saying Lance Armstrong isn't the greatest cyclist ever, the same as nobody is saying Barry Bonds might not be the greatest baseball player ever and Roger Clemens not one of the best pitchers ever. I think Ben Johnson is the greatest 100 meter sprinter ever, he destroyed the world record. Usain Bolt is on something no doubt, he just hasn't got caught.
it's a tough call, the chemists are always going to be one or five steps ahead of the drug testing, so it seems the answer is to just let athletes take whatever they want. The moral dilemma is that there are kids out there who want to be the best and some with the talent and drive to be the best, you'd be telling them that to win the gold and make millions there's only one way - and that's taking performance enhancing drugs and many of them are potentially very dangerous, where's FloJo these days - dead from cancer.
Lance Armstrong without doping would not have won what he did competing against those who were doping. But if the playing field had been completely drug free it seems most believe he'd have been the best.