This.

Ullrich, Riis, Basso, Heras, Pantani.... all of his rivals and the majority of his teammates were involved in doping or have confessed that they did it.

Substances that increases endurance capacity are very effective.

Either:

A) Armstrong is a god between mortals.

B) He doped like everybody else.

How:

A) He had access to newer drugs that couldn't be detected at the time.

B) You can dope yourself with your own blood...

That and testosterone tests and the like do give you some pretty high leeway anyway for legitamite people with physical issues, so people can be sitting there with 3X + the normal level of testosterone and pass.

I thought/heard he got cancer because he was doping.

The fact that he will not fight it seems like an admission of guilt to me.

He still won the races, but if you are cheating - then it doesn't seem to mean much.

First, what proof have they got that he was doping back in the day for his original titles?

Secondly litrally all sports stars at that level do it as alot of the modern doping drugs are not detectable after a day or less. So are they all performance enhanced anyway lol. The only way to cut doping from sport would be to test them breakfast, lunch and dinner..

Chinese girl at the Olympics in swimming is a good example. Beat her previous personal best by 7seconds. I don't knwo anyone who natrually improves so much in 6 months that they could not acheive in their life time of swimming before that.

Like somebody that have passed a testicular cancer. He always had very high levels of testosterone, and that was only with half the productivity available, so it makes sense.

It's interesting that a high % of cyclists and athletes have physical issues, for example lots of them have asthma. That way they can use bronchodilators and other drugs legally. That sounds suspicious as well.

Most professional cyclists have at some time used performance enhancing drugs, blood transfusions and masking agents to cover up their drug use. Cycling is rife with drug cheats. SODDIT (Some Other Dude Did It Too) Defense. Armstrong was the best cyclist, he used the best drugs and evaded detection for years.

All professional sports are rife with drug cheats. You think tennis or football are any cleaner? A lot of heads would roll if they implemented the same anti-doping regime of cycling into other sports. Armstrong was not the best cyclist, he never was. He was a decent classics specialist in the 90s, but failed in every GT he entered up until 1998. It's clear Johan Bruyneel had a huge effect on his performance. Not surprising since he spent years on teams like ONCE, later known as Liberty Seguros(which is the team Alberto Contador had his first sucesses with). 

While most of his direct rivals were also doping, Armstrong had a better doping regiment. The guy earned more than everyone else, so he could afford the best program. Everyone who tried to copy his program got busted because they took too many risks. It's also no surprise that his first Tour win came in 1999 - a year in which all the best GC contenders were absent from the Tour because of doping scandals. I don't believe in any rider who all of a sudden does well in a GT at age 28 while the other years he showed next to nothing as a GC rider. 

Without dope Lance Armstrong would never have won any Grand Tour. He was simply outclassed in the 90s and he was already doping heavily back then. Him and Johan Bruyneel were a match made in heaven though. If you want the name of a raw climbing talent that should've dominated cycling: Luis Herrera. 

And not every cyclist has used doping. David Moncoutie is one example of being clean. 

They should let cycling as a professional sport die. Everyone doped, and while I don't give a fuck as long as everyone did it (If they die during a tour due to doping -> their choice, their fault), many do. The reputation of the sport is destroyed beyond repair.

The man is a legend, I don't care what he used. He was a rolemodel for people that had cancer and gave them hope.

Come and get me