trustnoone

How defined do you need it? Cycling News: [Armstrong later defined "low-octane" as meaning "Cortisone, etc"– ed.] Armstrong also went on to say: "That worked okay in 1993 but it did not work okay in 1994. In that winter between '93 and '94, there was a tectonic shift."

So without a pharmaceutical laundry list I can deduce that Pre '94 and post '94 the doping methods were significantly different. Lance likely spent more and made more on doping than anyone else in the history of any sport anywhere. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could hold his wheel but on the matter of how doping was different between pre-94 and post-94 I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Does thinking that previous era's doped better defend you feelings on Lance Armstrong? I can't see why it would. If you are possibly the last remaining Lance fan be it for what you think is positive about him. Being a Lance fan because riders were using Reactivan in the 1960's makes no sense what so ever. Don't be a Lance fan because someone hasn't "Defined" what doping is.

It's not easy being a cycling fan. Races were doped, bought, sold, fixed and controlled since the start of professional cycling. It is not as easy as watching one race a year and hanging off sh*tty commentary. There is a lot of cycling history being published these days. It's not all about Lance and cheating. It may be a shady sport but it's fascinating.