Originally Posted by
Leinster
Maybe he figured that since epo was, essentially, a natural hormone, that there couldn't possibly be any ill effects? That a blood bag was no more likely to cause cancer than a transfusion? Those seem to have been his ped of choice post-cancer and I can't imagine anyone telling him they were a bad thing (except morally, of course).
Besides which, I'd have to reckon he probably just didn't care. It's the old question that comes up again and again in surveys of elite athletes; if you could take this magic pill and win an Olympic medal at 25 and die at 30 would you do it? And you have to look at Lance's career and his drive to win at all costs and say yup, he's the guy that would do it.
That's always been my theory, that his cancer was caused by the PEDS he was using in the 90's. Surgically remove the cancer and turn off the faucet and there's the cure. So perhaps the cocktail in those days was more like testosterone and who knows what. Post cancer, more was known about what worked and what was safer, like as you mentioned EPO and blood transfusions. If you watch his post race interviews in the '99 Tour, it was almost like he had a hard time explaining how good he had gotten. In later years, he came off as more polished and confident in what he was doing.