Originally Posted by canklecat

Technically, I think Simpson's death (attributed in part to substance abuse -- combining alcohol and speed -- exacerbated by the idiotic restrictions back then on water, and heat) occurred after some bans on doping. IIRC, amphetamines had been technically banned the year before. But usage continued for years, with changes to skirt lab tests.

Jacques Anquetil was the last great doper and libertine. He was brazen about it and told everyone that nobody can endure those grueling grand tours without something to boost energy and dull the pain. And he probably scattered more DNA among villages along the TdF route than any other cyclist. Somewhere out there are hundreds of kids with Anquetil's DNA.

And the stuff used by many cyclists right through the Merckx era was barely helpful compared with testosterone, blood doping, EPO and stuff like albuterol. Athletes were just as likely to kill themselves as to get any real benefit from booze, strychnine, arsenic, coke and speed. But steroids and EPO upped the whole game to the point that PEDs really did matter.

Regarding Armstrong's persistent appeal to at least some folks, well... that's just the era we're in. Most sports now involve at least some trash talking and manufactured controversy to sell tickets and help participants market themselves. That's been part of boxing for years, so to me the cycling controversy seems mild. And now it's widely practiced in politics internationally, with many world leaders adopting the braggadocio and bluster of pro wrestlers, while their sins are forgiven by their constituents. It's just the whole zeitgeist, not a Lance thing. He just happened to coincide with the rising tide of that sort of personality.