Most people, including virtually all of the media, clung to the "witch hunt" theory and the "never tested positive" line way past the point where it was utterly obvious that he was as doped up as a human can be.
I don't see how this implies that people like Pantani and Ullrich were clean. Actually, the opposite. The fact that Lance was beating a field full of dopers (including people like Ullrich and Pantani who were not just doping, but also way more talented than him) was just more evidence that he was dirty. And the other ironic thing about your accusing me of being a "Schwinn-rider" is that people who actually knew anything about cycling had known that Lance was doped to the gills since back in 99. The "Shwinn-riders" got into the sport just to worship Lance, the never-would-I-ever-dope-because-cancer hero.
Yeah, cycling has a history of drugs. But it wasn't near as bad in the pre-EPO decade. The speeds went up a lot, you can see it in the times. Lemond, for example, rode clean, or at least mostly clean. Then he suddenly couldn't compete. And Armstrong wasn't your ordinary doper. He was an average professional cycling talent, who built up the most elaborate team-wide doping scheme that the sport had ever seen. Plus he was a leader in the omerta and bullying of anyone who tried to clean the sport up at all.
I'm not sure why, if you actually know anything about cycling like you are claiming, that you are sticking up for him.
I ride a Specialized. And you? Lemme guess... Trek?
= new reply since forum marked as read