He later clarified his remarks by saying he was talking about an earlier time period, but by then wounded Tour de France officials had felt the lash of his remark and were once again scurrying to assure the public that the event was truly untainted.
Armstrong was clearly talking about his own era, rather than the Tour today. Le Monde reported that he was responding to the question: "When you raced, was it possible to perform without doping?"Is the public reassured? I doubt it. If it was impossible to win back then, and if improved oxygen can make all the difference, are we supposed to believe highly-trained competitors will not grab whatever advantage is currently available?
"That depends on which races you wanted to win. The Tour de France? No. Impossible to win without doping. Because the Tour is a test of endurance where oxygen is decisive," Le Monde quoted Armstrong as saying. It published the interview in French.
I wonder what would happen if the dirty little secrets inherent in pretty much all human endeavors were simply made public. No big deal ... it just goes with the territory. What then? Would it lighten or increase the load? Would morality be improved or diminished?
My dirty little secrets and yours ... I wonder.