TheDevil'sOwn said:
You're wrong.
Armstrong is the greatest cyclist ever and he did it all on his own.
You must be joking...
Let's assume for a moment he didn't cheat: he only won the Tour (and 1 World Championship, before his illness), nothing else, that doesn't make him "the greatest cyclist ever".
There's really no discussion about it: Eddy Merckx always will be the greatest cyclist ever. It's as Bernard Hinault (who won 5 Tours himself) said a few months ago: "If Merckx had focussed on the Tour as Armstrong did, he would have won it 14 times - at least)
Eddy Merckx Honours List (just of few highlights)
Tours:
5 x Tour de France (in addition to 34 stages, 2x Best Climber and 3x best Sprinter)
5 x Giro d'Italia (Tour of Italy)
1 x Vuelta d'Espagna (Tour of Spain)
Classics:
2 Omloop Het Volk (1971 en 73)
7 Milano-San Remo (1966, 67, 69, 71, 72, 75 & 76)
2 Ronde van Vlaanderen (Tour of Flanders) (1969 & 75)
3 Ghent-Wevelgem (1967, 70 & 73)
3 Paris-Roubaix (1968, 70 & 73)
5 Liège-Bastogne-Liège (1969, 71, 72, 73 & 75)
2 Amstel Gold Race (1973 & 75)
1 Rund um den Henninger Turm (1971)
1 Paris-Brussels (1973)
2 Giro di Lombardia (1971 & 72)
3 World Championships (1967, 1971 & 1974)
And he didn't just rest in winter, he used the wintertime to participate in indoor races (in which he excelled too and won 17 "6-day"-indoor race-competitions.
In total Merckx won a staggering total of 525 races.
Back to Armstrong: I don't know if he cheated, but the fact of the matter is, that these lab-results just corroborate the stories of former team-mates, people who worked with the team and others who have stated that there were big irregularities in the way the US Postal (now Discovery Channel) was run from a medical point of view.
Not in the advantage of Armstrong, is the fact that before he got ill, he hardly was a great climber and afterwards all of a sudden he flew like an eagle. That's not normal, climbing is something you either can or can't and training can do little for you. People like Frederico Bahamontes, Lucien Van Impe and Marco Pantani were true climbers, Armstrong was not.
Before these test results, I would've tended to give him the benefit of the doubt, to the extent that some of the drugs that saved his live may have had a lasting impact on his fysiology and metabolism. That would mean you couldn't call him a cheat, but on the other hand, his results would have to be cathegorised as "un-natural" anyway.