Lance Armstrong... greatest doper there was or ever will be

A comparison between Hannibal (242-182BC) / The Romans, and Armstrong /The French.

H. Comes across sea to beat Romans at their own game (land battles). A. Comes across ocean to beat French at their own game (TdF)

H. Lost an eye early in his career through illness but overcomes difficulty. A. Overcomes Cancer.

H. Wins victories by bold crossing of the mountains using cutting edge technology(elephants). A. Usually establishes victories in the mountains. Uses cutting edge technology.

H. Is supported by foreign mercenaries. A. Is supported by team of professional domestiques from all cycling nations.

H. "Odi odioque sum Romanis" A. Doesn't like the french and the french don't like him

H. Defeated at Zama (202BC) aged 40.

H. Dies by his own hand to avoid extradition.(182 BC)

This idea came into my head some time ago. I was reminded of it by the article on Armstrong in last Sunday's 'Observer Sport Monthly'. This started by saying Lance was a devisive character, and then printed opinions from five 'experts', presumably with the intention of giving an appearance of balance.

However, out of the pundits only one, Pierre Ballester (L.A. Confidentiel), was a fully signed up anti - Lance commentator, and his piece looked to me as though it had been thoroughly 'redacted', just like those M.P.'s expenses claims.
Come on Observer, don't be so pathetic. Either report the story properly or forget the whole thing.

The fact is that Lance is known to be quick on the draw with his libel writs and so the anglophone press will never say anything about the dodgy side of the story. In France it's different - the French courts have not supported him.

My depressing conclusion is that to be fully informed on the Armstrong question it is necessary to be able to read French.