Andre, I feel your 15 seconds of associated fame has blinkered your opinion of Sir Lance - I simply don't understand the logic of what you are saying, but am assuming it is in defence of him? Which does the sport more damage, the dopers or the officials? I would argue that responsibility lies ultimately with the cause rather than the effect. Another snippet from the BBC:
"More than 10 cyclists as well as cycling team employees witnessed Lance Armstrong using performance-enhancing drugs and techniques...."
These are the dopers to which you are referring? Having been caught and paid the price, I'm certain that to be labelled a liar or cheat twice is something none of them would want or be willing to risk. More likely, they are truly disdainful and are genuinely angry that he hasn't paid the price for a career of cheating, when they have paid the price, and that Lance's arrogance is in part responsible for the number willing to testify against him. Outside of the truth, I really fail to see what motivation his detractors would have, especially given their number.
I was going touch on the subject of being presumed guilty before being found guilty in my last post, but the following sentence in the BBC report dissuaded me:
"It says it collected blood samples from him in 2009 and 2010 that were "fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions". I'm not sure what motivation USADA would have in making such a statement, other than maintaining its credibility in being transparent in getting to the truth. Are people really suggesting (including Lance) that there might be other motivations other than fulfilling its core remit effectively and to the best of its ability? If so, could anyone explain to me in a coherent and objective manner what those motivations could be in pursing these apparently "baseless" claims?
For my part I'm guessing that the agency feel that the weight of evidence and its gravity is so undeniably overwhelming that they felt compelled to act, albeit in quite an exceptional way. A bit like bail conditions for a crime suspect even though they haven't been proved guilty. At least Lance still has has his freedom which given the weight of accusations and their implications, is quite generous.
I personally don't understand how anyone can truly believe that Lance hasn't doped, and I am amazed that he has managed to evade detection for so long given the endlessly long list of circumstantial evidence provided earlier in the thread, which his supporters somehow conveniently contrive to overlook. As also earlier mentioned, others have managed successful careers without the slightest soupcon of suspicion and their integrity totally intact, endorsed by as model professionals by all others within the sport. With Lance, it's just the opposite, and more stuff will inevitably come out. My personal opinion is (and is just that) that he'll ultimately go down in history as having caused more damage to the credibility of the sport than any other individual, or team or organisation.
