Originally Posted by Bartelby
If you have eyewitness testimony from ten riders plus others that he was doping, do you not think that such evidence on oath is not enough evidence?
There is some drug evidence, but if there's a murder then ballistics gets you so far and witnesses the rest of the distance barring confession.
Those ten people could have any number of reasons for saying he doped. A lot of people simply don't like him.
If he doped so much and for so long, it should be trivial to pull out and old sample, test it, and say "there you go!" That has not happened. Why?