I have no time to read the whole thread and no doubt these points have been made already, but they bear repeating:
1) No matter what you think about Armstrong and this particular case, you need to think harder if the USADA's behavior doesn't give you at least a slight pause.
2) The weasel language used by the USADA in their June letter was meant to do exactly what it's supposed to do.
3) The imminent testimony of George Hincapie, Armstrong's (formerly) trusted colleague, is almost certainly the last straw that broke Lance's back.
Now on a more personal note, my take is that Armstrong most likely doped, yet at the same time I would certainly ask for more than mere anecdotal/hearsay evidence to justify stripping an athlete of his lifetime's worth of achievements. Does the USADA really think making an example out of Armstrong will fool anyone but the most gullible observer? Please. If drug testing is a farce, the whole doping adjudication process is a tragegy-cum-farce-cum-freak show, as it involves the most eye-rolling acrobatics imaginable.
Last edited by NonP : 08-28-2012 at 06:24 AM.