Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool
What additional evidence would you need to see to be convinced that Lance doped. Would you need to see a picture of him in the act of administering banned substances, while he held up a copy of the days newspaper. There's mountains of evidence chronicling his history of doping. His team had a history of institutionalized doping, that he played a major role in.
It makes Armstrong sound like something out of The Godfather. All the evidence is circumstantial and based on the testimonies of cyclists who have been offered plea bargains or have with an axe to grind. Why do you take such evidence as fact when blackmail is involved? The federal investigation into all this was dropped.