Originally Posted by vllaznia
Just waiting to read again from Mustard saying that Lance Armstrong is innocent because he didn't fail a doping test.
But Lance Armstrong didn't fail a doping test. So where's innocent until proven guilty? The system is full of plea bargains, thereby corrupting the whole process. I don't see how any conviction can be safe in such an environment as that. I read in a newspaper yesterday that the USADA wanted to do a deal with Armstrong to allow him to keep his first 5 Tour de France titles. When Armstrong refused all their plea bargains, and then said that he would no longer defend himself, the USADA went for the maximum punishment, and then the USADA had the audacity to act like a drug free sport was their motivation for throwing the whole damn library at Armstrong. Their real reason was to punish Armstrong for resisting all their plea bargains.