Replies

I will say three things off of this interesting article, and then I'm probably not going to comment anymore, because the fun of discussing articles is lessened when nobody wants to discuss the actual article.

First, while I denounce the USADA as an entity, if the result of this incident is that cyclists feel free to come forward with charges, and it means the sport gets cleaned up, that will be one good thing to come out of this.

Second, for those who bash people here for "not reading the report", I note this line from this article: "after the USADA published a 1,000-page report on Wednesday". It is now Monday morning. Let me say that I am skeptical that any of those attacking people for not "reading the report" actually sat down and read a 1000-page report between Wednesday and today. This isn't like reading a good novel (well, maybe it is like readong a novel). I apologize if someone actually did take time off from work and actually read through every page, cover to cover, of a 1000-word report, but my belief is this is just a poor debating tactic by people to try to get the upper hand without actually discussing the issues.

Third, my guess is he will only take a lie detector test if he is sure he can pass it. And if he does, it could easily be argued that he trained until he could pass the test. I'm sure it won't matter to the people arguing against him here. But it would truly cement the argument as a hearsay "who do you believe" argument, which is where I think Lance would like to leave it.