Lance Armstrong doping campaign exposes USADAÂ’s hypocrisy

I am referring more to off-the-bike behavior

I agree he has lived causes and associated with fellow horse's butts. But he is being banned for how he rode a bike based on those associations and/or how he treated other riders.

Not right, if that is what is behind these charges.

All witnesses are flawed human beings; some are criminals themselves. To dismiss the entire body of a weaselly witness's testimony out of hand is naive. (This reminds me of when Bill Clinton was President and he wanted the CIA/FBI to assure the public they'd rely only on informers who themselves were highly respectable. Most thinking people laughed.)

The language Lance Armstrong uses in defending himself is telling. He rarely says, “I did not dope.” Rather, LA emphasized all the tests he took and passed. I've yet to see sit for an interview and say straight out: “I did not dope and anyone who says I did is lying.” Innocent people use very specific words to directly address charges against them; guilty people prefer to talk about proof and how accuser hasn't submitted strong enough proof. That is why — the 5th Amendment notwithstanding and judge’s instructions to the jury notwithstanding — you can reliably assume defendants who don't take the stand in their own defense actually did something close to what they're being accused of.

The USADA did not confer the TdF titles, but they are demanding they be repealed, along with every other title Lance has won. If they (the US and World ADA’s) they would simply test for banned substances, do investigations when necessary, and submit thier findings to governing bodies and let the governing bodies determine the proper course of action. Thier job is to be the impartial lab. Instead, they want to be the judge, jury, and executioner, determining the punishment and forcing it to be enforced ... which is why I detest them so much. Imagine if a grand jury took it upon themselves not to just find cause for prosecution, but to pre-try, find guilt, and then insist on the death penalty. Why have trials?

To those who feel Lance should have kept fighting because he can afford it ... no, he could not. To fight it would be a never ending battle that he could never win, which would prevent him from getting on with his life, raising money for cancer and which would ultimatly run him broke. Take a very long, hard look at how Contador was treated ... and the logic of thier 2 year ban when it was clear that his positive test was accidental, and at such low levels it could not possibly enhance performance, and then try to explain how this group is fair or logical in any sense of the word. Now, show one solid piece of evidence that Lance EVER failed a single drug test ... you cant. The only evidence they have against him is testimony of others. So, if he was doing what they said, how come the tests did not find it? Yes, Lance has enemies ... there are those that absolutely hate him for what he accomplished, and will go to any lengths to destroy his reputation. The ADA’s are filled with his enemies, and thier sympathizers.

True and no one has pointed out that he was dogged by the French and every anti-doping agency on the planet everywhere he went. During the Tour de France, they went through the garbage left by the team looking for needles. He was tested after every stage regardless of his place in the GC. For those who say the drugs are so sophisticated, the riders are always ahead of the testers: then why are so many cyclists busted every year? Why were Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis busted if the drugs were undetectable? If they were on Lance's team, why did they test positive and he never has?

"The circumstantial evidence . . ." makes him guilty!

you speak like a true and proud socialist/communist. Considering thats how the Obama people talk and think about people they do not like. You must be one of them.

The circumstantial evidence of your own words make it so with your desperate logic.

For every piece of accusation and "evidence," countering facts can be made. But of course when hatred gets into whats left of ones mind, facts no longer matter, do they?

Guy hires Dr.Gun. EVERYONE, under oath, testifies seeing Dr.Gun giving Guy weapons of all sorts. A body is found with bullet holes. EVERYONE testifies they saw the Guy with the gun pull the trigger. Guy says,” yeah well, my fingerprints aren`t on the gun so I`m not guilty despite the preponderance and overwhelming evidence.”

This type of circumstantial evidence gets you CONVICTED in any court of law. Only Lance and O.J. get off.

Ur dumb.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.